User talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2014/March
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
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) 01:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014
- Traffic report: Brinksmen on the brink
- Discussion report: Four paragraph lead, indefinitely blocked IPs, editor reviews broken?
- Featured content: Full speed ahead for the WikiCup
- WikiProject report: Article Rescue Squadron
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Phantomsteve,
Please consider deleting or altering your user page User:Phantomsteve/company-name as the page shows up Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues where contested usernames are filed. This is likely because of a template used on the page which automatically assigns this category to the page it is posted on. Rather than edit the template, if you could remove the template from the page it would remove this hidden category. Thanks for considering this! Liz Read! Talk! 16:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- I sorted it out... a change made in 2012 caused it to include itself on the category! It now only shows on a page where the template has been SUBST'd, not on the template itself! Thanks for pointing that out. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
WOWIndian Talk 13:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Review requested
I have patrolled a user on Wikipedia having similar issues with many of his recent contribution. I have found that this user have created several articles (can be found on his user-page itself) about movies which are not even released, one of them I have proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhan Chirikkunnu. I would like to request you to interfere in this matter. Thank you! WOWIndian Talk 11:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for contacting me. Regarding the specific article above, that was adequately referenced, and so I believe that it should be kept. I have not looked in detail at the user's contributions, but a few I looked at were referenced at reliable sources. There were a couple that could probably do with better sources, but I do not see that this user is a problematic user, and I do not see any reason to "interfere in this matter". If there are individual articles that you feel are inadequately sourced, you are welcome to nominate them - but I didn't see any problems with 991joseph (talk · contribs) that would justify an admin getting involved. There are two points I would like to add though: (1) in future, if you nominate an article for deletion, please let the creator/main editors know (SEE Wikipedia:Afd#After_nominating: Notify interested projects and editors; (2) if you have a problem with an editor, it's always nice to communicate with that user - you have not been in touch with this editor on his talk page, I see... as a community, it's always nice to try to amicably discuss any perceived problems. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Editor's Barnstar |
| For your support on protecting Buddhan Chirikkunnu from deletion...! Joseph 14:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC) |
Paul McDonald
Hi. I noticed that you were the closing administrator for the deletion discussion about Paul McDonald (musician) from a few months ago. You closed the discussion as a Redirect, and I sort of understand your decision, based on the comments that had been made during the discussion. However, I feel that there is reason for this article to be recreated. I've never gone about doing something like this before, so I'm not entirely sure what the correct process is. But it seems like a good idea to discuss it with you.
The initial nomination for deletion was rationalized with this statement: "the possible plethora of mentions in TV guides and gossip magazines related to Idol is not evidence of real-life notability, and the article and the man's career seem to indicate a lack of real-life notability." Somehow, the nominator must have failed to notice that the article had been referenced with such sources as USA Today, Entertainment Weekly, The New York Daily News, and MTV (all of which had provided significant coverage). A very quick Google search also yielded results from The Huffington Post and Yahoo! Music. I have no doubt that if I searched a little bit longer, I would be able to find countless more professional, independent sources providing significant coverage on McDonald.
