User talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2011/January

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

Luminous-Lint

You deleted Luminous-Lint as CSD A7, but I disagree. Inspired by the talk immediately above, I went ahead and undeleted it (and renamed it hyphenlessly). You may wish to take Luminous Lint to AfD, of course. -- Hoary (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I disagree, I've no objection to you undeleting it. I fail to see the claim of significance, unless it is the numbers of photographs, etc, that the article mentions is in the database - to be honest, if it had claimed to be the most comprehensive collection of photographer biographies, or any claim of significance or importance, I would have declined the nom! I'm going to consider taking this to AfD, even though it has been PRODed, as I do not feel that it meets the criteria for inclusion, but I want to look again for reliable independent references -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 04:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The article said, and says, that the site has 375 online exhibitions. To me, that smells like a claim of significance. Now, this number is minuscule in comparison with the number of what might be grandly called "online exhibitions" that are hosted by, say, Flickr; and this wouldn't be a claim of significance if the photographers were just nobodies who photographed their babies, poodles, family weddings, or postcardy views of sunsets and festivals. I'll look at these photographers later, but in the meantime can assure you that they aren't of this kind. Meanwhile, a glance at this page ought to assure you that the featured photographers are not just nobodies. Griffiths is fairly clear about his criteria for inclusion, and these look good to me. (Plenty of photographers whose work is of no interest to me are included, and plenty of people whose work I believe is first rate are not, but this is to be expected and anyway my own preferences are of course of no consequence.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That information certainly seems to give a reasonable claim to significance, sufficient to prevent a CSD deletion - whether it's enough to prevent a future AfD is another matter, but I'm not going to go that route! Thanks for contacting me PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've never been all that enthusiastic about an article on LL, but think it's a worthwhile and noteworthy website and that an article on it (unless plagiarized or similar) shouldn't qualify for speedy deletion. If it did appear in an AfD I don't suppose I'd rush to vote there; I'd first wait to see what others wrote. -- Hoary (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Weird

The slash in your sig was keeping the subsequent support from showing on the page ... it didn't show up until I removed the slash ... ???? Maybe it's something unique to my browser? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That is weird - as far as I know, that's not happened before, or at least I've never been told anything. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 12:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Musta been something on my end! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Exscientologykids.com

Not true at all. An article must make claims of notability, that's what speedy deletion is for. Corvus cornixtalk 02:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If you read the criteria for speedy deletion you will see that it refers to claims of significance or importance, not notability. Coverage in several reliable sources is enough to be an implied claim of significance. For what it's worth, I'm not sure whether the site is notable or not - I'll be looking into that and leaving a keep/delete recommendation at the AfD in a couple of days - but it certainly fails the criteria for speedy deletion. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 02:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
In fact WP:CSD#A7 specifically says that it is a "lower standard than notability" -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 02:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Accidental removal of content

I've reverted your accidental removal of content from this page. Nakon 05:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

[replied on talk page] A bit of an understatement... "removal of content" is not a usual synonym of "removal of all content"! Once again, thanks - this mobile phone needs replacing, I think! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 05:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Mis-understanding about Clayfield railway station, Bowen Hills railway station and Beenleigh railway station

Hi, I want the redirect pages deleted so I can move Clayfield railway station, Brisbane to Clayfield railway station, Bowen Hills railway station, Brisbane to Bowen Hills railway station and Beenleigh railway station, Brisbane to Beenleigh railway station. I am looking to do this to drop the dab ("Brisbane") as it is not required and does confuse readers. These are uncontroversial technical deletions and falls under CSD G6, a RfD is overboard for this type of request. -- d'oh! [talk] 06:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I have now performed the moves, so that xx railway station is the main page, and xx railway station, Brisbane is a redirect to it - as the ", Brisbane" pages have incoming links. Thanks for explaining it, and I trust that the result is what you were looking for! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Notable article

Hi! The article adicom gave a brief history (background & awards) & understanding of adicom. Links had been added for further research. The format was in line with other Wikipedia articles on products. If there is concern on lack of in-depth data (or some other point); kindly state the same so that the same can be adressed. Please revert your deletion so that the article can be improved. For your reference I have left a similar message to User: Zachlipton who orinally had nominated this article for speedy deletion & had simlarily updated the talk page of adicom. Thanks. (Shonkho (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC))

