User talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2011/May

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

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

interview request

Hello, My name is Natalia Olaru and I am a final year master student in the Corporate Communication programme at the Aarhus School of Business in Denmark. I am currently working on my final paper on the topic of the motivation of users to create content on collaborative media websites, the focus being Wikipedia. As a sample I chose the English and Danish portals. I would like to invite you for an online interview on the topic of what motivates you, as a user, to participate in editing and creating articles for this platform. Your real identity, and wikipedia account will be kept confidential through the paper. I plan on doing the actual interviews in the period between 6st and the 15th of May via Skype, MSN, Google Talk or Yahoo Messenger. I am, however, open to other channels of communication too. Please let me know if you would like to participate in this interview and the preferred channel. Thank you, Natalia Olaru Email: <redacted> --MulgaEscu (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I will contact you on your talk page PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

Erie Anime Experience

I want to know why you deleted erie anime experience page, if you don't allow anime convention pages then delete them all not just the ones you dislike. Now I know why the trade school I went to said not to trust anything on this site. You say to keep it neutral, the page was wrote with facts, that can be found on the EAE site as well as animecons.com and many more. I should tell everyone that Wiki is to bias and only allows content that the Admins want/like and heck with everyone else. (Kenshinkyo (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)).

To be accurate, I didn't delete the page - I proposed it for deletion as I did not see the notability of this convention, or the coverage at independent sources which meet Wikipedia's reliability criteria.
After I proposed its deletion, there were 7 days for discussion. During that discussion, the consensus was that this particular convention does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria and so should be deleted. This was not a discussion amongst admins - I'd have to check, but I don't think any admins took part in the discussion, and my nomination of the article was not as an admin but as an editor.
Of course, it is possible that myself and the others who thought the article should be deleted made s mistake - could you please explain under which criteria of our notability criteria the convention falls, and some significant coverage at reliable sources which are independent of the subject? Once you have shown that this convention meets the criteria for inclusion (whether others should have articles or not has no influence on whether this one does) then we can look into this further, perhaps even recreating the article with suitable references. I look forward to hearing from you. Regards, -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 23:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I did make a section that included news reports from out side sources And Erie Times that someone mention IS NOT part of our convention is the local news paper for the area. But all was deleted. could be I am just mad at the fact I have fought for a long time to make the convention happen we are now in the 4th event for it, and some still think it is a joke and most haven't even given it a chance.(Kenshinkyo (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)).

You make it sound as if you wanted the article to either publicise the convention or to 'legitimise' it - neither of which are the purpose of Wikipedia! Again, if you could detail which of the notability criteria the convention meets, we can move on from there. Regards, -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 02:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll give you a much of links tomorrow, to see if you can help. But we at EAE try to run a truly family event with something for all ages and we focus a lot on History and how it links cultures together. (Kenshinkyo (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)).

All of that is fine and well, but it still does not establish notability. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 03:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't get what you mean I guess. It was wrote as a Bio of sorts listing what takes place at it, And not that much different then Tekkoshocon's page on here, yet theirs is allowed and EAE's gets removed. I have read the "guidlines" and now more lost then before. Should I have said EAE is ran by 30 volunteers who 1.3 to 1.5 are farmers and the rest are from ether the low or mid. working class and that they work their butts off to run a convention on a low almost non-exciting budget; due to the avg. income of the staff is $24,000 a year, and yet the work EAE for no pay just because they love the fandom and their community and want to see something grow there. (Kenshinkyo (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)). Here are the other web sites besides EAE's

  1. http://www.animecons.com/events/info.shtml/2556/Erie_Anime_Experience_2011
  2. http://www.kylehebert.com/?p=50
  3. http://www.singedcatstudios.com/2010/09/erie-anime-experience-wrap-up/
  4. http://www.fantopro.com/blog/2009/08/convention-focus-erieanimeexperience.html
  5. http://www.tomcroom.com/?p=6933
  6. http://www.forumwar.net/shop/index.php ;part way down the page is a review
  7. http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090925/LIFESTYLES09/309259992/-1/RSS05
  8. http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100910/NEWS02/309109906
  9. http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100910/NEWS02/309109906

(Kenshinkyo (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)).

