User talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2010/May

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

Cities by GDP

Thank you very much for paying attention to what'd been going on with this list. Could you please kindly look into what changes SchmuckyTheCat had actually brought about... and decide what should be done with his edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.162.88 (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless I missed something, the only difference which SchmuckyTheCat made to List of cities by GDP was to change {{PRC}} to {{CHN}}. This means that  People's Republic of China was changed to  China - the latter has the advantage over PRC that it is named after the standard three letter ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 country code, IOC code, and FIFA code, whereas PRC is the common abbreviation - although many people would also use CHN as a common abbreviation. However, there is no firm guideline on it - I would normally use CHN myself, as obviously it still links to the PRC, but it is used as an abbreviation by many organisations -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

John Bell

Hi. I'm Radical Edward2. I have past experiences in editing on other wiki sites such as the Bioshock wiki, Oddworld wiki, Halo wiki, Pokemon wiki, Death Note wiki, and the Loveless wiki. I was wondering if I could remake the John Bell (radio personality) article. --Radical Edward2 (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As per the message on your talk page, I have proposed that the article be deleted, as the source provided is a paid-for blogging site, and I could find no reliable sources about him. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
This, I don't think, is a paid blog site, though that doesn't mean it is a reliable source, though it might be. Googling 'John Bell + WHTZ' turns up a lot of results - most are not obviously reliable sources (maybe all) but is there enough there to write an uncontroversial article? Of course the controversial parts couldn't be included without a more reliable source, I am just not sure if deletion is completely necessary. Weakopedia (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I know that there were no significant sources at GScholar or GBooks (lots of very minor mentions, basically in lists of station staff) - and looking again at GNews archive, I find this New York Daily News story (which I'm not sure is enough coverage) plus a few minor mentions elsewhere. If you feel that these are significant coverage (I wasn't sure about the radio.nl one either), then feel free to add them and remove the tag. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Let me just explain why I don't think the NY Daily News article is enough: here are the facts we can glean from it: Useful info: he was 70 in 2004; started in Aug 83 on WHTZ; worked at WVJN (which became Z100) before that - and that's it! I don't think that's enough for an article. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Admin Coaching: Reconfirmation

I'm afraid I've been away from Wikipedia too much to serve as a proper coach. Thank you for asking. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks....

Thank you for blocking the newest IP sock of User:Karunyan in response to my RPP request for List of Blood+ characters. However, I was wondering if you would also consider doing the protection on the page as well. He has already hit it with three different IPs in the last three hours and seems to intend to just keep at it. I have contacted the admin who did a range block last time to see if another can be implemented, but would be great if the article could be safe while that's looked into. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 10:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you were already doing it while I was writing my note. Again, much appreciated :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 10:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I have semi'd the page for 3 days (I did that as a result of your note here!) If there are problems after that, let me know -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Barry Gardiner

Just to say thanks for the very speedy response to my request for semi protection. Just wish people would confine POV to election pamphlets not Wikipedia. Regards JRPG (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

you're very welcome - at weekends, I tend to do a few mins here, a few mins there (due to family stuff) but I just happened to be there at the right time! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Thanks for protecting the article. Now that you have protected the page in the version of User:Ahmed shahi (hence a version that is clearly contradicting the common scholarly consensus as presented in the Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica, and using doubtful sources such as the Taliban-associated web-site "Sabawoon.com"), could you at least tag the article with a "neutrality" and "factual accuracy" sign? Thank you.

Btw: the user has called me a "racist" ([1]) because I had removed the doubtful sources he had pput in the text. I have reported him here. Tajik (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

A couple of points:
  1. As I said on the talk page (and RFPP), I do not know much about Afghanistan, so I have no way of knowing which version is "correct"! I just protected the latest version. As the protection message says, This protection is not an endorsement of the current version
  2. You were quite right to report the user at AN (note that this does not mean that I am siding with you - I do not know which of you is correct in the edits, but one (or both) of you needed to report it for admin attention)
I'll keep an eye on the article/talk page - as well as the AN discussion. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. That's why I am asking you to tag the article, because right now, its neutrality and accuracy is rightfully questioned. The current Wikipedia article is fully contradicting standard reference works and instead uses doubtful references from even more doubtful website. It was a correct decision to protect the page (in fact, it was me who asked for it). But at least, it should be tagged. Thank you. Tajik (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair point - I will tag that now. Whoever is "right", the neutrality is questioned, so the tag can be placed on the article -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
(puts on best Yul Brynner voice): "So let it be written. So let it be done." -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Simpleterms

As he'd already been on-hold for 2 weeks I suppose he figured someone would have made a decision by then...another 2 weeks would make it a month, which seems a little excessive of a wait IMHO. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops... my bad, let me look again! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Fantastic. Literally. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for adding references to Anthony Blackburn . Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome! I occasionally look at the oldest unreferenced BLPs, and try to find references. I actually found it hard with BLackburn until I came across Debrett's! If I can't find references, I'm quite happy to PROD/AfD them, but if I can find references I'm quite happy about that too! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Friendly notice of admin action reversal

This is a notice that I am removing your page protection on Lee Jun Ki‎, because the whole situation was obviously a based on several misunderstandings. The actual problem was a content edit war, not vandalism, brought about b/c the IP had a year old "banned" template on his page. However, please do block the IP for edit warring if he continues. See here for more information. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries! Thanks for letting me know - and I understand the reasoning perfectly -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

we had this discussion at the help desk

I formerly used account User:Givememoney17 and would like to know if I have provided adequate notice on that page or if there is some template I need there, so as to avoid sockpuppett acusations (so long as I no longer use the old account).Schnapps17 (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want, I can indefinitely block that account, so that it cannot be used, and protect the talk and user pages. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


and my answer is...Yes I would like you to block it, but only if it can be done in a way that indicates that I did nothing wrong, as I wouldn't want a block of my old account to negatively affect the view other editors would ahve of me. ThanksSchnapps17 (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible for you to log in as Givemoney17, leave a message saying "I confirm that I am using Schnapps17 as my account, and would like this account indefinitely block and the user and talk pages indefinitely protected from editing" and add your signature? If so, I can then block it, with a note on the block log explaining that this is a user's old account, and it is blocked for security reasons, not as a result of any wrong-doing. Then your final act with the old account would be to log in, change the password to a random string of characters (i.e. long, which you could never know... random tapping on the keyboard would be perfect, as you won't know what you have typed), save it, and then log out - that way, you can never use the account yourself. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
will do, thanks Schnapps17 (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I have indef-blocked Givememoney17 (with the log entry User has another account (User: Schnapps17) and wants this account indef blocked for security, not because of any wrong doing on the part of this account) and added a note to the same effect on the user page (which is protected from editing) and the talk page (which I have cleared of any other messages, and protected). Before doing this, I carefully checked your contributions (including the deleted ones) and found no problems. I have also blocked the account from having editing access to the talk page, and from having email access. In effect, the account can do nothing any more. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Probably should have disabled autoblock so you wouldn't kill his new account too. Q T C 01:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I have now disabled auto-block on the account to avoid any possible future problems, although I see that the new account is editing OK. I'll have to remember that in future, just in case this ever happens again! Thanks for letting me know, Q! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Adjusted protection on Afghanistan.

