User talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2010/September

Welcome, new Oversighter
Congratulations, your Oversight rights are activated and ready for use.

Before use, please ensure you are familiar with our Oversight policy and our privacy policy

The list administrator for Oversight-l has been informed of your new status and will allow you to join the list.

If you use IRC, please contact an op for access to #wikimedia-privacy. Your local project may have its own oversight channel also, but heck if I know what it'd be!

Again, congratulations. Kylu (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll re-read those policies and sort out the IRC later --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/JD Caselaw
Hi Phantomsteve,

This is Andrew Gradman, editing from an IP because I've been using WikiBreak Enforcer to try to squeeze out a little scholastic productivity. Clearly that's failing. I'm here because I learned that I am currently the subject of a sockpuppetry investigation, over at Sockpuppet investigations/JD Caselaw.

There's no question that I own both accounts, nor are people questioning that I use JD_Caselaw account for the legitimate purpose of making edits that are not associated with my real-life name. However, the investigators rightly point out an occasion when I really did use the JD_Caselaw account to engage in sockpuppetry. It was in May 2009, during my first month on Wikipedia, and my response is that it was a long time ago and it was a mistake. And that's where the question stands: Given that I behaved really scurrilously, once a long time ago, can I be trusted now?

Since we've worked together in the past, I'm letting you know all this because I figure you have some relevant insight into that question.

You gave me a barnstar, which I now keep on my userpage. Maybe you'll find some evidence in connection with that?

-user:Agradman, forced by WikiBreak Enforcer to edit as 128.59.179.250 (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look at the SPI, and you seem to have said everything that you can say. I have nothing further to add to either side of the case - the barnstar was for a specific incident, but beyond that I don't see much that we have worked on in common (well, there are actually 9 articles in common, but I don't think they were edited near to each other! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * that's fair. Thanks for letting me know. 128.59.179.250 (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ha, passenger pigeon! That article blew my friggin mind. 128.59.179.250 (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Incidently, if you want, I can remove the WikiBreak Enforcer from your vector.js page, so that you can edit using your account --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Naw, I have mad OCD. I would abuse it.  Thanks though.  Anyhow, I only intend to be editing until this investigation closes. 128.59.179.250 (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Phantomsteve
G'Day, the dispute over at Talk:LGBT parenting has gotten way out of hand, Destinero is acting as the article's sole protector and is refusing to let others edit the article, replacing facts with poorly researched or factually inaccurate diarrhea, he's insisting that his opinion is right and firmly asserts this. I would take up the MedCab case but I think it's gotten way out of hand so I'm requesting Admin intervention.  Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм &#124;  Tea and biscuits?  10:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've only had a very quick look at the Talk page and the article, and a quick look through the history doesn't seem to show that Destinero is preventing others from editing. However, it was a very quick look, as I've quickly popped on to look at a couple of things. As I don't have time to look into it in detail (to see exactly what you mean), may I suggest that you take this to WP:ANI, where admins with more time now can look at it? I don't tend to do much Wikipedia-wise at the weekends because of family commitments! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 19:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks :)  Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм &#124;  Tea and biscuits?  03:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia logo
Thanks for your advice. --Redaktor (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome - I happen to know because I work on a private Wiki, which had their own logo! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polar Tree
I'm trying to find out the mechanism of deleting my article that was called Polar Tree. I provided 2 independent reference from very competent specialists. There was two opinions to keep the article and two opinions to delete, all from totally in incompetent in the subject individuals. Why the opinion of incompetent people matters when deciding regarding the article. Also it was not clear who nominated article to delete and who actually deleted the article. I only presume that it was you. Is that correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.80.58 (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me. As was pointed out on your talk page, there was a 7-day discussion about the article's deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polar Tree. The article was nominated by, and after 7 days, as a clear consensus had not been reached, I relisted the discussion for a further 7 days, after which the discussion was closed by the admin as delete. Looking through the discussion, I see:
 * An initial delete by the nominator, who changed their recommendation to keep, as they were satisfied by the sourcing provided;
 * A delete recommendation by because of lack of notability (which was still recommended even after the sourcing had been provided);
 * A weak delete recommendation by because of the appearance of original research;
 * An implied keep recommendation by, the creator of the article (and I assume you?);
 * A delete recommendation from, who implied that the source given may not meet Wikipedia's reliable source criteria;
 * AfD is not a vote, but if it were, there would have been 3 "delete"s and 2 "keep"s. From what I can see, the closing admins reading of consensus is correct. If you feel that the consensus was not correctly judged, then you can open up a Deletion Review - but please note that this is not a way to have another discussion about whether the article should be deleted or not, it is only for a discussion about whether the close was correct from the arguments given.
 * I should point out that from what I read at the AfD, I see no indication that the editors who commented are "totally in incompetent in the subject individuals" - we do not require anyone commenting at AfDs to be experts in the field the article is about - they look at the article, at the sources and compare that with the policies and guidelines here at Wikipedia. Just because someone says that a source is not counted as a reliable/independent source, and they disagree with your assertion of how important the subject is, that does not mean that they are incompetant! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 05:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, on your talk page, you were notified about the AfD nomination, which gave both a link to the discussion, and the name of the editor who nominated it. That was placed on 24th August. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 05:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for W. B. Keckler
An editor has asked for a deletion review of W. B. Keckler. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
 * Deletion review/Log/2010 September 7