I noted that none of the awards mentioned were ones which would be internationally recognised (although German Industry Award in 2010 might be, I'm not sure, but it only mentioned that it was "among the 5 best entries" - was it first, second, ..., fifth? I also noticed that there were no references to any independent sources (all three references were either at adicome's website, or Freudenberg's website, and they acquired adicom).
For me to consider restoring the article, I would need you to provide some references (on this page), as follows:
  1. some significant coverage of the company at reliable sources which are independent of the company (i.e. not on their own website(s) or pages, or press releases);
  2. some evidence of the awards at an independent source (for example, the official "German Industry Award" website if there is one, or coverage of that award in a major newspaper; similar for the "Industry prize 2008 by Initiative Mittelstand" and for "HR award 2007 by Saint-Gobain ISOVER G+H AG") - along with some evidence that these awards are actually counted as significant/important
If you can provide those, we can discuss where to go with the article from there. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hello. According to the admin coaching page, you said you have a slot open on the "current tutors" page. I'm interested in becoming a student. I don't think our editing paths have directly crossed before, but I've seen your name around and I figured I'd rather have a coach who I somewhat recognized rather than a complete stranger. I currently have an open editor review here which is probably a good start in terms of what I do as a Wikipedian and what other people think of me—currently only OlEnglish, but it's got time to stew. Er, not sure what else to say. Please let me know. Thanks! elektrikSHOOS 06:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have recently - this week in fact! - started mentoring Reaper Eternal but have not updated the ADCO page to reflect that - I will do that later. Because of work and family commitments, I can only work with one person! Sorry, I hope you find someone else who will help - let me know if you do - otherwise perhaps I can help in the future. Regards, -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 06:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, I had a very quick look at your contributions, and I would agree with what OlEnglish said! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 06:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks anyway! elektrikSHOOS 21:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

UBC Debate Society

Our wiki entry was deleted in late October. I understand that we may not be a 'notable' enough organization to have our own full page. Clubs like Hart House and Oxford don't either, that's fine. However we are now one of the only major debate clubs in the world that don't at least have an entry as part of our University's student union page: "Alma Mater Society of the University of British Columbia." Our club has existed for a century. We have over 100 active members, a budget in the tens of thousands and we hosted the Worlds debating championship less than four years ago. It would be very nice to see some of the content that was on our original page added as a sub-section to the Alma Mater page above at the very least. On the deletion page you said you could do so. I would be extremely grateful if you could do this.

Thanks PhantomSteve!

DannyJU (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into that next week - work and holidays prevent me doing so before - and will see what I can do, and then I'll get back to you -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 09:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I have userfied it to User:DannyJU/UBC Debating Society. Please work on adding some of the content to the Alma Mater Society of the University of British Columbia article - if you do not do so in the next couple of weeks or so, I will delete the userfied article, as User space is not a place to keep deleted articles PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to keep this from being archived for another week (two weeks is enough time, I think, to allow DannyJU to work on merging), I'll reply here! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Added relevant info to above mentioned article. I hope it is up to muster. Thanks again. DannyJU (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have deleted the userfied page, as it is no longer required! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete

Hello! Earlier this morning you speedy deleted Brijot. Would you consider undeleting it, because I was in process of improving the article to an acceptable state adding notable content? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undejj (talk • contribs) 14:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the Brijot article as it did not indicate the significance or importance of the company. Before deleting it, I had a quick look at the references provided, however although one of them did mention the company's technology, there was not much about the company itself - and the article is about the company, not the specific product. I did not find significant coverage of the company at reliable sources which were independent of the subject. Has the company received significant coverage (not press releases!) in the mainstream news media? If you could provide some examples of that, we could see where we can go from there! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Media coverage examples below - let me know. Also in keeping wth the idea that the article is about the company, I was in process of writing more about the company. The article was short and only a starting point. I had just begun writing less than one full day before the article was removed.Brijot selected to deliver LORPI prototype One Hundred Naked Citizens: One Hundred Leaked Body Scans Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images Undejj (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for those, and sorry for the delay in responding - I've been working, so I am limited in what I can do! Anyway, looking at those sources: the UPI one appears to be basically a press-release issued by the company, and so not independent of the company. The GizModo one is about the controversy, but the only mention of the company is that the images are from their machines - not the "significant coverage" which is required (although it could probably be used to cite a single-sentence reference in the relevant section of the Full body scanner article). The same goes for the CNET News article, which again is not signifant coverage of the company itself - or even the machines in any detail - but of the controversy. Without significant coverage of the company itself, I do not see evidence that the company meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that any company merits widespead mainstream news coverage if not for its products or technology. You would be hard pressed to find articles that significantly describe any company by itself, apart from its product or service. The coverage of leaked body scans was significantly covered by the national media during August of last year. It is impossible to distinquish between coverage of the body scans and coverage of this company because without the latter, the former would not exist. I also note that the significant coverage rule is not applied equally to company articles on Wikipedia.Undejj (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I would have to disagree on that! If you look up Microsoft or Harrods or AXA, then you would be able to find information about their founding, their history, etc as well as the products and services which they provide. My opinion (and this is *my* opinion) is that Brijot are not notable in and of themselves, but that their body scanner is notable enough because of the controversy to warrant a referenced mention in the body scanner article. You are right that not all articles necessarily have the significant coverage which the notability guidelines says is required. However, just because other articles are inadequate does not mean that new non-notable (as the guidelines define notability) companies should be kept. It might mean that some of those other articles should be deleted, but we are not talking here about other articles but about the article which you created.
If you feel that I am wrong in this (and if I was, it wouldn't be the first time, and I'm sure that it wouldn't be the last!) then create it as a sub-page in your userspace (for example, User:Undejj/Brijot) along with the references from the mainstream media which you mentioned above - and then go to Requests for feedback, where other editors can comment. Please note that the aim should be to work on it and then move it to article space when it meets the criteria for inclusion - if it cannot be brought up to the criteria for inclusion, it would be eligible for deletion. Incidentally, do you have a connection with the company? If so, it is wise to disclose this on the talk page of the draft article. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your help and suggestions. I will spend some time considering the options. Yes, I am connected with the company - maybe the only one who can adequately describe its history and pull references but I was looking forward to contributions from the larger community. Thanks for the advice. Undejj (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

need help uploading a photograph to Wikimedia

Hello Phantomsteve. You recently gave me advice on uploading a poster image and it looks like I will actually be successful in using it in Wikipedia. I have made a lot of progress in understanding this arcane subject.

I have another such problem. I am trying to include a photograph of a living person in a biographical article. The photographer who is the sole owner of the photo seems willing to give up all rights except (possibly) attribution. I have sent him the Declaration of consent form found at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. He now wants to know which of the Common free licenses at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Choosing_a_license#Common_free_licenses he should fill in. In fact, he said for me to fill in the appropriate license acronym myself and resend the form to him. Which acronym should I use? Do I also delete all the text beginning with "[choose at least one from this page", and ending with "UNLESS YOU FILL SOMETHING IN HERE ].", and just replace it all with the acronym. (And should the acronym be a link to a template like it is at Common free licenses.) Damn this stuff is complicated!

By the way, am I on the right track, or am I still wandering around in the land of the clueless?

You may answer here—I will watchlist. Thank you for your previous help and thank you now for your valuable time. No rush.--Foobarnix (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good query, and to be honest, I'm not 100% sure. My advice would be to ask this question at Media copyright questions, where people a lot more knowledgable in copyright would hang out - I've tried finding an equivalent at Commons, but the nearest I could find quickly was Commons talk:Licensing. Hopefully you'll get the advice you are looking for there! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Phantomsteve. I am following your suggestion above. If I learn anything especially interesting about all this stuff, I will let you know--Foobarnix (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of talk page access

