User talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2012/June
 | 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. |
The Signpost: 04 June 2012
- Special report: WikiWomenCamp: From women, for women
- Discussion report: Watching Wikipedia change
- WikiProject report: Views of WikiProject Visual Arts
- Featured content: On the lochs
- Arbitration report: Two motions for procedural reform, three open cases, Rich Farmbrough risks block and ban
- Technology report: Report from the Berlin Hackathon
Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues
Hi, I found links to Category:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over in your templates, and updated these to the new name Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues. Please check them in case I missed something. – Fayenatic London 12:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 June 2012
- News and notes: Foundation finance reformers wrestle with CoI
- WikiProject report: Counter-Vandalism Unit
- Featured content: The cake is a pi
- Arbitration report: Procedural reform enacted, Rich Farmbrough blocked, three open cases
Meridith Bagby
You recently decline my speedy, which is fine but I wanted to get a better understanding of why you did so. If you go to the page, you will see that all of the "references" are links to Amazon.com or other places to purchase this author's books. Please explain. keystoneridin! (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Although the references may be such places, the article itself is not unambiguously promotional in nature, and as such does not qualify for speedy deletion. You may propose the article for deletion, or (preferably) take it to Articles for deletion (AfD), which will give the community a week to discuss whether it should be deleted or not. For what it's worth, I do not feel that an article should exist, but we need to follow the established procedures. The community may disagree with my assessment! The Criteria for Speedy Deletion are very finely defined - as the name implies, the deletion happens quickly with no chance for the community to be involved, and Wikipedia is about the community of editors! A "PROD" (proposed deletion) is in place for up to a week, and anyone can remove it during that time to show they disagree (in which case, it needs to go to AfD). An AfD allows the community to discuss the issue for a week, before the consensus decides what happens to the article.
- I hope this explains the process a bit more - you might also want to read here. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Request for undoing deletion
You have removed the Razor 1911 article. The person that proposed speedy deletion supports the undeletion. See Talk:Razor 1911. Thanks in advance. --Ondertitel (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have undeleted it, I look forward to seeing how it does at AfD, I may even comment myself at the discussion! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| I thereby award you with this Admin's Barnstar for single-handedly clearing the Requests for page protection backlog. Keep up the good work. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 20:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC) |
- Thank you - it's nice to have the time to do some proper administrative work, other than deleting things! Maybe I'll do some article work later... PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Re: Joe Zdeb article
For this, I had been hoping for at least temporary semi-protection under this clause: "Subject to vandalism or edit-warring where unregistered editors are engaging in IP-hopping by using different computers, obtaining new addresses by using dynamic IP allocation, or other address changing schemes such as IP address spoofing." It seems fairly obvious that the same person has been repeatedly reverting my improvements on this page, and the IP address is so vastly different each time that I had suspected something odd of this nature was happening. If I am off-base with that suspicion, let me know.
