User talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2010/October

44 Parachute Brigade
Hi Steve,

I am making progress with the article I am creating on 44 Parachute Brigade. I notice in my last save the article was deleted by yourself due to the fact that there were copyrite infringements cited as a possibility. (I have requested that it be recreated by ticking this option)

Please note that I have permission from all the authors listed within my Bibliography to use extracts from their works which they forwarded to me. I have taken each piece and 'sewn' it together to make an evenly flowing account of history of the Brigade as there are many units within this Brigade.

I ask you to please bare with me on this one being a first time user I'm trying to format it and tidy up the content so that it resembles a factual historical account. Any suggestions from yourself will also be appreciated.

My intention is to eventually add pictures and also submit it within the category "Brigades of South Africa" on Wikipedia

I beg your patience as I make this journey

kind regards

ParaBde44 (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Smikect. Firstly, your signature has "ParaBde44" - could you please remove that, as it implies that you have an official capacity representing them.
 * Secondly, as the article used extracts from copyrighted material, it cannot be restored.
 * Thirdly, saying you have permission to use extracts is not sufficient. Please read WP:IOWN which explains how the authors can officially inform Wikipedia of this fact. Even if you do get these permissions sent to Wikipedia, we would still prefer that the article be in your own words.
 * You might want to read WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide which talks about notability of units and formations.
 * Please do not re-create the article with the extracts, unless permission has been received by Wikipedia, and an OTRS ticket number has been issued. If you do so, you will be risking being blocked for disruptive editing, which I really do not want to happen - I'd rather you were able to create an article which would meet Wikipedia's standards and expectations.
 * Have you considered writing a book rather than a Wikipedia article? If you have the permission to reuse the extracts, then you'd have no problems with copyright (you'd be able to show the written permission to your publisher) - we can't accept scans of any such letter here at Wikipedia, we'd need to hear directly from the authors themselves.
 * If there is anything else I can help with, please feel free to contact me. Regards, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 10:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Steve,

Thanks for the advice. I have changed my Signature and learning in the process thanks

1. I will read up on the links you have provided and approach the sources for their permission 2. Once this is done I will attempt to re-write the entire content in my own words if possible (There are large areas on the content under the individual units within 44 which does not already exist on Wiki and this may not be able to be re-phrased or written as it is a factual record i.e. The officer in Command of a certain unit and the dates they served)- I'd like your views on this if possible 3. In the mean while I dont seem to be able to view what has been formatted and created anymore, can you refer me to a link? 4. Lastly, what is the filtering criteria that wiki uses when checking copyrite? Does it scan sentances and check for duplication accross other Wiki pages? Please orientate me towards this logic so that I am aware of how I need to edit so as not to infringe copyright

many thanks and I hope my new signature is correct Smikect 10:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smikect (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for changing the signature! Responses to your individual points follow:
 * The copyright owners (that is generally the author, or their estate if they are dead) need to contact Wikipedia directly (see Donating copyrighted materials which explains what it means to donate material to Wikipedia, which has important notes such as If you are the original author but the rights have been assigned to your publisher, you have given up the ability to license the work to us.). Requesting copyright permission explains how to get the permission - and again gives useful information such as The main legal issue that is important to explain to potential contributors: they would be agreeing that their material can be used freely by Wikipedia AND its downstream users, and that such use might include commercial use, for which the contributor is not entitled to royalties or compensation.
 * Obviously, certain things cannot be re-worded ("Colonel John Q. Greed was the Commanding Officer from 1902 until 1905", for example). But the majority of the text should be in your own words.
 * As the text was deleted as a copyright infringement, I cannot give you a link to see it - only an admin can see deleted text. If it was not a copyright infringement, I'd be able to send you a copy, but we are not allowed to do so with copyrighted material.
 * Copyright checking is of two varieties:
 * There are some bots which check content against other website contents, and if they find a copy, they flag it as a copyright violation
 * Editors see the content, and find it is using copyrighted material. To be honest, often it is painfully obvious that content has been copied from somewhere, and it is just a case of finding out where!
 * Again, I would refer you to WikiProject Military History's notability guidelines at WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide. I would particularly point you towards this: As a general rule, sub-units that exist below the level of those formations listed above—such as sections, platoons, troops, batteries, companies, and flights—are not intrinsically notable. Such information as can be suitably sourced should normally be included, with appropriate focus, in an article about a notable parent formation. Rarely, some sub-units will meet Wikipedia's general notability requirements. These however will be exceptional cases, such as E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States), which is notable because it was the subject of a best-selling and detailed book and TV miniseries.
 * Again, contact me with any questions - oh, and replied are normally inserted below the last comment in the discussion, not further up the page! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Steve,