OK, looking at those sources:
  1. appear to be a press release, so not independent of the subject
  2. the only guest at the con mentions that fact on their own website - not independent of the subject, as they are effectively promoting their own appearance
  3. I'm not sure that this meets Wikipedia's reliable source criteria - and although they were impressed, it seems to show that the convention is a small-scale thing (i.e. not meeting the 'significance' criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia)
  4. Again, I'm not sure that this meets Wikipedia's reliable source criteria - and it again seems to show that the convention is a small-scale thing
  5. Actually about another Anime con (in Florida), with minor (from Wikipedia's point of view) mentions of Erie's one
  6. Not significant coverage - a short paragraph saying how well the first one went
  7. Probably one of the best of the sources, but still not enough (as far as I can see) to show that the event is Wikipedia-entry-significant. They speak to some of the people who will be attending, and mention a bit about how much it costs, etc - but not the kind of coverage which Wikipedia would expect a notable event to have
  8. This is basically just a press release
  9. Another press release.
Overall, the coverage does not show that the event meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. As I said before, whether other cons have articles or not is irrelevant, although the Tekkoshocon does not seem to indicate that the event is significant enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, so I am probably going to list that at Articles for deletion.
You might be better off creating an article about the event at an Anime-focussed wiki site (such as Anime-Wiki or Animepedia. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

there is also this: http://yourerie.com/search-fulltext?nxd_id=4721, I didn't want Tekkoshocon's deleted too, I was just trying to figure out what is a notable/reliable source and what makes an event good enough to be on here. Because the guideline pages to be aren't much help and just talk around in circles, to me. (Kenshinkyo (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)).

User:Sarahmstrs/Hartley Film Foundation

Hello. I have created a draft page re. Hartley Film Foundation but do not understand how to post it or how to get it to editors to be reviewed and posted. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sarah Masters <redacted email addresses> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahmstrs (talk • contribs) 16:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, that article is not ready to be moved to the encyclopedia. It does not show that the Foundation meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion here or here. Looking at Google News/Google News Archive/Google Scholar/Google Books, I can only find minor mentions of the foundation - I can't find the significant coverage at reliable sources which are independent of the subject, as required by the notability criteria.
Reading your draft (User:Sarahmstrs/Hartley_Film_Foundation), I get the impression that the main purpose is to promote the Foundation - an encyclopedia is not a promotional tool, but a resource of knowledge.
As I can't find significant coverage, I personally wouldn't be able to see a way in which it could be included in Wikipedia. However, the film field is not my area of expertise - you might want to ask at Wikiproject Film, where others who do know the field may be able to help.
Incidentally, when you have made 10 or more edits in total, your account will be auto-confirmed, which would enable you to see a tab titled 'move', to move draft articles to main space - but if you were to do that with the article about the Foundation, I feel that it would be deleted within a week.
Oh, and I have removed your email addresses - I (like most editors) tend to communicate via talk pages rather than email, and pages on Wikipedia are very visible across the world - not a place to leave your email address! Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Socrates FeBland (Composer)

