User talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2012/February

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Phantomsteve. 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.

AfD on VCW Championship

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi I saw you were the closing admin and deleted the article VCW Championship. In the AfD I nominated to other article, both VCW titles that are still open. I wanted to bring this to your attention in case you missed them, or if I didn't set up the AfD correctly. Thanks! Wildthing61476 (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed those when I was closing! I have now deleted them. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Where is PHDL?

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Steve, I see you guys went ahead and deleted the PHDL article. Mostly it violated the notability standard. I understand from my open source buddies that they often get deleted for that reason until their project gets wider appeal. I have been told that deleted articles are not really deleted but rather moved to a location that is not visible. I would like to move that deleted PHDL article into my private area so I can improve it until notability increases to satisfy WP. Can you tell me how to preserve a private copy of the deleted PHDL article? I have a lot of real life activities so I don't want to start over on PHDL when the time comes. Thanks. Padudle (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll look at this in the next few days, when I'm not going off to work! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, as it was deleted as not meeting the inclusion criteria, the best thing to do would be to let me know when you have some reliable sources which are independent that demonstrate that it meets the notability criteria. If I userfied it, someone could propose it for deletion anyway, unless it meets the notability criteria - although user space can be used for drafting, it is not a place to keep an article.

Having said that, if you find some reliable independent sources, let me know, and I'll gladly userfy it for you! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

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


Stubs		Cleanup
	North American Reciprocal Museums		Football on 5
	I'll Keep Your Memory Vague		SlickDeals.net
	RootsTech		Katherine Parkinson
	Historical Diving Society	Merge
	Good Times (Finger Eleven song)		Prodrazvyorstka
	One Thing		Rotten Apples
	First Time (Finger Eleven song)		A.S.K. M.E.
	Finger Eleven (album)	Add sources
	Be Big!		BBN Earthmovers Ludhiana
	Oxford Historical Society		Modern reenactment
	Life Turns Electric		Living history
	The Second Hundred Years (film)	Wikify
	Natrix maura		Men of Iron
	Hillbilly (tomato)		SIEGE (2011 video game)
	Naval Historical Society of Australia		Bahauddin Zakariya University Sub-Campus, Layyah
	Traveller (tomato)	Expand
	Above (song)		Neopets: The Darkest Faerie
	Do Detectives Think?		Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012
	Jubilee (tomato)		Martin Luther King Bridge (St. Louis)

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) 03:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit history of wide left

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I have made wide left, the title of an AfD you just closed, into a redirect. Would it be possible if you could restore the article's edit history behind that redirect? Hellno2 (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Done PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to drag you into this Phantomsteve, but that redirect should not have been created in the first place, and the AfD was clear about that. I've left a note at Hellno's talk, but if he doesn't delete it then I think we'll have another XfD. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 16:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Phantomsteve, I don't understand it either. Why restore the history after "delete"? I note also that the history of the redirect doesn't even include the AfD--mention of it is found only in the logs for the page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors

In the news: Leading scholar hails Wikipedia, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned

Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts

WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff

Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure

Technology report: October's coding challenge: results now in; progress on 1.19 steady; and why for a while interwiki links were no more

Your AfD close of Seamus (dog)

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Predictably, this close has already begun to waste huge amounts of editorial time -- see Talk:Mitt Romney#Seamus (dog) merge -- and we are nowhere near done. I don't know if you were simply assuming that "Merge" would be an incantation that would make all the disagreements go away, but it hasn't happened.