Many thanks for your patience, it's alot for me to take in and I'm learning. I will go through all your recommendations and read up and proceed step by step with getting the content authorised by the individual authors. I can show them a copy of the trail of our correspondence as reference. I have volunteered on behalf of a group of about 5 key stakeholders to put this content together (including senior officers of the former unit, authors, writers etc) and will need to report back to this group of the current status, but I would have liked to have shown them my progress before my last edit was blocked and deleted by an admin. It is for this reason that I asked you if I couldnt get a copy or view a copy of my last edit just to give them a feeling of the challenges in making this Wiki a reality. It would be great if you could assist me in this respect

kind regards Smikect 11:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smikect (talk • contribs)
 * No worries, I'm always happy to help editors! Unfortunately, I cannot (as already mentioned) give you a copy of the deleted article, because of the copyright problems. With regard to the "trail of correspondence", that is not required - what is required is the specific agreement to irrevocably release the material under an appropriate licence. Again, I must emphasise that the material can be used by anyone for any purpose - including commercial use - and the copyright owner would not be able to get royalties or compensation for such use. Many writers will not release their copyright for this reason. However, if you follow the procedures I've linked to above, we can see where we can go with this! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 13:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Steve,

Will revert again when I get the release from the authors / owners of the content in question. It would help though to know which particular content is copyright i.e. which parts are being picked up on Wikipedia's filters. This will assist me in narrowing down my approach to specific content owners as I mentioned not all the content appears on the internet or published elsewhere but it is brigade archival content and therefore stand alone and unique. For this I am assuming I wouldnt have to receive any release or waiver. Many thanks Smikect 16:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smikect (talk • contribs)
 * The copyright parts are those that are extracts from the publications. As for the Brigade Archive content, I'd assume that the copyright for that would belong to either the South African Army, or the Government of South Africa- you'd probably need to ask at either Media copyright questions or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history to confirm this. However South African copyright law says The Copyright Act automatically protects works created by South Africans or in South Africa., which would seem to imply that the archives would also be copyrighted - there are no mentions of exceptions for Government works (which would include those of the Armed Forces), and indeed the Copyright Act itself makes no such provisions. As a rule, all works are deemed to be copyright protected, except where the legislation (or the work itself) explicitly state that it is not. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Steve,

Sounds daunting, I'm just going to painstakingly go about getting releases from everyone on the Bibliography List and if that does not work then this project is a dead duck in the water :(  I had super pics as well which I was going to put up :(   Anyway, wish me luck, if I dont wrap this up in a week or two then I'm just going to shoot myself .... --Smikect 07:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smikect (talk • contribs)
 * Good luck! I know it's a pain, but Wikipedia take copyright very seriously, as I'm sure you can appreciate. If there's anything else I can help you with, let me know. As you were logged out when you left your comment, I have removed the IP address and added your signature - and I am going to remove the IP address from the page's history. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steve,

