User talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2010/December

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Elton Brand Sign

Thanks for the thought on the sign. Sadly, it was on white board and didn't make it to the end of that game. I think the license concerns are probably valid. That was an early upload of mine - the fair use rationale was probably not well understood / informed. de Bivort 06:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

We all learn a lot... I know I made a few mistakes when I started back in the day... -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving without redirect

Steve, doing things like you did here can make a mess because it makes redirects appear broken, and gets them on a database report and deleted by rote. The bot will fix the double redirects... but the broken ones will just vanish. Unless there's a compelling reason (like userifying), please don't suppress redirects when moving pages with incoming redirects. Courcelles 07:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll bear that in mind in future -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternate account of Phantomsteve] 09:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Hfasken/Enter your new article name here

Would you consider having another look at this deletion? It doesn't strike me as being blatant spam, and Hfasken has queried why it was deleted. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 13:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the euromoneyplc.com reference (which didn't actually give a specific annual report to look at, and I couldn't find a mention in any of the annual reports listed on that page. The other references were from the magazine's own website, so not independent. The wording also seemed to be a possible copyvio ("Reactions was born on a kitchen table in London in 1981", "The title has developed a strong relationship with key industry figures"), although I'll admit that I couldn't find an actual source, so I'm assuming that the wording was from one of the company's own leaflets or similar. That phrasing also struck me as advertising-like, hence the speedy delete. If Hfasken wants to have the deletion reviewed by others, then they are welcome to take it to Deletion review, but I feel that it was the correct decision to make. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That was the original title

The original Beyond T-Rex article title, that was the tile!! It was just deleted several years ago for no apparent reason!!! And before I made this account!!!Raptor Red (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Before deleting it, I double-checked the deletion log for Beyond T-Rex (see here) but there was no entry of a previously-deleted article. There was also no entry for Beyond T Rex. I have just found that there was entry for Beyond T-rex, but that was created in January 2009 and deleted in August 2010 - it was an expired PROD, but the content there was no suitably referenced, and appear to be just for promotion. More importantly, the version you created was a clear copyright violation -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Contested user deletion

I am writing to contest the deletion of my user page, Jessdfacts [1]. The page was a work in progress and had not been published, so it did not violate any conditions set forth by Wikipedia. Your claim of copyright infringement is false because the information was still being edited and rewritten, and had not been released for public viewing. Your hasty deletion erased all of my contribution history, so I cannot recover and edit the work that you unjustly removed. I am requesting the immediate restoration of my user page and all the content it contained. --Jessdfacts (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I should add that I am questioning the motives of one of your patrollers, Wuhwuzdat [2]. In addition to flagging my user page for speedy deletion, he has twice removed the list of products offered by The Library Corporation on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_library_system Wikipedia page. Other ILS vendors are listed under the Proprietary section, and there are links to the vendors' external Web sites. My links to TLC's Web site were flagged as spammed and deleted. A previous attempt to list the products was deleted because TLC does not have a Wikipedia page, which the company will never have as long as my attempts to write about the corporation are deleted before they are even published. --Jessdfacts (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Whether draft or not, in user space or not, copyright violations are not allowed - take this deletion to Deletion review if you feel that my deletion was incorrect, as I stand by the decision. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternate account of Phantomsteve] 19:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
As I said, it was an unpublished work in progress. Why can't my page be restored so I can finish my work and bring it in compliance with Wikipedia's policies? --Jessdfacts (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding - your response meant that this section was too large for me to edit on my mobile phone! I see that you are currently blocked (so can't respond here any way), but that you have been having a discussion on your talk page about this subject, so I will leave this for now. If you get unblocked, feel free to contact me if you need any help -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Artok

I am the owner of the band Artok, and I would like your permission to submit articles and photos etc to this page. I hope it's possible. I am the copyright owner of the name since 1983 when we released a vinyl record. Just wondering if it's possible. Thanks so much. Rob Taylor/Artok www.artok.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artok Band (talk • contribs) 21:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rob, thanks for contacting me. There are - off the top of my head - three problems here. Firstly, your user name appears to represent a group, which is against the Username policy. Secondly, you would appear to want to introduce copyrighted material onto Wikipedia - a distinct no-no (although such materials can be donated, see here for how, along with the terms and conditions of such giving. Finally, you have a clear conflict of interest here. None of these are insurmountable, and I'll give more advice in a couple of days when I'm not at work and have the time! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternate account of Phantomsteve] 03:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Singapore International Energy Week - Edits to Wiki entry

Hi Steve, Hope all's been great for you and your baby's doing good!

We had a quick online chat about updating the Singapore International Energy Week Wiki entry and you had advised for me to do so as a post event so that it is more facts/news driven rather than coming across as promotional. The event concluded on 4 November and we have prepared a brief recap of some happenings during the week, including ministerial participation. How do you propose I should go about this? I have taken steps to make sure the content is non-promotional and is news-driven instead.

Our proposed write-up is as follows:

2010: “Fuelling the Smart Energy Economy”

The third Singapore International Energy Week (SIEW) took place from 27 October to 4 November 2010. SIEW 2010 consisted of several energy trade shows and dialogues, roundtables and networking sessions. The event engaged some 14,000 policy makers, industry leaders and academics on issues centred around the energy economy and the corresponding actions needed to build a sustainable future in Asia and the world.

On 1 November, Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong delivered the Singapore Energy Lecture. He shared Singapore’s energy plans amid uncertainties in future energy prices, a global regime on climate change, and the unfolding energy technology revolution. The Lecture was followed by the inaugural Singapore Energy Summit, where efficient energy use, investment in technology, exploration of renewable and alternative energy sources and the smarter use of fossil fuels were discussed.

On 2 November, at the Power-GEN Asia Conference, Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry and Education, S Iswaran announced Singapore’s plans to build a third liquefied natural gas (LNG) tank.

Other events held during SIEW 2010 included Carbon Forum Asia, Clean Energy Expo Asia, IPEC 2010, Platts Top 250 Awards Dinner, Singapore Electricity Roundtable, Bloomberg New Energy Finance Dinner and Downstream Asia.


I am just a little stuck with the citation and referencing bit as I am not too good with the commands. Any advice on that? :)

Hear from you soon, Steve!


Matthew.lim (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Matthew, good to hear from you. With regards to citations and referencing - if you can give me web links which show (from independent sources) the information above, I'm quite happy to update the page. I might get a chance later tonight to look it up and do it myself, but anything you can give would be helpful! Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steve, Thanks so much for your help!

Here are some independent citations in relation to some of the points above: 14,000 policy makers, industry leaders and academics... - http://panasonic.net/eco/topics/2010/101116.html shared Singapore’s energy plans amid uncertainties... - http://www.thegovmonitor.com/world_news/asia/pm-lee-speaks-at-singapore-international-energy-week-2010-42049.html ; http://www.pmo.gov.sg/News/Transcripts/Prime+Minister/Safety+a+major+concern+but+N+power+cant+be+dismissed.htm Third LNG tank in Singapore - http://www.938live.sg/News/Singapore/EDC101102-0000155/Third_tank_for_LNG_terminal_in_Jurong_Island ; http://www.lngworldnews.com/singapore-third-tank-for-lng-terminal-on-the-back-of-strong-lng-uptake/

Do let me know if these are sufficient or if you require more and I will be most happy to assist. Thanks Steve!


