User talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2011/February
 | 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. |
The Signpost: 31 January 2011
- The Science Hall of Fame: Building a pantheon of scientists from Wikipedia and Google Books
- WikiProject report: WikiWarriors
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Evidence in Shakespeare case moves to a close; Longevity case awaits proposed decision; AUSC RfC
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Added template for SuggestBot
Hi,
Thanks for being one of SuggestBot's users! I hope you have found the bot's suggestions useful.
We are in the process of switching from our previous list-based signup process to using templates and userboxes, and I have therefore added the appropriate template to your user talk page. You should receive the first set of suggestions within a day, and since we'll be automating SuggestBot you will from then on continue to receive them regularly at the desired frequency.
We now also have a userbox that you can use to let others know you're using SuggestBot, and if you don't want to clutter your user talk page the bot can post to a sub-page in your userspace. More information about the userbox and usage of the template is available on User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly.
If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch with me on my user talk page. Thanks again, Nettrom (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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) 11:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 7 February 2011
- News and notes: New General Counsel hired; reuse of Google Art Project debated; GLAM newsletter started; news in brief
- WikiProject report: Stargazing aboard WikiProject Spaceflight
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Open cases: Shakespeare authorship – Longevity; Motions on Date delinking, Eastern European mailing list
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Talkback
Message added 02:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Deleted Article?
Hey, you deleted my article and had no reason to. I've created several articles and have never had one deleted. I properly sourced everything appropriately and it's verifiable, the business is credited in the New York Times, and you're trigger happy and deleted it. I didn't back up the work to my hard drive and now I can even view it for later. I need an explanation.
Raymond Jungles Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Statzer (talk • contribs) 03:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- It was tagged for deletion as promotional. I looked at it, and this seemed to be a fair assessment. However, I have looked at it again (as an admin, I can still look at it) and looked at the references, and I agree that it would appear to meet the criteria to avoid speedy deletion. I have therefore restored it. Please note that this does not indicate that it meets the criteria for inclusion, merely that it does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion - it is possible that someone may put it up for deletion through another process PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Why did you delete my beautiful page?
Obviously you do not appreciate the significant contribution that Destery Moore has made to comedy, nor how sexy he is. He will go down in history as a main contributor to improving our world; you, however, will not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHeartDes (talk • contribs) 04:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I deleted Destery moore because it did not indicate his significance in a credible way. Unfortunately, being "hilarious, sexy, and [having] amazing hair" are not among the criteria for notability listed at Wikipedia:Notability (people), for some reason! Obviously, if he goes down in history as a main contributor to improving our world, there will be a lot of coverage of him at independent reliable sources which would ensure that he meets the criteria for inclusion - and then he can have an article written about him on Wikipedia! We'll just have to hold out breath for that, I think. As for my lack of contribution to improving the world... I'll take the chance on that! I won't ever qualify for a Wikipedia article, but in my work life I make a contribution to my part of the world, and I improve the world (I hope!) for my family - those are enough for me PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Speedy Deletion - Courtney Lodge and Michael Roofe
Hi Phanomsteve I respect your work and time as an admin on Wikipedia. Given that we are a very small country, it will always be difficult to meet the notability standards set by Wikipedia. That should not prevent well known Jamaicans from having a place on Wikipedia. Especially when these people and their work are very important and have a wide reach. That wide reach for us, may be a drop in the bucket in the context of the world, but it is still a wide reach which makes them notable. Jamaican Wikipedia users, and others would welcome their presence on The Free Encylcopedia. Please consider reverting the deletions of articles on Courtney Lodge and Michael Roofe.
I did quite a bit of work to clean up the ROofe article. And I was not made aware that the Courtney Lodge was down for deletion. As a committed credit union member, I would like to see these men who are playing a role in the credit union movement, listed on Wikipedia for referencing and research.
Thank you. (Jamaicancontributor (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC))
Speedy Deletion - Courtney Lodge and Michael Roofe (continued)
Hi Phanomsteve If I wish to also say that several independent, credible sources were cited that confirmed these men's work and contribution. There were references and both external and internal links. Please review and reconsider.
Thank you. (Jamaicancontributor (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC))
- I will look at them again either tonight or in the next couple of days when work permits! I will then get back to you to either let you know that I have restored them, or explain why I have not done so. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Data grid deletion
Hello!
