User talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2010/November

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by statehood

In accordance with the suggested procedure outlined at WP:Deletion review, I am dropping you a note on your talk page requesting you to reconsider closing the above-linked deletion discussion as delete. I do not believe that any editors who voted keep presented arguments to counter those presented in the nomination rationale. One editor who voted keep, later voted delete as well (without striking his original vote). If the experience of the editors can be taken into account, as a gauge of how well policy is understood, that too was clearly in favour of deletion. Srnec (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I will look at that either later today or tomorrow (subject to family commitments!) and get back to you! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternate account of Phantomsteve]} 10:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at it again, I am forced to agree that this should indeed have been "delete" - my apologises, and thanks for contacting me! I will now do the necessary... -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Srnec (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

• News and notes: Foundation's finances, geodata milestone, interim counsel, museum conference

• In the news: Airplane construction with Wikipedia, lessons from the strategy project, logic over rhetoric

• WikiProject report: Scoring with WikiProject Ice Hockey

• Features and admins: Good-lookin' slugs and snails

• Arbitration report: Arb resignation during plagiarism discussion; election RfC closing in 2 days

• Technology report: Foundation office switches to closed source, secure browsing, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Murray (politician)

I was very surprised that you kept the article and have renominated it for deletion. I could see that the consensus was to keep it until after the election, but I read the discussion as delete it after he lost the election rather than keep it after he lost the election. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware (when I closed the AfD) that the results for that particular contest had been published. I see that you have re-nominated the article, and indeed I will be recommending deletion at that one - however, I believe that the closure result I made was correct at the time I closed the AfD! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments in the 2nd AfD. I assumed that you acted in good faith. I suspect that the original AfD was timed to have the seven days end just after the election. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Chase (Transformers)

Hey there. I wanted to ask that you reopen the deletion review article Chase (Transformers) for more feedback. It only had TWO delete votes, 1 keep and 2 merges, so it really was a mixed result with no concensus. I'd like to get more input. Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, one of the merges also had the option of "delete", which is what influenced the final decision in favour of deletion. However, I see that a redirect has been created to Throttlebots, with a mention of Chase on that page, so the end result is similar to what you think anyway! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I get the Chase history back so I can access some of the details from the Chase page for the Throttlebot page then? Thanks. Mathewignash, at work 13:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I have emailed you the last revision prior to deletion, I hope that helps! I have also removed your IP details from this page and the history -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Overseas_Minangkabau

Not sure what you mean by 'no consensus'. There were no keep votes. Sumbuddi (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I closed it as no consensus as there was one "delete" (the nomination) and one "merge". As such, there was not a consensus to delete or to merge - and as the discussion had already been relisted, I saw no value in re-listing for another week. However, if you want to re-nominate it for a 2nd AfD, there is no problem with that -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wen Wen Han

Why did you not choose to redirect as a reasonable search term? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not choose that option, as you were the only person to support it. If there had been a consensus to do so, I would have chosen it as the result. However, I would not object to you re-creating the article as the redirect. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Raitiere and Peter Shalvoy

You closed the AfDs for Aaron Raitiere and Peter Shalvoy as no consensus (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Raitiere), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Shalvoy). I think they should have been deleted because there's no evidence they satisfy MUSICBIO or N. The sources listed were week: unreliable, or from small and local publications. These arguments were noted in the AfDs, and the only people voting keep were the SPIs (apart from one "Sources show notability"). Would you consider revising your close and just deleting these? Christopher Connor (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The Keep SPI group should be counted as just one vote under WP:COWORKER. Racepacket (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at those later tonight (UTC) and let you know what I think -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, having looked at both of them, I am going to overturn my close and delete. The issues with co-workers/SPAs obviously didn't help the situation, but having re-read the arguments and taken the co-workers/SPAs into account, deletion is the correct call. Thank you for contacting me, and for your patience! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Steve! Christopher Connor (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi

You can keep the restrictions. I don't mind.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Mymoloboaccount! I've already removed the restrictions as they expired a few months ago - but feel free to keep to them yourself if you wish! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Evens Taian

why you removed my page ? Evesns TaianMarcosAndrade210 (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

the article had no references as per WP:VERIFY and WP:RS, i could not find any mention of the person anywhere on google. this is why the article was deleted by Phantomsteve. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

WookieInHeat explained it perfectly (thanks Wookie!) - I could find no mention of this person at any reliable independent sites, and so the nomination for deletion was correct, hence the deletion -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Page deletion

I created a page entitled Here's What To Think that was marked for speedy deletion referencing the G12 rule. I asked what material on the page was the subject of the plagiarism claim, but received no feed back. I was in the process of rewriting any and everything I thought might be infringing on the material protected by copy write by blogtalkradio.com when the page was deleted.

I was hoping that you might be able to reverse your decision to delete the page so I may have the opportunity to continue revising the page to meet wikipedia's standards. The reason the revisions were taking a long time was because I was listening to each show so that I could write a description without any input from the descriptions on blogtalkradio.com.

If it matters at all, after the page was flagged for speedy deletion I contacted the creators and hosts of the program (though not the proprietor of blogtalkradio.com) and their response was supportive of my efforts.

Please let me know if there is a possibility for me to continue reworking the page, it sucks to lose so many hours of work so early on while I was still making changes to bring the page into compliance with wikipedia policy.