Hello again! I think that if you remove an indefinitely blocked user's talk page access, then per the Wikipedia:Appealing blocks guideline you should point them to ArbCom. HeyMid (contribs) 14:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you are asking in general, rather than a specific case - as the last time I removed talk page access was back in September! As a rule, I would refer them to the unblock mailing list first - ArbCom is the final appeal, so if the unblock request to the mailing list is declined, then they can be referred to ArbCom from there.
If there is a specific instance you are referring to where I neglected to mention appealing to the mailing list/ArbCom, let me know! It's not something that I've done very often - 12 times in the last 11 months out of 187 block actions - and I think on 3 or 4 of them I later returned the talk page access. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you're right! I remember when you removed talk page access of a user in September 2010. As far as I know, users should be directed to ArbCom if no single admin is willing to unblock the user. HeyMid (contribs) 17:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I felt myself so stupid when I pointed the user to emailing the admins, especially given that you had already pointed him to the unblock mailing list. Then, a few weeks later, I did another stupid thing (started the WP:AN discussion), which in the end resulted in a block I deserved. HeyMid (contribs) 11:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Need help

Hi, an edit dispute has got out of control.

http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=100548446684782&id=107167299306795

I probably should have reported him when he started name calling while back. But instead I simply left editing the page in September last year. Today, out of nowhere I got an email from someone calling me "Jackass" and it was clear from the content of the email that it was something to do with the above wikipedia article. By googling my email address, I found the above facebook page. The identity of the person doing this pretty obvious from the edit history. Ideally, it is better if that person understand wikipedia policy in regard to editing and civility. even if he get banned, he can keep harassing me from facebook. oh, and please delete my old real id username and any record of it from wikipedia if you can. This is the second time something like this happened. Vapour (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, it is not policy on Wikipedia to block someone from editing because of off-wiki behaviour on its own, although in extreme circumstances this can be done. However, before I can go further with helping you, I have some questions:
  1. Was the email sent from within the Wikipedia email system (it would have said at the bottom something along the lines of "This was sent from user xyz...") - if not, on its own it is not really actionable.
  2. I presume the editor you are referring to is Halakahful or Cybermud? Which one do you believe to be harassing you? I can't see any on-wiki harassment by either (only discussing on the article's talk page) - did I miss something? If so, please provide diffs
  3. Regarding you old real id username - if you email me the user name, then I can see what I can do.
Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Nope. The email was not sent through wikipedia email system. I doubt that person who sent the email is even active in that article, though he and many other may join in soon. Also, as of who is doing harassment, I have no way to know. My old useraccount is obscure so, if the access record of the page can be matched with the I.P. address of either one of these user, then identification may be possible but that may not be technologically feasible. On the other hand, I think it is possible to take some corrective action in term of their behaviour in that article.
Firstly, I would like accusation of bias, especially based on my Japanese nationality/ethnicity to stop. Calling someone being biased is against wikipedia civility already. Any accusation based on nationality/ethnicity is just not nice thing to do. I requested them to stop few times but they ignored it so I left the article in Sep.
Secondly, I would like an Admin to preside over edit disputes, especially in regard to the section dealing with Domestic Abuse. Currently, any content which is not really favourable to Left Behind Parents' perspective is accused of being biased irrespective of verifiability and are being eliminated. I'm a bit tired of telling them that, if an American news media says that Japan object to signing treaty due to insufficient protection given to domestic abuse victim and a published academic paper written by an American law professor says that domestic abuse protection is an area which is seriously defective in the Hague Convention, then such content should stay.
It is more important that they understand that my edits and contribution are legitimate and that their conduct in and outside of wikipedia is serious breach of wikipedia civility. After all, even if they get banned, they can keep harassing me in facebook if they believe that they were unjustly treated. I would like to engage in civil and productive editing. Then I don't have to be afraid of harassment.
I understand you are busy right now. Could you refer this to another admin. But please pick an admin which would be seen as neutral.
If you could give me a couple of days to look into this (I should get some time to do so in that time), and I'll get back to you - or will refer this to another admin to deal with. Either way, I will do it within a couple of days PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. :)
As you may gather from my slow response, life has been hectic for me this week! You might want to take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and ask a neutral admin to look into it - or perhaps Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if you need help with problems between you and a specific user. Another option would be to go to Wikipedia:Third opinion and ask for a neutral 3rd party to look at both sides of the argument and to help you both to come to a compromise. I'm sorry that I can't do more - it really has been one of those weeks! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Toby Proctor. listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Toby Proctor.. Since you had some involvement with the Toby Proctor. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Kinu t/c 03:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have commented at the discussion PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

New email and thanks for the help

Hello, Phantomsteve/Archives/2011. 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.