Hi Steve, i altered the protection you placed on Afghanistan. You placed an indefinite full protection and a 1 month move protection on the article, so i think you simply mixed the two up when protecting the article. Just letting you know in case it was intentional :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 11:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right that I got them the wrong way round! Oops... well caught! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Setting up my Private wiki to reflect wikipedia's settings for experimental purposes

What do I need to set my private wiki to reflect the same settings as Wikipedia, such as User Rights and other core settings, this way I can experiment with new concepts and suggest as necessary any which I think would be useful to have on wikipedia. Thanks Paul2387 13:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea - you'd be best asking at the Village Pump! All I know is that there are a lot of variables in MediaWiki, and I don't know what Wikipedia has set up -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

STOP.

Carrie Underwood's Play On Tour has 2 legs. She announced it HERSELF.

If this is a website that likes to use factual information, then USE IT. 2 legs - Spring & Fall. The Spring begins on 3/11/10 in Reading, Pennsylvania and ends on 8/31/10 in St. Paul, Minnesota. Both are separate North American legs.

She confirmed it herself, so STOP RE-EDITING IT. You're making the article FALSE.

Here's a link to prove that there is a second leg.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Undrwood9098 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

-undrwood9098 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Undrwood9098 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Merinews isn't counted as a reliable source as it is what is known as Citizen journalism - it includes content which is provided by amateurs, and often has no editorial oversight. If you can find a reliable source (such as a national newspaper) which mentions the second leg, then please cite that. I couldn't find a reliable source. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"Here's a link from "Tulsa World", an associated website with the Tulsa Newspaper website. Read the caption of the picture of Ms. Underwood in the article; "Carrie Underwood has added a Tulsa tour stop to the fall leg of her "Play On" tour, her publicist confirmed with the Tulsa World. ASSOCIATED PRESS file". http://www.tulsaworld.com/scene/article.aspx?subjectid=269&articleid=20100416_371_0_Carrie774624 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Undrwood9098 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest that you mention this on the article's talk page? Consensus needs to be reached there - Tulsa World certainly appears to be a reliable source as the second-most widely circulated newspaper in Oklahoma - but I am not responsible for the Play On Tour article. I protected it for 3 days because there was an edit war happening, not because I have any particular interest in the article. As I say, take this up on the talk page and reach a consensus - if further edit warring takes place once the protection is automatically lifted later today, then I (or another admin) will just protect it for a bit longer until a consensus is reached. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the question

Thanks for the positive comments. Yes, I will admit I have thought of it. (Which sounds like the first strike against me). There are three reasons I haven't tried, all of which can be addressed.

First, my work schedule is crazy. While I do manage to edit, I treat it as a break form work. To be honest, I should be working this very minute, as I have overdue deadlines. I'm working on a major release of software, due in August. (FYI, I'm not a developer, I'm on the business side). Training and bug fixing will carry into September, then we start release 2, but there should be some respite then. If I go through RfA, I want to be able to give full attention during the RfA, and then take admin school seriously, so I don't see the ability to do that until fall.

Second, while I now have a number of edits that won't knock me out of the running, I don't have a GA, but I do have a summer project to try to make Geno Auriemma a GA.

Third, and possibly most important, I don't yet have a good answer for question 1. I think flagged revisions will solve a substantial portion of the vandalism problem so I haven't emphasized vandalism work (As an aside, I did a little vandalism work, patrolling latest changes, but I found that if I took more than five seconds to decide something was truly vandalism, I was probably too late - someone else had reverted it. I wanted to avoid Type I errors, and I wasn't conformable pulling the trigger in less than five seconds.) I've spent some time in Afd, but to be honest, I'm doing it mostly because I feel I should. I don't really enjoy it. I have spent more time at MfD, mainly because that gets too little traffic, and that is more enjoyable. I think I could do a decent job in dispute resolution - I spend a fair amount of time at global warming articles, where tempers flare, and think I've kept my cool. You know I spend some time at the help desks, and seeing deleted articles is occasionally helpful, but as a reason for becoming an admin, that's pretty weak tea. I need to have a better answer to that important question.

To make a long story short (oops, too late), I'd like to muddle along contributing here and there until September or so, get a GA completed, then see if I can come up with a better answer to Q1. Thanks again for your vote of confidence. Don't let this go to your head, but you are one of the editors I most respect here, and I'm always confident that when I see your sig, a question has been well-answered.--SPhilbrickT 15:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Your final comments are too kind (I seem to recall you said something similar at my RfA) - but if you feel in the future that you would be interested in going for it, let me know - or if someone else at that time is going to nominate you, let me know so that I can consider co-nominating! Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Incidently, with regard to vandalism, you could always do NPP at the end of the current queue (see here)- they tend to be about a month old (currently the oldest is 10 April), and sometimes articles get through the NPP patrol which should be CSD'd! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Query