Hi Phantomsteve...

I saw you deleted the entry W.B. Keckler and cited A7 as the reason.

I am not Wiki-proficient but there is ample evidence of "significance" for the poet, who has won several national awards, including the National Poetry Series (and poet is listed under that entry). The poet is also recognized as a practicing vero-visual and concrete poet and the poet's book was selected for the National Poetry Series by Pulitzer Prize winner Mary Oliver. The poet continues to publish nationally and engage in critical discussions at the national level (Ron Silliman on Silliman's blog has published the poet's critical writing many times in the past two years). The poet has also been awarded fellowships at the national level from the National Endowment on the Arts and has won additional national awards, including two Gertrude Stein Awards in Innovative American poetry.

So I don't understand why this article was deleted.

Further, when I looked in your history I couldn't even find the deletion referenced there. I saw many in a list of "speedy deletions" but not this entry. It was certainly not listed at the time you had it listed as being deleted. Could this be an error?

I was told to use this form in responding but I don't even know how to fill this out.

Could you kindly help rectify this error?

Thanks in advance.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.220.38 (talk • contribs) 2010-09-07 22:48:01
 * I will respond at the Deletion Review --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 06:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have undeleted the article following the arguments of yourself and another editor. My apologies for any inconvenience that may have caused! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Georg Weigel
Hi Steve, can I ask you to have another look at Georg Weigel? DE wiki has an article on him, I'm no expert on German theologians but I was a bit surprised for that to go as a speedy, not even an AFD.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll certainly have a look, but although dewiki has an article, that does not necessarily mean that we should! If I remember correctly, there were no sources? But as I said, I'll look at it now... --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have had a look at both the deleted article, the dewiki one, and the dewiki General Notability Guidelines (de:Wikipedia:Relevanzkriterien). In the given text (English and German) there is no indication that this particular evangelist theologist meets either WP:N or WP:ACADEMIC (I'm guessing this is the relevant BIO section?) or WP:BIO in general - and indeed, on dewiki, it says that "People who have died some time ago, are most easily assessed in terms of their relevance, as relevant historical accounts can be used for documents. In particular, the inclusion in the work of the category dictionary, encyclopedia, or an approved biography collection (which, for example by reference in a German Biographical Encyclopedia is shown) implies the relevance of the person. Another clue is whether the person named on several occasions for roads or schools or other public institutions was." (as GTranslate has it!) - not being a German-reader, I can't access the 3 references (and even if I could, I would have to read a lot of them to find the notability evidence), but I'm not sure if they meet the dewiki criteria for inclusion, let alone the enwiki ones.
 * Of course, if you feel that I am incorrect in this assessment, you are welcome to take the article to DRV, with no hard feelings from me - I respect your opinion! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, although there was a "references" section, I feel that this should have been more aptly called "Further reading", as there were no references in the article (either on de- or enwiki) --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Savage/Nobel merge
I have a realiable third party book source for the character Savage/Nobel now. Is it okay if I restore the page and add the source for consideration? Mathewignash (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Could I trouble you for the details? Title, Author, ISBN, publisher, year? Page(s)? --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 06:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnsbury Estate AfD
Hi there, per the result of the AfD, I've now merged the info from this page into Woking. So the Barnsbury page can be deleted. Thanks. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have redirected the article to Woking and the talk page to Talk:Woking. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, --ThePaintedOne (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