Thanks. - Hydroxonium (H3O+) 01:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Cookies!
Thank you so much for all the help. Please have some cookies with me. I appreciate all your efforts and figured you needed a snack. Thanks again. - Hydroxonium (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. - Hydroxonium (H3O+) 04:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"Singapore International Energy Week" 2011

Hi Steve, I'm Su Min and am currently working on the Singapore International Energy Week 2011 event. I'm still a n00b in terms of editing Wikipedia pages, so while I see I am able to make edits on the page, wanted to check what I needed to run by the page editor first and what edits I may be able to make on my own.

As we start working on SIEW 2011, wanted to check on the below edits:

1. Create a new section on SIEW 2011 - to include facts such as the dates of the event and the events held during the week.

2. Under the 2010 section, the description starts with Panasonic being listed in the first line as a sponsor - being cognizant that it does seem rather promotional, does it make sense to move that line to the end of the section?

3. In the box on the right side, are we able to include an external link (saw this in other Wiki pages) that points to the SIEW official website? http://singapore.iew.com.sg/

4. Intro paragraph refers to SIEW as "an energy conference for interested parties". Would it be possible to make this more specific and describe SIEW as a conference for "policymakers, thought leaders, academics and industry professionals on issues centred around the smart energy economy and corresponding actions needed to build a sustainable future in Asia and the rest of the world"?

5. We have photos from the SIEW 2010 event (copyright belongs to us) - are we able to put these up? Won't be promotional in nature - more general event shots.

Greatly appreciate your help while I learn more about being part of the Wikipedia community. Hope to hear from you soon, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssumin (talk • contribs) 13:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Su Min, and thanks for contacting me. Firstly, anyone can add anything to an article (it's not my article! In response to your specific queries above:
  1. Yes, this would be OK - but it will need references. This should be ideally at a reliable independent source (such as a newspaper), but initially your own website could be OK. However, an independent source (which is reliable) would be preferred.
  2. I have re-jiggled it slightly. I do not believe that this information is overtly promotional - and I have no connection with either SIEW or Panasonic!
  3. I have added the official website to the infobox
  4. To be honest, I feel that the current text explains that there are political, commercial and academic involvement, and that it's about key issues within the energy industry. Your suggested wording looks (to me) like "ad-speak". However, we can discuss a compromise, perhaps?
  5. To add photographs would be possible, but you need to read "Donating copyrighted materials", which explains the conditions under which materials are donated, and how to give permission. It is important to realise that any images which are donated can be re-used by anyone for any purpose whatsoever (including commercial) - you can request that they are attributed to you, but you cannot stop them being used.
A couple of other points: firstly, I must plead ignorance, and ask whether "Su" is your given name or your family name? In future, I'd like to use your first name, but I wouldn't want to use the wrong one! Secondly, you might want to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines - you shouldn't have any problems, as it is obvious from what you have said that you want to be neutral and non-promotional!
If you have any other queries, please feel free to contact me - I have been helping Matthew Lim with the previous events being added to the article, so you might want to also liase with him! Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steve - many thanks for your feedback and the edits made! Let us work on a draft of the other edits we're thinking of - will share it with you for review first before making any changes.