I have been thinking .... if push comes to shove and I have to recreate the entire article i.e. re-arrange and re-organise it, re-write it so that it in no way looks like the original piece but still a factual chronological account, do I still need to get releases from the individuals whom were first quoted? Just educating myself here and appreciate assistance. Many thanks --Smikect 10:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smikect (talk • contribs)
 * A good question! If it uses no extracts from the books (or the archive), and is all written in your own words, then there will be no copyright violation, so no permission would be required. However, I still do not think that it meets the notability criteria I mentioned above - so it could be deleted for that reason! Your best bet for questions about copyright is to ask at Media copyright questions and for the notability issues to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military History.
 * Incidentally, your signature does not include a link to your user page or user talk page (that's why SineBot keeps adding your signature!) - you can alter that in My preferences --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 10:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to jump in, from my perspective as an editor with lots of experiance in military history articles, independent brigades such as the one in question here are almost certain to be notable (particularly given that this was an elite formation, which generally attract more coverage than normal units - it's worth noting that brigades are substantial units). I don't see any notability issue at all. Nick-D (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, Nick-D - I also noticed your message on Smikect's talk page about the article. The question of notability is one which I was not totally sure about - hence my referal to WP:MILHIST - and indeed, having re-read the MILHIST notability guidelines, I see that I missed "brigade" on the list of notable units! May I suggest that Smikect and you continue working on this via his talk page rather than here - as I said, I'm not too knowledgeable about MilHist - but I do agree with your comments about the length and detail of the article! Regards, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 12:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Onayena Constituency
Sorry to bother you, On the discussion page of the article Onayena Constituency, You remove the personal information (as you call it), but that was the way of showing my lecturer that the article was my contribution to Wikipedia,as the article was part of the class assignment, Thanks.User:Elianamwiha Elianamwiha 08:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that you had been given instructions to create a subpage of your own (e.g. User:Elianamwiha/Onayena Constituency)? The School and university projects/Polytechnic of Namibia page is where you are meant to give your details - and School_and_university_projects clearly says First-year IT students will use their Sandboxes to either create or improve an article about Southern Africa. [...] Acceptable work ("pass") will be moved to, or incorporated in, main space. If you do reinsert your personal information onto the talk page, I will not remove it - but I would advise you to follow the instructions given by your lecturer! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing block notice
Are you now able to erase the box regarding my 24 hour blocking?OMINOREG (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have done so, and left a message on your talk page --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 10:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

PEC
Hi, you may not be finished doing the work but the relevant problematic text is still visible to non-admins here. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, I missed that one for some reason - I have now corrected that (sorry for the delay, real world stuff cropped up!) --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 17:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Darn that pesky real world ;) Thanks, Fæ (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for deleted content.
I wondered whether i would be able to request for the content of the deleted article kuzari principle. Seeing as though it was not removed for copyright reasons but because it was not considered relevant enough (or at least that is what I figured...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersymbiotic (talk • contribs) 22:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that you wait until has gone to Deletion Review after Sukkot - I'm assuming from what he said in the first thread on this page here that he intends on doing that. If he decides not to do that, then if you add an email address to your account (in my preferences) then I will email the content to you. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for advice about either updating existing pages or adding a new one.
Hello, I logged into Wikipedia after discovering my father's name here as the leader of a small Canadian political party. There was a page giving a small amount of biographical information, which has been deleted recently. I would like to either reinstate the page or annotate one of the pages about the party to provide additional information.