Matthew.lim (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for those Matthew. I'll work on that hopefully in the next few days - I'm working, which reduces the time I have available on Wikipedia - however, the Panasonic one can only be really used to verify that Panasonic were one of the sponsors this year (as the sponsor, they wouldn't be counted as an independent source!) - but a quick glimpse at them look as if they might be useful, plus I'll hopefully find some more. If I haven't done anything in a week, drop another note on this page to remind me! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick note to let you know that I haven't forgotten this! I'm still hoping to be able to work on this on Monday -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I might be able to work on this later tonight (UTC), or it might be tomorrow night -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I have updated the 2010 event with some of the details and refs you gave, plus some I found. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Resotration of article

Hi,

I am very new to wiki and I think you were too hasty in deleting the Ahmed Tarek Ola-abaza article due to my own lack of skill in showing that there is enough notability criteria and info online. He has been published before (see his CV online) and will be very soon as invited by The Rutherford Journal. I discovered his music online and it has a very large following (see his myspace and youtube especially). He is not simply an unsigned musician - he has published journalistic articles and is a scholar. Also, his myspace indicates he is in fact signed. Please consider letting others improve the page.

Sorry about my lack of skill - this interests me because I am obviously a fan but I believe he is notable due to the above and more. I also have little time and want to work on other articles - I would like this restored so that people are encouraged to improve it and prove its case. Kell--kellyrussell34 (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you please give some independent sources (i.e. not his own webspaces!) which are reliable, that show that Ahmed Tarek Ola-abaza meets the notability criteria? I couldn't find any, and the article as written did not demonstrate in a credible way that he is important or significant, hence the deletion. The Rutherford Journal has many contributors, but not all of them are notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. There are many musicians who "have received a strong reception on the Internet" - but I couldn't find any of this strong reception at reliable sites. Without further sources showing that he is important or significant, I can see no reason to restore the article. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for agreeing to discuss this. There are websites that have him listed which are not his (christchurcmusic and kiwihits) - I don't know if they count. Other sources are the fact that he was invited and published apparently in newspapers. Yes, he is young and it is early in his career - but there are reasons I believe for allowing this article. There are many less credible article son wikipedia. I hope you can understand my passion about his music - however it is not only that. His CV is a credible source I believe. That is what scholars have - CVs. If i find something else I will send to you.--kellyrussell34 (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not positive, but I believe that Christchurch Music will be the label he's appeared on, so not independent. Kiwihits would also probably not be counted as independent as they "fund, promote and prosper New Zealand music on New Zealand radio and television". I'm afraid that a person's CV cannot be counted as a reliable independent source - and without some reliable independent sourcing (such as mainstream newspaper coverage of him), then I do not see how he meets the criteria for inclusion. There may well be less credible articles on Wikipedia, but that isn't an argument for keeping this article, although it may be an argument for deleting those articles! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. You may be right. but please give me some quick advice on how to improve my case (besides his appearance on other sites). Thanks anyway. I appreciate your care for wikipedia of course.--kellyrussell34 (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The only advice I can give would be to suggest that you wait until the media recognises him! When reliable sources which are independent of him (i.e. no press releases, etc) are covering him, then he'll more likely meet the criteria for inclusion -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks. I actually see your point and I think (hope) it will happen since he has many fans like me on the net and will publish again soon. Thanks for your time!!!--kellyrussell34 (talk) 08:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Please help me -- Duncan, Fraser & Bridges Insurance Agency Inc. page deleted

Hi Phantomsteve -- Could you please help me edit my article that got deleted? I'm new to Wikipedia, and I'd love any suggestions on what changes would be needed to make it viable. Thanks for your help. Cordially Cleighholder (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Have the company been covered by reliable sources which are independent of the company? That excludes coverage based on press releases (which most of the references in the deleted article appeared to be). Significant coverage in the mainstream press would be ideal! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory - if you want the company listed in a directory, so people know about them, then you would be better off going to AboutUs.org, Yellowikis, Wikicompany, MyWikiBiz or WikiIndex.org which exist for that purpose! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Phantomsteve. You have new messages at Jsfouche's talk page.
Message added 04:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

salubri page

Hi my name is Justin Achilli,

I'm requsting deletion of the salubri page for violating my copyrights in my books: Vampire: The Masquerade (Revised Edition) Guide to the Sabbat (White Wolf Game Studio, 1999) Kindred of the Ebony Kingdom, (White Wolf Game Studio, 2003) and Kindred of the Far East, (White Wolf Game Studio, 1998)

The excepts are directly from my books and I want the page deleted please.

Thanks.

216.46.15.2 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Justin

I am going to try to find copies of those books so that I can verify the copyright violations. To help me with verifying that, is it possible to have some book titles/page numbers so that I can see the places where the exact text is copied? In those cases, it might be possible to re-write the offending sentences/paragrpahs so that they are not copying your work - I am assuming the copied sections are those referenced from your books? It seems to me that it would be a shame to delete the whole article (I assume that you would agree that the subject is notable?), however if you feel that this really is required (i.e. most of the text is copied verbatim from books) then you can take this to Articles for Deletion (see here for the procedure) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
FYI - an OTRS ticket has been logged for this same issue. Have you received any reply to your request for page numbers?  7  07:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Not as yet, and I have been unable so far to get copies of any of these books. If I can do so, I can find out whether it is a direct copy of larger-than-fair-use extracts or not - but page numbers would obviously make it a lot easier so that I don't have to read through all the books! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Vince Lauria

Who is this faceless scum, phantomsteve, who deletes in anonymity without accountability? Another fucking reason to avoid Wikipedia. Hours of work down the drain because of one malcontent. FU, phantomsteve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincelauria (talk • contribs) 10:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Without accountability? You found out who deleted the article you created (Vince Lauria) didn't you? Seriously, where was the hours of work that is down the drain - you copied the article from (presumably) your website, which would have only taken you a few seconds to copy and paste! This is a clear copyright violation, and as such was deleted. Even if the content had been original, then it is hard to see that you would meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines - however, if the article had not been a copyright violation then it would not have been deleted immediately, although it could have been discussed for deletion over a period of 7 days. If by "faceless scum" you mean "someone who won't let me have a Wikipedia article of my own for self-promotion", then I'll hold my hands up. If you are truly notable, then someone will eventually create an article about you -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, I find it deliciously ironic that you moaned about my anonymity and yet you didn't bother to put your name on your diatribe? However it's in this page's history, so I added it for you -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternate account of Phantomsteve] 18:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC deletion request

Could you review the speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doncram 2? Doncram's behavior at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 5 is leading me to think that an RFC may be necessary, and filing request 3 with no request 2 in sight is going to look weird. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi SoV! That RfC met the criteria mentioned in the deletion log - a request was made to delete it as such, and I did so - the person who requested the deletion was not Doncram but Ncmvocalist, who had no connection with the RfC from what I can see. If uncertified RfCs should be kept, then if you can give me a link to the relevant policy, I'm happy to restore this. Otherwise, I'd create RfC 3 and have a note that a second RfC had been begun in the past but was uncertified and as such was deleted upon the request of an uninvolved editor. Let me know what you think! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

FLOC For Love of Children

Hi, you deleted my page, "FLOC For Love of Children," because it is not notable enough. FLOC is a 45 year old Educational non profit in Washington DC with roots in the Civil Rights Movement.

Furthermore, when you type "FLOC" into wikipedia, "FLOC can refer to... "FLOC is the abbreviation of For Love Of Children, a educational charity that's a Washington DC United Way agency."

I really think that lends credibility toward putting FLOC onto wikipedia.

If FLOC is good enough for that abbreviated mention, it's good enough for a full article.