The page "Data grid" has been deleted by you, because of no objections after seven days. Where can I see the reason for the deletion? Is a data grid an irrelevant topic, or is it included somewhere else? Thank you for the information! Sae1962 (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- The reason given by the person who proposed it for deletion was "data grid" refers to many different things, none of which are particularly notable - certainly this interpretation is less notable than, say, the microsoft programming construct.. Are you objecting to the deletion? If so, let me know and I will restore it (however, this does not prevent someone else taking the article to "Articles for deletion" for discussion). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 February 2011
- News and notes: Foundation report; gender statistics; DMCA takedowns; brief news
- In the news: Wikipedia wrongly blamed for Super Bowl gaffe; "digital natives" naive about Wikipedia; brief news
- WikiProject report: Articles for Creation
- Features and admins: RFAs and active admins—concerns expressed over the continuing drought
- Arbitration report: Proposed decisions in Shakespeare and Longevity; two new cases; motions passed, and more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
SIEW COI
Hi Steve, starting a new thread as the January messages are now archived. Wanted to follow up on the Conflict of Interest issue on the SIEW wiki. Would greatly appreciate your advice on the best way to proceed from here - many thanks! Ssumin (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Having looked at your additions and the reversions, I'd say the following:
- Your rewording of the first paragraph was unnecessary - and what is currently there says pretty much the same thing anyway.
- Regarding the "participation": the only reference for the figure of 14000 was at the main sponsor's own website - not independent - and I couldn't find anything that gave the figure elsewhere in independent sources
- The Flickr account obviously cannot be included as an external link - I would suggest that it be mentioned on the official website's home page (if it isn't already) - anyone going there from the "Official website" link on the article will be able to get to the Flickr account
- Having looked at it in detail, I can't fault OrangeMike. My advice to you would be to find independent sources for the figure of participants, and not to reinsert the material which has been reverted - to continue to do so would be to risk being blocked from editing. Other than that, I can't really think of any other advice which I can give you. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Steve, many thanks for your feedback. We have an independent source on the 2010 event participation - please see this article by a publication called Industrial Automation Asia. Would you be able to update the participation to 14,000 in the 2010 section and in the infobox?
- Quick clarification that I had thought the issue was the Flickr link, so had tried to re-edit the number of participants, which I thought was a (non-problematic) factual update. Had immediately undid this edit once I realised it was actually a COI issue, but still got flagged as a "continued problem". Definitely noted on not reinserting material that had been reverted.
- Lastly, the wiki is currently flagged for conflict of interest. I've been transparent that I work with SIEW and we're also cognizant of the need to keep the article factual and neutral, as you can see from my previous queries on making edits. Hence would really appreciate if you could share your thoughts on how we can work together to update the wiki, if needed, going forward?
- Thanks, Steve. Separately, wanted to say that I rely on Wikipedia a lot - for e.g. reading up on countries/ cities for my last holiday and episode guides for my fave TV series - so really appreciate the work of wiki editors like yourself. As you know, it's my first time contributing to the community, so definitely look forward to your guidance on this. Cheers :) Ssumin (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for contacting me again, and apologies for the delay - life has been hectic over the last few days - although I am on holiday from work, there have been a lot of family stuff to work with!
- Regarding "Industrial Automation Asia" - how independent is that particular article (I've no way of knowing, as I can't find mention of IAA on Wikipedia!) - and that article does not mention who wrote it - and sounds like a press release to me (but of course, I could be wrong about that!) - in which case it is not an independent source. If it is truly independent, and written by a paid reporter from the IAA rather than a press release, then it could be used and I would be happy to do so!
- With regard to the "continued problem" - it is not now a problem as you have stopped inserting that material! I'd ignore that (as in "don't let it worry you", rather than "do it again"!)
- With regard to the CoI issues flagged on the article - I acknowledge the fact that you have been open about your connection, and your desire (and attempts) to be neutral with the article (not "wiki" - that is the name of the software or any of the sites which use Wiki type software; this is "Wikipedia", and each 'page' is an "article" or "Wikipedia article", or at a pinch "Wikipedia page" - sorry to be petty about that, but I'm an ex-teacher, and like precision in language!) - I'd leave that there until you've done a few edits which demonstrate to other editor's satisfaction that you are not letting it influence your editing. I don't see it as a problem, or a reflection on you. When other editors on the article see that you are editing in a neutral, non-promotional way, then that will be removed by them!
- Again, if there is anything I can do to help you, please contact me! I'll try to respond in a more timely manner! Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Account Creation Improvement Project
Hello,
You signed up on the Account Creation Improvment Project on the Outreach wiki. Thanks.