Hi, do you have any tips for me to increase the slim chance I have of ever coming close to thinking about starting a RfA? Jarkeld (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Before I answer that, two questions: would you meet my RfA standards?; Why do you think you only have a slim chance? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that I'd only fail the number of automated edits out of the items in your list as I use Twinkle and Kissle.
My main reason to think I'd have a slim chance is that I'm not a prolific creator of new content. (1 article + 1 I've started working on today). That and I think that I need to sharpen up my CSD tagging. Every once in a while the article gets deleted citing another criterium. (Deleted as A3 instead of the A7 I tagged it with when the article is about a person. But only a few CSD tags I ever made were declined.)
I also had a run in with WP:NEWT, but I'd like to think that I've learned my lesson from that experience. Jarkeld (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll have a look at your contribs, etc, and get back to you tomorrow, if that's OK? It's been a long day, and I'd rather do it when I'm more awake lol -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I'm already very grateful that you've taken the time to respond to my query. :) Jarkeld (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've had a further look at your contributions and can see no major problems. As you say, your automated edits count is higher than some would like (50.63%) - and a quick look shows that (certainly recently) almost all the work on articles has been automated. Now, not everyone is a content-person (I'm not that hot on that), but as we're here to work on an encyclopedia, most people want to see some! My main advice would be to try to do some content work.
I've not created many major articles (I've only done one really major one from scratch, including research, and that was William Stanley (Victorian inventor), which I created and got to GA status. I also did some research (online) and massively expanded Gilbert Thomas Carter from a one-sentence stub to a GA-status article (see here). Most of my article work, though, has been either minor changes (grammar and stuff) - or finding references. From time to time, I look at the oldest unreferenced BLPs (see Category:Unreferenced_BLPs) and look for at least 2 or 3 references - and if I can't find any, nominate it for deletion. Some recent examples of where I have done this are Pooja Gor, Anthony Blackburn, Serdar Bilgili and Fabio Berardi - all from Unref'd BLPs from May 2007!). Other than that, you seem to be doing well. I see clerking at CHU, contributions at AfD (and noms), and lots of deleted contributions as a result of your CSD tagging - and I see that you have been avoiding drama at ANI!
On the whole, if you were to appear at RfA, I think that my !vote would be one of support, for what it's worth! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the evaluation & tips. I'm starting to do a bit of article writing (1 live, 1 underway and hopefully more to come) and i'm going to try to expand articles (perhaps clinical chemistry and haematology related articles).
Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction to improve myself as Wikipedian. Jarkeld (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Pit Bull

I believe the current actions are out of process and would have thought were in some way checkable -= however knowing how passions rise and many editors leave wikipedia over dog arguments on a regular basis - I am not getting involved - however I believe the current ignoring correct process should at least incur some sort of warning or sanction? SatuSuro 13:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

OK I have seen what you have done - cheers (btw I do hope you realise I was being euphemistic in that I was alluding to the blocked individuals ignoring correct process - not yours...) SatuSuro 14:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
As the editor keeps reinserting the mal-formed AfD (and refusing to discuss it on the talk page), I have blocked him/her for 24 hours. I have also asked him/her to discuss it on the talk page. I have also put the AfD page up at Miscellany for deletion as it is the work of a disruptive editor. Hopefully I won't be seen as using my admin powers incorrectly - but I think a 24 hour block is reasonable in the circumstances. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Incidently, I understood that your initial comment was about the other editor, not my own actions! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Good - the potential for misunderstanding is always there - having lectured a soapboxer on jimbo's talk page recently I am super cautious :|
I understand, maybe a third party needs to probably go to a point to counter the canvassing edits, and also the general campaign about Pit Bulls - (probably the process if conducted properly will allow the ed to keep Soapboxing and flag waving and ignoring progress :| ) - I think I now understand why my father quit dog judging at one point simply because of the style of psychology on part of the hotheaded parts of the whole dog world SatuSuro 14:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
If there are future problems, it'd probably be best to take this to the Administrators' noticeboard - As I am involved, I can't really do much else admin-wise! Hopefully, after the 24 hour block, they will discuss the issues on the talk page. Let me know if there are problems, though - there might be something I can do, depending on the situation. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Not that I'd even want it on my watch :| - I had noticed the canvassing on another editors talk page with whom I have very frosty interactions at the best of times - nothing like being led into the depths of the dungeon of doom - cheers SatuSuro 14:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Ohmigawd - I do hope I did not cause the problem to be worse - very sorry if I incited you on that one. As I said I was steering clear - and you have to go to apology and reverting blocks - I am convinced dog articles are as jinxed as jimbo is at the mo SatuSuro 15:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries - the MfD/AfD situation has been resolved. I know nothing about the dog articles, and hopefully I won't get the flack that Jimbo has been getting over the last couple of days! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

ACC

Can you re-activate my ACC on this name. Thanks. :) --A3RO (mailbox) 05:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't do that for two reasons - firstly, although I am an admin on the English Wikipedia, I am not an admin on the ACC tool. Secondly, when AlexandrDmitri suspended you, his message was "As you have just been blocked, you no longer meet the qualifications for using the interface. You may reapply should this block be overturned or in a few months after its expiration." - you need to ask again in a few months. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Another reminder...

Check Svpnpa and see if there is anything useable to add to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy - then mergehistory and redirect -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

not a crossover

Without being POV, I think the Nissan Pathfinder is a truck. The Wikipedia article says...

The North American first generation Pathfinder came in two different bodies and shared styling and most components with the Nissan Hardbody Truck. Built on a ladder-type frame, the Pathfinder was Nissan's response to the

So if it was based on a truck and has a ladder type truck frame, calling it a truck is not crazy. Certainly it's more truck than car? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You're asking someone who knows nothing about cars and the like! The information in the article does not come from any references, so presumably from Nissan's own information. You need to discuss this on the article's talk page and have a consensus reached there - all I know is that on Nissan's US site (and I didn't look elsewhere) it just listed it under "SUV". -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that X! is taking a wikibreak

So I'm concerned that this may not get any attention - I assume it is a request for userfication of deleted content. As the requester is quite new, they may not realize why they get no answer.--SPhilbrickT 14:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at that now and respond appropriately! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks--SPhilbrickT 14:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry - couldn't help myself and made a small fix to your userpage. I may use that template next time one of those "I wanna be ..." posts shows up.  ;)  7  09:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that! It's the silly things like that which slip through - you think oh, I don't need to preview that lol -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

New Contributors

I think DS was disagreeing with me. It occurs to me that my opinion on what the minimal requirements should be for an article in WP are stronger than what the actual requirements are—for example, we don’t require that an article have references- we merely require that potential references exist. Having said that, I haven’t spent as much time at AfD as others have, and I may be mistaken, but I want to mull over a possible change in policy, if my facts are right.SPhilbrickT 15:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, every article on Wikipedia (and every fact in every article) will be referenced. However, although they are not exempt from the requirements, several topics have been found to be inherently notable - such as large hospitals, high schools, colleges, universities and all human habitations which have more than a small number of residents! However, in this case (as I mentioned both on the help request and on the talk page of the article) there seem to be plenty of potential references, so I'll look at those later in the week if I get a chance. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