Phil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philmayer (talk • contribs) 23:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that someone added it to the FLOC disambiguation page does not indicate notability - in theory I could add an entry for myself on the Steve disambiguation page, but that would not show that I should have an article! I also note that someone else has removed that entry anyway, so by your logic, it's no longer good enough for a full article! OK, that's being a bit facetious, but you understand my point, I'm sure!
I did not delete it because it is not notable enough - I deleted FLOC For Love of Children because it was an article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject - as did another admin later on when you recreated it. An organisation being 45 years old, educational and non-profit does not make it notable. Before deleting it, I quickly looked for reliable sources of information which are independent of the organisation and didn't find any - the coverage I could find at Google News were minor mentions or press releases. There are many "old" organisations, many educational organisation, many non-profit organisations - but that does not mean that they all merit coverage in Wikipedia - the organisation may well be worthy, but that is not the same as notable - you might want to read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which shows what we look for! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

OTRS

Do you have OTRS access, Steve? If not, please send me an email. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Replied through email -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Varhaug IL

Hi Steve,

I asked for deletion of this redirect, so that Varhaug Idrettslag could be moved there. I see you've tried to perform the move, but there is something wrong! Seems like Varhaug IL now redirects to itself, and the edit history of Varhaug Idrettslag has disappeared... You fix? Best regards, lil2mas (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to sort this out tomorrow, when I'm not at work! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternate account of Phantomsteve] 18:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that I've got it right now, but if not let me know! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
You actually moved it back again the last time, but the redirect wasn't broken anymore, so I fixed it! Thanks for the help ;) lil2mas (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of my User Page

Hello, you have recently deleted my user page because supposedly I requested it. I did not. Can you please restore my user page? Thank you. Akhil 0950 (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

My bad! Wikipedia:WikiOgre/topicon (which you used on the page) was flagged for deletion, and so it showed your page as a deletion request too! I have modified it accordingly - and restored your page -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much! --Akhil 0950 (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Louisa Thiers

Why did you delete Louisa Thiers? I was able to provide a reliable source from a History of Milwaukee book. DHanson317 (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see the reply to the query below about this article deletion -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Watkins

Dear Phantom Steve,

According to deletion-outcome precedent, if a World's Oldest Person titleholder is seemed to be not notable enough for an independent biography, to merge the article to a "list of" article, such as "List of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_supercentenarians

Further, regarding the discussion below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elizabeth_Watkins_%28supercentenarian%29

The comments regarding Rejuvenation Research are uninformed and unwarranted. The editor-in-chief is Aubrey de Grey and the publication has a rather high impact factor. Further, a little research will show that the editor who has been assailing supercentenarian articles, JJBulten, is a far-right religious activist and a Republican right political blog activist...the type of person who insists on teaching "creationism" in school.

In other words: the decision you made for this AFD is not the correct one. I suggest you change you mind.Ryoung122 00:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The status of RejRes as a reliable source is uncertain - I could find nothing to indicate that it is to be counted as totally reliable or totally unreliable in any of the discussions on Wikipedia that I could find. As to the status of the nominator - for all of these nominated articles, you have the one side who says they should all be deleted, and the other side who say that they should all be kept. Both sides could be construed as POV-pushing ("none should be in", "all people over xxx should be automatically counted as notable"), and I tried to judge all of them in light of the arguments presented at AfD. Some of them I closed as keep, some as delete. You mention the precedent - well, the precedent also mentions that single-source articles should be deleted, does it not?
If you feel that I misjudged consensus, please feel free to take this to Deletion Review -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Louisa Thiers (from Ryoung122)

Regarding the below decision:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Louisa_Thiers

I'm giving you 24 hours to reconsider, before I take this to deletion review.

There are several problems here. I can start with your factually inaccurate statement that there were "no" sources, when in fact there were.

This case has been known for 80+ years. Louisa Thiers was the first undisputed person to reach age 111. She was cited in Guinness World Records 1955 (the very first edition) and even included in Bowerman's 1939 paper on supercentenarians.

Have a nice day.Ryoung122 00:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to be factually accurate, my closing statement did not say that there were no sources, it said that the consensus was that there were no reliable sources. Having as an argument "she was the first person to verifiably reach 111 years old" is not sufficient - it did not reflect the policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, and with no reliable sources, then it is not verifiable. The fact that other arguments for keeping were more a personal attack on editors was ignored as well, as not conducive to a useful discussion on the subject. You do not need to give me 24 hours to reconsider - I feel that the closure was correct with the arguments presented, and suggest that you take this to Deletion Review if you feel otherwise.
I should point out that for each of the AfDs in that batch, I judged each one individually - that is why some were kept and some were deleted. As admin, I try to be as fair about it as possible - I acknowledge that I have made mistakes in the past, and it is possible that this is another instance, but I feel that it is correct and am willing to let DRV discuss this and reach a conclusion on the matter. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Oxford Street AFD

Your recent close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have turned on the Oxford Street Christmas lights seems unsatisfactory. Your close indicates that the topic has significant notability and that the issue was just a matter of how we ought to cover it. As there was no predominant consensus for any particular solution, it seems that the discussion should have been have closed as no consensus so that ordinary editing methods could be used to take the matter forward by means of improvement, merger, renaming and the like. As it is, you have obstructed further development by making the content and the edit history unavailable to ordinary editors. This also introduces licensing complications if the same content is used elsewhere.

To avoid the drama of DRV, please could you userfy the article. I will then make further improvements and take the matter forward per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope you are planning to take your draft to DRV when you are done with it. We wouldn't want you to circumvent our deletion process... ThemFromSpace 12:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Colonel. The topic of the Christmas lights is notable - but not necessarily who turns them on year-by-year - or at least that is how the consensus appeared to go. I will userfy it per your request - I won't repeat Themfromspace's warning, as I know that you are aware of that! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I have userfied it to User:Colonel Warden/List of people who have turned on the Oxford Street Christmas lights and removed the AfD notice. I didn't restore the talk page as the only relevant content (other than WikiProject stuff) is your link to sources. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'm not exactly sure what I'm going to do yet. IIRC, another editor created a content fork during the AFD discussion. The best solution might be to merge the edit history of the two articles and I was thinking of getting User:Uncle G to assist with this as he's good at that sort of thing. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Educational Segregation in Sunflower County, Mississippi

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Educational Segregation in Sunflower County, Mississippi. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Hi, just to let you know that I am attempting to review deletion only because my oppose vote seems to have been overlooked. Not sure if the deletion should be overturned but the rationale as stated for deletion was incorrect. I am new to DRV and have made a bit of a mess of the template, I see, but it's there. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Commented at DRV, recommending overturn to no consensus... now I'm off outta here! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I was myself was rushing off to get to work when I noted this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Closing AfD's

When closing a keep AfD, please remove the AfD templates from the articles and adding {{oldafdfull}} to the talkpage, I know that you may have forgotten but is becomes somewhat problematic when an article which was kept still has an AfD template. Why I'm saying this is because I noticed that most articles in this AfD still had the AfD templates and didn't have the oldafdfull template placed on the talkpage. I have done the removal of the AfD templates and adding the oldafdfull for you. Bidgee (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

When I close an AfD, I use a script. Most people who nominate multiple articles in one go tend to only put the notice on the first-named article. In this case, the nominator followed the instructions properly at WP:AFD - and the script doesn't pick up on that. I neglected to check manually after closing it, so thanks for sorting that out - and for reminding me that I need to do it in future! Sorry for the delay in responding, I've been busy working! Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