PhantomSteve you gave me a dead link. You are winning precisely no friends whatsoever on this website. I am published by UNIVERSAL EDITION (and Bardic Edition and Samuel King, Music Publisher). I am on CD with Meridian & Warner Bros & Walsingham. I have a huge web presence - 52,300 Google hits this morning. I am enormous on YouTube ditto SibeliusMusic where I self-publish 300+ works. I have been on 50 International Radio Stations in the last 3 years. I am getting live performances around the globe ALL THE TIME. That's just my work as a Composer. I am a published Poet. I am a painter who actually sells paintings - I work with an interior designer. I am also working in the field of Conceptual Art. I am the Captain of a division One Bridge team in Middlesex - next step up, playing for England. I am a widely published Photographer on the Internet. I am also a Videomaker, I assume you are not aware of Znethru channel on YouTube - that's me as well. I also have a day job - Professor of Music. I have written one stage play, one novel, two tv sitcom pilots (one of which won a writing competition). I am also a Conductor and Pianist of note. You might realise this if you'd actually researched me a little more thoroughly. I suggest you reinstate my article on YouTube asap or get someone qualified to write a new article on me asap. from, Professor Jonathan Socrates FeBland email <removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.209.92 (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I will respond to this later today or tomorrow when I am online -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 09:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, you might find it easier to create an account (see Wikipedia:Why create an account?) - then you can get messages on your personal talk page. As you are not logged in, you are using an IP address, which changes from time to time.
Now, let me respond to the specific issues above:
  1. You are winning precisely no friends whatsoever on this website - I am not here to make friends - I am here to help make the best encyclopedia possible. Furthermore, from what I can see, the only person I am not making friends with is you - but that strikes me more like you throwing a strop because you are not getting your own way.
  2. you gave me a dead link I assume you mean the one I gave at User talk:Phantomsteve/Archive April 2011#next step to having my entry restored/ or re-written, but by whom? which said Deletion review, which does indeed work - try it again, by clicking on the blue words
  3. I am published by UNIVERSAL EDITION (and Bardic Edition and Samuel King, Music Publisher). I am on CD with Meridian & Warner Bros & Walsingham.
    1. Universal Edition shows 1 work (see here) - but I am not sure how having one work there is a sign of notability as Wikipedia defines it.
    2. Bardic Edition has your name which links to a free website on Angelfire for "Jonathan Land piano masterclasses" - a promotional site, to sell your tuition services. Not independent, certainly not a sign of notability
    3. Samuel King, Music Publisher - they don't appear to have a website, but although I can find a couple of works they have published of yours, again, I see no evidence that they are 'notable compositions' as required by the notability criteria for composers
    4. Meridian, etc - again, no evidence that they are 'notable compositions' - I can find no evidence (for example) that any of your compositions have won a major music competition, etc (I'll list the full criteria for notability for composers below)
  4. I have a huge web presence - 52,300 Google hits this morning - this is a huge web presence? That is only about 9 times the number of hits I get, and I am nowhere near being notable. If you mean your name in general (as opposed to actual ones about just you), my name generates 324,000 hits! Also, we do not rate notability by Google hits. The hits on Google Wikipedia generally looks at are Google News (you have 0 hits - and that includes in Google News Archive), Google Books (8 hits, which are all minor mentions) and Google Scholar (2 hits, again, all minor mentions)
  5. I am enormous on YouTube - self published? YouTube does not generally count as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Also, what do you mean by "enormous" - if it's anything like your "huge web presence", you'd be nowhere near notability - even if we went by YouTube subscribers, which we don't
  6. ditto SibeliusMusic where I self-publish 300+ works - I could self publish hundreds of works myself on a couple of website, but that would not make me notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned
  7. I am a published Poet - hell, I've had a couple of poems published, but I ain't notable! Seriously, I couldn't find anything which indicates that any of your poetry was considered to be notable - no mention in the press, no mention in scholarly works about poetry, no major awards won
  8. I am a painter who actually sells paintings - I work with an interior designer. I am also working in the field of Conceptual Art. - similarly to your poetry, I could find no evidence that it is considered notable
  9. I am the Captain of a division One Bridge team in Middlesex - I couldn't find any mention of you at the English Bridge Union website - and no press coverage of you.
  10. I am a widely published Photographer on the Internet. - Again, I can find no evidence that you meet any of the notability criteria for Creative professionals - see below for a list of these criteria
  11. I am also a Videomaker, I assume you are not aware of Znethru channel on YouTube - that's me as well. - again, YouTube is not considered a reliable source; also I fail to find evidence that you meet the notability criteria for Creative professionals mentioned in the previous point
  12. I also have a day job - Professor of Music. - being a professor of music is not notable in and of itself. The notability guidelines for academics are here as well as shown below
  13. I have written one stage play, one novel, two tv sitcom pilots (one of which won a writing competition). I am also a Conductor and Pianist of note. - pretty much covered by my notes above
  14. You might realise this if you'd actually researched me a little more thoroughly. - I did look into you, and as mentioned above, did not find enough coverage at reliable and independent sources
  15. I suggest you reinstate my article on YouTube asap or get someone qualified to write a new article on me asap.:
    1. Firstly, this is Wikipedia not YouTube
    2. There is no reason to reinstate the article, as the closure of the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan FeBland (2nd nomination) was in line with the discussion - as I mentioned before (and at the start of my reply here), you can go to Deletion review if you feel that I did not close in accordance with the consensus.
    3. Get someone qualified to write a new article on me - however qualified they might be (I assume you mean someone who has an indepth knowledge of the music industry, etc), if the sources are not out there, and if you do not meet the criteria for inclusion, then you won't get an article
    4. ...asap - I'm not sure why you are so urgently wanting an article about yourself on Wikipedia - this is an encyclopedia - I don't see an entry on you in the Britannia Encyclopedia, Collier's Encyclopedia, Pears Cyclopedia, World Book Encyclopedia, etc - let alone the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (or Oxford Music Online as it now is), Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians or The Penguin Guide to Recorded Classical Music. Why do you think you warrant an entry here when the music enyclopedias don't consider you notable enough for inclusion - surely they are the experts?
In short, I see no reason for you to have an article on Wikipedia, as you do not meet any of the inclusion criteria - and the deletion of the article was in line with the consensus at the Articles for deletion discussion which I closed. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
For your reference:
  • Notability criteria for composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists:
    1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
    2. Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time.
    3. Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.
    4. Has written a song or composition which has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.
    5. Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria.
    6. Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music.
  • Notability criteria for creative professionals (Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, curators, critics, and other creative professionals):
    1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
    2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
    3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
    4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
  • Notability criteria for academics:
    1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
    2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
    3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)
    4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
    5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.
    6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
    7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
    8. The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.
    9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