Do you not think full protection is a bit strong? It's not receiving that much heavy vandalism, nothing I can't keep in check by myself. Unless you're watching the news feeds and ready to edit as soon as the announcement is made, normal editors should be able to update the story. Semi-protection seems fine to me. If you disagree, could you change the word "since" in my edit (comment in infobox) to "until"? Thanks. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have the live feed here as I type. Cameron's been in the Palace for about 25 mins now (a bit longer than we'd normally expect) - as soon as he comes out and it's confirmed, I'll put the semi protection back -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Telegraph has confirmed the appointment --Ypostelnik (talk) • contribs) 19:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
He's now out of the palace, formal confirmation imminent. Also recommend {{Current person}} for the page, esp. once unprotected. Good show. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I've put it back to semi for 24 hours. As soon as Cameron left the Palace and was saluted, it was official - the guards only salute the PM, not MPs! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Palace official announcement just made: Mr Cameron became the Prime Minister at 20:10 BST (19:10 UTC) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Interestingly, the guards saluted Brown as he entered and as he left the palace - meaning they did salute an MP. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 20:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Technically, Brown's resignation didn't take effect until Cameron had formally said 'yes' to Her Majesty's question about forming a Government - so when Brown left, he was still technically Prime Minister -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Mr Brown is still a member of the Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council - all former PMs remain members of the PC ((see The Right Honourable)) unless they specifically resign from the Privy Council. So Mr Brown is still The Right Honourable Gordon Brown MP and when he leaves his MPs job, he will be The Right Honourable Gordon Brown. All members of the Privy Council are saluted by the Police and Armed Forces when recognised. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

RFA

Dear Phantomsteve,

Thank you for proposing to nominate me for RFA. I am delighted that you feel that you have confidence in my abilities and willingly accept.

Regards, ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed how late it is locally, and so I'll create the RfA and let you know when it's ready for you to answer the 3 standard questions. I'll also contact AGK, as I believe that he wanted to co-nom. Good night! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Angels&Artists

Back on 1 May, you blocked the account of this user on the basis that it was a promotional account, seeming to have something to do with promoting the career of actor Craig Vincent, since of all the user's edits had something to do with him. I want to bring to your attention the actions of 98.160.241.80 whose sole contributions have been to the Vincent article and to repeatedly add Vincent's name to the cast list of the Casino article. Having been told several times that the role is not notable enough to be included, he has continued his edits, and is now resorting to personal insults and vandalism on the talk page. I find it hard to believe that these accounts are not related or one and the same, considering the editing pattern. What further action do you suggest I take on this matter? Attempting to discuss the matter with the user has failed, as have repeated warnings. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look at that situation now -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I have left a message on the IPs talk page, basically explaining that any future occurrences of disruptive editing will lead to a block. I'll keep an eye on it, but if there are further problems, let me know. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate that, thank you. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Discount Tire Centers

I am trying to create Discount Tire Centers in a unbiased way. I am saying good things but they are "facts". Where does the line cross as far as the difference between "advertising" and good "facts". I appreciate any feedback so i dont have my page deleted again.


Kris W. KrisWysong24 (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

For a company to have an article on Wikipedia, it needs to meet the notability guidelines and the notability guidelines for companies. Information in the article needs to be verified from reliable independent sources. No one is saying that the information given is false - but it needs to be able to be verified at sources which are independent of the company. The company's website is not independent. The results on Google didn't come up with any reliable sources - I couldn't find coverage which was not either a press release (i.e. from the company, so not independent) or advertising (again, not independent, as it is from the company).
Have the company been covered in an article in a national newspaper (e.g. New York Times, Washington Post) or even significant coverage in a local newspaper (such as The Orange County Register - I think that's the nearest one to Anaheim, but as I'm in the UK, I can't be sure!)?
Also, the language used was very promotional ("the West Coast’s foremost tire and automotive service retailer and wholesaler"; "a family owned business that prides itself in overall customer service and satisfaction"; "To view the Discount Tire Centers[3] website or look for locations you can visit their website at ...") - all those sound like it's a publicity brochure, not an encyclopedia entry - it's not the kind of thing that you would expect to see in the Academic American Encyclopedia or Encyclopedia Americana - and Wikipedia is another encyclopedia.
I'm sorry to say this, but the Discount Tire Centers does not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion at this time, and Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion or advertising. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Alpha Data Parallel Systems

Following up on your message of April 23. As I understood it you would review one more time, then I should take this to the Deletion Review page. Have you had a chance to take another look?

Thanks.

Ariadnenv (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to get back to you on that! I had another look at the deleted article, and looked for reliable independent sources which would verify that the company met Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and the notability guidelines for companies. I couldn't find anything. If you feel that my decision was incorrect based on the arguments presented at the AfD, you are welcome to go to Deletion Review and ask for an opinion there. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

My essential comment at ...New Questions

Thanks - an no need to apologise! I did notice it had disappeared in the move, but figured Wikipedia could probably survive without another bad joke from me ;-)

Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 11:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it was a joke... ah, I misunderstood :p -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Robert Simon Telfer Scott DSM and HMS Havelock

  • Note: This was copied from the Help Desk to remind me to look into it!-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I was wondering if you could help me please.

My late uncle served in the Royal Navy for over 23years and in the last world war was in Norway on HMS Havelock which was a destroyer and he was given the DSM Medal which he got at Buckingham Palace from the then King on the 13th March 1940. He was at that time a leading seaman on that ship and was given the Medal for somthing that occured in Norway in 1940.

The problem is none of the familt that are left no how or why he got that medal as he never spoke about the war . ai have sat here for hours trying different things to find out to noevail.

Can you help me please or at least point me in the right direction .

I have tel the Navel sec andi cannot beleive what he said which is as follows the records or citation were at Kew but have now been destroyed,why they should do that without copying them onto micro is beyond beleive.

I DO HOPE YOU CAN HELP AS I HAVE RUN OUT OF IDEARS.

He was born on the 3rd Dec 1910 and died on the 15th March 1991.

I have the full history of the ship he was on but nothing about him. I also was able to get the entry in the London Gasette but it does not say what the medal was for. His Navel no was p/jx 130249.