Thanks,

Nikolakordic (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What the creators/hosts think of the article being present on article is irrelevant - playing devil's advocate, they are going to be happy to have free "publicity" as they would see it. Even ignoring the copyright problems that had been flagged, the article did not have references from reliable sources which are independent of the subject - and I saw no evidence in the article/references that the program meets the notability guidelines. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I mentioned the creators' support was in case their opposition would be influential in keeping the page deleted. I know that of course they would support any kind of press. But taking "publicity" into consideration as a factor for deletion would be unfair. There are plenty of TV and radio programs that have Wikipedia pages.

While you note other reasons the page was deleted and my request ignored, I never received feed back as to what material was plagiarized. As I said, I was working to re-edit the page so that it didn't infringe on anything on btr.

You also said the article didn't meet notoriety standards judging from your review of my citations and links. If I had been provided with this information in my request for advice I would have done my best to provide it. The website http://philalawyer.net ranks at 100,074 in the US according to Alexa and 722,201 world wide for number of page visits. While obviously sites like Google or the Sacramento Bee (coming in at just under 55,000) out preform his, considering that there are 234 million websites as of December 2009, I think that being in the top 1% world wide (including countries that don't speak English) meets some standard of notoriety.

Since I was attempting to bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia's copyright policy I feel I should have been given more then a few hours to rework the article. Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N

For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:

   * Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject[6] for advice on where to look for sources.
   * Put the {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors.
   * If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

Judging from your comments, the reason the article was deleted the same day it was created, even after my request for more editing time, was that you judged the article unworthy of space on Wikipedia due to lack of interest.

As for references to 3rd party sources, amazon.com lists the books published by the hosts and I've requested BTR to confirm the hosts are who they claim to be. Though the sources referencing Here's What To Think do not include main stream news sources, the links and references to the site are numerous and include the personal sites of the guests that have been invited on, many of which have attained mainstream notoriety(the list of guests I started was incomplete due to lack of time).

There's a lot of regulations for posting articles that I've read, but though I did my best to read through everything I though relevent to writing this article, I am not 100% versed yet. With a little feed back and sometime to edit the article I'm sure I can elevate the quality to meet the fair standards Wikipedia holds its contributors to.

My passionate objection to the deletion of the article does not steam from any connection with the subject matter. At best I am a casual listener of the program. My passion is rooted in the hours I spent reading the rules, finding sources and actually writing the content. And also my personal time I spent listening to shows I had already heard so that I could write descriptions void of copyright infringements. You deleted the page while I was in the process of revising the episode descriptions.

I think I have made a case that warrants the reversal of your decision, but I am still very green to posting. If I have misinterpreted any of the rules or their general intention, please let me know. Your clarifications would be something I carried forward to increase the quality of any future posts/edits I make. Thank you,

Nikolakordic (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me again. I agree with your argument above that the copyright issues were being solved. However, I am still not sure that the article meets the notability (not "notoriety" as you said above) criteria. As such, I have restored it to your user space at User:Nikolakordic/Here's What To Think. I have removed the tags about deletion, and I have also removed the links in the "Guests" section of the article. If any of the guests have Wikipedia articles, then you can link to them, but as a rule we don't link to websites within the main article - normally we would link to websites in an "External links" section, but in this case that would not be the correct thing to do as the websites being linked to are not about the show or the hosts, but for guests who appeared on one show.

Please do look for reliable independent sources (as mentioned above) which verify the information, and which show that the show meets the notability criteria. Alexa and website visits do not make a website reliable from Wikipedia's viewpoint - it is the website itself and who is writing for it that makes it so. Some useful links are:

• Reliable sources
• Independent sources
• The notability guidelines

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the chance at reworking the article. I will will apply the advice you've given me and won't repost the article until it meets general standards. Thanks,

Nikolakordic (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

JBA Motors

Good morning,

RE: User: 04:50, 4 November 2010 Phantomsteve (talk | contribs) deleted "JBA Motors" ‎ (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject (CSDH))

Yesterday i created the page JBA Motors and when i went to view it today it had a been deleted by yourself. What was the reasoning for this? If it was ‘Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject’ I would be interested to know how I can indicate the importance and significance of the subject please. JBA Motors a new British Motor Company, stemming from the legacy of JBA Cars.

I would be grateful of any feedback.

Kind Regards

Matthew Willcock

Hi Matthew, thanks for contacting me. As you said above, JBA is a new company, and as such it can be hard to show that it is important or significant. I'm afraid that "stemming from the legacy of JBA Cars" does not make it notable (on Wikipedia, we say that notability is not inherited!). To show that it is important or significant, you would need to have signficant coverage at reliable sources which are independent of the subject (i.e. not from press releases), which show that the company meets the notability guidelines (specifically the notability guidelines for companies. As I say, new companies very seldom have this, as they are new! I hope this explains why it was deleted, but please do contact me again if you have any questions -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackass 3.5

I went ahead and added sourced information about this film to the Jackass 3D article (see Jackass 3D#Jackass 3.5). Would you care to now go ahead and delete the Jackass 3.5 article and then set a redirect? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(puts on best Yul Brynner voice): "So let it be written. So let it be done." -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

Steve, the note you placed on my talk seems very odd. I think it's because you've written in bold 'article needs improving and expanding, not deleting', which comes across as shouting. Accordingly, I suggest you don't use this phrase in notes on other editor's talk pages. PhilKnight (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi PhilKnight. I use the CSD Helper, and when I decline a speedy it asks for a reason, which it automatically puts in bold in the message. As such, I can't really do much about it! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'm merely suggesting that when using this script, you don't say 'article needs improving and expanding, not deleting', because when written in bold, it comes across as if you're shouting. PhilKnight (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I get ya! Fair point, and I'll bear that in mind in future. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Reconsideration of your recent deletion of the KMC Controls article

You deleted the KMC Controls page sometime in the last 12 hours. I respectfully request that you reconsider and reinstate the page for the reasons below.