I have not edited Wikipedia and would like some assistance, please. Can you advise how I can see the deleted page initially and secondly, what sort of information is appropriate to add to Wikipedia. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helennotoftroy (talk • contribs) 09:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Before I can help, I need to know the name of the deleted article. I can then give advice. Please note that because of family commitments, I probably won't be online again until Monday --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternate account of Phantomsteve] 11:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Kuzari Principle, deletion review pre-requirement
Hi Phantomsteve: This notification is in keeping with Deletion review by discussing this with the closing admin, in this case you, with regards to your recent decision to delete at Articles for deletion/Kuzari Principle over-riding the consensus of a 5 to 4 to Keep. You are kindly requested to reconsider and re-instate the article because you "interpreted the debate incorrectly" and I "have some significant new information pertaining to the debate". Once you were going to ignore the majority WP:CONSENSUS of the 5 users who voted Keep, a radical move in itself, you could have merged it with the author's WP:BIO at Dovid Gottlieb or at The Kuzari article. The reasons that were cited to Keep the article were within WP guidelines, for example, the author, Rabbi Dr. Dovid Gottlieb is a notable academic, had been a professor of philosophy at Johns Hopkins University, and is currently a senior lecturer at Ohr Somayach, Jerusalem a mainstream famous yeshiva with a global network for secular Jewish intellectuals exploring traditional Judaism, known as Category:Ohr Somayach part of a global movement pertaining to Category:Orthodox Jewish outreach. The Kuzari Principle is noted on the official Ohr Somayach website, the equivalent of a professor's lectures and research being posted on a university web site, see [http://ohr.edu/2054 6. Revelation and Miracles - The Kuzari Principle] divided into 5 lengthy sections. Similar work has been welcomed and posted on many related sites such as Talk Reason: The Kuzari – The Principle and the Formalism that it's not just Gottlieb's "POV" or "OR"; and a few more like this. The point being that this is key source material without which some of the key intellectual approaches in the Baal teshuva movement are removed. Without elaborating even more, it is respectfully requested that you either merge and redirect all the material that you deleted to the Dovid Gottlieb page, that would at least give the Dovid Gottlieb page the depth it deserves as a mark of his Jewish scholarship, or please relist the article as such, so that the next step of WP:DRV be obviated. Thank you, 05:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IZAK (talk • contribs) 05:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contacting me, IZAK. Firstly, as I indicated in the closure, numerically the figures were 5 keeps and 4 deletes. However, AfD is not a vote. I looked at the arguments presented (and I should note that did not leave a !vote, but a comment - although you suggested that it be counted as a keep - in fact, reading through it, you could count is as a "merge" rather than a keep, but that is by the by. Let's look at the 'keeps':
 * - it could be argued (as I have said) that this is in fact a merge rather than keep
 * - said it was "a fundamental argument for the truth of Judaism and acore tenet of faith", but with no evidence of this (and this was argued against in the following comment)
 * - argued that the article is based on Gottlieb's work - but it should be noted that although Gottlieb has had work published, this particular work was published at lulu.com, which is basically a self-published work, and so not counted as a reliable source (I also noticed that Holoner has only made one edit in the last 2+ years which was not connected with this AfD, and that the edits to this AfD were their first contribution in almost a month, so I question how this editor just happened to stumble upon this discussion - especially as they have not contributed to any Judaism-related articles since 2007, and has never taken part in an AfD before in any of their 12 edits.
 * - probably the most elequent argument in favour of keeping the article, but the fact that this editors suggests that an alternate name may be better, but is unable to provide such a name - or reliable sources which mention the principle using that name - in my mind causes me to question the validity of that argument in this case
 * - as points out, the sources are not reliable (self-published books don't meet the criteria), and there is a question of the element of OR in the article.
 * In summary, I felt that the consensus was more heavily in favour of the 'delete's:
 * - nominator - notability not established, as the sources are not counted as reliable sources (self-published works, author's website, blogs)
 * - non-notable (basically in agreement with nominator)
 * - if it was indeed "Fundamental arguments" and "core tenets of faith", then there should be RS which verify this: there aren't so, it does not meet notability
 * - non-notable, "somewhere between WP:OR and WP:ESSAY"
 * If you feel that I misrepresented the consensus in this case (although I have to remind you again that it is not a vote), then please take the AfD to Deletion Review - although you should remember that that is not a place to re-argue the case for deletion/retention, but for discussing the closure itself, and whether or not that met the consensus shown in the discussion --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Phantonsteve: I greatly appreciate the feedback. I am well aware that WP is "not a democracy" -- on the other hand WP is an encyclopedia that is in the process of being created and as such input from expert editors, meaning editors who have shown a consistent knowledge in their fields of editing over a long time and are respected as such by their peers play a vital role in contributing and assessing material and its use in an encyclopedia such as WP. Sometimes, as in this case, a very important topic comes up, and while on purely technical grounds it may be nominated for deletion, yet doing so impoverishes WP and removes a valid field of knowledge from it. In this case a majority of editors, mostly known entities in WP:JUDAISM voted to keep (Jayrav obviously wants to keep it or he needs to clarify his intentions with his work on it before the nominator came along, as there is a history to this), while a minority of editors who do not participate in Judaic topics voted to delete. There is a problem with that. The topic is one of Jewish philosophy and how it is being presented by a leading Jewish thinker, rabbi and professor. It is drawn from the work of one of Judaism's classical medieval rabbis, Yehudah Halevi from his classical work The Kuzari. The AfD left out much pertinent information about the WP:NOTABLE of the author of this new-old principle, such as I have mentioned above, yet it does seem very arbitrary that one the one hand you apply WP policies, but at the same time you ignore the key WP policy of WP:CONSENSUS of the majority by choosing to heed the minority over the majority's reasoning which is just as important as the seeming lawyering to dump this article. At a minimum, may I request that, since in any case you over-ruled a majority, that you at least respect them in some way by merging the article into that of it's author Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb because it makes no sense that WP has a WP:BIO about him, but tosses out his key work and what makes him notable. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I will not be merging the content with Dovid Gottlieb, as there is currently no mention of this "key work" on that article (other than a mention of Living up to the Truth in the list of his books) - and as such, I believe that merging the content would give undue weight. Also, although Gottlieb may or may not be considered an 'expert' in this area, the article itself was about the principle, which is a line of philosophic reasoning derived from the medieval work Kuzari - the article did not say that it was just the work of Gottlieb or that he is recognised as someone who is widely recognised as being a modern expert in it, and indeed the article only had two short mentions of Gottlieb: the first was 'a modern statement of the Kazuri principle' (referenced from 'Living up to the Truth', published by lulu.com, which makes it a self-published book) and the second was referenced to his website (again, self-published). Neither of these would meet WP:RS. I do not believe that I chose to "ignore the key WP policy of WP:CONSENSUS of the majority by choosing to heed the minority over the majority's reasoning" - consensus and majority are not synonymous. If you believe that I was incorrect in my closure, then please take this to Deletion Review - other than that, I believe that on this subject we have nothing further to discuss --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 05:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The move to take it to WP:DRV will need to wait after the upcoming Jewish holidays of Sukkot are concluded in about two weeks time, as most Judaic editors are pre-occupied with that as well. Thanks again for your honesty and feedback. Most sincerely, IZAK (talk) 07:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope that you have a good Sukkot. When it is listed at DRV, I'd be grateful if you would leave a message here (this thread would have been archived by then). Regards, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 10:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a timestamped comment to keep this from being archived too soon! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Another comment to prevent archiving just yet --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Devil's Tree
Are you really sure there was a consensus for deletion there? I would have called it no consensus at that time, and I honestly thought it was going to be relisted. And what was your justification for deletion?

