User talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2011/March
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Signpost: 28 February 2011
- News and notes: Newbies vs. patrollers; Indian statistics; brief news
- Arbitration statistics: Arbitration Committee hearing fewer cases; longer decision times
- WikiProject report: In Tune with WikiProject Classical Music
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: AUSC applications open; interim desysopping; two pending cases
- Technology report: HTML5 adopted but soon reverted; brief news
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
drv
I apologize for any impoliteness. . The line between closing a/c opinion and evaluating opinion is not always clear. I think you intended to do it right, and did not mean to suggest otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, and thank you also for saying that at the DRV. I apologise if I over-reacted to your comment! I always enjoy reading your opinions at AfD (or DRV!) because I know even if I disagree with it, it will be considered and well worth reading. I am now going to go to bed and try to shift this illness so that I can do my night shift tonight! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 10:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
R. D. Reynolds
There was an MFD over GaryColemanFan's userfication of R. D. Reynolds which is suggesting that it be moved back to article space. But I can't do that since the title is salted. Could you please move it back to article space? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- I see that you got it sorted! Sorry I couldn't do anything - work and illness has prevented me from coming online for a week! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Undelete the Shou Shu page
01:51, 20 December 2010 Phantomsteve (talk | contribs) deleted "Shou Shu" (A7: Article about a group or club, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject (CSDH))
Deleting something because you cannot see the importance or significance of it is an individual problem; there's no reason everyone else should lose access to this page. Please restore the page and the information on it.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenixfire1213 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay in responding - between work commitments and illness, I have not been online for a week!
- Looking at the content of the Shou Shu article as it was when it was deleted, there is indeed nothing to indicate why it is either important or significant. There were no references in the article, and when I tried to find coverage in the media (newspapers, magazines, etc) or in academic works, I could find nothing.
- If you can find some coverage at reliable sources which are independent of the subject (i.e. not a website of a Shou Shu club, or written by a teacher of Shou Shu), then let me know, I can look at them, and then I can consider restoring it.
- If you feel that the deletion was in error, and that there is an indication of the importance or signficiance of the subject within the article, then please feel free to take this to Deletion review where other editors can judge whether my deletion was incorrect. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
SIEW - updating number of participants
Hi Steve, thanks for your earlier reply!
About updating the number of participants to 14,000, checked internally on the "Industrial Automation Asia" article and verified that it was an independent editorial piece. There are also other articles that state the 14,000 number of participants, including this article in The Singapore Engineer (page 26). Based on this, would you be able to update the number of participants in the infobox to 14,000?
Noted that the article isn't a wiki. :) Many thanks for your help and advice. Ssumin (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have done that now PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Leeds Labour Students Deletion
You deleted Leeds Labour Students when the debate was not finished and no consensus had been reached.. if you're going to stick to the letter of the rules at least follow that one too — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomfollett (talk • contribs) 03:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how you reached your conclusions above, but to refute them:
- The discussion was relisted at 00:04, 13 February 2011 - I closed the discussion at 04:10, 23 February 2011, 10 days later - far more than the 7 days required before closing a discussion - so I stuck to the letter and the spirit of the rules on that.
- The last contribution was 14:56, 22 February 2011 - 14 hours before I closed the discussion. This is hardly the sign of an on-going debate, especially as the previous contribution to the discussion had been your contribution at 02:55, 6 February 2011 (2 weeks before) - so I stuck to the letter and the spirit of the rules on that.
- There was (in my view) a consensus: the nominator and one other person has said that it should be deleted. Yours was the only dissenting view to that, and you were the creator and only significant contributor to the article, so you are bound to be biased.
- If you feel that my closure was incorrect, then I must say that I disagree, as per my reasons above - but if you still feel so, then please feel free to take this to Deletion review. If you do, please explain that we have had this discussion.