This page is a substantial update and expansion of a page I did several years ago that was deleted because it lacked (at that time) sufficient third-party references to the company. (I was not aware that it had been deleted until much, much later.) The new, revised article has extensive references (several times more, for example, than in the article for its competitor Johnson Controls). Thus, the original reason for deletion is no longer valid.

I can no longer see the messages that were attached to the new page last night. As I understand it, the page was flagged for possible copyright violation because it has similar text to an entry on a Wikipedia archive page. The archive page has a copy of the original text of the original article. A portion of that text has remained intact in the upgraded version and was flagged as possible copyright violation. But I was basically quoting myself. There is no copyright violation. Thus, the reason for the deletion of the new article is not valid.

Please reinstate the page and remove the warning flags.

I am a professional writer, but not a seasoned veteran on Wikipedia. I have complied with all Wikipedia guidelines to the best of my knowledge and ability. If there is something else I need to do to modify the KMC Controls article sufficiently for inclusion, please let me know exactly what that would be.

Please give me a talkback as well.

Cyberwriter (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Addendum to my message "Reconsideration of your recent deletion of the KMC Controls article"

OK, I did find a copy of the messages. The alleged copyright problem was with http://wikibin.org/articles/kmc-controls.html, but again that was essentially a copy of my original work. So there was no copyright infringement.

Also, I had added a "hang on" tag to the KMC Controls page after the first warning occurred, but that seemed to have been ignored?

Respectfully,

Cyberwriter (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. Firstly, I did not delete it as a copyright violation, but because it was a re-creation of an article which had previously been deleted (the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KMC Controls).

The content is 90%+ identical to the previous version from April 2008, as you said above, the main difference is the addition of more references. However, in the AfD, the comment was made that the references in 2008 were not from reliable sources independent of the subject. Looking at the references in the 2010 version, although there are more of them, they are still pretty much press releases, the company's own website, or websites which do not meet the criteria of reliability. As such, I deleted the article as a recreation of an article which had previously been deleted following a community discussion (the AfD), and in which the problems had not been adequately addressed.

I hope that this explains why it was deleted. Before considering deletion, I did read your comments on the talk page (your "hang on" response). I noted the copyright issues (which, as I have said, were not the reason for deletion) and the mention of the references being added - but as you can see in my reply here, I did consider those sources and found that they still did not address the issues raised at the AfD. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:RESTRICT

Hi, I noticed you removed the "Molobo" entry from WP:RESTRICT, evidently after the recent thread on ANI. Somehow I must be missing something: when and how did Molobo's sanction actually expire? The ban expired, of course, but for all I can see the civility/revert restriction was supposed to be indef. Has this actually been superceded? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The actual entry was:

User	Type	Sanction (quoted verbatim)	Special Enforcement Details	Expiration Date
Molobo Note: User subsequently lost control of account and is now editing as User:MyMoloboaccount	Revert limitation	Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is limited to one revert per page per week, and should discuss all reverts he makes on the relevant talk page. If he violates this limit, he may be blocked by any administrator for any time limit up to a week.	After four upheld blocks due to violation of this restriction or other issues, the indefinite block will be reapplied. Sanction imposed from this discussion.	MyMoloboaccount has a 1 year block for sockpuppetry (see SPI conclusion on 1 Jun 2009 and block notice on 1 Jun 2009) which expires 1 June 2010, after which the restrictions are to be reviewed by the community.
	Civility supervision	If Molobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) makes any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, he may be blocked for any time limit up to a week. Note: if Molobo is disrupting talkpages with tendentious filibustering, that comes under the civility supervision as well.

As you can see, the expiration date of 1 June 2010 was for both the revert limitation and the civility restriction. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't read it like that. The original sanction came from here [1] (passed in 2008) and had no expiry date. Then this sanction was overlaid by a second, independent sanction, a one-year block for sockpuppetry. That block, and only that block, duly expired in June. The prior restrictions (reverting and civility) are unaffected by this. I don't know who inserted the wording about "after which the restrictions are to be reviewed by the community". I'm not aware that there ever was a decision to that effect, but even if there was, then it's only saying that the restriction should be reviewed, not that it automatically ends. Such a review has not happened, to the best of my knowledge, nor has Molobo asked for it. In the absence of such a review, the restriction remains in force. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I see your point! The above is substantially the same as it was when I first saw it in January (see here). I have no objection to you either starting a review at WP:AN (I didn't do that, as none had been asked for in the 5 months since the sanction expired) or to you re-inserting the civility restriction at WP:RESTRICT. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Since I see Molobo actually consented to having them left in place, I've reinstated them at WP:RESTRICT, for the time being, of course on the understanding that M. is welcome to ask for a proper community review any time he chooses. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Huggle

When are you going to use Huggle again? Wayne Olajuwon chat 16:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know! I find that there is enough to do without using Huggle, but I dare say that I will use it from time to time when I get a chance! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Good luck at what you're doing right now! Wayne Olajuwon chat 19:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

you deleted my page that took me 3 hours of work on...

why? and how do i get all the information that i inputed, back? it is a musician/artist page in which i am the musician and all information is verifiable.