Now, we are looking for help. We are going to test the pages that are in the account creation process right now, against any pages that you create. More information.
Best wishes, SvHannibal (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I will look at this in the next few days, when I'm on holiday from work! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I look forward to it.//SvHannibal (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124
Hi, you deleted Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124 as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124. I've no problem with your closure and accepted it at the time of closure, because the community decided that the accident didn't meet WP:AIRCRASH, which had changed since I originally created the article. However, since then, WP:AIRCRASH has been changed again. Under the current version, I believe that the article as it was on deletion would meet WP:AIRCRASH. In Accordance with WP:DRV#Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions point 1, I am therefore asking you whether you are willing to undelete the article, or whether you wish me to take the issue to DRV. I realise this doesn't quite come under the stated remit of DRV, as there isn't new info to add, but the underlying essay has changed. That said, I think DRV would probably be the best venue should community discussion be desired. If this does go to DRV, I will inform all users who participated in the original deletion discussion by means of a neutrally-worded note that the deletion is at DRV. Mjroots (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Deletion review for Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124. 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. Mjroots (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have commented at the review PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi
Hi, I previously requested your help regarding an edit dispute which spilled out to Facebook. Thanksfully, I have not received any more email. Also, the article itself has not suffered too much. I could re-engage in that article to restore few deleted contents which has proper citation but I'm not sure it is worth it. I don't like to associate with crazed people. Anyhow, I would appreciate if you can wipe this page[1] and possibly censure whoever vandalise my page if IP address can be linked to any user. But then I doubt the person is that stupid. Anyway, thanks.
P.S. Can you also delete user account called "FWBO article" as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapour (talk • contribs) 03:46, 18 February 2011
- I have restored the user page to the previous state (i.e. blank), and remove the potentially defamatory information from the history of the page (only admins can see that).
- I cannot link IP address to specific users, and even a CheckUser probably couldn't be that specific. In any case, the user of that IP now could be very different to the user when the edits took place.
- Finally I cannot delete a user account - accounts cannot be deleted, and unless there is a problem, they are not blocked. I see from your username change request in 2006 that FWBOarticle is your former account - it's not been used since 2006, so I'd just ignore it!
- Sorry for the delay in replying, I've been busy in the real world! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Numberjacks 0-9.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Numberjacks 0-9.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- note to self: current image says it is uploaded by the copyright owner, but as it's a DVD cover, it is unlikely to be the case. Check and delete as copyvio if appropriate and replace with above image. If it is correctly tagged, delete my file -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 12:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have tagged the image for speedy deletion (I have not deleted it myself, as this could be construed as a conflict of interest). I have also replace the image at Numberjacks with the one I created - as it shows the 10 Numberjacks, I feel that this is more representative of the program (as a fair-use image) than the cover of a specific DVD which only shows a few of the Numberjacks. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
To all recent contributors to this page
Ironically, despite being on holiday, this has resulted in me being busier than usual! I have seen your messages and will try to respond either later today or tomorrow! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 12:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 February 2011
- News and notes: Gender gap and sexual images; India consultant; brief news
- In the news: Egyptian revolution and Wikimania 2008; Jimmy Wales' move to the UK, Africa and systemic bias; brief news
- WikiProject report: More than numbers: WikiProject Mathematics
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Longevity and Shakespeare cases close; what do these decisions tell us?