DZOZ-TV and DWSA

I know that I had originally split the nominations into three several parts (which I assumed would save space on a single page of mass nominations whilst keeping discussions intact) but I feel that the "consensus" at these two AfDs haven't been achieved yet, because they were nominated on the same grounds as DYAJ but radically received different outcomes. Could they be relisted so that it helps clarify the distinction between the consensus for these three AfDs? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

When I close AfDs, I treat each one separately. If the closing results were different, I'd hope it was because the arguments used in each one were different! In this particular case, DZOZ-TV had no "delete"s apart from the nomnination, plus 2 keeps and a comment; DWSA has a delete (your nom), a week delete, a comment, a weak keep and 2 keeps; DYAJ had 4 deletes including the nom and 2 keeps. Obviously the numbers aren't the main point, but the arguments were in keeping with the closures. As you can see from my summary, the 3 AfDs had different discussions, and so different outcomes. With the two which were kept, you are welcome to re-nominate, but I'd suggest leaving it for a while as otherwise they might be speedy-closed as keep! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Goon Affiliated
Penkridge weather station
Purchase Records
Demir Hisar (town)
Kama Chinen
Wu Hsiao-li
Mogila
Alex Blum
Mr Midshipman Easy
Croydon Guardian
Cortaca Jug
Luigi Padovese
Lost Worlds (television)
New Boyz
17th parallel north
Impossible (Shontelle song)
Castro FC
SD Colloto
Te Kowai, Queensland
Cleanup
Dance Dance Revolution Ultramix
Phyllis Mangina
Step Up (film series)
Merge
Almasry Alyoum
Cliffjumper (other incarnations)
Singaporean general election, 1948
Add Sources
Lin Chun-yi
Demographic history of Vojvodina
Dorothy Head Knode
Wikify
George Stevens, Jr.
England and Germany football rivalry
Sarwari Qadiri
Expand
Red Dead Redemption
List of Everybody Hates Chris characters
Demographics of Belgrade

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

kezia noble

Hi , you deleted the page kezia noble, the page has been up for more then a year and it met the criteria which is set by wiki. Now all of a sudden it was deleted by you?

Kezia is a published author but people such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Lyons are not yet you kept their details on wiki?

this is the link to kezia book on amazon - http://www.amazon.co.uk/15-Steps-Becoming-Master-Seducer/dp/1906015996/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1291716447&sr=8-1

Please can you reinstate the page it seems that certain people in the PUA community are targeting kezia and making it hard for kezia to have an online presence

thank you jt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideasguide (talk • contribs) 10:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I deleted Kezia Noble as it had been tagged for deletion as promotion, and it appeared to meet that. There were three references - one at PUA Training (not independent, she works for them); one at glitterditch (but I can't find evidence that they meet Wikipedia's criteria for being a reliable source, even ignoring the fact that they have "shut up shop") and one at TheLondonPaper (which redirects to the times, as the London Paper was closed in September 2009).
My deletion had nothing to do with "certain people in the PUA community" - as far as I am aware, I do not know anyone in the PUA community. I deleted it because the article seems to have the main purpose of promoting her - Wikipedia is not to ensure that someone has an online presence; furthermore Noble does not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion - having written a book does not make her notable in and of itself. I noticed that a lot of the claims in the article were unreferenced.
You mentioned Adam Lyons - the difference is that Lyons' article has references from several reliable, independent sources (New York Daily News, CTV News Channel (Canada), The Independent, Channel 4 - to just name the first 4! I looked for coverage of Kezia at reliable independent sources, and couldn't find any.
How long an article has existed has no bearing on whether it should be deleted or not. I am sorry that you are disappointed in the deletion of this article, but unless you can provide some independent reliable sources which can be used, then I will not be restoring it -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


Hi, heres a few links, I'll send you some more http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/144116/Pick-up-coach-babe-Kezia-Noble-reveals-seduction-secrets/ (The star article) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_v551iAkiQ (interview with tis mornining) http://www.menshealth.co.uk/sex/please-woman/manage-her-paranoia-181505 (mens health) and there where a few on the page , but you deleted it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideasguide (talk • contribs) 09:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

and some more.... Thursday 14th february The trevor -or nelson BBC RADIO 1 show :, http://www.bbc.co.uk/1xtra/trevorandzena/diary/diary_trevor.shtml

Nuts magazine article from indapendant source: http://pennantpublishing.com/showreview.php?kezia-now1006 NOW MAGAZINE 2 PAGE ARTICLE

ITV interview: http://pennantpublishing.com/showreview.php?kezia-goodmorning100714

Scarlett magazine interview: http://pennantpublishing.com/showreview.php?kezia-scarlet1006

FRONT PAGE and article of the TAKE 5 magazine: http://pennantpublishing.com/showreview.php?kezia-star100815

RADIO SHOW "the state we are in" : http://www.rnw.nl/english/radioshow/flirtation-love-romance-and-polyamory

When you put the page up I can edit it as required to match requirements —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.129.201 (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those references. I will need to look at them in a couple of days when I next have the time to do so properly (this is a flying visit before I get ready for work!). I will then reply here (and restore the article if appropriate) and leave you a talkback on your page to let you know -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


Thank you very much for your help, please do let me know and I'll rewrite it if need be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.129.201 (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, life has been busy! OK, here's what I think of the sources you have provided:
  1. The Daily Star article
    • Although the entire article is about her, there's very little biographical information about her - most of it is anecdotes about famous clients, etc. The impression I get from this is that the whole purpose of the newspaper article is as an extended advert for the book 15 Steps to Becoming a Master Seducer by Kezia Noble
  2. Interview with This Morning
    • Several issues here: firstly, YouTube is not generally counted as a reliable site, as anyone can upload a video - in theory it could be edited before uploading (I'm not saying that's the case here, as I'm sure it's not - but it's a theoretical possibility); secondly, the uploader is Kezia's promotion company; thirdly, the whole purpose for the interview was to advertise the book
  3. Men's Health
    • The coverage here is not mainly about Kezia - they have quote from her (as well as a very prominent link to PUA training!)
  4. The Trevor Nelson Show
    • A very minor mention: "just when I thought I had game, 'pick up artist' Kezia dropped by the studio and put me in my place!"
  5. Nuts Magazine
    • A couple of problems here: firstly, it's hosted on her publisher's website - the original magazine's site no longer has it available - and so would not be counted as reliable - again, although I do not think it is the case here, in theory it could be altered from the original! Again, the article itself has very little about Kezia herself, there are a couple of facts that could be usable, but most is anecdotal
  6. ITV Interview
    • Again, not the original publisher (ITV's site no longer has the video) - and this is the same video as the YouTube link above; it's basically an advert for her book, not about her.
  7. Scarlet Magazine
    • Again, not the original publisher (ITV's site no longer has the video). Again, very little information about her - it's basically an extended advert for her book, not about her.
  8. Take 5 Magazine
    • Same here - not original publisher (no longer available on the official magazine website); not much about her; an advert for her book
  9. The State We Are In
    • I would have been nice if you had told me that her section on the show started at 33:16 and lasted for just under 10 minutes! However, it's not about her, and is just advice that she was giving about picking up women
I'm afraid that none of these sources (as far as I can see) meet the requirements - with the exception of the final one, all of them are purely to advertise the book, and the final one has nothing about her as a person - and the article is about her, not the techniques. I discussed earlier why the 3 sources given in the deleted article were inadequate to demonstrate her notability. My own search for reliable independent sources didn't reveal any, and so I will not be restoring the article. If you feel that this is the incorrect decision, please feel free to take this to Deletion Review (here) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


Hi please look at these, please explain how these are valid

How `are these then valid?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Lyons

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/2009/02/15/2009-02-15_losers_in_love_get_a_hot_lesson.html



How `are these then valid? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_La_Ruina

non of theses links are valid, yet the profile is still up


http://attraction-chronicles.blogspot.com/2007/01/gambler-seduction-masters-interview.html < from some random site

http://www2.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/features/2007/11/14/66a7769b-1fa2-4a3e-9be1-30fadf5d580f.lpf << nothing here

http://www.itv.com/daybreak/ nothing here

http://forms.puatraining.com/14special.html >> random site


http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/ <<< nothing here!!