04:59, 4 November 2010 Phantomsteve (talk | contribs) deleted "User:KdotCole/Kandi Cole" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement (CSDH))

please respond.

thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KdotCole (talk • contribs) 22:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As the deletion summary said, the content was copyrighted, and we can't use such text. As I'm at work, I can't reply in detail, but you'd need to find reliable sources which are independent of the subject, which show that the subject meets the inclusion criteria -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternate account of Phantomsteve]} 01:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of KMC Controls page revisited

Thank you for your reasoned response and clarification on why you deleted the KMC Controls article. I am, however, perplexed by your conclusion. I think close analysis of some of the references will show that there are indeed enough third-party, reliable, published sources to establish KMC’s factual statements and notability.

The occasional references to KMC’s web site are useful to a certain extent because, in Wikipedia’s own words: “Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves.”

As you said, there are, indeed, two news releases listed as sources, but they were NOT written by KMC! They were written by the other involved companies. Although they may be marketing materials, they still state facts about business relationships and actions, and they do support the statements that they footnote. The news release by Lynxspring in footnote #6 documents the existence of one OEM relationship (e.g., an HVAC controller may have a major brand name logo and be sold by somebody else, but it is actually manufactured by KMC). This is especially notable because most OEM relationships in that industry are strictly confidential and impossible to document from publically available sources. A large portion of KMC’s business is OEM and is therefore confidential and not publically available.

Footnote #7 is a case study on the BACnet International web site of the HVAC installation at the Kuwait Oil Company Headquarters. KMC is mentioned in the article as well as several competitors. This footnote verifies that KMC indeed is established in international markets.

Footnote #12 is an article that quotes a vice president of KMC as an industry expert (demonstrating notability).

The last two footnotes are industry publications describing product awards given by independent organizations. KMC did not write those announcements, and it seems to me that receiving two industry awards within a year indicates notability of a manufacturer and its products. (Also, more information was given about the products in the print versions of these magazines.)

Finally, the very first footnote is to a four-page (in print) article in an industry publication by a professional business writer profiling the company. The contents of that article all by itself back up almost all the statements listed in the Wikipedia article. I would think that article alone could almost qualify KMC for entry into Wikipedia even if there weren’t any other references.

For the length of the article, I thought I had included more than enough third-party sources. I could, however, add more, but the article would have to be visible for me to do that.

So again, I respectfully request reconsideration and reinstatement of that article. I would then add additional reliable sources as references.

Thank you for your consideration. (I am aware that being a Wikipedia administrator must often be a thankless job.)

Cyberwriter (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me again. As I said on your talk page, real life has been hectic over the last few days, so thanks for your patience!

References from the company's own websites are sometimes useful, but generally in addition to independent, reliable sources. The newsreleases which you added were from involved companies (your words, above) - and so, not independent of the subject. Although I understand about the OEM/confidentiality issues, I would still expect a notable company to have coverage at independent coverage (such as national/international newspapers, magazines, etc). Footnote 7 was a minor mention of the comany; Footnote 12 quoting a VP does not indicate the notability of the company (it wouldn't be sufficient to help establish of the VP either!)

Let's look at each of the references in the last version:

1. "KMC Controls: In Touch and Out Front," HVACR Distribution Business, 1 Oct. 2010: 22-26.
   • Assuming that this would be counted as a reliable source (I'd have to look into this further to be sure), this would certainly be useful for the citation of a few facts (much of the content of the article is too detailed for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, as it would be close to implied advertising) - however, without other, significant coverage (which I don't believe exists here), then on its own it is not sufficient to demonstrate the notability of the company for inclusion on Wikipedia
2. KMC Controls profile on LinkedIn
   • Not an independent source - anyone can create an entry which is not verified by anyone else (for example, under my real name, I have an entry at LinkedIn - in my case, the information is correct, but it was submitted by myself, with no checks - I could have written that I am a senior VP of a company and no one would be able to dispute it, even though it would be false!)
3. "Benefits of Controls in Green Buildings," KMC Controls.
   • Not independent
4. KMC Controls ISO registration certificate, KMC Controls
   • Not independent
5. "KMC Controls Selects Intellon Chipset for First HomePlug-based Programmable Communicating Thermostat (PCT)," HomePlug Powerline Alliance, 25 Aug. 2009.
   • Appears to be based on a press release from Intellon (a company which does not have a Wikipedia article as yet)
6. "Lynxspring, KMC Offer 'Green' BACnet Controllers," Contracting Business.com, June 8, 2010.
   • Appears to be based on a press release from Lynxspring (another company with no Wikipedia article)
7. "Success Stories: Kuwait Oil Company Headquarters," BACnet International
   • Could be useful to reference one or two facts - but as BACnet International (up until 2006, the BACnet Manufacturers Association and the BACnet Interest Group of North America) exists mainly to publicise and promote BACnet, I'm not sure that it would counted as independent!
8. "Company Overview," KMC Controls.
   • Not independent
9. "Product Overview," KMC Controls.
   • Not independent
10. "Understanding Building Automation and Control Systems," KMC Controls.
    • Not independent
11. "Understanding Building Automation and Control Systems," KMC Controls.
    • Not independent
12. "Maximizing Interoperability with BACnet," FacilitiesNet, Aug. 2010.
    • As mentioned above, this is not about the company - and even if it were, the information would be from one of the company's VPs, and so wouldn't be independent
13. "Building Operating Management 2010 Top Products Award," FacilitiesNet, Jan. 2010.
    • Not a "reliable" source: from the website: The Top Products Awards recognize the product releases that appeared on FacilitiesNet and generated the highest level of click-through interest from building and facility executives. From Oct. 1, 2008, through Sept. 30, 2009, hundreds of products were displayed on the FacilitiesNet Home Page. Top Products Awards are being given to the product releases that finished in the top 10 percent of all those that were posted over the 12-month period. - it isn't decided by the website per se, or by recognised industry people - it's by how much click-through interest was received
14. "2010 Product of the Year Winners," Consulting-Specifying Engineer, 19 Sept. 2010.
    • I'm not sure how reliable this is. From the website: A select group of professional engineers from around the country were solicited by the Consulting-Specifying Engineer staff to be part of the judging panel for this year’s contest. - but nowhere could I find a list of these engineers, to be able to judge their independence or reliability. On the Product of the Year description page, it says The annual reader-choice Product of the Year awards were created to provide CSE readers with information about the top new product in their fields. - which seems to indicate that the Consulting-Specifying Engineer readers choose the PoY winners, which is not reliable