Postscript

Incidentally, I'm sorry that the deletion of your article spoils your masterplan "I am telling you this will not help with my goal of getting into the Who's Who in 2011." - however, that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. I have sent you a message through your blog letting you know that I have responded to your message here. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I must apologise for the delay in responding - ironically, although I'm on Annual Leave, I've had less time for Wikipedia, because I've been able to actually spend time with the kids (I work nights, so I'm usually asleep when they are awake!) Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

New SIEW website URL

Hi Steve - hope you are well. Been a while since I've contacted you. :)

Wanted to let you know that the SIEW website has been revamped with information for 2011 conference. As part of the revamp, the SIEW website URL has been changed to http://siew.sg/.

Would you be able to help edit the website URL on the SIEW article? The old URL is currently listed in the sidebox and external links section.

Many thanks! Ssumin (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I will reply to this soon -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 09:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I have changed the website URL in the article. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, I must apologise for the delay in responding - ironically, although I'm on Annual Leave, I've had less time for Wikipedia, because I've been able to actually spend time with the kids (I work nights, so I'm usually asleep when they are awake!) Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Steve, many thanks for making the change. And totally understand about the delay - glad to hear you're spending more time with the kids! :) Ssumin (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Musician's Friend page

Hello, Can I retrieve content from a page that was deleted? Thanks, Stacy

SEO Copywriter | Musician's Friend —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.113.215.5 (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I will respond later today or tomorrow -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 09:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Stacy. When an article is deleted, its content is not available (it's been deleted, remember!). However, there are two issues here - firstly, if you had an account (see Wikipedia:Create an account) with an email address associated with it, then as long as the article wasn't deleted for copyright reasons (which this one wasn't), I could email the mark up to you. Secondly, I deleted it as an expired Proposal for deletion - I am counting this message as an objection to that deletion, and so I am restoring it per the deletion guidelines. However, this does not mean that the article won't be deleted again - but it will need to be after a 7 day discussion.
I'll be honest with you, I've not looked at the article yet (a contested PROD is restored upon request, as only uncontested deletions are allowed in this circumstance) - when I restore it, I will look at it and if I feel that it should not be on Wikipedia, I will take it to Articles for deletion (I will also leave a message here if I do that, as I can't contact you other than on an IP's talk page, and IPs are often not static!) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Although I was able to add one reliable reference, I could not find the significant coverage required for articles, and so I have indeed taken this to Articles for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musician's Friend) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, I must apologise for the delay in responding - ironically, although I'm on Annual Leave, I've had less time for Wikipedia, because I've been able to actually spend time with the kids (I work nights, so I'm usually asleep when they are awake!) Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

Your advice please

Hi Steve, I seek your advice as an experienced admin. Is there a forum here where one can ask a question regarding what the best policy on something would be? The idea being to get a general consensus that would result in a policy of sorts that can be applied to all the relevant articles. I'm looking for a central location for such a discussion as I don't think having it spread across many different talk pages is the way to go.

Here's the question that I want to ask, in case this would help determine the correct venue for the discussion. We have pages here on singing competition shows like American Idol, X-Factor, etc which list the songs performed by the contestants and these pages also typically list the "original artist" for the songs. The problem is, how do we define the term "original artist"? It's easy to say that the Beatles are the original artist for a song like "Hey Jude" but who's the original artist for a song like "Alone (Heart song)" or "Wild One (Faith Hill song)"? I think to most people, the obvious answers would be Heart and Faith Hill (as the page names would imply) but there are folks here who maintain that the "original artist" is whoever recorded the song first, so their answers to the previous question are I-TEN and Zaca Creek. IMHO this makes Wikipedia seem somewhat pretentious, I can't imagine that if Encyclopedia Britannica was creating such an article they would list the obscure artists as opposed to the obvious artists. Apparently, the guys maintaining the X Factor page have removed the original artist info as their way of solving this issue.