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/12/prweb573285.htm << not independent this is just pr

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/first-cut-the-rules-of-seduction/video/series-1/ << nothing here


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00gwckn << whats this???

http://www.canalplus.fr/pid2593.htm << whats this

http://www.nposales.com/;jsessionid=483863BEE018676F80805A317EED5301?article=16563&template=program <<< nonsense


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1215172/<<< nonsense

http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk/love-&-sex/sex-advice%3A-good-sex-etiquette-put-on-a-condom/gallery nothing here

looks to me you are letting the above slip? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideasguide (talk • contribs) 15:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

With respect, I am not looking at other articles, but this specific one. Whether other articles exist or not is not relevant to this discussion. Perhaps when I have time I might look at the other article and references, but whether the other article should exist or not does not alter the fact that Noble's article should not currently exist. I'm not sure what your connection with Noble is, but I see no reason to restore the Noble article. As I say, if I get a chance then I might look at the other article, but it's not high on my list of priorities. Being an admin does not mean that I need to look at every article just because someone is having a little temper tantrum because they can't get their friend/lover/employer/employee's article to stay in Wikipedia. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi If you would reinstate the page, then I can redo it properly and correctly. But you are refusing to do this, which seems unfair. Being an admin you need to make sure wiki is doing this properly and that you are being fair, but since you seem to have isolated the kezia page seems and refuse to look at others which are being flagged... makes me wonder. Are you not going to give me a chance to fix this?? Ideasguide (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read this guideline. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I have explained why I am not going to restore the page. I have spent time looking through the provided sources above, and explained why they do not meet the requirements for Noble to have an article on Wikipedia. If this seems unfair, then I'm afraid that there's not much else I can do. If I get a chance, I may look at the other pages, but it's not high on my list of priorities either here or in life. If you feel that they do not meet the inclusion requirements on Wikipedia (and not just because Noble's article isn't here), then you are free to go to WP:AFD and follow the instructions listed there to start a discussion on the deletion of the article(s). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Desire2Learn posting

Hi Phantomsteve,

I know you are busy and have tons of submissions and requests to you. I have, however, been trying to reach you for several weeks now and have not received a response. Here is my latest correspondence posted on your talk page.

I've pulled out any references that I couldn't verify without a doubt that they were "independent" and "reliable." Still looking for reliable sources that can be referenced. In the meantime, have left it as bare bones - "just the facts." I see from a Wikipedia posting from another elearning provider (eCollege: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECollege)that this format is permissible for posting on Wikipedia. Please review the draft I've now edited and let me know if it can be posted live to Wikipedia. Thanks so much! WildWomenWin (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Just touching bases with you again before I add anything more to the page. I know you're extremely busy and I'm not the only one asking questions. Looking forward to your review. Thanks.WildWomenWin (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you please review, and release for posting to Wikipedia, the page I have created on Desire2Learn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WildWomenWin/Desire2Learn

Thank you!!! WildWomenWin (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)to

Sorry for the delay - life has been hectic over the last few weeks, between family and work! As you may see,I am doing a big catch-ip today!
OK, let's look at the references (please note that I have removed the one which was from Wikipedia itself - Wikipedia can't be used as a reference to itself; there was already a link to the article, so a reference is not necessary)
  1. "How to bake innovation into the corporate DNA". http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/how-to-bake-innovation-into-the-corporate-dna/article1574586/. Retrieved 2010-10-26.
    • This is a good source, as The Globe and Mail would be counted as a reliable source. Most of the article is no good for referencing the article, but there are quite a few facts in the article which could be referenced
  2. "EPC Spotlight-Desire2Learn". http://www.txdla.org/documents/EPCspotlight/desire2learn.htm/. Retrieved 2010-10-27.
    • Link does not work - however, the information which is being referenced there (when it was founded, and who by) are both present in the Globe and Mail article
  3. "Technology: Technology and Learning Management Systems". http://aventalearning.com/technology/. Retrieved 2010-11-22.
    • Mentions that Aventa Learning's online courses are compatible with Desire2Learn - only a very minor mention, though
  4. "Technology Learning Connected". http://www.cengage.com/tlconnect/client/product/findProduct.do?productId=315. Retrieved 2010-11-22.
    • Again, mentions that they are compatible with Desire2Leanr - again, only a very minor mention
  5. "McGraw-Hill Ryerson Canada - Higher Education - Partnerships". http://www.mcgrawhill.ca/he/partnerships/index.php. Retrieved 2010-11-22.
    • Mentions that Desire2Learn have contributed; again a very minor mention
  6. "Learning management systems: Microsoft Education Solutions". http://www.microsoft.com/education/solutions/learningmanagementsystems.aspx. Retrieved 2010-11-22.
    • Mentions that Desire2Learn can be used as an E-learning solution; very minor mention
  7. "Respondus Technology Partners :: Respondus, Inc.". http://www.respondus.com/partners/technology.shtml. Retrieved 2010-11-22.
    • Confirms that they are a technology partner
  8. "Higher Education Collaborative Membership Catalog". http://www.sungardhe.com/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=3270. Retrieved 2010-11-22.
    • A sales brochure! Confirms the availability of Desire2Learn.
To be honest, with the exception of the Globe and Mail coverage, there's nothing like significant coverage here. The Globe and Mail coverage is just enough to warrant moving this to mainspace (which I will do), but I'm not totally convinced, to be honest - if you could find more media coverage about the company (and significant coverage at that, not the minor mentions in most of the references, where they are mentioned in a list of compatible systems), then that would help to ensure that it is kept. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
First of all, thank you for moving the page to Desire2Learn -- much appreciated.
Have also taken note of your comments above re: references; will work on that. Thank you.

216.16.228.6 (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Clara County Expressway System