As such, I did not feel that the article had been substantially improved or the issues at the last AfD had been addressed sufficiently. If you feel that I have incorrectly applied the Speedy Deletion criteria G4 "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" then you should take my deletion to Deletion Review, where it can be discussed by uninvolved editors. If you do so, please mention that you have discussed it with me on my user talk page, and let me know that you have taken it to review. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Steve. Yes, there are many reasons why the RfA process is a train wreck. I think more can be gained by consolidating the discussions in the right place than rather in the obscurity of Jimbo's talk page. Although I realise that's probably not how you intended the discussion to develop, Wales appears to be disinterested. I've suggested that that the thread should be merged to a more prominent discussion. More exposure is needed for this too because nobody returns much to the back page of an RfA after the event. There are also more fragment of the discussion here. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time at the moment to consolidate the discussion, and following what I have read, not much is going to be agreed upon! However, your comment here has been noted -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Oldest Living Men

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

There were four votes to keep and three to delete. Before submitting this to deletion review, I would like to ask you to reconsider.

Even from an argument standpoint, I think the argument to delete was incorrect. We see LOTS of coverage of "oldest living men" worldwide. Even if individual-case nobability would be difficult to establish, general-topic notability has been rather easy.

Also, there is a group of certain editors, mainly JJBulten, who have been canvassing and campaigning to delete articles on supercentenarians for religious reasons. For JJBulten, the Bible says that Noah lived to "950". Modern records show that humans don't live that long, so his head-in-the-sand approach has been to attempt to delete modern records. This is a continuing problem, the politicization or what should be an "encyclopedic" discussion.

Ryoung122 00:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Due to work and family commitments (plus that pesky need to get sleep!) I'll have to look into this further on Monday or Tuesday -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternate account of Phantomsteve]} 03:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As I have got to get some sleep, I won't look at this today, but I'll try to do so either tomorrow or Wednesday, when I can do it the justice it deserves, rather than looking at it when I am sleepy! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

• Fundraiser: November 15 launch, emphasis on banner optimization and community involvement

• News and notes: Second Wikipedian in Residence, {{citation needed}} for sanity

• In the news: WP prose praised, Public Policy update, education debate, WP documentary

• WikiProject report: WikiProject California

• Features and admins: No, not science fiction—real science

• Election report: The countdown begins

• Arbitration report: No cases this week; Date delinking sanctions reduced for one party; History ban extended

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of KMC Controls page revisited (again)

Thank you for your detailed explanation. I understand your reasoning better, although I still disagree with your conclusion. You certainly have high standards, and by your stringent requirements, there are many Wikipedia articles I’ve seen that should be deleted.

I mentioned I had additional references. If I incorporated the following, would they cause the article to attain critical mass?

News about KMC Controls from The International Association for Continuing Education and Training (IACET), a third-party certifying organization mentioned on the Wikipedia Continuing Education page: http://hvacrdistributionbusiness.com/news/kmc-iacet-ceus-1105/. I would add to the line: KMC maintains regional sales offices throughout the U.S. and provides training to and distributes its solutions and products through authorized installing contractors, wholesalers, and OEMs (original equipment manufacturer) throughout North America as well as authorized distributors worldwide.

Additional case studies (international):

• Intel IDC 9 (Intel’s first LEED building and Israel’s first LEED Gold): http://www.bacnetinternational.net/success/stories.php?sid=28

• Kuwait Oil Company Headquarters: http://www.bacnetinternational.net/success/stories.php?sid=34

Case studies (U.S.):

• Wachovia Bank Building (ENERGY STAR labeled): http://www.bacnetinternational.net/success/stories.php?sid=20

• The Nationwide and Ohio Farm Bureau 4-H Center (LEED certified): http://www.bacnetinternational.net/success/stories.php?sid=12

• Greenway Middle School, Phoenix, AZ (ENERGY STAR labeled): http://www.bacnetinternational.net/success/stories.php?sid=19

Although BACnet International (footnote #7) does promote BACnet as an industry interoperable standard, it does not promote any one manufacturer above another. At the very least, the above links verify that KMC has had its products installed in a variety of high-profile buildings in the United States and internationally.

I could also add references to the HVACR Distribution Business profile that is currently just noted in footnote #1 to other sections of the article that would be relevant.