So, what do you think, is there a good place to ask such a question to the general community? Thanks, Rob. Robman94 (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I will reply to this soon -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 09:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, I had to think about this, but the best place to discuss this would be the relevant WikiProject talk pages - all of them are covered by WikiProject Television and presumably WikiProject Music - there are also some specific projects: WikiProject The X Factor, WikiProject Idol series, etc.
For what it's worth, I think perhaps rather than having "Original Artist", perhaps it should be "Associated Artist" - that way, if the most well-known artist is the original recording artist, they would be there, but if a cover is more well known then that would be the artist listed. That would cover everybody's needs, I think! For example (and this is made up right now, obviously it needs to be amended for the layout required!):
Series 1, Show 1
Act name Song Associated Artist
(* indicates original recording artist)
Four Boys Who Sing I Want to be a Donkey The Band Who Likes Covers
Sexie Singer Fits of Giggles *Johnie Bee Gud
Alyce Cuper The Rapture Rap *Harold Camping
Claff Richird This Little Piggie Went to Market Charles Aznavour
Probably the best thing to do would be to start a conversation at WikiProject Television, and then leave a comment at the other WikiProject talkpages to direct them to it, along the lines of
== A discussion about 'Original artists' in articles about television talent shows ==
There is a discussion in which participants of this WikiProject may have an interest, please see [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#'Original artists' in articles about television talent shows]]
 (obviously, the title of the section at WP Television in this example is 'Original artists' in articles about television talent shows!
Hope this helps! Sorry for the delay in responding - ironically, although I'm on Annual Leave, I've had less time for Wikipedia, because I've been able to actually spend time with the kids (I work nights, so I'm usually asleep when they are awake!) Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Steve, that's an excellent suggestion. (Of course, I expect no less from you! :) ) Enjoy your time with your kids, that's WAY more important that Wikipedia! ps. Where can I buy "The Rapture Rap"? :) Robman94 (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Mr Camping was "flabbergasted" that The Rapture Rap wasn't released on Saturday 21st May, but is hopeful of a release in the near future, I'm guessing! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I forget to mention in my advice above that Wikipedia:Requests for comment might be useful in this situation too PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

System bus model AfD

Hello. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/System bus model as no consensus. As the nominator in that discussion, I obviously disagree with the outcome. The reasons why the article should have been deleted were detailed in the nomination; and a discussion that tested that reasoning did occur. The editors that participated in this discussion, which took place in the first week of the AfD, agreed that deletion was acceptable. Since the outcome of an AfD is based on the on the merits of the opinions, shouldn't the opinions formed through debate be given more weight than those that did not? Rilak (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The outcome of the AfD was purely based on the discussion on the AfD page itself - the mention of the merging proposal was an indication that this did not really help with any possible merge decision, had that been the outcome!
I might have misread your post, but you seem to be suggesting that the discussion in the first week of discussion prior to relisting should be given more weight (if that is not what you meant, I apologise) - when I closed the AfD, I looked at the discussion across the whole time that the AfD had been open. Discussion prior to relisting is not weighted any differently than that after.
Looking at the first week of discussion, you obviously suggested deletion (lack of notability of subject, perceived lack of significant coverage in the reliable sources provided); Nimuaq started off with a comment, which was changed to 'delete' - but in their comment and elsewhere they indicated that a merge would be a suitable result; Kvng makes a comment, but says As far as the AfD is concerned, I favor whatever approach most expeditiously gets rid of this article while salvaging anything of value which would seem to imply a merge, but is not a clear indication of that; W Nowicki suggested merging it - but see below about W Nowicki's further comments. So, in the first week, there was 1 clear delete (yourself), 1 delete-or-merge, 1 nothing-definite-but-implied-merge; 1 clear merge.
Looking at the remaining discussion: Ruud said to keep or merge; W Nowicki changed to "either" - i.e. (from what they said) to delete or merge; Ipsign said to keep; Tijfo098 said to merge; W Nowicki (in their 3rd suggestion) said to delete it; Szzuk said to delete, but the main argument used was "we deleted a similar article last week, so we should delete this". As W Nowicki gave multiple suggestions as to what should be done with the article, I have no clear indication of what they are currently thinking - although the last one was "delete", they could have changed their mind to "keep" or "merge", so I have not given that much weight. I have also not given Szzuk's much weight, as "another has been deleted" is not a valid argument.
Leaving aside those, I didn't see that the participants found anyone's argument more or less compelling to the majority of participants in the discussion than anyone else's - so at the end, the final recommendations were: 1 clear delete (yourself), 1 delete-or-merge, 1 nothing-definite-but-implied-merge; 2 clear merge; 1 keep-or-merge; 1 clear keep.
I did not see a clear consensus here for any result - although it was close to a 'merge' decision, and if that had been the case, the problem would have been that there was no clear consensus about where to merge it. If a merger is desired, people will need to discuss that on the article's talk page in more detail, to reach a clear consensus on a suitable target, as none of the ones given were agreed on by most people.
In summary, I feel that my 'no consensus' closure was in line with the arguments as presented in the AfD. If you feel that this was incorrect, please feel free to take my decision to Deletion review (mentioning this discussion) for the community to discuss whether my closure was correct or not. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

AfD Wee Shu Min

Thanks for the AfD closure for the Wee Shu Min article. Would you consider the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Li Hongyi?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that, as it was an older AfD. I have now closed it in line with the consensus reached. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

deleted page not having a log entry?