How does this not meet notability criteria? (Note that not meeting NPOV criteria is not a reason to delete.) --NE2 03:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Your point about NPOV is noted, and would not have influenced the decision if that was the sole problem (editing would overcome that). The nomination was about OR - which does not, of its very nature, meet notability. One of the deletes agreed with this, another called it an essay - which is a similar way of describing the same thing - and there was a further delete call. Looking at your two references at your !vote, the first one didn't clearly show (to me) that there is such a thing as a Santa Clara County Expressway System - it looked to me like a map showing the Expressways in Santa Clara County, not the same thing at all. The google link looked interesting, but I actually looked beyond the sccgov site - Google Search: "Santa Clara County" "Expressway System" gave many wiki hits, but nothing significant at reliable independent sources; Google News didn't return anything.
Your keep and AkosSzoboszlay's were the main ones I considered - two of the other keeps were by editors who have made absolutely no other edits at all (including deleted edits); the other was a simple "per NE2".
All in all, I judged the consensus to be in favour of deletion. If you believe that I misjudged the consensus, please feel free to take my closure to Deletion review -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that OR "does not, of its very nature, meet notability". It's trivial to add original research to a notable topic. What http://www.sccgov.org/rda/expressways2/default.htm shows is that the county sees it as a system to be studied as a whole (you did see the text, not just the map, right?). Also note that there are separate articles on each expressway - if there is verifiably a system (which I showed), information that affects them all (which there certainly was) is better placed on a system page than copied to each separate expressway page. The original OR/NPOV problems were about details, not about the existence of the article. Also see many newspaper articles (which I would have mentioned in the discussion if I thought it could be closed as delete). For example, "Santa Clara County is the only county in California that owns and operates its own expressway system" (San Jose Mercury News, 1997) and "County Supervisor Rod Diridon criticized the Santa Clara City Council for not allowing bicycle commuters to use city expressways" (San Jose Mercury News, 1990). Also see [3], a report by the Transportation Research Board that mentions the system and gives a brief account of its history. --NE2 04:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
When I see a nomination for OR, it is implied that there is insufficient material in the article that is non-OR to justify keeping the article. I am puzzled by your statement which I would have mentioned in the discussion if I thought it could be closed as delete - it was an AfD, which had some 'delete's and some 'keep's - why would you assume that there was no chance of a delete closure? You should have presented such information during the course of the discussion. As closing admin, my task is to close the discussion based on the consensus in the discussion, which I did.
I'd be quite happy to discuss this some more, but I am going offline in a few minutes, and then I've got a few night shifts, so I won't get onto Wikipedia much during the next few days (or if I do, it'll be the odd few minutes here or there!). If you feel my closure inaccurately reflected the consensus, please feel free to take it to Deletion Review, where others can discuss whether my closure was correct or not, based on the arguments presented and the consensus present. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I edit less than you. When you get a chance, please take a look at this in more detail. --NE2 05:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I have looked at it again, and I still feel that my decision was correct. If you think that I closed against the consensus, please feel free to take this to Deletion Review - if you do, mention there that we have discussed this here! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformers: Timelines

Divebomb who voted "keep" there has been blocked as a sockpuppet. So, not counting all the blocked sockpuppets, only 2 people voted "keep". What does this mean for your closing decision? NotARealWord (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have reclosed the discussion as "delete", and deleted the article. However, I am aware that this could be controversial, so in my new closing statement, I have suggested that anyone disagreeing should go to WP:DRV. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the reasoning. Divebomb is a sock puppet, but he only voted the once as any of his names right? So he wasn't vote stacking. Also, this deletion debate was already closed before Divebomb's status was identified. Is it policy to go back and re-evalute a closed deletion nomination vote of an identified sock puppeteer and change the outcome after the fact? As it was the page was left open for renomination without bias. What was wrong with that status? Anyways, I would like to see about that DRV to try to save the page. I'm not sure how it's done. Can I get some help in filing for the review? Mathewignash (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, when I originally closed the AfD, it was a close thing. To bring this up at DRV, just read the instructions at WP:DRV which explain how to open a review. I'll be on and off during the next few days, so I'll keep an eye on the situation, but I may not necessarily be able to respond at DRV (I'm limited when using my mobile phone in how large a section can be for me to edit it). Just drop me a note here when you open up the review. Now I'm off outta here... -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Menscience

Hey PhantomSteve,

I've been having issues editing the MenScience page on Wikipedia. After removing marketing fluff from my original entry (it was my first article -- i didn't know better) and making it a stub, you flagged it as being insignificant. So I added a verifiable claim stating that the company has earned numerous awards and accolades from magazines and organizations worldwide; the company is a household name in men's skincare. Despite that, you deleted it again. MenScience competitors like Zirh and men's magazines like Men's Fitness have similar pages yet are still up. Just hoping you could pinpoint exactly what is wrong with it so I can fix it and get something back up. The MenScience page had been up for years before I tinkered with it. :(

Anyway, thank you in advance for your response. I know you're pretty busy, so I really appreciate your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbfan1638 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The last version did mention the brand having won various awards, but the source was the brand's own website - not independent of the subject! How long the article had existed is not strictly relevant - there are many older pages which would be very quickly deleted if they were to be created now, as the standards expected for articles has been tighted over time. With regards to ZIRH Holdings and Men's Fitness - technically, the existence or not of other articles has nothing to do with whether this article should exist. Others that do exist may meet the criteria (or perhaps, as with the ZIRH Holdings article, should be considered for deletion - I have now put it up for deletion) or are reliably sourced at independent sources (like Men's Fitness - which had the references, albeit in need of tidying up). Without some independent reliable sources which show that Menscience is notable, then an article would not be appropriate at this time -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Fanesha Fabre page

Can you explain further the deletion of the Fanesha Fabre wikipedia page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.102.166 (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The Fanesha Fabre was a direct copy of a website - the copyright of the myspace page belongs to the owner of the page, and cannot be used on Wikipedia. Also, as a separate issue, I see no evidence that Fanesha Fabre meet the criteria for inclusion (see here and here), so if it had not been a copyright violation, then I would still have put it up for deletion. However, as a copyright violation, with no clear release of the material on the myspace page under a compatible license, the material cannot be on Wikipedia. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

afd header

Hi ... just an fyi ... I believe you may have intended to removed the afd header and add the Keep info on the talk page of List of Italian American actors. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've sorted that out. As it was part of a multi-article nomination, only the first article was dealt with by the script I use! I need to remember to check this kind of thing. Incidentally, there would have been no problem with you dealing with this (after all, the link to the AfD is there - and you could have also linked to the AfD in the summary). Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks PS. Normally, I might well have done that. But given the high degree of spreading of untruths by some at that AfD, I thought it best to let you do it, to avoid even the appearance of impropriety in the face of inappropriate behavior by others. Happy holidays.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Bang Bang Bazooka

Hi, it seems you are deleting the page Bang Bang Bazooka> I am very curious what I'm not doing right as there are about a zillion band pages on Wikipedia and this band has been around since 1986 and in my opinion people are entitled to read about the history of the band. It is not my intention to promote the band in any way; it's pure band history and information about releases, reviews, experiences and other interesting information. So please let me know what I am doing wrong since I'm totally new to Wikipedia and I am in the process of going throught the enourmous amount of instructions. Learning by doind so to say. Thanks in advance and regards, Marc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangbangbazooka (talk • contribs) 00:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it as it did not indicate the significance of the band. Being formed in 1986 is not significant in itself. The founders being in the current line up is not significant in itself. Playing the biggest festivals is not significant in itself. To warrant an article in Wikipedia, the band must meet the notability criteria (see here for the general criteria, and here for specific criteria for bands); it must have significant coverage at independent reliable sources (see here for notes about independent sources, and here for notes about reliable sources]]. Have BBB been covered by such sources in a significant way (i.e. not just a mention in a list of acts playing at a festival)? Is there significant coverage which is independent (i.e. not on their own website, the website of a promoter, press releases)? Without those (and there was no indication in the article that they were/are significant or important) then an article may not be warranted. Please feel free to contact me again if there is anything I can help you with. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, your username would appear to indicate that you have a connection with the band, which causes problems, indicating also that you have a conflict of interest. As such, I am going to block your account from editing Wikipedia until you both request a change of name, and acknowledge that you should not edit about a subject which you are so closely connected with. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Fabiola6

Perhaps you could give him a smack with the trout of knowledge? He seems pretty hellbent on spamming that newspaper of his here. HalfShadow 02:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Eh, fair enough; just as long as it's deleted. HalfShadow 02:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Article Copy

Hello, Phantomsteve/Archives/2010. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— WhiskeyBoy (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Cimarron Firearms