q re closure of AfD for Adult sexual interest in children
Hello, Phantomsteve.

I noted that the AfD for Adult sexual interest in children is now closed, and that you indeed deleted the page. Over the course of that AfD, however, someone moved the page to Adult sexual interest in prepubescent children, which still exists (as a duplicate of what was in Adult sexual interest in children.

Does this mean that Adult sexual interest in prepubescent children should have been deleted along with Adult sexual interest in children, or that the AfD on Adult sexual interest in children should have ended with the move, and an AfD on Adult sexual interest in prepubescent children opened? — James Cantor (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No need for another AFD, I noticed this too, so I just deleted the actual article as a G6 speedy. Courcelles 23:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah. Thanks.— James Cantor (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, closing an AFD is actually not that simple; you have to subst two templates (and if you're like me, you never remember their names), and if the article is kept, remove the notice on the page and annotate the talk page. If it is deleted, you have to delete the article, the talk page, and any redirects. Fortunately, we have a script that you type your reasoning into and it does all that mindless work.  The problem is that it doesn't "sense" that it is only deleting a redirect of the article was moved during AFD and the AFD was not, or at least the links on-top of the AFD updated. I see it about once a week or so; in the future, such things can always be tagged  and it will usually make it go away faster than waiting for the closing admin to be available. Courcelles 05:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks again.— James Cantor (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sorting that out, Courcelles - and also for explaining it for James! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 19:56, 11 September 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) 23:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Printing House Television
I noticed you deleted this article and I was wondering if it had any relationship to printinghouse.tv

JV Smithy (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have responded at the AfD --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Image Fair Use Rational
There's an image, File:Childwarsawghetto.jpg that I feel belongs in the Warsaw Ghetto and the The Holocaust articles but I just can't seem to come up with Fair Use Rationals accetable to Wikipedia and now it's up for deletion September 13. Can you think of any rationals to keep the image? J Milburn has been patient with me trying to explain Wikipedia's strick policy about Non-free content. I now understand and agree with that policy. I come to you with this because you helped me last February with an image.Slightsmile (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but Fair Use is not my real area of expertise - I'd not know where to start in this particular case! The only thing that comes to mind is the date the photo was taken, and who by: it was obviously pre-1945, so it is 65+ years old; secondly if the photographer was someone who was killed in the Warsaw Ghetto, then they would have been dead 65+ years. However, I'm not sure what the copyright laws in Poland/German are; or if the copyright belongs to the Nuremberg Tribunal - in which case, US copyright laws would be in force. You might want to ask at Media copyright questions, where people with knowledge of such things gather! I'm sorry that I can't be of more help --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk page stalker It would also be useful to raise the issue at WT:NFC. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

DVDVideoSoft Talk Page
Dear Phantomsteve, you have deleted the DVDViddeoSoft page on the 30th of August without leaving an answer on my question on the DVDVideoSoft TalkPage. Please send me a copy of the talk page and of the page itself for me to use it in future. Thank you.