Out of curiosity, what threshold will this have to reach to justify protection? So far, it's already at three reverts within a few days. I'd prefer to nip this in the bud to engaging in a protracted, slow-motion edit war, which is what I fear will happen. -Dewelar (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at the history, there was one bit of vandalism today, the previous one was 4 days ago, the previous one the day before that, and the previous one 3 months ago. 3 events in 4 days is not enough to justify protection - it's low enough to be tackled by the page's watchers. If there had been 3 events every day for the last few days, that'd probably justify protection, but not at the level we're seeing at the moment. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I think I'm the only person watching the page, though :) . Actually, I was more concerned about being able to engage the person making these changes to see if they might have some other source for the information that I removed, but given the pattern I suspect not. I'll continue to keep my eye on it, and bring this up only if and when the volume increases. Thanks for the reply! -Dewelar (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Although I cannot reveal the number of people watching the page, as an admin I have access to how many are, and can assure you that there are others watching it as well as you! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I think I'm the only person watching the page, though :) . Actually, I was more concerned about being able to engage the person making these changes to see if they might have some other source for the information that I removed, but given the pattern I suspect not. I'll continue to keep my eye on it, and bring this up only if and when the volume increases. Thanks for the reply! -Dewelar (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 10:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
» Petiatil († talk ‡ contribs) 10:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Re:The Myrchents
I had initially drafted that back when I was doing work at Articles for Creation. I think there's definitely something to be said for the possible notability of a group whose releases sell for thousands of dollars forty years after their disbandment. I hadn't given that draft much thought recently but would consider returning to it if something new came up. How did you come across it? Chubbles (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- I was looking at one of the lists of requested articles, and while I was doing a Google Search for sources, it came up with your draft! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you think they are notable enough, why not move it to mainspace? PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
FYI
Wikipedia:TFAP#Move_protection Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, I had forgotten about that. I will bear that in mind in future, sorry for any inconvenience! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Go Rollerblading Day
Can i get the text you deleted so i can copy it/modify it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakerized (talk • contribs) 03:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- To be honest, it was too promotional, and I saw nothing to indicate that even with a major rewrite it could be suitable for inclusion. Also, as you are blocked from editing, there's nothing you can do in any case. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your email, I'll reply here! OK, before you have a page on Wikipedia, you need to consider why you want an article. Is it for promotion? To "get the word out there"? Those are not valid reasons for an article being on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia - would you expect an entry in Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta?
- There are a few requirements for a subject to have an article on Wikipedia:
- It must be notable. We have general guidelines here, and company/organisation-specific guidelines here
- It must have received significant coverage at reliable sources which are independent of the subject (so no press releases, not the company's own website, no blogs or social media sources)
- The information in the sources must verify the information in the article
- It must be written in a neutral way - the purpose is not to big up the subject, or promote it... the purpose is to inform. If appropriate, this means that negative coverage in reliable sources must be covered. As a rule, we find that people who are involved with the organisation find it hard to be neutral - they have a clear conflict of interest: their purpose is to promote the organisation, to make it seem important, etc (especially if someone has been asked by their boss to write an article on Wikipedia!)
- From what I read, I think it would be hard to write an article about your subject which would meet the requirements above. If you tell me what the purpose of the article was, I could possibly advise you about an alternative outlet.
- Of course, if you can explain which notability criteria it meets in point 1 above, and can provide suitable sources as mentioned in point 2 above, we can go from there. As you are blocked, you cannot reply here, but you can edit your own talk page User talk:Bakerized and respond there! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 June 2012
- Investigative report: Is the requests for adminship process 'broken'?
- News and notes: Ground shifts while chapters dither over new Association
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- WikiProject report: The Punks of Wikipedia
- Featured content: Taken with a pinch of "salt"
- Arbitration report: Three open cases, GoodDay case closed
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Thank you so much for deleting this page, it's much appreciated.
I was just wondering/hoping that we could also delete the URL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EleanorKnight/Moxie_Feminine_Hygiene)?
Thanks again,
Eleanor (redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EleanorKnight (talk • contribs) 03:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is not possible to delete a URL - a URL is an address that may or may not actually exist. It's like sending a letter - you can put any address on the envelope (the URL on the web) - if the address doesn't exist, it won't be delivered. In this case, you get a message saying that the house used to be there, but has since been knocked down! If you go to a deleted page, there is always a note saying that there used to be a page but it has since been deleted - someone might want to create the page and it's useful in helping them to decide whether to do so or not to see why it was deleted. The only time that the deletion would be hidden from the log would be if it was deleted because the name of the page was grossly indecent and so would be too offensive - and this isn't the case here! Regards, -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 08:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 June 2012
- WikiProject report: Summer Sports Series: WikiProject Athletics
- Featured content: A good week for the Williams
- Arbitration report: Three open cases
- Technology report: Second Visual Editor prototype launches
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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!
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) 13:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Gilbert Thomas Carter
Hi Phantomsteve, I've left comments at simple:Wikipedia:Proposed good articles about simple:Gilbert Thomas Carter. Albacore (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have made some alterations to that article, and responded on the PGA page. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)