I'm not planning to go to DRV at this time on this one, but I do ask for your leave to restore it if the possible Travel Channel series I linked to does air with a segment, and at least in the meantime to restore as a redirect to Martinsville, New Jersey as I had proposed. Daniel Case (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Daniel, thanks for contacting me. The reason why I judged the consensus was:
 * 3 'Delete's:
 * : as nominator, as non-notable outside local area
 * : couldn't find enough reliable coverage
 * : lack of notability outside of local area; questioning of reliability of sources (although I must admit that your arguments did make me thing - but the fact that Weird NJ's own website seems to imply that they are not reliable as Wikipedia defines it kind of tipped me towardings accepting LuckyLouie's argument as valid)
 * 1 'Keep':
 * : thought the sources were sufficient
 * 1 'Redirect':
 * You!
 * If the Travel Channel series does air a segment, then I can see no reason why the article should not be restored, assuming that coverage of this is available at reliable sources - as an admin, you can do so yourself and add the sources (I'd not think that wrong!). I didn't change it to a redirect a per your suggestion, as no one stated an agreement with that, so there was no consensus to redirect.
 * If you have any other questions, please let me know! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 10:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I didn't relist it as I didn't think it met the criteria at WP:RELIST - 5 people had commented, and the arguments were policy/guideline-based. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 10:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I share the same feelings as Mr. Case about this, actually. Weird NJ/Weird US is a valid, published source. Of course it's local, of course it's legend, and untrue. I don't believe consensus was reached, as the nominator for the AfD, his "vote" should not count towards a consensus, and this is purely judgmental opinion, but I would have removed any weight from the "couldn't find any reliable coverage" vote, as both Daniel and I provided sources to (several) Weird NJ, Weird US, NJ Curiosities, a mention in a work of fiction, the Jersey Journal; and although non-usable, the fansites, which show that it not only meets notability from sources prior, but also is of substantial interest to many people. As far as Weird NJ's use as a RS on Wikipedia, I guess we can leave that for LuckyLouie to decide from now on.. ha. Anyway, I think this deletion should be reconsidered. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A nominator's opinion is always counted towards the "delete" contingent - it's by a member of the Wikipedia community, and so should be considered. However, with regard to Weird NJ's use as RS: It's not up to LuckyLouie... however, I did look at the Reliable sources noticeboard and its archives, but there was no discussion about it. As such, I went by the website's own words: here "We offer a free issue to anyone who writes in their own weird New Jersey experience, and we publish it." and here "The Weird NJ journal also has interviews with people we meet along the road who we feel have a story to tell, and stories sent in by subscribers telling their own Weird experience living in New Jersey.". This seems to me to be the very essence of an unreliable source!
 * If you feel that I misjudged the consensus, please feel free to take my closure to Deletion review, otherwise I feel that I have said all that I have to say on this subject! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 14:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And I will not comment further except to reiterate my (and TO's) earlier point, that when the subject of an article is something about which widespread legends exist, legends in which the subject's notability even partially lies, that standard of data collection is reliable since the existence of the legends and their nature is the fact being reported. Daniel Case (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Bicycle sharing
On the Bicycle sharing system page, the list of systems has reached the point where it deserves its own page, I think. Please leave any comment at the talk page. I plan to implement that in a few days. Earthlyreason (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied at article's talk page --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Desire2Learn
Hi Phantomsteve,