Concerning (footnote #4) KMC Controls ISO registration certificate being “not independent,” even though it is a file downloadable from the KMC web site, the certificate itself was issued by National Quality Assurance, an independent ISO registrar. This is also verifiable by doing a search on http://www.iaar.org/jadian.cfm (but no direct link to the KMC info works).

Finally, concerning footnote #5, Intellon was later purchased by Atheros Communications for $244M (http://www.atheros.com/news/Intellon.html). Atheros does have a Wikipedia entry.

There is much more “independent” media coverage about companies (especially large ones) that make consumer products, but smaller business-to-business companies in the construction industry generally appear only in trade publications and are largely lost in the background of cultural consciousness...even though they play crucial roles.

I hope I haven’t made myself too much of a pest. Thanks for your attention.

Cyberwriter (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevity COI

A discussion about longevity WP:COI has been initiated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#End COI. As a recent contributor to this page, your comments are solicited. JJB 20:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Croydon Guardian Mogila Impossible (Shontelle song) Demir Hisar (town) Sandra Wasserman New Boyz Alex Blum Madden NFL 11 John Aiken (ice hockey) Casebook of the Black Widowers Ross Pearson Lost Worlds (television) Panther Books I Just Make Them Up, See! Joan Hartigan Goon Affiliated Patricia Ward Hales Minister for the Cabinet Office The Best Science Fiction of Isaac Asimov

Cleanup Impulse purchase Transformers Autobots Dance Dance Revolution Ultramix Merge Hand surgery Predacons Almasry Alyoum Add Sources All the Troubles of the World Cabinet of the United Kingdom List of Kamen Rider Kabuto episodes Wikify Gigglebiz Sarwari Qadiri Gondal (clan) Expand David Laws List of Everybody Hates Chris characters Human rights

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Query about copyright infringement

Hi, I am a new user karkanoid and wrote an article for this band, 81db. It was deleted by you for "Unambiguous copyright infringement". Please could you tell me what to not include so as to avoid this problem again? I have the article in my page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Karkanoid/81db_(band)

thanks a lot for the help Karkanoid (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, i think i got it, it's probably because i used text copied from other webzines as was. I'll try to write it my own. Is that correct? thanks again

karkanoid Karkanoid (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that the article 81db (band) has been recreated, and appears not to be a direct copy from the facebook page. As the version in your userspace is almost identical to the current version in the encyclopedia, you might want to tag User:Karkanoid/81db_(band) with {{db-user}}, which will allow an admin to delete it (as user-requested). Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for guidance

I attempted to nominate an article for Speedy Deletion but 1) doubt I did it correctly, 2) think I hosed something, 3) request your guidance to do it correctly. (I'll check back here, for your reply). Kernel.package (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, a couple of points:

• You didn't nominate GovLoop for Speedy Deletion, you created an Articles for Deletion entry for it;
• If you want to nominate the article for SD, please read the criteria for speedy deletion which explains how to make the nomination (see the Criteria section) and the actual criteria under which an article may be speedily deleted;
• If you feel that having read the criteria, the article does not meet the speedy deletion criteria, there are two methods of nominating for deletion:
  1. Proposed Deletion (PROD) - see WP:PROD for the procedure for this;
  2. Articles for deletion (AfD) - what you created was the discussion page for an AfD, but you didn't follow the steps listed at WP:AFD. If this is the route you really want to go down, you need to add {{afd1}} to the article, and then follow step 3 at the instructions at WP:AFD

If you have any further questions (or want me to help with the steps for AfD), let me know - it might take me a couple of days to respond, because of work commitments, but I'm happy to help. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

• News and notes: Fundraisers start for Wikipedia and Citizendium; controversial content and leadership

• In the news: How big can Wikipedia pictures get?; fundraising season

• WikiProject report: Sizzling: WikiProject Bacon

• Features and admins: Of lakes and mountains

• Dispatches: A guide to the Good Article Review Process

• Arbitration report: No cases this week; Amendments filed on Climate Change and Date Delinking; Motion passed on EEML

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

VOSS Solutions

Hi, you deleted VOSS Solutions a few months back as it was deemed to be unambiguous self-promotion. I am the VP Marketing of VOSS Solutions and I think that our previous marketing person was over zealous on trying to get VOSS onto Wikipedia. So no complaints there. However, I do think that VOSS is creating a new category in our industry (Unified Commincations Service Delivery) and we want to have UC Service Delivery created as a new topic on Wikipedia. Are you able to help me to undelete VOSS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cm10654 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you got any reliable sources which are independent of your company - that means no press releases! - which show the notability of the subject? -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternate account of Phantomsteve]} 05:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Videogamer13

Videogamer have shown that page of his edit on his talk page, and he needs to be unblocked. --TheDefender999 (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you are involved here, as you only have 3 edits, including the one on this page. The response on Videogamer's talk page does not answer the question posed - I didn't ask what edits had been made, but what future edits the editor would want to make. As I am on my mobile phone at the moment, I am limited in what I can do, but I'll try to leave another message on the talk page explaining what he/she needs to do. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternate account of Phantomsteve]} 00:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Videogamer didn't understand how to adding content to Wikipedia, he forgot to reviewing Wikipedia policies and editing on Sandboxes at the first time. --TheDefender999 (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how you knew that ... oh, wait, are you Videogamer13? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that Videogamer13 is temporarily retired from Wikipedia. --TheDefender999 (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus not evident

Greetings,

Regarding the below article, there were four votes to "keep" and only "three" to delete.