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Zonnon AfD delete decision
We, as Wikipedia, have taken the time to consider this AfD, WP:Articles for deletion/Zonnon, and the process went to a stopping point as a SpeedyKeep. The WP:Guide to deletion states, "A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached", but even though the AfD discussion states that a delete decision would be considered "controversial and questionable", this issue has not been addressed in the closing statement. Unscintillating (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- With respect, you were the only person advocating a speedy keep, there was no consensus for it. I explained my reasoning fairly fully in my closure and feel that my close reflected the consensus. If you.feel that my closure was incorrect, please take it to deletion review, mentioning that you have discussed it with me -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 09:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Deletion review is found here - its shortcut is WP:DELREV, with WP:DR linking to the page on dispute resolution. Weakopedia (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for that... I accidently typed the wrong shortcut! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Always a pleasure, although anyone arriving at DR would have found the link to DELREV at the top of the page anyhow. I thought this was a fine close, keep up the good work. Weakopedia (talk) 05:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for that... I accidently typed the wrong shortcut! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Louisa Thiers
Hi, You deleted Louisa Thiers after an AfD. Can you make a copy of the deleted article and its talk page available to me somehow ? talkback please. Thanks. Rod57 (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Responded via email with text PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to respond and discuss your actions
re- the ola-abaza page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyrussell34 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- I see that you have re-created it with references. I will look at them, and if the references do not meet our criteria, I will discuss it with you. However, because of work commitments, this might not be for a couple of days. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
hi- thank you very much. no problem about delay. I want to mention that i am new to wiki and dnt really know how to put references properly... i have tried though. hope its enough. other ppl who know how to use wiki could be very helpful.--kellyrussell34 (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
-Hey.. please consider that the subject of the article has clearly been publsihed several time son relevant topics, has been interviewed several times and has been no.1 on NZ's myspace charts for all generes before and currently for over a week...on these non-myspace links you can see independent descriptions of his position and work and current research on biology and otehr topics --kellyrussell34 (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, as no one has objected to the article's presence, I would take that as a positive sign. Ahmed Tarek Bahgat Abaza may or may not meet notability criteria, but as there are references in the press, I see no reason for a speedy deletion. If anyone has any objections, they can either propose it for deletion or start a Articles for deletion discussion. Just one thing - being on MySpace charts is not indication of notability - it's the non-MySpace references which are more useful! Hope this helps. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding - my time has been more busy than I thought it would be! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
-Of corse the delay is fine.. don't worry at all. I know myspace is not considered a reliable source but this is how i discovered him and his position is rather prominent. I thought it is ok to start this article obviously, and if i come acroos more refrences that are external i shall add the. thank you for your response and consideration. --kellyrussell34 (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
so have you removed the deletion and notability objections? are they removable by anyone? i have not touche dthem of course.--kellyrussell34 (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- There is currently no deletion notice on the article. As for the notability tag, of the 34 edits, 30 have been by you. As for the notability issues... I am going to look in more detail at the provided references. My gut instinct is that he does not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, but I could be wrong! If I feel that he does not meet the criteria, I will list the article at Articles for deletion, where a 7-day discussion will take place, and consensus reached on whether the article should be deleted. If I feel that he meets the criteria, I will remove the "general notability" tag from the article - either way, I will let you know! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Alright...i get it. thank you for explaining!--kellyrussell34 (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for giving me those links i will read them all. I am big fan and will not let this go easily!lOl The sources include sites certainly not his. I have faile d over the last two weeks to contact his site for more info and sources. The comment on the talk page about the interview link not working is simply lazy... it can be found and i found the youtube link .. it is an interview on a major story on a major national channel live... would they ask a nobody to go? they could ask anyone. it is lazy not to even try to search for the interview and instead trying to call for deletion of an article in a wiki for the people!--kellyrussell34 (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am not planning on commenting further on the AfD discussion, as I have made the points I wish to make, and it is for other editors to comment there. I do not want you to feel that this is a personal thing, a vendetta! If suitable sources can be found, I'd be quite happy for the article to be kept and improved - I couldn't find such sources though.
- I did a search for the TVNZ interview - a google search of the entire TVNZ website with his name (just the surname) - and nothing appeared. As I mentioned in the AfD, YouTube is not considered a reliable source. If you can find a working link to the interview on TVNZ's own website, then please give that. Without seeing the interview, I cannot comment on the content or depth of coverage. Before nominating the article for deletion, I did a search for sources which are independent and reliable. The ones in the article are either not considered reliable for the reasons given at the AfD, or not the "significant coverage" which is required. A single sentence quote is not significant coverage. Scans of articles are not considered reliable, unless they are on the original organisation's website (for example, if there had been an article in the New York Times - and I know there hasn't been, this is just an example - then it would only be counted as a reliable source if that scan was on the New York Times' own website (or their parent company's website), not a scan on someone else's website).