I just posted a new version of the entry for the company "Desire2Learn" and was seeking input from the USERS of Wikipedia. Before I could even blink, however, I see it has been deleted. SIGH. I have received notice of a "Speedy Deletion" flag and that I can post a "Hold On" tag to the page. However, I'm not sure what was wrong in the first place that would give it a "speedy deletion" tag. I tried to follow the rules of posting by gathering information, appropriate references for the points being made, clear and concise. I created the document in Word (because it's easier for me to read in larger font) and then copy and pasted it into the editor. What am I doing wrong? Please help :-)

Thank you! WildWomenWin (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, WildWomenWin. I deleted the article as it was substantially (say 90%) the same as the old, deleted version. May I suggest that you continue to work on your draft at User:WildWomenWin/Desire2Learn. When you think that it is ready to be moved to the encyclopedia, you can either contact myself (and I'll look at it when I have a chance) or list it atRequests for feedback, where editors can comment on it. After a very quick look at your draft, I would say that your references are not currently sufficient to demonstrate notability:
 * "Desire2Learn Announces Establishment of Australian Subsidiary"
 * This is on the D2L website - so not independent
 * "Washington School for the Deaf Adopts Desire2Learn to Offer Accessible High Quality Learning for all Students". http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS244698+05-Feb-2008+MW20080205. Retrieved 2008-11-11.
 * This is on Reuters (which can be a reliable source) - but it is on there from the "Market Wire" feed - which means that this is a press release from the company itself, and so not independent
 * "2009 Canadian Technology Fast 50™ ranking".
 * A minor mention - a name on a list - no significant coverage, confirming the information - but I see no evidence that this source meets the criteria for being a reliable source - if this was one of several sources of information (with the rest being significant coverage) then it would be acceptable, but as a main source (which is what it is at the moment), then it is nowhere near sufficient
 * "Winners TechFast50"
 * As in the previous point
 * "Desire2Learn Continues to Expand its Base of Active Partnerships".
 * This is from "BNet Market Wire" - again, a press release from the company, so not independent
 * "Desire2Learn Patent-Information Blog"
 * From the Desire2Learn blog - so not independent
 * "Desire2Learn Patent-Information Blog"
 * As in the previous point
 * "United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit".
 * This is a PDF held on the company's website. If it was a link to the US Court of Appeals website, then it would be acceptable as a reference for the one point of information, but it is not significant coverage as a whole - and as it is on the company's own website, it cannot be counted as being a reliable independent source. Incidentally, the link doesn't work
 * "Desire2Learn Patent-Information Blog"
 * From the Desire2Learn blog - so not independent
 * As you can see, none of the references (with the exception of the Fast50 ones) are independent - and the Fast50 ones merely show revenue growth - it is not an "award" as such, as it is not independently decided upon by a panel of recognised people in the industry.
 * Do continue to work on the draft - but you really need to find some independent reliable sources for the article - newspaper/magazine coverage (not press releases, "market wire", "PR Wire", etc) is ideal. Regards, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Protector of Wiki
Hi. I've received a request from Protector of Wiki via email: they would like to make an unblock request, but their talkpage access is currently revoked (you revoked it, hence me pinging you ;-)