- Incidentally, please accept my apologies for my late response - between work and illness, I have not been online for a week! Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 7 March 2011
- News and notes: Foundation looking for "storyteller" and research fellows; new GLAM newsletter; brief news
- Deletion controversy: Deletion of article about website angers gaming community
- WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Feminism
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: New case opened after interim desysop last week; three pending cases
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Scanned Articles
Hi Steve, I have a question about a comment you made here, you said "Scans of publications on a person's own website do not meet the reliability criteria". My understanding of WP:SOURCEACCESS is that sources do not need to be online to be valid for use as WP:RS. So, if the source itself is considered reliable, but it's not online, the fact that the primary saved a scanned copy on their website should not invalidate the source. Any editor that questions the validity of the scan could always go to a university library, etc to validate the source. What are your thoughts? - Rob Robman94 (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's one of those debatable areas! Ironically, if all of the articles scanned on the website were cited as themselves (e.g. "How I worked in Iraq" by J. B. Good, "The Long Island Reporter" p 3, 12 August 1948) then it would be acceptable - people would be able to verify it offline as you mention - however, my feeling is that a scan on a website owned by someone other than the original publisher is not as reliable as an offline article: people checking it out would rely on the scan - which could have been altered - and would be less inclined to check out the original source.
- I have several times used offline sources (books, newspapers) as references in articles which I have contributed to - but I have never used a scan on a website other than the original source, as I feel that if I had a scan on (for example) my own website, people would be less inclined to trust it as reliable - which would impact on the reliability of Wikipedia.
- To be honest, the scans weren't really the make-or-break point in this case, is it? They showed that he had received a byline for about 3 newspaper stories (1 of which was the same as had already been quoted in the article), or that he had been asked by a newspaper for a comment as an ex-pat (but none of those quotes showed that he was being asked as an "expert", but as an ex-pat).
- However, good question, and I hope my reply has helped you understand how I feel! Your mileage may vary, of course... PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- For sure, I'm not talking about that actual case, but the concept in general. I'm in the process of going through some music reviews from old newspaper articles that I have in my possession and I am correctly documenting the citations as you describe, but I was also intending to scan the articles and put the scan online somewhere in order to assist editors in reviewing the items. Are you suggesting that it would actually be better to NOT put the scans online in order to force editors to go to libraries? I suspect that most editors are not going to go to that level of effort. If you were the reviewing editor, which would you prefer to see? Btw, thanks for you time in answering this, it's much appreciated. Robman94 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- If you were to have the scans online, but have them linked (as the
|url=parameter) in a citation then I wouldn't have a problem with that - the citation itself would be verifiable independently of the scan. In the case of the AfD article's scans, there were no citations - just a link to a website (which was the subject's own website) of the scans. If they had been hosted on a totally independent website (i.e. not connected with the subject at all, not necessarily the original source's websites), and had been cited within the article, I wouldn't have had such a problem with them as a source. In your case, as you would do a full citation of the newspaper article as well as a link to the scan, I personally would have no problem with that. Obviously, if the newspaper article was about the band "We Like Pancakes", and you were a member of the band and put the scan on the band's website, that would be a problem, as it would if the article was about a bandmember "Purple Skuzz" and it was on your personal website which was purpleskuzz.com! If the scan is on a website which is independent of the subject, then it wouldn't be too big a problem, as far as I am concerned. I hope that all makes sense... PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- If you were to have the scans online, but have them linked (as the
- For sure, I'm not talking about that actual case, but the concept in general. I'm in the process of going through some music reviews from old newspaper articles that I have in my possession and I am correctly documenting the citations as you describe, but I was also intending to scan the articles and put the scan online somewhere in order to assist editors in reviewing the items. Are you suggesting that it would actually be better to NOT put the scans online in order to force editors to go to libraries? I suspect that most editors are not going to go to that level of effort. If you were the reviewing editor, which would you prefer to see? Btw, thanks for you time in answering this, it's much appreciated. Robman94 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
restoring ah cama-sotz
thanks again. Still, i don't understand how someone, anybody, can contest a realistic biography which is being deleted without being checked. I would appreciate it to receive some explanation. Thanks again. Cheers, Herman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camanecro (talk • contribs) 21:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- From looking at the article, I would say the problem is the lack of sources. The external links are to his (?) own website and his MySpace page - neither of those are independent. There are no sources which are independent (see here for guidelines on independent sources) or what Wikipedia would regard as reliable (see here for guidelines on reliable sources). You would also need to show that the project meets the notability guidelines for musicians (see here), the notability guidelines for composers (see here) and the general notability guidelines (see here). As it stands, the articles does not demonstrate these, and I would say it is at real risk of being deleted via an "Articles for deletion" discussion. Of course, if you can provide independent reliable sources which show that the project/Klapholz meet the notability guidelines, then that would help to ensure that it wasn't deleted. Let me know if I can help you - although I must warn you that on occasions, I only get onto Wikipedia once or twice a week because of work and family commitments! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
ah cama-sotz
thanks again. I will provide more info and links.