- Although I am not going to comment further on this AfD, if you need help about other items (including working on this article should the consensus be that it should be be kept), please do feel free to contact me - as I said, this is not a personal thing, and either way, I'd be happy to help you in any way I can PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your time and no I understand it is not personal. I do think it is absurd that the video on youtube doe snot count - so you are telling me he didn't in fact appear on TV.. maybe they archive the videos for only a few days. It was on their site. Also, at least one of the full articles written by him are not on his site. And how else would one put records of news paper publications except by scanning them? Anyway that is what I will say on the talk page and we shall see. I think the sign are that people on ere are stubborn ... there are some really silly stubs and articles on wikipedia. I do not quite understand how many articles you want.thanks for your advice and offer of future help..!--kellyrussell34 (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I am sure you will receive a number of comments supporting and disagreeing with your decision to delete the article. But regardless of the outcome, let me be the first to thank you for tackling a difficult decision. ttonyb (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Came here to say the same thing, actually. Regardless of whether or not I agreed with the final result, it was very refreshing to see a closure where the admin gave a full, thought-out rationale. Thanks for that.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! It certainly holds the record for my longest closing comment at AfD - I think it's even longer than my longest DRV comment! It'll be interesting to see what happens next - as I said in the closing comment, however I closed it, there would be disagreement! As it was obviously going to be a potentially controversial closure, I felt that it would be best to explain as fully as possible my thought process. There is also the fact that with work and family commitments, I might not have time to properly comment should a Review be started, so people at a review can see what my thoughts were. Incidentally, I made notes - which the closing statement was based on - which I will use if required to comment at any DRV. But again, thank you both, it is appreciated! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Before it makes its way to DRV, it is appropriate to ask that instead you close as "No consensus for deletion" which was in fact the case, since even after you discounted a number of Keep arguments, your count was still 23 Delete to 16 Keep. Nowhere does this constitute a "consensus." I would have discounted a number of the Deletes which failed to give much of a reason, and which ignored or misrepresented references cited in the discussion. The "Raw count" was practically even. Thanks for presenting your carefully stated reasoning. Edison (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! It certainly holds the record for my longest closing comment at AfD - I think it's even longer than my longest DRV comment! It'll be interesting to see what happens next - as I said in the closing comment, however I closed it, there would be disagreement! As it was obviously going to be a potentially controversial closure, I felt that it would be best to explain as fully as possible my thought process. There is also the fact that with work and family commitments, I might not have time to properly comment should a Review be started, so people at a review can see what my thoughts were. Incidentally, I made notes - which the closing statement was based on - which I will use if required to comment at any DRV. But again, thank you both, it is appreciated! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- For anyone who comes along to leave a comment on the closure: I welcome comments as always (positive or negative, as long as they are constructive and polite!) but I believe that my closure was correct given the discussion. If anyone wishes to take this to Deletion Review, they are most welcome to do so, I have nothing to hide - please let it be known there that I have said so, and direct anyone there to my closing statement at the AfD which explains my reasoning - I saw a consensus for deletion, and closed it as such. Should a Deletion Review be opened, I will endeavour to comment there subject to work and family commitments. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Deletion review for Serene Branson
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Serene Branson. 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. Edison (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Deletion review for Zonnon
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Zonnon. 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. Unscintillating (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah Cama-Sotz
this page has been deleted. why ? it existed since many years ???? :-/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ah_Cama-Sotz
greetings. herman klapholz
e-mail: <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camanecro (talk • contribs) 10:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- I deleted it as is was a Proposed deletion which was not contested. The fact that the article had existed for many years is not a reason to keep an article, in and of itself - the standards on Wikipedia were different back then! If you are contesting the deletion, then please let me know and I will restore it to allow you a chance to add independent reliable sources which show their notability PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
following up from AfD keep decision
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mind_sports_world_championship Presumably this means that I am allowed to remove the AfD /NPOV notice from the List of world championships in mind sports page.Tetron76 (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oops... I forgot to remove that, but have done so now! I use a script for closing AfDs, but if the article has been moved since the AfD started, it doesn't remove the AfD tag from the version as its moved location! Thanks for letting me know PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted page back online
hallo,
I would appreciate you restore the page . last time i read the page,all info was correct. so i don't understand why people ask for a deletion ??
thanks again. herman
Ah Cama-Sotz
this page has been deleted. why ? it existed since many years ???? :-/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ah_Cama-Sotz greetings. herman klapholz e-mail: <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camanecro (talk • contribs) 10:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC) I deleted it as is was a Proposed deletion which was not contested. The fact that the article had existed for many years is not a reason to keep an article, in and of itself - the standards on Wikipedia were different back then! If you are contesting the deletion, then please let me know and I will restore it to allow you a chance to add independent reliable sources which show their notability PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camanecro (talk • contribs)
Trevor Blumas article
Hi, I am considering undeleting the article Trevor Blumas. I see you nominated & deleted it in MAR 2010 for lack of references. I really don't know much about the person personally, but can easily provide verifiable references beyond IMDB. Since it was never placed on AFD because the PROD was uncontested, I don't see it as a problem. I just wanted to give you a heads up and see if you had any comments. Thanks. Who (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have restored it as a "contested PROD"! Happy editing on it! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)