You could've given a little time to respond with a hang-on before you deleted. It is an established (25 years) manufacturer that replicates several antique/historical pistols used in Cowboy Action Shooting and movies. It's like a small car company in that it might not get much attention but it has its niche. You'll find several articles about on WP mentioning it by name and I was about (had just done one) link to them the article. MartinezMD (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide me with some reliable sources which are independent of the company that could show that they meet Wikipedia's notability criteria? PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
You've made me have to find the formal references a little sooner than I had scheduled. I initially planned on adding to the stub over the next day or two, but for my benefit as well as yours, I've listed my initial items. The company's notability is primarily for producing the highest quality (arguably) reproductions used in the sport (or for enthusiast collectors). Took a while to sort through sales sites, etc, but here are a few sources:

Let me know your response please. Thanks, MartinezMD (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not totally convinced:
  • Guns and Ammo do not have an article on Wikipedia, and that makes it hard for me to be sure how independent they are - or how reliable they are (I looked at the archives at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, but it hadn't been discussed
  • the sponsorship deal means that SASS can't really be used as a reference, as they can't be counted as independent, and by your admission it was solely for promotional purposes!
  • Western Shooting Horse: Again, I'm unsure of the reliability (from Wikipedia's point of view) or independence
  • Gunblast: I'm pretty sure looking at the website that this would not meet Wikipedia's reliable source criteria
All in all, I am not convinced by the coverage here that the company would meet the criteria for inclusion. However, I could be wrong - could you please read the notability guidelines for companies and tell me what criteria there the company would meet? PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll get back to you on that. However, you'll need to lump Uberti onto the list because it is in a similar boat. There may be others.MartinezMD (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Matt Nicholas Hines

Can you assist me and tell me why my article was deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyreidland (talk • contribs) 02:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing to indicate why he is significant/important. Being an "up and coming" actor normally means that they are not notable yet. Twitter sources are unreliable, and there were no independent reliable sources given to verify the information. Looking at it again, I also can't see that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Page move

Thank you for moving Michigan left back. Can you possibly move the talk page as well? Imzadi 1979 → 02:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Done - I hope I got it right! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Imzadi 1979 → 03:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Levi William Humphrey - headshot delete.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Levi_William_Humphrey&action=history0

I'm the above's grandson and would like to upload a pic of Levi but I'm guessing I had the wrong license hence it got deleted. I would like to reload the pic but before I do can you tell me what license I should check when the pic is a family pic out of our album? Also I will be updating other information and editing as well as some of the info is wrong. I'm also doing the same with the PARLINFO as well before my dad gets too old to remember everything.

Btw I'm new here so I will stumble for the 1st bit

Cheers, Neil William Humphrey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanburner (talk • contribs) 04:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The license you used said that only Wikipedia can use it. Unfortunately, that is not possible - anything on Wikipedia can be re-used for any purpose (including commercial). If you want to re-upload the picture, you will need to choose the correct license - and if you are going to do so, then you might consider uploading it to Commons, so other projects can use it! If you read the instructions when uploading, you will see that you can choose a Creative Commons or GNU license (or public domain) - it explains what the conditions for re-use are.
If you have any other questions,please feel free to contact me again, but I'm going offline now, so it might be a few days until I can reply, because of work and holidays! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

CSD tag for A. Uberti, Srl.

Hi. I've removed the A7 tag you placed on A. Uberti, Srl., as I don't believe it qualifies for deletion under that criteria. I'd suggest taking the article to AfD if you so desire. One two three... 04:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Samuel Ware

You (rightly!) deleted an article I wrote on Samuel Ware. I had failed to put on a refs list so got an error message which I wasn't able to sort out without help. I have now added a refs list at the end which I hadn't done before. I would like to resubmit but don;t want to be a pain. How do I check it is now formatted correctly. Cliff Webb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffwebbimperial (talk • contribs) 08:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the main problem was that there was no indication of why Samuel Ware was significant or important. I am puzzled though - you said that you have now added a refs list at the end, but looking at your contributions I can't find this! A couple of questions, so that I can help you...
  1. What was Samuel "famous" for, in a nutshell - why is he significant or important?
  2. What criteria of Wikipedia's criteria for the notability of people does he meet?
  3. What reliable sources do you have which would verify any information you might have?
Obviously, holidays are coming (and I've got night shifts over the next few days!) so I won't be on much over the next few days, but I will be checking my messages every day, and hope to get on a few times! Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

CSD G5, re John Cofie

Hello. I was wondering what the difference was between John Cofie, where you declined the speedy, and Michael Ihiekwe, which you deleted. Both of these (and 4 ot 5 others e.g. Sam Johnstone, Etzaz Hussain, which were deleted by another sysop) were created by now indefblocked Alex Latham socks and were his standard creations: non-notable young footballer with mostly copyvio content, the removal of which is the only significant edit by others. This is the first time I've suggested CSD G5, so I'd be grateful to know what I'm failing to understand... many thanks, Struway2 (talk) 08:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a mistake on my part, which has now been rectified! Thanks for contacting me PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:RFF

Could you restore Template:RFF? It doesn't look like a valid CSD G2 to me. The demo code should probably be moved to a /testcases subpage, however. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've moved it to {{Requests for feedback}} and reworked it significantly. I also noted on the /doc subpage it was for Wikipedia:Requests for feedback so hopefully no one will mistag it again. I could see what User:QwerpQwertus was trying to do with it, but it still needed a lot of work to get it to a fully usable state. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfair treatment of the article about PhotoHand

Dear Phantomsteve, I noticed you deleted the page that I created describing PhotoHand. I would like to bring out to your attention that the text of that page contained no adjectives or any word combination that could be considered evaluative. The text was carefully crafted after the pages of SnapFish and Picnic that seem to have the right to exist in Wikipedia. In the light of this fact, I would like to receive your suggestion on how to alter this post so that it passes your editorial judgment. I do understand that Wikipedia is a private organization with volunteer editors without any legal or regulatory oversight and control but still I would expect less arbitrary decision and fair treatment from an organization that is striving to maintain a good reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexw33 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason for deletion was that there was no indication why Photohand is significant or important. The only reference provided was a Press Release (so not independent of the subject) and when I looked for other references, I could only find press releases from the company. The text was also borderline promotional.
To be considered for restoration, could you please answer these questions:
  1. Why is Photohand significant/important?
  2. How do they meet the notability criteria (see here and here)?
  3. Could you provide some references to signficant coverage of the firm that can be found at reliable sources (see here for what Wikipedia counts as reliable) which are independent of the company (see here for information about independent sources).
If you can answer those three questions, then we can go from there. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Inflowential

Why did you delete the Inflowential article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.162.193 (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Inflowential article was deleted because it was an article about a band that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. It was deleted for the same reason in July 2007. Being in the top three bands at the "2008 MTVU Palm Centro battle of the bands contest" is not really a claim of significance, as I could find no evidence that this contest is a notable one, as it is a student one.
To be considered for restoration, could you please answer these questions:
  1. Why is Inflowential significant/important?
  2. How do they meet the notability criteria (see here and here)?
  3. Could you provide some references to signficant coverage of the firm that can be found at reliable sources (see here for what Wikipedia counts as reliable) which are independent of the company (see here for information about independent sources). The ones you provided in the article did not appear to meet these criteria.
If you can answer those three questions, then we can go from there. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


If you had done your research before deleting the article, you have seen that your colleague Gogo Dodo who originally deleted the page agrees that with the evidence I gave him that Inflowential does meet the criteria for being "significant" enough to have a wiki -page. I will copy and past it below. The argument that the MTVU contest that they placed in the top 3 of is not notable contradicts the guidelines given. It was a national contest put together by a major tv network, just because only bands with at least one student were allowed in the contest does not matter.