Hey, I followed a red link to Organizations in A Song of Ice and Fire, which does not show a log entry of it being deleted. That was quite surprising as I nominated the page for AFD myself and you closed it as delete some 7 months ago. Do you know what happened to the page and why the log shows up as empty? The only explanation I can come up with is the log being oversighted, but that seems unlikely. Yoenit (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm puzzled too! As you say, the deletion log doesn't appear to show the deletion - but as an admin, I can see all the deleted revisions. I see no reason for the log being oversighted, but from my deletions from 3 October I can see that I deleted Talk:Organizations in A Song of Ice and Fire and the following redirects to Organizations in A Song of Ice and Fire: The Unsullied, Unsullied, The Second Sons, Night’s Watch, The Brave Companions, Brotherhood Without Banners, Maesters of the Citadel, Vargo Hoat, Wildlings, Faceless Men, Pycelle, Luwin, Wildling, The bearded priests of Norvos, Maester Luwin, Yoren, Maesters, The Faith Militant, Greenseers, Grand Maester Pycelle, The Golden Company, The Sorrowful Men, The Citadel (A Song of Ice and Fire), Others(ASOIAF) and Night´s Watch - but Organizations in A Song of Ice and Fire itself is not showing. You might want to ask at the Help desk, maybe someone there will know why? PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Yoenit asked me to have a look at this, I've checked everything I can think of and I can't find any evidence that the page has ever been deleted, despite the fact that it obviously has been. Got to be some sort of software glitch, I can see in your logs where you deleted all the redirects and even the talk page of the article in question, but it's as if the article itself just disappeared without a trace. Your oversighted contribs log indicates no edit or other action of yours have ever been suppressed. Weird. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I created a bug report. Yoenit (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Changed circumstances in AfD close

I would note that you based this recent closure, in part, on the fact that the nominator had "been indef blocked for sockpuppetry". Given that this editor has now been unblocked, you may wish to reassess this closure (or at least the rationale given for it). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have re-closed the AfD as 'delete' in line with the consensus including the nominator's now-valid !vote PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Jfgslo has started an RFC on whether it would be appropriate to merge or redirect an article that you recently participated in an AFD for. Please join the discussion so that we may try to form a consensus at a centralized location. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs
DYYS
Cortaca Jug
1998 St. Louis Rams season
1931 Green Bay Packers season
Balladeering
17th parallel north
Fujian University of Technology
Workers Party of Finland
Rubik, the Amazing Cube
DYOK
Colin Walker (cellist)
Lisa Joyner
DXTR
David Lean Cinema
1977 New York Jets season
Castro FC
1942 Chicago Bears season
Paul Müller (biologist)
DYCL-FM
Cleanup
Arbitrage betting
The Lost Books (novel series)
Toonami (UK & Ireland)
Merge
CBS Radio
Enunciation
Hamburger
Add Sources
Roald Dahl
Demographics of Serbia
List of Kamen Rider Kabuto episodes
Wikify
Agrammatism
Gigglebiz
Maureen Hackett
Expand
1999 Florida Gators softball season
American Israel Public Affairs Committee
2004 Florida Gators softball season

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean to say - tamil cinema article is excellent and some one who is doing auditing on the article is a vandal???

Tamil cinema article has to be re - written - what is the tag for that??? u please put that tag in the article blatant hoax and vandalism is not accepted

if not speedy deletion tag - please put a tag which indicates the article which has to be re-written, I am not a vandal

{{db-hoax}} please do not use the db-hoax tag on a page which you are not proposing to be speedily deleted! (Sreekar akkineni (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)).

I am not saying that the article is excellent or completely accurate - but it is not a blatant hoax, is it? Discuss your problems on the talk page - you have done some good edits, but unconstructive edits will not be tolerated. If there are claims which are false in the article, give sources proving that. If there are inaccurate claims, provide sources. Whatever the case, your best bet to improving the article is to act in a co-operative way with other editors - which includes discussing the problems on the talk page. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

can i include this tag atleast??? on Tamil cinema article

{{db-nonsense}}

I have blocked your account for 24 hours, but no, that would not be suitable - the article is not nonsense, even if there are inaccuracies. I will leave a message on your talk page. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus was not reached

1. Consensus is not being reached on Tamil cinema article, because of lack of involvement of administrators like you - you are just not bothered to improve the junk in that article in every section.