Thank you,

Dallas woods Mr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.84.209 (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I don't follow the military wikiprojects closely, but my impression is that they have some very dedicated editors, some of whom night be interested in helping. --SPhilbrickT 15:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that suggestion! I hadn't even thought of that (d'oh!) - if I have no luck, then I can go there (after I've heard from the OP) - in fact I'd better leave a message on the IP's talk page... -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Just to keep this here: still need to look at this! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Great mice click alike!

Ah, great minds with but a single thought: SPAMUSERNAME, BEGONE! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just editing the block notice so that it said "Orange Mike..." instead of "I..." and got an edit conflict - and before that, I had just clicked on 'block' when you had already done it! Damn you Sir! lol -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Feedback patrol?

I've started with some very rough thoughts on a feedback patrol here. Your thoughts would be welcome.--SPhilbrickT 13:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Play On Tour

Ok so a reliable source has indeed been found and we no longer need the page protected. Thank you for protecting it in the first place though. --Shadow (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please take a look at User_talk:Evereadyo2. A check of this user's editing on 8 May shows that every single edit was vandalism. Thanks Jack1956 (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you did the following:
  1. You went straight to a final warning - with no level 1 warnings, let alone levels 2-3
  2. You gave 4 warnings at the same time
  3. You gave warnings for vandalism committed 8 days before
I don't know what your problem with Evereadyo2, but this is not the way to deal with it. The impression I get is that you looked through his contribution history, to find anything he did wrong. I do not feel that this is acceptable, and in fact it appears to be disruptive behaviour on your part. If you have a problem with this editor, please take it to Third opinion or Dispute resolution. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I noticed that he had vandalised four articles that I contribute to regularly and that he had not received a warning for it. On checking his other edits I discovered even more vandalism, which I felt warranted a final warning. I do not know the editor, had never heard of him before today, and I do not care about the editor except when he vandalises articles. I am not at fault here: I contribute to Wiki constructively and am trying to protect its integrity. Please explain how my reporting a vandal ( I think removing letters from words and making them meaningless is vandalism) and warning a vandal is disruptive behaviour. Jack1956 (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
On re-reading your comment I see I am guilty of over-kill - I should have issued a level one warning first. Please excuse this as inexperience in dealing with such things. I normally come here just to write articles. Jack1956 (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
No worries! I noticed that all of those vandalisms were reverted in 6-8 minutes, and an informal message had been left (see here). It is indeed vandalism, but had you reported the editor at WP:AIV, it would have been declined as the vandalism had occurred so long ago, the editor had not been adequately warned, and the editor had not edited since the last warning.Sorry if I seemed to be a bit strong above, but I do feel that part of my role as an admin is to try to be fair to every one! In this case, editors do not get warnings over a week after they have vandalised! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?

Here is the comment I was about to add to this page in reply to the edit by Claritas:

There is a group of WP:SPAs voting keep - Captain Occam, Varoon Arya, Mikemikev, Distributivejustice, David.Kane, Bpesta22. They work only or primarily on race-related articles. Muntuwandi is not an WP:SPA,[2] but I believe he is African and is a long time editor of wikipedia. Otherwise, I recognize all those voting delete, and they are distinct and quite well known editors on wikipedia. Claritas suggested this AfD on my talk page. Claritas should give a complete explanation of whom he/she thinks are (a) meatpuppets (b) sockpuppets (c) SPAs. WP:SPI is thataway --> Mathsci (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

As I say I recognize all the editors voting. Claritas has been been editing wikipedia with this account for less than one month and seems totally confused. [3] Their comments have been clueless. Mathsci (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I have only just seen your comment here, sorry! However,as you can see from my closing comment, I had noticed that some editors hasd been involved in race-related areas, and although it was not a clincher, I wasn't surprised to see them supporting. If Claritas has any suspicions about sockpuppets, he/she is welcome to make an SPI report. I am putting it down to enthusiasm about the subject matter and/or inexperience in Wikipedia. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Yep, that seems to be correct. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to consider this AfD. As one of the keep's, I am disappointed in your decision. Request: Could you expand on your reasoning just a bit. You seem to suggest (or perhaps I am misunderstanding you) that the main (only) reason for your decision is that you view this article as a POV fork from History of the race and intelligence controversy. The problem with this is that no one provided any detail on this complaint of the article after its content was substantially improved. This is not your fault, obviously, and is endemic to the AfD process. But the problem is that someone like me who might, after a few months, seek to improve this article enough to solve the problem does not have a specific set of problems to fix. So, my request: Please tell us, not just that it is a POV fork, but what specific aspects of the article make it a POV fork. Thanks. David.Kane (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. I'm about to go offline for a bit, and rather than rush a response, I will wait until later tonight (UTC) or tomorrow to write a response that is not rushed, if that is OK! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course! There is no rush. I just want to make sure that the closing of the AfD provides as much useful information to future editors who might want to revisit the topic. The more details you can provide about why it is a POV fork, the easier it will be for future editors to fix that mistake. (By the way, I am somewhat kicking myself since I mistakenly assumed that the consensus would be to not delete. If I had known that there was a chance that it would go this way, I would have added dozens of references to this article from the New York Times, Washington Post and so on. It was big topic of conversation in the 1970s. (And, of course, it is my fault for failing to do so.)) David.Kane (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
There is still no rush, but it has been 4 days. Will you have a chance to get to this sometime? David.Kane (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Ooops, I totally forgot - sorry! I am going to do this now -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I have now added to my closing statement. As far as I am concerned, the issue is now closed! Thanks for your patience, and for reminding me about it! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. That helps to clear things up. Would you mind dumping the last version of the article in my user space? I might try to see if there are good secondary sources which discuss it. David.Kane (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I have userfied the final revision to User:David.Kane/How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?, and I have removed the AfD notice. I have also commented out the categories as it is in user space. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. David.Kane (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

stack jones

please stop deleting factual and cited information on the stack jones page.

information that seems to be of no importance to you, is very important to the artist. it is information that shaped his life and experiences that had caused him to become a lawyer among other things.

further, the information you are deleting, has several wikipedia pages that cite the same information.

further more, your deletions cause other information that is posted to lose its fluid - consistency.

be advised.

thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stackjones (talk • contribs) 09:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you have me confused with someone else, as I have never edited the Stack Jones article. However, I would point out that you have an obvious conflict of interest!
Furthermore, I will be looking at the article, as a lot of the references appear to be to IMDB - which is not counted as a reliable source - and the articles about the Fort Lauderdale Bomb Blast that I found at the Ocala Star Banner do not mention the band, let alone Jones himself; the "Miami Times" reference goes to the Rag Magazine contact page - and I can't find anything in the Miami Times archive about Jones; I can't find anything (either at the official site or elsewhere) to show that Jones won Best Guitarist Award at the first Miami Music Awards show... I could go in. My initial impression from a quick read through the article is that he (you?) may not meet the notability criteria, specifically notability for musicians. In fact, I'm going to look in detail at all the references, and see if any of them actually verify the information in the article, as so far none of the first 4 references do. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


get a life.

stop vandalizing the stack jones page.

we put in a lot of work and you keep deleting it, because it is obvious that your far right leanings don't like the content.

factual information that is cited adheres to wikipedia policy.

the page won't get deleted.

we'll just keep reverting with - rvv, as wikipedia has directed us to do.

further, if you keep harassing and vandalizing the page, you'll be the one permanently deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.184.245.235 (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Incidently, although it is true that factual information that is cited adheres to wikipedia policy, the citations have to actually verify the information, which none of the ones in the article do. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed at with 99 support, 9 oppose, and 2 neutral. Thank you for nominating me!

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What do ya think?

Of this template?  7  01:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a nice template, and I'm sure that it will be used often! However, I won't be using it - when I am opposing, I always personally write each !vote (the only templates I have are for supporting, and there's only a couple for those, most are personally written!) - my only fear will be that people will use this without thinking if it is 100% applicable (although I like the optional param, which should help!) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - but to be sure we are on the same page - it's not meant for !votes, but rather for notes on the user's talk page (a la this one). I'll clarify in the usage section.  7  06:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
My bad - I've not long woken up, so I could have just been being dopey! Thanks for clarifying that. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Titin redirects listed at Redirects for discussion

I've started a discussion to address the redirects associated with Titin. Since you edited one or other of the redirects at some point, or discussed it on one of the talk pages, I wanted to notify you of the redirect discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Awesome Wikipedian

Awesome Wikipedian

Phantomsteve has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Phantomsteve's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Phantomsteve!

Keep up this work,
--Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 02:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Personally, I would call myself an "Average Wikipedian" - there are many others who do far more article creation, article work and admin work... but I really appreciate this all the same! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I would say above average. Anyone can work on articles, but Wikipedia is also about maintaining a good working atmosphere. I think the work you do aids others in contributing to the encyclopedia, so the end result is article creation. Some of that work is the kind of thankless administration that is necessary but not high-profile, so this is a good opportunity to thank you for your contribution. Weakopedia (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Aye. I'd second that. (By the way, I loled quite hard at this. Nice :) {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 09:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Aye, aye; an emphatic "third" to Weakopedia's eval. So pleased to see that you did become an admin, (and so bummed that I somehow missed that process, and voting). I can't think of anyone I've seen who deserves that more. Thanks again for your remarkable contribution here, very much. My best congratulations, though belated! Ohiostandard (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to all of you for your kind words - they mean a lot to me! I just hope that you feel the same way about me in a month, a year, two years.... -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Tom Samek

Ty. Ty 20:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome! I'm not perfect, and sometimes other people find sources which I don't have access to, or which I missed when I looked - and if I'm in the wrong, I'm quite willing to say so! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

To locate a person in USA

I would like to get the address/contact of of Mr. Johnson C Paulson, a senior Project Engineer in Philips petroleum co.USA and was responsible for the Cochin refinery Project in Kerala, India during 1964 to 1966.How to get the details. Kindly help.

Mathai Abraham India email:<redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.88.45.223 (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not in a position to help you! You might find what you are looking for through the external links in the Kochi Refineries - alternatively, you might want to ask this question at Wikipedi's Reference desk, who specialise in trying to answer just about any question in the universe! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Jerry Calypso

Hey there. FYI, this article, which you speedied as a blatant copyright violation, is baaaaack. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Muir Skate Longboard Shop

Booooooo (no, I am only teasing). Your closing statement was right on since it was a close call source wise.Cptnono (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Kidstart deletion

I am at pains why the article was deleted even though the article was relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a consensus may be reached, and no additional comments where made except my own. Plus it does seem that all my comments on that page have been ignored as there was no response to them.

I strongly disagree that the coverage linked to the article sounds like a regurgitated press release, when if anyone who actually spent time visiting these links will see for themselves that the are genuine independent articles from major media outlets. Surely a BBC News video is independent enough ?

I noted that you state significant coverage for relisitng, but can you explain how much coverage does one need ? I illustrated that there is plenty of coverage of KidStart on the web with following links Google.co.uk News Archives for kidstart and Google.co.uk General Search on Kidstart, plus included various notable press links in the article ie The Times, The Guardian, The Observer, The Sun and Daily Express as well as the BBC News video.

I also fail to see how this article is any different to similar Wikipedia articles: Quidco, Internet Cashback, Top CashBack (note: with similar citations), plus see other articles listed under Wikipedia category: Reward Websites, except that KidStart is unique as it only benefits children and charities, so is it for this reason Kidstart should be penalised and deleted whilst these other articles have escaped this kind of scrutiny and remained on Wikipedia?

I look forward to any guidance you can give on this article. Emmamme (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that I misjudged the consensus, please feel free to take this to Deletion review. My job as closing administrator is to judge the consensus of the comments made at the AfD - if I wanted to leave my own opinion, I would not close the AfD, but leave a comment myself and leave it to someone else to close it. In this case, the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KidStart (2nd nomination) was to delete.
However, I should note that whether other similar organisations have articles or not is not part of my decision-making process. It could be that others exist because there is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources; it could be that they don't have that and so perhaps they should be considered for deletion themselves. In neither of these cases, though, is the AfD in question affected - I look at the consensus about that article, not on others that may or may not exist.
I am sorry that you are not happy with the decision, but yours was the only firm voice in favour of keeping the article, with two firmly in favour of the deletion (the nomination I ignore, as it was a procedural nomination, and King of... abstained from commenting). As I said, if you think I misjudged consensus, then list the AfD at WP:DRV - but please note that this is not a venue for a rehash of the arguments or a "second bite at the cherry"! If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me again -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. I'm sure you can appreciate it is very frustrating for myself, especially when the 2 nominations for deletion where given on the day the article was re-listed (11th May), even though it was suggested for re-listing the article it should be edited, which i did (considerably) on the 13-14th May. Since then no comment or nomination was made. This was endorsed by Tim Song who re-listed the article to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached on 19th May. Since then only myself made any additional comments and no nominations where made.

