User talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2011/September

Transient (Acoustics) page deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transient_%28acoustics%29

Hi. I am curious what this page contained and what you meant by using the word transient in audio is a misnomer. This certainly isn't true for acoustics. Every wave disturbance, including acoustics, has a beginning and an end and should be regarded as transient. See the textbook "Acoustics: An Introduction to its physical principles and applications" by Pierce (page 25 paragraph 3). Also, a Google scholar search: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=transient+acoustics&oe=utf-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.74.33.40 (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The complete text of the article was as follows (reformatted for layout on this talk page):

---

In acoustics and audio, a transient is a short-duration signal that represents a non-harmonic attack phase of a musical sound or spoken word. It contains a high degree of non-periodic components and a higher magnitude of high frequencies than the harmonic content of that sound. Transients do not directly depend on the frequency of the tone they initiate.

Transients are difficult to encode with many audio compression algorithms, causing pre-echo.

Sonar

Transient is often used by sonar operators to enter large numbers of crit strings, referring to sudden, unnatural changes in the acoustic environment, usually caused by an unnaturally fast moving object. It is most often applied for military use, referring to unexpected sounds emanating from another vessel such as operating machinery, a metal hatch being slammed, or the flooding and pressurization of torpedo or vertical launch tubes.

See also

• Impulse function
• Onset (audio)

---

If you want to comment further on this, please feel free to do so here!

Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I should add that I didn't say using the word transient in audio is a misnomer - those were the words of the user who proposed the article for deletion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

WU LYF

Hi Steve, would you do me a favour please and review the lastest changes made to the WU LYF page by user Yrelle. This user claims to be Ellery Roberts [1], the lead singer/keyboardist for the band, so there's obviously some WP:COI concerns here. I know we need to balance an artist's desire to correct factual inaccuracies with the need for Wikipedia to be independant and not a publicity tool. Given that there's also WP:BLP concerns here, I would like to defer to a more experience editor/admin, such as yourself, to decide how best to handle this. Thanks, Rob. Robman94 (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it could do with a tidy up, but there appears to be some good sourcing - like The Guardian, NME, BBC Radio 1, etc - including evidence that the album has charted in the UK, albeit at number 98! You might be better off asking the folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians for their input, as they will know the subject area more than I will. You might also want to discuss any problems on the article's talk page - and be specific about what you think are problems! Sorry I can't be more helpful than that! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I created the page originally, so that's where the sources come from. I was asking about the changes that Ellery has made to it. Here's the overall diff. Some of the changes are factual and OK, but some seem to be adding a promotional slant to the article and others seem to be an attempt to re-write the press reaction to the band. Robman94 (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't have the time now to look at this in the detail at which is needed (I'm on nights for the next fews days and am going to bed soon!) - I understand what you are saying, but it is borderline. It really needs someone with more knowledge in the field (and more time!) to look at it - or you can be bold and either remove any unsourced information, re-word anything which is inaccurate, or re-word anything which sounds too promotional. Just make sure that you explain clearly in the edit summary/ies what you are doing (and perhaps discuss it on the article's talk page). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Jane Walker (journalist)

I was looking at this at the same time you were, with a view of declining the speedy, given the Irish Times reference. I was just doing a quick check for other sources, and found this in El País. Viewing it as controversial deletion, I was thinking it was one for AfD, not CSD, if deletion was warranted at all. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I will restore it with that in mind. I did look at the Irish Times reference, but the coverage did not appear to me to be significant enough to meet WP:N. Feel free to AfD it if you so wish! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Restored as promised above! Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Great; thanks. I think the general consensus in discussions at WT:CSD has been that once a reliable source is cited, the article has cleared the bar of A7 (though a minority disagrees with that). A7 is a much lower bar to clear than WP:N, as you well know. Cheers. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

True, but the content of the article did not really explain her significance, and the article did not appear to have enough to expand the article in such a way as to show significance - however, upon reflection I agree that it is sufficient to make CSD the wrong option. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've added the second reference, and encouraged the original author to expand the article with more references if he can. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in, but I had also been considering the speedy deletion of this article. Clearly the second reference is more than sufficient to resolve the speedy deletion issue for this article, but I am interested in the larger academic issue. I generally agree with Paul Erik that a single decent source is usually enough to push an article past the speedy deletion bar. However, I am less inclined to that position when the one source is an obituary. Pretty much everybody gets an obituary, so I don't know that it really does much to show much notability. Is there any consensus on that?--Kubigula (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, good question. If it's the usual obituary, the sort that a family pays to have put in a newspaper, then that certainly wouldn't be enough. But an obit written by a writer employed by the newspaper—I wouldn't say that's something that "everybody gets" and I think I'd consider it sufficient to establish some significance. I think this was discussed at some point at WT:N but am not entirely sure. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No worries, but perhaps a better place to have this discussion would be at WT:CSD? In this particular case, I think two reliable sources are enough to prevent speedy deletion, but have no comment to make on obits as the only source(s)! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hijack your talk page; this probably would have been a good discussion for WT:CSD. However, I think Paul's answer that a "news" obit is different from a run of the mill obit is convincing and my academic itch is scratched.--Kubigula (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello Phantomsteve! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 12:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

• News and notes: 24,000 votes later and community position on image filter still unclear; first index of editor satisfaction appears positive

• In the news: Britannica and Wikipedia like "apples and chairs"; should anyone who's anyone get an article?; and why fighting and barriers to editing may be useful after all