2. Now make sure no editor from now on includes non sense in the sections of Distribution and Film music.

3. Make sure you put this article on watch list and remove unsourced, blatant hoaxes in the artilce.

4. The three tags u have included are not enough on the article, it needs several more tags for the non sense involved.

Tamil cinema consists of most popular films in India??? - this statemnt is acceptable??? - statements like these in the article is not hoax???

(61.2.74.154 (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)).

Please do not edit in violation of your 24-hour block - to do so could lead to a further block on your IP(s) or a longer block on your account.
With regards to the article - I am happy to help a bit when I can, but I do not know about Tamil cinema - I am in the UK! However...
There has been no recent discussion on the talk page apart from by one editor - I don't see you attempting to discuss the problems in the article, or others having done so in the last 8 months.
Administrators are not going to be actively involved with every article on Wikipedia. At the moment, there are 1789 admins (but a lot of those are not currently active) and there are 3,647,609 content pages. That would mean that even if every admin was active, they would need to be involved with 2038 pages - if an admin was to be working on Wikipedia for 8 hours a day (which for many of us is not an option, as we work!), that would mean looking at 254 articles an hour, or 4 articles a minute - and that's just looking, not editing at all! It's just not feasible!
If there are specific "nonsense" or "hoax" claims, discuss these on the talk page (or you can give me a few examples when you are unblocked). Much of the article will be accurate (there are over 5000 words on it after all!) and so the article as a whole will not be deleted. Discuss the inaccuracies on the talk page, and it can be improved. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Tamil cinema artilce issue is not going to resolve with consensus - Please include the TAG - Article is Like an advertisement

1. every 2 or 3 rd line is incorrectly explained and places in the article 2. The article has multiple issues 3. administrators like u are incompetent in restricting more non sense being included in the article. 4. Please Please please put a vigilance on blatant advertising in the sections of Distribution and film music of the article. 5. Please Please Please do not allow more reversions. 6. I reverted the non sense in The distribution section for 5-6 times, again no administrator is bothered. 7. Please put the article is like an advertisement tag (61.2.75.211 (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)).

OK, in order:
  1. That statement is inaccurate - there are probably places in the article where 5-10 lines are accurate;
  2. It is also tagged as having multiple issues
  3. See my reply above - we are not incompetent, but we can't watch every article.
  4. Again, we can't watch every articles - and even if we could, we can't do so 24/7 - we have work, we have families, we have friends... we are not on Wikipedia all the time
  5. Reversions which are not against policies are allowed - if they breach them, they are not. You are not in the position to say what can and cannot be reverted
  6. See above
  7. Which specific parts are like an advertisement? The sections you mention (distribution and music) are amongst the most-referenced areas of the article. Again, this is something which you should discuss on the talk page.
In summary, the best place to discuss this (in depth, with specific examples of statements in the article) is on the talk page of the article. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Page protetcion

Hi thanks for saving the article! Can you apply semi-protecion for Tamil cinema, since there is a possibility of the blocked user editing the article from another computer. Regards! --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 05:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have not "saved" it, just prevented the disruption caused by it being tagged for speedy deletion, but the editor is only blocked for 24 hours for now. I have, however, semi-protected it for 1 week initially. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Please semi protect the Tamil cienma article now and put advertisemnt tag - also reduce the block to 1 june 2011 - Iam here to reach a consensus - provided u co-operate

(61.2.73.236 (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)).

The block is for 24 hours, so does not need reducing, as it will expire tomorrow anyway. Also, please do not threaten "Iam here to reach a consensus - provided u co-operate" - that seems to imply that you will continue to be disruptive unless you get your own way. I would suggest that you read the various messages I have left, and act on them when your block is up - discuss specific problems on the talk page - give specific examples of inaccurate text from the article, and your suggestion on how it should be worded.
I have to go offline now (the real world is calling!), so I won't be able to respond for a bit, as I am back at work tonight - but I will keep an eye on this page PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hope this Forwarded Message could make u educated about the reality of Tamil cinema article

You have to restrict editors like thalapathi not me okay

I hope I can edit from june 1 2011.