The only other reason that was given for redirecting his article, was that he failed WP:MUSIC, due to none of his albums selling more than 10,000 copies. I don't actually see anything in those guidelines saying that an artist has to sell over 10,000 copies of an album in order to be notable, but I suppose that the editor was either referring to Criteria #2 - Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart - or #3 - Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. The problem here, is that a musician doesn't need to meet every one of WP:MUSIC's notability criteria in order to be notable enough for Wikipedia. The most important thing is that the person meets Criteria #1, which is essentially the same as the general notability guideline. As I've mentioned, McDonald meets this criteria many times over. However, he also meets criteria #4 (having participated in the 2011 American Idols Live Tour), #9 (having placed eighth in the tenth season of American Idol), #10 (having performed one of his songs in an episode of Parenthood), and #12 (having performed for several weeks on American Idol). In fact, he even meets #2, as his pre-Idol album The Grand Magnolias placed on Billboard's Top Heatseekers chart. [1] Also, he's married to Nikki Reed. And if we consider his old band "an independently notable ensemble" since it placed on a Billboard chart, then McDonald also meets Criteria #6, since he has since released an album with Nikki Reed as a duo. --Jpcase (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
English name of song
Hi you moved back to an English title. Which is fine if as you say there is a reliable (i.e. not Kpop blog or Youtube) source. I'm sure if you say so then there is, but what is it? Can you please add it to the article, thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 March 2014
- Traffic report: War and awards
- Featured content: Ukraine burns
- WikiProject report: Russian WikiProject Entomology
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Iei-logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Iei-logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 March 2014
- WikiProject report: We have history
- Featured content: Spot the bulldozer
- News and notes: Foundation-supported Wikipedian in residence faces scrutiny
- Traffic report: Into thin air
- Technology report: Wikimedia engineering report
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 March 2014
- Comment: A foolish request
- Traffic report: Down to a simmer
- News and notes: Commons Picture of the Year—winners announced
- Featured content: Winter hath a beauty that is all his own
- Technology report: Why will Wikipedia look like the Signpost?
- WikiProject report: From the peak
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Just in case you missed it.
I left a message for you a week ago, under a section titled "Paul McDonald", regarding an AfD discussion that you closed. It was recently archived, and I see that you haven't been active lately, so I just wanted to leave a note in case you missed it. Any help that you could give would be much appreciated. Thanks! :) --Jpcase (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for contacting me... life has been busy, between work and family! Reading your arguments in the archived post, I agree that there is doubt over whether the article would have been deleted had your arguments been presented at the time. Although the result was correct, given the discussion (3 editors including the nominator said it should not exist as a stand-alone article), I would be quite happy to support it being undeleted, should that be the decision at Wikipedia:Deletion Review, should you wish to open a case there. Let me know when you have done so, and I will add a comment to that effect. Looking at the AfD, I remember that I was veering between the outcome of redirect, or relisting for another week... with hindsight, I'd probably have been better opening it up for another week of discussion, but as the consensus was so obviously against it remaining as a stand-alone article, my closure was a logical outcome! Let me know when you bring this up at Deletion Review... I'm off work for a few days, so I should be able to comment there! Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, and thanks for taking another look at this. Would Wikipedia:Deletion review be the right place to bring this up, even though the article was redirected, and not deleted? --Jpcase (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- As there was a discussion for deletion, and the result was that the article was not kept as a stand-alone article, then there needs to be consensus that the article should be restored as a stand-alone article. The place for this would be Deletion Review - as there is no Wikipedia:Redirection review area! Seriously, though... yes - although it was not deleted, the article as it was no longer exists, and so a community decision needs to be made. Although I agree with your arguments above, I cannot reverse my decision without some indication from the community as a whole that they agree with your arguments. If you had presented those at the AfD, then I would probably have relisted the AfD for a week for more discussion! Let me know when/if you take it to review. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks! That makes sense. I'll open a discussion there soon. --Jpcase (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thanks again for the help! :) --Jpcase (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks! That makes sense. I'll open a discussion there soon. --Jpcase (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- As there was a discussion for deletion, and the result was that the article was not kept as a stand-alone article, then there needs to be consensus that the article should be restored as a stand-alone article. The place for this would be Deletion Review - as there is no Wikipedia:Redirection review area! Seriously, though... yes - although it was not deleted, the article as it was no longer exists, and so a community decision needs to be made. Although I agree with your arguments above, I cannot reverse my decision without some indication from the community as a whole that they agree with your arguments. If you had presented those at the AfD, then I would probably have relisted the AfD for a week for more discussion! Let me know when/if you take it to review. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, and thanks for taking another look at this. Would Wikipedia:Deletion review be the right place to bring this up, even though the article was redirected, and not deleted? --Jpcase (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)