• WikiProject report: Riding with WikiProject London Transport

• Sister projects: Wiki Loves Monuments 2011

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Opinion essay: The copyright crisis, and why we should care

• Arbitration report: BLP case closed; Cirt-Jayen466 nearly there; AUSC reshuffle

• Technology report: Pencils down in Google Summer of Code, August analysed and integrated HTTPS support in action

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Fahrenheit 56K

Back in 2009, you proposed this article for deletion as non-notable. The prod was contested, but I believe it is still non-notable, and have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahrenheit 56K. Robofish (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Your removal of AfD's from the log

Greetings! When relisting AfD debates, can you please take care to avoid removing other discussions? Please see [2], [3], [4] for examples (though the second two only removed your own edits). Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for contacting me. When I relist AfDs, I'm using a script. I'll look into this in a couple of days when I'm off work -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 05:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

• News and notes: Foundation reports on research, Kenya trip, Mumbai Wikiconference; Canada, Hungary and Estonia; English Wikinews forked

• In the news: 9/11 coverage, Wikimedia hypothetically rebranded and Wikipedia golf 2.0

• WikiProject report: Politics in the Pacific: WikiProject Australian Politics

• Featured content: Wikipedians explain two new featured pictures

• Arbitration report: Ohconfucius sanctions removed, Cirt desysopped 6:5 and a call for CU/OS applications

• Technology report: What is: agile development? and new mobile site goes live

• Opinion essay: The Walrus and the Carpenter

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Duroc (pig) Nose whistle (instrument) Ranzania (plant) Chirutha Wesley A. Swift Constantius Bridge Do Detectives Think? Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs Windsor Railway Bridge Okanagan Lake Bridge Rank and file Complicated skin and skin structure infection Arizona Daily Sun Bristol Bridge Serra de Pàndols Be Big! Mahdi al-Harati Fukuoka Jo Gakuin University Mayo Bridge

Cleanup St George's Bridge Torch (rapper) Ambush marketing Merge Prodrazvyorstka Local food Predacons Add Sources Merrill Markoe Classical Comics Red Serge Wikify Michel Pagliaro Giddarbaha Orissa Expand Stacey Solomon Martin Luther King Bridge (St. Louis) Halcyonair

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) 15:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Phantomsteve. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion.
Message added 21:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

• From the editor: Changes to The Signpost

• News and notes: Ushahidi research tool announced, Citizendium five years on: success or failure?, and Wikimedia DC officially recognised

• In the news: Wikipedia: yesterday's news? Calls for women, doctors, and scholars of humanities; Wales makes Wikimedia work "look easy"

• Sister projects: On the Wikinews fork

• WikiProject report: Back to school

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: ArbCom narrowly rejects application to open new case

• Technology report: MediaWiki 1.18 deployment begins, the alleged "injustice" of WMF engineering policy, and Wikimedians warned of imminent fix to magic word

• Popular pages: Article stats for the English Wikipedia in the last year

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbortext page deletion

Hi, Phantomsteve.

On August 1, 2011, you (wikipedia) dpeedily deleted the Arbortext page. I was a bit confused, because it didn't appear to me to meet the G11 criteria for speedy deletion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#G11). I would have hoped to see a warning on the page for a few weeks or a month, saying "hey, this page is gonna go away if it's not edited!". (if those alerts/flags were there, then I missed them - mea culpa). Nevertheless, the page is now gone.

Is it possible to undo that (on your end)? I understand that you think the page may be flagrantly advertising. What I'd like to to is take the content that was there and re-work it to make it not appear as flagrantly advertising. But I need the page back up to copy/paste/export it.

Looking forward to your reply. I've RSS'ed this page, so if you reply here, I'll see it. I'm still a bit new to the wikipedia syntax, so I'm not sure if this is where I'll see a response.

Thanks!

-Alan Belniak Abelniak (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC) (I work at PTC, the software company that owns Arbortext, and am contacting you about this for work-related purposes)

Hi Alan, sorry for the delay in replying - work is busy at the moment! I'll look into this in a few days and give a considered response. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

To help you, a quick look at the old text shows that there was a lack of reliable sources which are independent of the subject, and a lack of indication that the subject met the criteria for inclusion here. You say that you contacted me for work-related purposes, I should let you know that Wikipedia is not here for promotional purposes, or to give "legitimacy" to a company or product. As I said, I will look into this in more detail when I get a chance, but if you could give more information about (1) some reliable independent sources with information about Arbortext; (2) some indication of which "notability criteria" the subject meets, and why; (3) some indication about the "work-related purposes" to which you refer - that would help me to advise you better. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(note to self) Arbortext was deleted; Arbortext Command Language and Arbortext Advanced Print Publisher currently exist and need to be looked at/considered PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011

• Opinion essay: The global mission, the image filter and the "German question"

• Recent research: Top female Wikipedians, reverted newbies, link spam, social influence on admin votes, Wikipedians' weekends, WikiSym previews

• News and notes: WMF strikes down enwiki consensus, academic journal partnerships, and eyebrows raised over minors editing porn-related content

• In the news: Sockpuppeting journalist recants, search dominance threatened, new novels replete with Wikipedia references

• WikiProject report: A project in overdrive: WikiProject Automobiles

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: "Broadly construed" explained, voting begins on Senkaku Islands case, invitation to comment on CU/OS candidates

• Technology report: 1.18 deployment on track, "mythical" Git migration scheduled, editor decline statistics improved

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Classics_Illustrated_UK.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Classics_Illustrated_UK.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)