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

Please explain how you arrived at consensus to "delete."65.182.37.210 (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. Actually there were 4 people suggesting it should be deleted, you forgot the nominator! All the 'delete's gave detailed explanations of why it should be deleted. Two of the 'keep's did as well, although these were debated. One of the 'keep's just said that it is a useful page - not a sufficient argument without anything to verify that idea - and the other said to keep it "for those who think it's notable", again not sufficient as an argument. If you feel that misjudged the consensus - as opposed to disagreeing with the deletion - then you are welcome to start a Deletion review here. Please note that deletion review is not a venue to argue whether the article should have been deleted or not, just to discuss whether I closed the discussion in line with consensus or not. If you do go to review, could you please let me know (and mention at the review that you have discussed this with me on this page) -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternate account of Phantomsteve]} 00:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

2010–11 Arkansas Razorbacks men's basketball team

Please restore this article. The college basketball season has started, and new sources can now be found. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you give some examples of reliable sources which are independent of the subject? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20101119/SPORTS02/11190338/1026/SPORTS02 description of first game of the season. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have userfied it to User:Editorofthewiki/2010–11 Arkansas Razorbacks men's basketball team so that you can add some reliable independent sources. May I re-emphasise what I said in the closure of the AfD: you need to use independent sources, not rely on the team's own website! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

• News and notes: No further Bundesarchiv image donations; Dutch and German awards; anniversary preparations

• In the news: Jimbo Wales interviewed and parodied; Wikipedia in politics

• Book review: The Myth of the Britannica, by Harvey Einbinder

• WikiProject report: WikiProject College Football

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Election report: Candidates still stepping forward

• Arbitration report: Brews ohare site-banned; climate change topic-ban broadened

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi this is Mary Buffett and you deleted my wiki page

Dear Steve,

I understand that you work tirelessly in order to ensure a quality educational product that people can rely upon, so that it really means somehting significant to have a well edited page. I just would like you to understand my situation. I never knew who originally put up the page...or the picture of me. I finally did find out who put the picture of me up and then I had my friend who is proficient at computers, replace the pictue with one that lookked more like me. I am not adept at these skills. I now understand that I need to be organized having sections about my back ground and accomplishments, also that my page only linked to Warren Buffett's page. I could link to many other pages now that I know.

Since i was not the one to put it up originally I understand that it looks like shamelss self-promotion and welcome some critical comments as well.

If you could give me some suggestions I would have another friend of mine who is a Wiki author and has volunteered to help me with this, as well as some other authors that can wirte about me and what I do.

The one problem I have is that now that I can't see the page that was up, I don't know what was there. If you could please give me a chance and put it back up, I can then put the links to value investing, Benjamin Graham, the Pledge, Berkshire Hathaway, Novo, Enviromential Media Association and others.

I understand that you are one of the worldwide mavens of Wikipedia working tireless for no pay to make it better and would welcome your advice and any help you may be able to offer.

With great respect, Mary Buffett 76.167.156.114 (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. Before I would consider undeleting it, I would need to have some examples of reliable sources of information about yourself which are independent of you (i.e. not press releases, etc!); the Forbes article which had been used for one quote in the article was not sufficiently about you to be of any use (the only useable facts from that article were that you were married to Warren Buffett's son Peter - although I notice that Peter's article has no mention of you at all). However, being married to someone who is notable does not make you notable per Wikipedia's criteria - see Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and the notability guidelines for people - especially the guidelines for authors. Could you please tell me which criteria you meet? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

HAPPY HOLIDAYS

HAPPY HOLIDAYS ! Wishing you and yours a very peaceful and joyous holiday season Mlpearc

- 18:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: OneSavings

You deleted this article that I created, with the reason that it was advertising or promotion. I created the article as it it the subject of major interest in the British financial services sector, and soon to be a large company. I have no connexion with the company whatsoever, and would have no reason to advertise for it. A search on Google News for "OneSavings" produces many results from major British newspapers, so the subject is notable, especially considering that Kent Reliance Building Society, which will soon become OneSavings, already has an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buybooks Marius (talk • contribs) 02:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest that a short mention about OneSavings be made on the KRBS article? "Soon to be a large company" is not sufficient for it to have an article of its own. I looked on Google News (see here) and found 6 mentions - none of them in major British newspapers. Could you please provide some links to this coverage in major British newspapers? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the newspapers featured on Google News is the Financial Times [2]. This is a major British newspaper. The Daily Mail [3], and the Daily Telegraph [4] also mention it, as does the Kent Reliance Building Society Web site [5]. As I said before, Kent Reliance Building Society has an article, and this will soon be replaced by the new entity, a fact that I have added to said article. Buybooks Marius (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Those references in the newspapers confirm that this is going to happen - and when it has happened, then the KRBS article can be changed to OneSavings, I would have thought - but at the moment it has not happened yet. Once the deal has been concluded, and KRBS is no more, then it can be changed. At the moment, I don't think that OneSavings meets the criteria for inclusion on its own right. If you feel that this was incorrect, please do take my deletion to Deletion Review (DRV), which considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. - if you do go that route, mention that we have discussed this and that I suggested that you go to DRV. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for OneSavings

An editor has asked for a deletion review of OneSavings. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Buybooks Marius (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The Devil's Tree AfD

Hi,

I am currently working on several topics involving the paranormal. I was a bit confused here with the result of this AfD. It seems that this AfD should be in favor of no consensus. Of course my opinion could be incorrect. I was wondering if you could restore this article, I would not mind a second nomination I have also found additional sources, however the Courier Post and NJ.com are non-trivial independent sources and should by itself be enough it address the concerns of the nominator. The local lure is hardly minor and passes WP:V and GNG. Weird NJ, despite dealing in paranormal subjects also has a long history of debunking local myths and approaches subjects with rational skepticism.