Anyway, my given name is Su Min and family name is Sng, so just call me Su Min. :) We did get some advice from Matthew on working on this article as well as looked at the past correspondence wrt this article. Will read up on the Wikipedia guidelines too - in the meantime, greatly appreciate your help and advice! 202.90.250.22 (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steve,
  1. Noted on your comments about need for references before creating a SIEW 2011 section. Hence we will not do this at least until the official website itself is refreshed with more complete information.
  2. If there are no issues with you, may I go ahead and delete the line on Panasonic being a sponsor in the 2010 section? Reason we'd like to delete it - sponsors not mentioned in the previous years, so we'd like to be consistent and as neutral as possible. (Aside: is this considered a minor edit that I can go ahead and make without bothering you?)
  3. Thanks for being open to a compromise on the intro line. To make it a little more specific on the issues discussed at the conference (while trying to avoid ad speak), how about this: "SIEW is an annual week-long energy conference for businesses, industry experts, policy makers and academia to come together and discuss sustainable solutions for the global energy crisis."
  4. Regarding photos, does it work to link to the official SIEW Flickr account, so that Wikipedia readers know where to go to view event photos? Or is the only way of putting photos on the Wiki page via uploading the photos on Wikimedia Commons?
Once again, many thanks for your help and advice on this. :) Ssumin (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Su Min, I will look at your points above in the next couple of days, and get back to you! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Steve, just wondering if you've had a chance to review the above yet? Many thanks! Ssumin (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, sorry, life has been busy....
OK, here are my thoughts:
  1. That sounds perfect!
  2. I'd keep the reference to Panasonic - there is a reference. If you want to add the previous sponsors (I never found mention of any, that's why I didn't add them to the article), then they can be added, but will need references
  3. That sounds like a perfect compromise - you can change that, or I will when I get a chance to in a few days!
  4. You could certainly add an external link to the Flickr page - although others might argue that it is promotional, I'd certainly not think so. If anyone objects, let me know and I'll discuss it with them! You would not be able to upload them, as they are all clearly labelled on the Flickr account as "© All rights reserved" - and there are also too many to upload to put in the article!
I hope that answers your queries, but feel free to come back and pester ask me more! I am always happy to help, it's part of my job as an admin and fellow editor PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Steve. I've edited the intro line as agreed - my first wiki edit ever made. :) Some other points:
  1. Tried to include the SIEW official Flickr account to the 'external links' section, however this was "reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia". Any workarounds? Know I can undo this edit, but don't want to do anything 'illegal'.
  2. Number of participants stated in the infobox is 5,000. Can I update this to the latest figure of 14,000, as stated in the 2010 section?
  3. Know you have no issues with sponsor mentions. But ok if I removed the Panasonic reference? We hadn't included sponsor mentions in previous years and it does seem biased to have only one sponsor mentioned.
Thanks for being open to me pestering checking in with you on edits and feedback! Have a great weekend. Ssumin (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
A quick reply before I get ready for work...
  1. If you try again, it should work - the 'bot only removes it once. If it doesn't let you, let me know.
  2. Definitely you can change that, as the information is in the sources I used in the 2010 section!
  3. I do not think you should remove the reference. I'd prefer you to find a reference to the previous sponsors - who were the sponsors for the first 2 by the way?
Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Steve. I've edited the number of participants in the infobox and added the Flickr URL to the external links section.
I think the issue with the sponsor mention is that it isn't full representative. For example, besides Panasonic, Accenture was also a platinum sponsor for SIEW 2010. And there was a whole list of other sponsors and partners too. So to keep it neutral, thought it would make sense to remove the sponsor mention, rather than add a whole paragraph on sponsors and partners. Is there any particular issue with removing the sponsor reference? Just wanted to understand this better, as I really did think that removing it made the article more neutral.
As always, many thanks for your help! Ssumin (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
(Update to above message) Hi Steve, all the edits I've previously made have been reverted by Orangemike, citing "reverting series of seriously COI entries by SIEW employee". Know Wikipedia entries are meant to be neutral/ non-promotional - in line with that, I've been transparent that I'm working on SIEW 2011 and also making sure to check back with you on any edits made. Hence may I trouble you to discuss this issue with Orangemike and see if the factual edits we've made so far can be restored?
Really appreciate if you could advise on how to move forward from here. Many thanks, Steve - grateful for all your help and guidance. Ssumin (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I've been a bit busy lately, but I will look into this next week - I'm working all weekend - and will get back to you PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Tease!

I need to know the answer to this! GedUK  16:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I confused the dates! In my head, I was thinking about February and thinking "ah, it's the 28th so tomorrow is the first … of course it's not, so there are a few more days until the end of the RfA! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 15:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Acdixon

Hi. You appear to have !voted twice in this RfA, so I have taken the liberty of indenting the second !vote - hope you don't mind. (Obviously, please do switch if I've un!voted the wrong one.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

So I did! Thanks for that - but could you indent the other one instead and keep the 'weak' one as my !vote. The section is too large to be able to edit it properly on my mobile phone otherwise I would do it myself. Well caught by the way! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 21:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Done. I only spotted it because I wondered what the "Dups?" column in Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report meant. Regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2011/January&oldid=1143533361"