please make sure u include advertisements tag also in Tamil cinema article

forwarded message to Thalapathi

Halo stop your POV

1. see the 4-5 tags before the Tamil cinema article that it self is an indication, about the quality of that article 2. and also please stop comparing this article with telugu cinema article - The article is in line for good article nomination. 3. I am not a vandal . I restricted non sense in that article by being little disruptive. Vandalism is different from being disruptive 4. I was the one who contacted the admin first with whom u were asking about semi protection. 5. After discussing about the non sense from editors like u , the administartors tagged the artilce which has multiple issues. 6. Tamil cinema article is into original research - Know what Original Research means in Wikipedia 7. Stop including statements like Tamil films are The most popular films in the world, Tamil films are the richest and tamil actors are greatest. 8. Wikipedia is not into superlative statements, Wikipedia is to provide information to a lay man. 9. Tamil cienma article is into original research, that it self indicates the quality of vandals and editors like u who are involved........ (61.2.73.236 (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)).

  • I will restrict any editor who is not contributing in a constructive way to Wikipedia. You were blocked for 24 hours because you were being disruptive, using speedy deletion tags on an article which clearly does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion.
I have not added a "this looks like an advertisement" tag, as the article does not meet that. There is no overt promotion that I can see - the two sections you mentioned above (Distribution and Music) have the names of companies which have articles on Wikipedia, and citations from reliable sources. This does not make it promotion - just mentioning a company's name isn't promotion.
I'm not sure why you copied your message to another user on this page - I'm not involved with the article itself, but I will respond to your points:
  1. The improvement tags do indeed signify that the article doesn't yet meet the full requirements of an article on Wikipedia - but they are not there to say "This is crap", but to say "This is what needs improving"
  2. I'm not sure where this article is compared with the Telugu cinema article - but comparing two articles on a similar subject is valid, as a better one can give pointers on how to improve a lesser-developed one
  3. Being disruptive and vandalism are closely linked - and there are some who would say that your acts are vandalism rather than just being disruptive
  4. You may have been in touch with me before, but you weren't the one to first ask for semi-protection of the article - in fact, you didn't contact me about that until after I had protected it
  5. I don't see any discussion about the "nonsense from editors like u", and the issues weren't tagged by administrators for this reason
  6. Just because some of the statements are unsourced, that does not make it original research. You might want to read WP:OR yourself
  7. No decent editor would include statements like that (well, not without some reference from a reliable source which is independent. Any such claims would be removed from an article, with no-one objecting, if they weren't adequately sourced.
  8. You are quite right that superlative statements aren't encyclopedic. I'm not sure what that has to do with the article, as that doesn't appear to be a problem
  9. Again, it's not original research - and just because someone says something that you don't agree with, that does not make them a vandal.
When your block expires, I will keep an eye on the article and on your contributions. If you continue to be disruptive, you will be blocked again (although probably for longer than 24 hours), and if it is myself that deals with it, I will seek advice from other admins on doing some IP blocking so that you cannot evade the block that way. If I see you evading the block by editing signed-out with an IP address, I will block those addresses too.
Again (and I must have said this about 3 or 4 times already), you must discuss any specific problems with the article on its talk page, and get a consensus on any changes. I do not know much about the subject of Tamil cinema, but I do know about sourcing, suitable language, etc in articles, so I can keep an eye on the article as well.
I am sure that your intentions are good - but your method is way wrong! You must work collaboratively here, and not be disruptive. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of people with the given name Mitra

The article List of people with the given name Mitra has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Violates WP:NOTDIR - list of loosely associated individuals.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Anthem 08:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Raedison R. Rawdah

FYI - I changed the CSD you placed on the article to {{db-person}}. Either I missed something or you hit the wrong button. My best to you... ttonyb (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've no problem with that - when I checked for online references, I could find nothing about Mr Rawdah, no mention (other than on this page) of the "Louise L. Zenka Award for Academic Excellence", "Founders' Council 2007 Leader of Tomorrow Award" (or indeed of a "Founders' Council" for "Smoky Lake") or of the "Rawdahmania"!; also, although not impossible, it is very unusual for anyone to have "maintained a GPA of 4.0 for 8 consecutive semesters". There is also the fact that I could find no evidence of a "Smoky Lake Beacon" - the local paper for Smoky Lake is the Smoky Lake Signal (see List of newspapers in Canada#Alberta 2). However, db-person would probably work, although it could be declined on the grounds that it makes an assertion of significance: "prominent community leader and event organizer"; "is best known for contributing significantly to the economy and social life of Smoky Lake residents by organizing his Rawdahmania wrestling tournament every year." PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Reminder

Look at Janis Babson and comment on AfD - Re-check refs - including worldcat -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 11:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2011/May&oldid=1136153386"