I've advised Protector of Wiki to use unblock-en-l@undefinedlists.wikimedia.org, however they have asked that I post their unblock request to their talkpage. As you revoked talkpage access, what are your thoughts on this? TFOWR 09:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * PoW keeps asking different people to post their unblock request on the talk page - has PoW actually explained why s/he will not sent a request to the mailing list? However, what I have done is to return the talk page access - I'll let you contact PoW and let them know - explain that if s/he is abusive or "uses Wikipedia as a battleground", I will revoke access again. The granting of the access is purely for the unblock request. Also mention that if the talk page access is revoked, s/he should not ask other editors to post a unblock request on the page - the way to request an unblock in that case is the mailing list. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, one editor in good standing had already raised the issue ("unblock request requests") with me, which is, I suspect, how I came to be roped into this. I've emailed POW with a link to your post, and recommended that POW read it prior to posting the unblock request. I've got POW's talkpage watchlisted; I'll reblock and revoke talkpage access if I see problems before you do. TFOWR 09:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for text from deleted page
Hi, is there any chance you can send me the text used on the UCAS_Clearing page which I added in August and has since been deleted? I can't find a copy of the text stored locally, would this be possible please?

Thanks very much, Beth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethmh (talk • contribs) 13:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you looking for ? It wasn't deleted, just converted into a redirect to another article. The text is still visible at the history link above. Courcelles 13:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Desire2Learn again
Hi,

Thanks for the information re: notable references -- very helpful! I appreciate the assistance and the clear indication of how to improve the posting I was attempting :-) I'll keep plugging away and will submit for editorial review and more feedback.  Thanks again! WildWomenWin (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Chessiechaney
I posted this on my talk page on 3 October and I didn't get a response. The username chessiechaney was used to keep things simple and also because it's her info in the profile. There are some Wiki pages similar to hers that were not deleted and based on IMDB credits. Here are a few files: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Blunt. Most of her credits are (uncredited). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imani_Hakim and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tequan_Richmond. It seems that IMDB is a reliable source for some but not others.Chessiechaney 20:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Chessiechaney 12:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessiechaney (talk • contribs) 12:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (Discuss) — User:Chessiechaney →
 * As a rule, the argument "other stuff exists" is not a valid reason for keeping anything else - it may be that the articles you refer to above should be deleted if they are only referenced at IMDB (I'll have a look soon) - but that has no bearing on whether Chessie Chaney should have been kept or not. My role as the closing admin is not to make a decision of my own, but to judge the consensus of the discussion, which was clearly to delete the article. Wikipedia does not exist to promote (whether directly or not) a person. If you feel that I misjudged the consensus at the discussion held at Articles for deletion/Chessie Chaney, then you can take my closure to Deletion review (DRV) - but I must point out that DRV is not a venue to re-argue the case for deletion or retention - it exists to discuss my closure, if you feel that I misjudged consensus.
 * Incidentally, when you sign on a talk page, the ~ is placed at the end of your comment, not at the beginning (I assume that is the reason for the * (Discuss) bit above). --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 12:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have just looked at the articles you refer to above:
 * Daphne Blunt has 33 references - some are not from reliable sources, but the ABC News, Washington Post, CBC News, etc all meet our criteria for reliable sources
 * Imani Hakim : well, you are right, there are no reliable sources at the moment, but there are plenty available for this star of Everybody Hates Chris - a quick look reveals that the Charlotte Observer rates her as part of the 'A'-List! - I have removed some of the unsourced information, and added a reference.
 * Tequan Richmond has an article in the Listen Magazine, which is listed in the article, and a very similar article (here) in the Greensboro News and Record - the largest newspaper serving Guilford County and the surrounding region.
 * In short, they meet the criteria for inclusion: Chessie Chaney does not at this time --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 13:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into the IMDB credits. There is press on the film Up Jump the Boogie which I'm looking into and I'll get it to you soon. Chessiechaney 19:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessiechaney (talk • contribs) Here are the press links that I found on Up Jump the Boogie: http://www.smalltowncritic.com/2010/08/02/coop-is-introducing-movies-and-conducting-q-as-at-the-feel-good-film-festival-aug-13-15 http://peakcityfilmfestival.org http://www.filmthreat.com/festivals/23542 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454706 Chessiechaney 01:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessiechaney (talk • contribs)
 * I didn't actually look into the IMDB credits - IMDB is not a reliable source as Wikipedia defines it. Also, if you gave me those links in the hopes that you could recreate the Chessie Chaney article, then they are no good for that - none of them mention Chaney. I also doubt that in and of themselves they would be enough to create an article about the film. At the moment, Francesca Chaney just does not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.
 * Also, can I ask whether you are Chessie? Your user name appears to indicate that you are - and that means that you have an obvious conflict of interest! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you and no I am not Chessie. I used her name as the username because the article is about her. Chessiechaney 00:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessiechaney (talk • contribs)

Heya!
Just a quick note to see how you're doing! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not too bad, thanks! I'll look at your admin mentoring page later today! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:15, 7 October 2010 (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, 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) 04:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy 10/10/10
I suppose I should've timed this message at 10:10:10 too, but frankly, I can't be arsed. You know how it is.