So this system has a slight flaw, in that you decided to take the nominations of administrators who commented on the day the article was re-listed and of which hadn't been revised, in effect basing your consensus on nominations based on the FIRST Deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KidStart NOT the amended article. Therefore i would state the case, that these 2 nominations are outdated and as such bare little relevance. Meaning and i quote from Wikipedia "If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed."

I wish there was a way to wave a flag and say please comment on my revisions (which i thought i did by commenting on the deletion page). As such, from the 13th May (13 days ago) not one administrator commented. Its very frustrating.Emmamme (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for KidStart

An editor has asked for a deletion review of KidStart. 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. Emmamme (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Dark house

hey mate i was wondering if you could help me find the list that was on the deleted page Dark House? Uhuhuh8989 (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that you don't intend on using it to try to re-create the Dark house article (there really are no reliable sources that I could find when I looked a short while ago), but want it for your own use, here is the list:
  • Satoshi Tomiie feat. Kelli Ali - Love In Traffic (Dark Path Mix)
  • ECVM - Circuit Breaker (John Creamer & Stephane K Main Mix)
  • Tijuana - Groove Is In The Air
  • Jamez Presents Tatoine - Music (16B Remix)
  • Pete Lazonby - Wavespeech
  • Sinéad O'Connor - TROY (John Creamer & Stephane K Remix)
  • Dirty Harry - Musica
  • Moshic & Landa - Faza
  • Angel - Powerplant (Hamel & Medway Remix)
  • Filur - You And I (Trentemøller Free Dub)
  • Federico Franchi - Cream
  • Chris Lake - To The Point
  • Voodooamt - Nachtschicht
  • Pete heller & Smokin jo - Fishbone
Please note that should you be considering re-creating the article, I will be keeping an eye out for any such re-creation, and will delete/nominate for deletion any such article, unless there are reliable independent sources which verify the information given! This list is purely for your personal use! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Horasis deletion

As closing administrator you decided to delete the article evaluating the given comments as a consensus for deletion. The nominator for deletion questioned the notability of Horasis.

According to WP:ORG an organization is notable if it has attracted notice and if there are significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. This has to be subject of significant coverage in secondary sources, which have to be reliable and independent of the organization. And if the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Furthermore attention by international or international, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability.

And no organization is considered notable except to the extend that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization – so if people outside noticed an organization, notability has been demonstrated.

According to these criteria Horasis is notable because at the different meetings convened be this organization it has gathered high-profile people to discuss topics of international relevance. This is verified by international newspapers, governmental statements, etc. As the significance was doubted if Horasis was not the main topic there is to cite WP:N: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

And significance for a source is established if it verifies the facts which make an organization notable. With the sources given here no one can doubt that e.g. the Prime Ministers of Portugal or the Indian Minister Anand Sharma attended Horasis meeting. Additionally the alternate criterion has been met with the participants at the Horasis meeting. So if e.g. the Secretary General of UNCTAD visits meetings convened by Horasis, and this is verified by secondary sources, this organization has obviously been noticed from outside and therefore obtains notability.

According to these facts I disagree with your deletion and ask for reversion. Also the “depth” of consensus was very thin as all the valid arguments from the beginning of discussion obviously felt out of consideration, together with all approval. Dewritech (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dewritech, thanks for contacting me!
As you will appreciate, I took some time to consider the arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horasis (2nd nomination) (the "AfD") - and my job as the closing administrator is to consider the consensus from the arguments, not to have my own input!
I noted that all the "keep" arguments were at the start of the discussion, with later ones all being "delete". I also noted that almost all of the keep arguments were from accounts with little or no edits outside of the article and/or AfD itself. Here are the 'keep' arguers:
  1. You (not surprisingly!) - and I note that all of your article edits (whether in mainspace, uploaded files or your user space) are connected with the article;
  2. Candyisdandy: an account with 19 edits in total, of which 3 were to this AfD. I also noted that the account had not been used since January before suddenly appearing to comment at the AfD
  3. Mbolekia: an account with 12 edits in total: 10 to the article itself, 1 to the AfD and 1 to the AfD's talk page
  4. Johnbkidd: 3 edits in total, 2 to the article; 1 to the talk page of the article (which you copied to the AfD)
  5. Documentarybuff: 3 edits in total (1 to this AfD, 2 others to an article deleted in 2008) - another editor who appeared out of nowhere - this time from 2008 - to argue that this should be kept.
Here are the 'delete' arguers:
  1. Nancy: nominator - 20,000+ edits in a variety of articles and AfDs, etc
  2. Cunard: although starting sentence as 'comment', ends in 'therefore, delete' - 18000+ edits in a variety of articles and AfDs, etc
  3. Bearian: weak delete - 36,000+ edits in a variety of articles and AfDs, etc
  4. Robofish: delete - 35,000+ edits in a variety of articles and AfDs, etc
  5. Racepacket: delete - 7,000+ edits in a variety of articles and AfDs, etc
Here are the others:
  1. Marasmusine: leaning towards keep, but not totally convinced by the above 'keeps' from new users
Although numerically it appears that there are equal keeps as deletes, the fact that 2 of the 'keep's only made edits to either the article or the AfD, and that two of the others have very limited amounts of editing, and appear to have returned to comment at the AfD (what are the odds that they would just happen to decide to come back to Wikipedia to edit, and find that AfD?) - whereas all of the 'deletes' are established editors, who have been regularly editing, and hence have a good working knowledge of policy.
If you feel that I have misunderstood the consensus at the AfD, you are able to take it to Deletion review ("DRV") - but bear in mind that the purpose of DRV is not to re-argue the case - it is purely to see if my closure was incorrect when the arguments are considered - i.e. that I misjudged consensus. Should you want to take the AfD to DRV, I will copy the above evaluation which I made of the arguments there - other editors have a chance to say whether they think that my decision was correct in light of the arguments (they endorse my decision) or if it was wrong (in which case they will suggest it be overturned).
I understand that you are not happy with the deletion - you put in a lot of work on the article, obviously - but I hope that the above explanation will show why I felt that the consensus was to delete. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Phantomsteve, thanks for your fast answer. The arguments for your evaluation of the consensus are stringent according to the numbers of contribs. But as mentioned bevore, I'm new here and what really astonished me was the fact that arguments often remained without any reply. So I'm really interested, what in your eyes is actually wrong with my argumentation according the notability of Horasis. Thanks in advance! Dewritech (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding! With regard to arguments remaining without a reply - that's due to the nature of Wikipedia: everyone is a volunteer, and so either may not log in more than once a week, or have a lot of other Wikipedia-stuff to deal with, and so may not always notice what appears at an AfD (for example, on my watchlist, I have over 6000 articles/pages which I keep an eye on, so things slip through the net sometimes!)
As for the notability of Horasis - the main problem that I can see is that the coverage isn't significant enough - here are some examples from the references in the final version before it was deleted:
  1. (All the Horasis's own website references): not independent
  2. "Interview with Frank Jurgen Richter and Pamela C. M. Mar" Business-in-Asia.com
    Confirms position - no mention of Horasis
  3. a b "Enthusiasm, Tempered With Concern, About Business in India" The New York Times, July 8, 2009
    At the opening reception last week of the Global India Business Meeting, a two-day conference sponsored by Horasis, a kind of junior league World Economic Forum for the emerging market set - not significant coverage of the organisation
  4. "Horasis Annual Meeting" AseanAffairs
    Basically a list of who is attending - not significant coverage of the organisation
  5. "Meeting aims to boost EU-China business" USA Today, November 5, 2007
    That's one part of what the conference is hoping for, said Frank-Juergen Richter, president of Horasis, a Geneva, Switzerland-based group that is organizing the gathering. - not significant coverage of the company
  6. "Germans fear backlash as China ties cool Financial Times, November 21, 2007
    (Only available to subscribers)
  7. "Global Bailout" Newsweek, November 9, 2007
    On Thursday he spoke with NEWSWEEK's George Wehrfritz at the Horasis China Europe Business Meeting in Frankfurt - not about the organisation (or even about the meeting itself)
  8. "Emerging Powers Seen Taking Lead in Recovery" The New York Times, November 20, 2008
    The Global China Business Meeting here, sponsored by Horasis, a consulting organization based in Geneva - not significant coverage
... and I could go on! All of the references provided confirm specific meetings, but do not go into detail about either Horasis themselves, or the actual conferences. That is why people said that the article should be deleted, and if I was to be commenting myself, I would agree with them.
Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed explanation. So it's up to me looking for further sources with more significance. My attempt "start at Wiki with a very good article" wasn't as successful as intended. But o.k., I've learned a lot and so it's good. Thanks again for all your efforts. Dewritech (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for taking it in the way in which it was meant! I did do a search myself for significant coverage (if I can find a way to include an article, I'd rather do so than delete it!). If you have any questions, or need any help in the future, please feel free to contact me! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what to do