Given the extent of the discussion, the close division among editors, and your decision to merge disputed content into one of the most frequently viewed articles on Wikipedia, I respectfully suggest that it would have been useful for you to provide some explanation. (The DRV page says that I should try to resolve the issue in discussion with you, but I don't know where to begin the discussion because I have no clue as to your reasoning.) I further suggest that, in light of developments in just the few short hours since you acted, you might reconsider your decision. JamesMLane t c 05:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with JamesMLane that the decision to close the Afd for Seamus as Merge is problematic. It has led to an edit war for the Mitt Romney article between those who wish to incorporate the information from Seamus article as per AfD decision, and those who don't want the information in the Mitt Romney article, citing undue weight. The AfD for Seamus had 7 votes for Keep, 6 for Merge, and 6 for Delete with varying reasoning even within the three groups. Although I know that vote counts are not the sole deciding factor for AfDs, I really believe that the no consensus was reached, and I ask that you might reconsider your decision.Debbie W. 05:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. I have reviewed the arguments and closed it as no consensus - although as I am about to leave for work, I cannot move the article back, etc (although I have update the AfD result on the article's talk page). Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. I am going to recreate the article because there was no consensus, and no consensus on an AfD is supposed to give the same outcome as keep.Debbie W. 18:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to re-examine your decision! JamesMLane t c 04:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't beleive you allowed this POV pushing article to be recreated. The dog is not notably outside of those that wish to use it as a political hammer. Your rational should not be a vote, for if it were there would be little point in even having an admin review the discussion. Why not simply create a bot so you don't even have to make a decision based on any policy. Arzel (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I changed the outcome of the AfD having re-evaluated the arguments. There was no consensus to delete the article contents entirely - if you feel that the article should be deleted, you are welcome to try another AfD. My closure should not be seen as a sign of agreement with the arguments presented - when I close an AfD, I look at the presented arguments. If I feel strongly about it, I will actually comment at the AfD instead of closing it - if you look at the batch of AfDs I closed at the same time, you will see one or two which I didn't close, but which I commented at instead - otherwise what I think has no bearing on the matter. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

So, since the result was not a whole stage merge you changed your mind to a POV fork instead? Please tell me what, if anything, this dog actually did to be notable. Arzel (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

From my position as closing admin, what I think is irrelevant. My job was to close the AfD based on the arguments as presented and the consensus thereof. In this case I closed it incorrectly (I'm human, I sometimes make mistakes) and so corrected this when it was pointed out to me, having reviewed the AfD. On a perso al level, I think you are right that this dog does not really meet the criteria - and if there was to be another AfD I might even say that - but in this case my closure was in line with the consensus. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 23:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Beats Per Minute (website)

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I'm looking to make the wikipedia for Beats Per Minute (http://beatsperminute.com). Their old wiki is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Thirty_BPM but they've seen rebranded to Beats Per Minute. Although the old page is poorly written I think it can be fixed on this new page. Additionally I do think it meets the notability requirements.

They are a self-published site with a significant readership. They are featured and have their content syndicated on CBS's Metacritic (http://www.metacritic.com/publication/beats-per-minute-formerly-one-thirty-bpm), as well as through Complex.com [Criteria 3]. Have been cited by sites such as Forbes for investigative work (http://www.forbes.com/sites/leorgalil/2012/01/25/hip-hop-group-after-the-smoke-battle-with-youtube-and-umg-over-intellectual-property/) [Criteria 1 if I'm not mistaken].

Please let me know what you think. As a long time reader I think this site is on par with other music publications who have articles such as Consequence of Sound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequence_of_Sound) and Tiny Mix Tapes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_Mix_Tapes). I also believe I can create a page with proper 3rd party citations.

Thanks, Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulkeebler (talk • contribs) 23:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have moved it to Beats Per Minute (website) - Beats Per Minute refers to tempo, and would be the primary topic for the phrase beats per minute. I have quickly changed the name in the article to show the change, but the article can be edited neutrally by anyone. If I get a chance this week, I'll do some web URL changing etc. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Dear Phantomsteve,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Contents of message noted, but don't have time to do anything, unfortunately. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 23:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters

News and notes: Foundation launches Legal and Community Advocacy department

In the news: Scholars and spindoctors contend with the emergent wikiorder

In focus: Skirmishes in the 'great sectarian war of the Internet'

WikiProject report: WikiProject Stub Sorting

Featured content: The best of the week

Arbitration report: Betacommand 3 closed, proposed decision in Civility enforcement, AUSC candidates announced

Technology report: January sees prototype new geodata API; but February looks to be a testing time for top developers

Wee Shu Min

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The AfD for 'Wee Shu Min' is not a consensus to delete. It is a consensus to redirect. Do restore this article so that it can be redirected according to the direction of the consensus. Thank you. Back-a-boot (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

With respect, the consensus was not to redirect. Although it is not a vote, there were 2 clear 'delete's - including the nominator - one redirect and one either-delete-or-redirect. However, when I'm online later I'll look at this and see if a redirect would be a reasonable option -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 08:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have created the redirect for Wee Shu Min to Wee Shu Min elitism controversy. However, I am not convinced that the controversy is notable enough to merit an article itself, and so I am going to propose it for deletion at Articles for deletion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)