You deleted the article starting the reason why as significance or importance, based on the guidelines for a band or musical group here is why the article should be reinstated. 1.Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. Links: http://music.mync.com/2009/03/inflow-named-to-urb-magazines-next-1000/ http://beyondrace.com/reviews/music-reviews/760-inflowential http://www.ncsu.edu/featured-stories/outside-the-classroom/mar-2008/inflow/index.php http://www.wral.com/entertainment/blogpost/2719513/?d_comment_order=forward http://www.starnewsonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061005/COLUMNIST40/610050338/-1/columnist40 http://music.mync.com/2010/07/sessions-at-studio-b-with-inflowential/comment-page-1/ http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/how-does-inflowential-stack-up-in-mtvus-new-contest/Content?oid=1208083

6.Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles Inflowential shares 3 members with Kooley High

9.Has won or placed in a major music competition. http://www.treocentral.com/content/Stories/1618-1.htm.

12.Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network: Inflowential was featured on an hour long TV show on MTVU called Dean's List a couple of videos and clips from the original broadcast (aired on June 3rd 2008) are missing from the link below. Link:http://www.treocentral.com/content/Stories/1618-1.htm


71.23.248.17 (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC) I did not make a mistake at that time back in 2007 because most of the points you brought up were not available back in 2007 as they had not happened yet. For #1, all of the references except for the Wilmington Star article was published after 2007, so could not have been used back then. For #6, the Kooley High article did not exist in 2007 (it was created in 2009) and there was no mention of any connection to Kooley High in the article as it was in 2007 (and even if there was, since the article on Kooley High did not exist, it would have not established their notability since there would have been no context). For #9, the contest happened in 2008, so was not known in 2007. For #12, the same thing applies: the television show happened in 2008 and the article was deleted in 2007. So, back in 2007, the deletion was correct. The band did not meet the notability guidelines from the things that had happened up to 2007. Lots can change in three years and this happens to be one of the "up-and-coming" (per the deleted article in 2007) that really did make it. So as of today in 2010, the band is probably notable for the reasons you indicted. What you can do is create an account and write a fresh article with the references you provided or, if you do not want to create an account, you can use the article wizard to request one to be made for you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.162.193 (talk)

Deletion review

Transformers: Timelines is now up on deletion review as suggesed. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 17#Transformers: Timelines. NotARealWord (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Iranian targeted subsidy plan

Hello , please undelete this article , it needs to be completed rather than being deleted Mardetanha talk 16:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you got a lot of sourced information which will be added to the article? It was deleted as a duplicate article, so unless it is going to be significantly expanded with information from reliable independent sources, there wouldn't be cause for restoration PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I am a long term wikipedian, I know what makes an article , please undelete it Mardetanha talk 06:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
In that case, I'm sure you'll be able to re-create it in your user-space and work on it there! Or are you saying that long-term editors should be treated differently to new editors if they create a new article which is substantially the same as a current one? That was the criteria under which it was SD'd and there is no mention about ignoring the CSD for experienced editors -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 06:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, definitely I am saying that long-term editors should be treated differently. If there are problems with an article it can be solved but taking shortest way and deleting it specially when there are editors, willing to expand it is not very interesting. Though I accept the fact that being long term editor is not carte blanche to vandalize wiki or overlook policies. Mardetanha talk 07:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steve

Hi Steve, I got your message in regards to not writing on my Dad's article that others can't change the information. But this has become a big problem. I had contacted the person who created the article years ago because many of his facts, were incorrect. I had asked him in an email where he got his information. It appears that he had copied/pasted it from another web site called, "Toho Kingdom." (So he plagiarized the entire article on wikipedia, yet the article wasn't shut down for that.) I own a web site that is in memory of my father. He is late actor, stunt man and race car driver, Robert Dunham. I think someone should have "warned" me before the whole site was shut down, yesterday. I had asked the guy to change the information, as I know nothing about wikipedia and all the different codes. He refused. So, I decided to write a new bio on my Dad, which is more accurate. Many of my Dad's fans have asked me about things they had read on wikipedia and asked me if they were true or not. I've had to say no, because they weren't. I've tried enlisting the help of others to add my article onto wikipedia, as well as a photo. So far, I have not heard anything. If you could help me, I would appreciate it. (Btw, in the Sandbox column, all it says is "LOL.")

Thank you and have a Happy Holiday!

Sincerely,

JadeHunter11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

I'm at work at the moment, but I'll try to look into this and contact you tomorrow, but it might not be for a few days - work/holidays allowing! I will get back to you as soon as I can though -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 22:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian Party (United Kingdom) and Libertarian Party UK

Hi Steve. Firstly, I'm still recovering from swine flu and very light headed, so please forgive me if I've made a mistake. I believe that Libertarian Party UK is the same organisation referenced in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Libertarian_Party_(United_Kingdom) which has previously been deleted albeit I now realise under a slightly different name. The talk page contains my points on notability which seem similar to those in the deletion discussion. The 2009 article creator did refer to its previous deletion.

Regards JRPG (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into that when I'm on my computer later. I will check that they are indeed the same organisation and if so, deal with it appropriately. We've got to make sure that they are the same thing, rather than a similarly-named one, along the line of the Judean People's Front vs the People's Front of Judea (the splitters!) - that's a Life of Brian reference, just in case you weren't aware, which came to mind as I was reading your comment! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 17:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
From what I can see, the current version is significantly different/expanded from the deleted version. If you feel that they do not meet the inclusion criteria, please feel free to take this to AfD for a discussion on it. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at this Steve. As far as I know the deleted item isn't available for me to see, so couldn't compare, but based on the AFD discussion, it still has the same problem of no ws:source indicating notability -and truly dire results. It's now in the Oldham and Saddleworth election, after which I'll request a review. Regards JRPG (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


Hi Steve and For Info only. I've listed them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party UK JRPG (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Card

User:DeltaQuad/Christmas2010 - DeltaQuad, 20:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

A speedy deletion

Hi! Recently you speedy deleted Robert Durham. I wonder if you would consider undeleting it, as I think the article can be quickly improved to an acceptable state and would like to try.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've no objection to you undeleting it yourself! I probably won't be signing under my main (admin) account until next week because of work and holiday! If you don't want to use your admin tools, I'll undelete next week. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 09:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I see that Orangemike has restored it -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 22:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: I think Jimbo meant Robert Dunham. HeyMid (contribs) 11:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, that's the one he's referring to, I meant to note that, but forgot to as Jimbo, OrangeMike and I all knew which article was being referred to! Thanks for noting that though, it'll be useful when the thread is archived -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 14:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Admin coaching?

Hello PhantomSteve, I was wondering if you could admin coach me. I have been on Wikipedia for three months of activity now, and I routinely do things like vandal patrol and new page patrol. I am also involved in copying images to commons. (Intentionally kept brief for your phone.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I may only get to check your coaching page once or twice a week - sometimes every other week - but if you are ok with that (let me know here) I'll look at your history, and get back to you! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 23:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm ok with that—I'm in no rush to get sysop privileges. Thanks a lot! Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I have created an Admin mentoring page at User:Reaper Eternal/Admin Mentoring, along with your starter questions! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops!

I accidentally hit rollback while viewing my watchlist. Sorry about that! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I hadn't even noticed until you mentioned it! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2010/December&oldid=1088787310"