greetings. herman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camanecro (talk • contribs) 12:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Requesting undeletion of Ah Cama-Sotz page.
I object to the deletion of the page Ah Cama-Sotz due to lack of notability, and request it be undeleted, if that is possible? The artist has had 13 albums published, including by Ant-Zen and Hands (major labels in that field), and numerous EPs and singles. This satisfies Criterion #1 and #5 for Musicians and Ensembles. If this info was not present on the original page, then let me know and I can update the page. Dryfter (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- As you are contesting the PROD (even after deletion), I am restoring the article per our policy. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll see if I can get it updated and get some more references on there shortly. Dryfter (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 March 2011
- News and notes: Foundation reports editor trends, technology plans and communication changes; brief news
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: New case on AE sanction handling; AUSC candidates; proposed decision in Kehrli 2 and Monty Hall problem
- Technology report: Left-aligned edit links and bugfixes abound; brief news
As you deleted this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Neil Falcone, could you please take a look at Talk:Ryan Neil Falcone. The article has recently been re-created. The same pile-on of new SPAs (with different user names) is pulling the same stuff they tried at the AfD. Voceditenore (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I see that a second AfD has been started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Neil Falcone (2nd nomination), so my involvement here is not required. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ah_Cama-Sotz
i'm busy adding more info and refs. If there's something wrong with the codes or contents , let me know :-) thanks again!
greetings. herman 13:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Camanecro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camanecro (talk • contribs) 13:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 March 2011
- WikiProject report: Medicpedia — WikiProject Medicine
- Features and admins: Best of the week
- Arbitration report: One closed case, one suspended case, and two other cases
- Technology report: What is: localisation?; the proposed "personal image filter" explained; and more in brief
kuzari
Hi, is there anyway you could do me a big favor and e-mail me the article you deleted on the Kuzari Principle? I know it didn't meet Wikipedia standards; I just want it for my own use. My E-mail is <redacted>. Thanks a lot for your time.
Etan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratzon (talk • contribs) 23:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Etan, I have redacted your email address (and removed it from the history of this page) - pages on Wikipedia (including user pages) are very visible! If you want me to send you the text, you need to go to your preferences and associate an email address with your account on Wikipedia. Then let me know, and I will then mail the text to you through Wiki-mail. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Kuzari Principle
Thanks, Steve. OK, I just confirmed my E-mail account, so you can now send me the Kuzari Principle article by E-mail. Thanks a lot for your swift assistance.
Be well, Etan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratzon (talk • contribs) 18:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Did I do that right? I'm new to this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratzon (talk • contribs) 18:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- You have set up an email address, but as I'm at work, I can't log in under my main account. I'll email it to you tomorrow when I'm off work! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 21:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- (puts on best Yul Brynner voice): "So let it be written. So let it be done." PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 March 2011
- News and notes: Berlin conference highlights relation between chapters and Foundation; annual report; brief news
- In the news: Sue Gardner interviewed; Imperial College student society launched; Indian languages; brief news
- WikiProject report: Linking with WikiProject Wikify
- Features and admins: Featured list milestone
- Arbitration report: New case opens; Monty Hall problem case closes – what does the decision tell us?
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)