I just moved a page into article space. (Now at Stephen Rice (journalist) ). Normally, if it came from a user subpage, I add a {{db-r3}} to the subpage, so it can be deleted.

However, User:Artemis39 created the page in a user page, not a user subpage. I don't think I want the page deleted, just blanked. Is that the right thing to do? --SPhilbrickT 18:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, blanking is the best solution! A redirect from user space to article space isn't needed, so I'll leave it to you - if you haven't by the time I next log, I'll do it myself! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternate account of Phantomsteve] 20:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, done. --SPhilbrickT 16:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Abdulfez

There is something more to be said.....you conveniently seem to want to leave it out.

Your job when you sign on here is to be an editor. What else is there for you to do then to check sources? I have never ever in my life seen so many useless people scurrying around wasting time on some much BS, politics and just general fantasy empire building.

DO YOUR JOB !

If you say an article is a HOAX then the burden of proof is on YOUR END to prove that. Simple right? Not for you.

Did you even read the abdulfez article? I doubt it. IF you did it states information that is in the public domain and easily verifiable -- but of course that is too much work for hard working editors to think about. That means actually getting off your backsides to check or verify something. What a radical idea for an encylcopedia. Name change to "Wiki" and, "poof" create your own upside down world Alice. It makes sense to me.

btw/ imdb is a reliable sourse and is good enough for most of the industry. Who do think you are to pass judgement on them?

Again I will make a claim that the editors that deleted my article probable have NOT ONE industry qualification towards what you would need to be a researcher or editor at a big encyclopedia company or major mainstream newsource. IF you did, you would not be wasting your time here. Go on prove ME wrong here. List those editors and show ME their qualifications.abdulfez 01:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulfez (talk • contribs)

Did I read the article? Yes I did - and found no reliable sources which showed that Cliff Taylor/Adbulfez was host at MTV Europe; that mentioned The Fez Brothers; no evidence that he did any shows on Radio 4, was a guest on Funky Bunker, or that he had any involvement with Spitting Image. All of this should show that I have read the article - but none of it was reliably sourced, and despite a search for reliable sources (which, yes, I did do) nothing was found. The AfD showed a clear consensus to delete the article (with the nominator and 4 other editors saying that it should be deleted - and no one dissenting).
The reason why IMDB is not generally reckoned as being a reliable source is twofold: firstly, in theory anyone can upload information - and the staff at IMDB only do minimal checks, as they are pretty overworked! Secondly, most of the information given to IMDB comes from production companies and artists' agents: these are not independent (and if they were to publish the information on their own website, these would not be counted as independent reliable sources).
To be honest, with so many claims to notability in the article, I would expect to be able to find several reliable sources to verify these claims. As myself (and others) searched, and failed to find any, then I would say that the burden of finding them is yours - we looked, and couldn't find anything to back up the claims: it's not because we are lazy, and can't be bothered: if Cliff Taylor/Adbulfez is not notable, let me know some reliable independent sources which verify the information that was provided, and I will gladly help you with the article. However, if they don't meet the criteria for independent, reliable sources (and as I have said, IMDB does not meet them for the reasons above), then I can't see any way in which an article could be created.
As for your claim that the editors here do not have industrial qualifications: some do, some do not: but I don't need a qualification in the movie or TV industry to be able to find some references to a notable entertainer. If they are out there, my experience as a researcher will normally locate something. So, it is up to YOU to prove that you (I presume you are trying to create an article about yourself?) are notable: there is no mention of you at MTV; no mention of you in various documentaries, articles and books about Spitting Image, etc. If you find reliable sources, I will help you with the article - if you don't, then I can't. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.merinews.com/article/carrie-underwood-tour-second-leg-schedule-tickets/15804566.shtml
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2010/May&oldid=1131848966"