While, I am aware of the DRV process, I personally find it to be extremely inefficient and flawed. I was wondering if you could restore this article and the talk page. I can take it from there and make sure it passes wiki standards!

Thanks!Valoem ^talk 00:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at the discussion I had about this last month, and will respond in the next day or so -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternate account of Phantomsteve]} 03:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for looking at it, I was just wondering if there is an update. Just on a side note, I've dealt with LuckyLouie several times in the past. He has shown a systematic bias against articles involving the paranormal, such as the Smurl haunting. The strange thing about this article is that the haunting is actually notable as a hoax and has been covered by CBS as a notable hoax, yet this remains barely mentioned. Regardless, LuckyLouie was intent on this article's deletion even after notable sources, including published novels, were mentioned. Smurl's article was in favor of no consensus and in my opinion is less notable than The Devil's Tree which remains a prominent attraction in the tri-state area.

Another admin, Daniel Case, also seemed to be in favor of retaining the article, sighting correctly, that Weird NJ is in fact a notable non-trivial source. I've followed Weird NJ data collection methods and they fully adhere to the scientific method. In fact Weird NJ has garnered a reputation for debunking local myths and indepedently testing claims from interviews. If we can get this undeleted without DRV we can save a lot of time and I can starting editing immediately! With Regards! Valoem ^talk 15:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said before when this was discussed with regard to Weird NJ's use as RS: It's not up to LuckyLouie... however, I did look at the Reliable sources noticeboard and its archives, but there was no discussion about it. As such, I went by the website's own words: here "We offer a free issue to anyone who writes in their own weird New Jersey experience, and we publish it." and here "The Weird NJ journal also has interviews with people we meet along the road who we feel have a story to tell, and stories sent in by subscribers telling their own Weird experience living in New Jersey.". This seems to me to be the very essence of an unreliable source!. Did the Travel Channel air a segment about the Devil Tree? However, I notice that at 13:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC) (before you contacted me), Courcelles restored and userfied the article at User:Valoem/The Devil's Tree, so I am not sure whu you contacted me about it!

Sorry about the delay in getting back to you - I've done a lot of night shifts lately, and this is the first opportunity I've had to look at this properly! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Courcelles asked me to contact you before restoring the article. They do not publish all those finding on the website (they do in the magazine and message board), however, regardless of Weird NJ there are still two reliable sources from The Courier Post and www.nj.com. I was hoping you could restore the article so the article's history and talk page could be viewed however if my userfied version is acceptable I will restore though it is always helpful to view the history and growth of the article. Thanks for your input! Valoem ^talk 21:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

When Courcelles userfied it, it was restored with the full history. There wasn't much on the talk page, but I have restored that to User talk:Valoem/The Devil's Tree - I have also corrected the link on that page to the archived link -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see, Thanks!! Valoem ^talk 19:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Charles Villeneuve

Dear , I put 2 references to the article Charles Villeneuve , why it is deleted --Mohamed Ouda (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at this in a moment - due to work commitments, I've not been able to do so in the last couple of days! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Although there were indeed two references, they were not sufficient to add to the article. The links confirm that he founded Finenz, but neither the references nor the article demonstrated why he was important. "Charles Villeneuve is an expert in Forex Trading and entrepreneur. he is founder of Finenz Pte Ltd" - being the founder of a company is not a sign of importance in and of itself. If the company had an article, I could have considered redirecting to that, but the company does not have an article, so deletion was the only option. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

dumbass

Hey Dumbass, why did you delete my page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.70.235 (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Not being a mind-reader, I don't know which page you mean, so I can't answer your question. If you could politely let me know which page you created that I deleted, I'd be happy to explain -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternate account of Phantomsteve]} 02:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, in the 24 hours before your post, I deleted about 40-45 pages, so without knowing which one you are referring to, I have no idea which one it was. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of the diseases page

Why did you have to delete the diseases page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.50.5 (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking back over the last month of deletions I have done, I can't find an obvious "diseases page" - if you could be a bit more specific, I could give an answer. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for putting in the time, effort and patience to mentor me. I learned so much from you that was invaluable at my RfA and will continue to be so as I move into being an admin. I know things are busy for you right now and if you ever need someone to send people to please feel free to send them my way! I hope we'll keep in touch and I hope you aren't away from the project for much longer. Your support has meant so much to me and I will do everything I can to live up to it. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome - I was most impressed with the final tally, WP:100 and unanimous! I got the WP:100, but not the unanimous bit! Although my time on Wikipedia will be reduced (my new job entails 12-13 hours shifts at night, with up to an hour travelling... by the time I get home and get something to eat, go to bed, get up... I don't have much spare time - apart from on my nights off!) I will still be on a couple of nights a week - plus check my talk page most days! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

• News and notes: Backlog drive; youth and confidence among Wikipedians, brief news

• In the news: Fundraising banners continue to provoke; plagiarism charges against congressional climate change report

• Interview: Interview with Johanna Niesyto and Nathaniel Tkacz from "Critical Point of View"

• WikiProject report: Celebrate WikiProject Holidays

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Election report: Voting in full swing

• Arbitration report: New case: Longevity; Biophys topic ban likely to stay in place

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)