Did you know... that tenten in Japaense writing are a little wiggly thing, a bit like a quotation-mark, which makes e.g. "ka" (か) into 	"ga" (が) or "fu" (ふ) into "bu" (ぶ) ?

So, take time out to have a bit of a giggle.

All the best, and 10-10 'till we do it again.  Chzz  ► 08:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Desire2Learn
Hi! I have followed your advice and suggestions (WildWomenWin (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)) and made a new posting of Desire2Learn. Please let me know if this meets with the Wikipedia editorial standards for the site/page to go live.

Thanks again for your assistance! WildWomenWin (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi PhantomSteve,

Just checking on a response to my query posted Oct 26. Is all ok with the initial posting I made re: Desire2Learn? I have a few more things I'd like to edit and post but want to ensure I am on the right path first. Look forward to your response.

Thanks! WildWomenWin (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've been a bit busy in real life recently, but I hope to have time later today to look at it, otherwise it'll be next week. However, I've just had a quick look and my quick impression is that the notability isn't established, and there is a lack of reliable independent sources. I will look at it again in my detail as soon as I can --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternate account of Phantomsteve] 09:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As promised, I have now looked at the draft at User:WildWomenWin/Desire2Learn. It is still about 90% the same as the previous version of Desire2Learn which was deleted. There are two references:
 * Edutools (the link provided actually links to the home page, but here are more relevant links there: Desire2Learn 7.2, Desire2Learn 7.3 and Desire2Learn 7.4 as well the Edutools Provider List entry at Desire2Learn Inc. None of these links either confirm the information about the 2 subsidiaries (which is what it is being used as a reference for), and all those entries are reviewed by "users" (i.e. not independently by the site itself) - and so would not count as an independent and reliable source of information. The new version of CMS (Desire2Learn 8.3 and Desire2Learn Learning Environment 8.4.2 (although the latter appears near-enough identical to the former); unfortunately the company profile does not exist. On both the reviews, it mentions "Located in the US, Canada (3 offices with headquarters in Kitchener-Waterloo), Australia, and the UK. Desire2Learn was founded in 1999. It employs over 185 people and is privately held." - but I could not find details about who the reviewer was - only that it was "Email Review Staff" - however, I could find no indication of who this staff are! Without knowing that, it makes it hard to verify that the site would be considered a reliable source.
 * The Globe and Mail: this is probably the best reference of all the references which have been provided over the various versions of this article! However, reading it, the impression I got was that this was based on information provided in a press release from the company - that may not be correct, but it's the impression that I got.
 * In summary, I do not feel that the notability guidelines for organisations has been met, let alone the general notability guidelines. I do not see that this is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you could find a few more references from reliable and independent sources (like major newspapers) which have significant coverage of the company, then the case would be stronger, but at this moment in time, I do not feel that the criteria for inclusion has been met.
 * Regards, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 19:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thanks for the feedback. Helps to know where I'm doing ok and where it needs work. Will keep at it, clean up some stuff and keep looking for reliable sources! Speaking of which, I believe the Globe and Mail piece was original content from the journalist as I don't see a press release on the Desire2Learn site that would be the basis for the article.
 * Regards, WildWomenWin (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've pulled out any references that I couldn't verify without a doubt that they were "independent" and "reliable." Still looking for reliable sources that can be referenced. In the meantime, have left it as bare bones - "just the facts." I see from a Wikipedia posting from another elearning provider (eCollege: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECollege)that this format is permissible for posting on Wikipedia. Please review the draft I've now edited and let me know if it can be posted live to Wikipedia.  Thanks so much! WildWomenWin (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Just touching bases with you again before I add anything more to the page. I know you're extremely busy and I'm not the only one asking questions. Looking forward to your review.  Thanks.WildWomenWin (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm secretly an adorable cat, if that helps
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure
You are invited to participate in the Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)