Regards, Noelle pozzi (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Noelle pozzi
 * I deleted the DVDVideoSoft article per the consensus of the discussion at Articles for deletion/DVDVideoSoft. Your arguments were insufficient to persuade people that the article should be kept. I'm not sure which question you are referring to. On the article's talk page, you said "Please, review it and point me to the places which haven't met your rules." on the 23rd August. That question was answered in the 'Articles for deletion' ("Afd") discussion. On the AfD, you asked (on the 25th) "How much time do i have?" - the answer was that you had a week from when the AfD started.
 * When I closed the discussion, my opinion had nothing to do with it - I was not part of the discussion, my role was to judge the consensus. However, I have just looked again at the AfD discussion, and the deleted article - and I must agree with the people who commented in the discussion. I think that in particular, 's response is on the ball. As to your final response at the AfD, the sources presented were either from sources which do not meet Wikipedia's "reliable sources criteria" or they did not discuss DVDVideoSoft in any detail - passing mentions are insufficient to establish notability. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 19:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your answer and for the link. I will take all the given information into consideration before starting the article again. Noelle pozzi (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Noelle pozzi

Barnstar!
For closing Articles for deletion/Adult sexual interest in children. Man, that has got to be one of the longest AfD's ever. I was saying to myself "good luck to whoever wants to wade through all this". I'm glad you closed it the way you did, but this is just for volunteering to close it at all.


 * Thank you! I must admit, I had to think twice before taking that on - and it wasn't until I'd started the close that I realise that I'd forgotten to use the "on hold while closing" template! Anyway, the barnstar is much appreciated! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Staeta (Soy Milk)
Hi You recently deleted an article I had created called Staeta (Soy Milk). The article was initally poorly written and was nominated. But now, it had been cleaned up. I would request you to relook at the decision to delete and if possible, restore the article with edits that are causing the issue.

If you still feel that it was the correct desision to delete, I would like you to userify it for my account so I can try and work on it once again. You had mentioned this is possible on the Deletion discussion page. Thanks.

Lastly, would look forward to any input from you about how it can be improved. Also do send me a talkback when you answer. thanks - Sudeep88 (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This user initially came to me after I tagged a good-faith misplaced WP:DR submission. I referred them to you as you appeared to be the person who closed an Afd discussion regarding the above article, according to the deletion log. From an outsider's perspective, turning the article into a userspace draft for an eventual deletion review seems appropriate, though an immediate review might not be an appropriate option since there has been no time to improve the article as of yet.  elektrik SHOOS  06:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will look at this later and get back to you --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternate account of Phantomsteve] 09:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have restored the article and moved it to User:Sudeep88/Staeta (Soy Milk). I would suggest that you work on it, bearing in mind that articles on Wikipedia are not for promotion. Please read Notability (organizations and companies) and our Organisations' FAQ. I will be keeping an eye on the article, and if I feel that it warrants deletion, I will do so - if I do, you will be able to take that deletion to Deletion Review. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 16:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the advice. Thanks. I will work on it over the next couple of days and request feedback on it once I'm doing fixing it to ensure it is not in voalition of Wikipedia's guidelines. Will also leave a note here so you can give me your feedback as well. - Sudeep88 (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey. I have reworked the article and added more references. Can you have a look and suggest what I should do next? Or how to improve it further. Thanks - Sudeep88 (talk) 09:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Has the company/product received significant coverage from newspapers, etc? A quick look at the article seems to show that the references are all either from the company, or from other Soya-related organisations - I don't see any which would appear to meet our reliable source or independent source criteria --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 12:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The brand has recieved coverage in "The Hindu", one of the leading newspapers in India. It also has been covered a few times on "FnBnews.com", an Indian Foods and Beverages News website. It also have an article on "www.indiaprwire.com", a newswire service in India. All this coverage has been provided as references in the current article. In fact, I added a few more since our last interaction. Can you check it out and judge how does the article looks now? - Sudeep88 (talk) 05:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have had a quick look at those sources: The Hindu Business Line meets the criteria for a reliable source, I'd have too look at the article in more depth to see whether the coverage meets the significant coverage required. I'm not sure whether FnBNews meets the criteria for being a reliable source, and I know that India PR Wire does not - they use the company's own Press Release, so are not an independent source. I'll have a more detailed look later today if I get the chance - or it may be at the beginning of next week otherwise! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 12:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Any update on the validity of the references mentioned? The Hindu article is a good one (im my opinion). Also, do check out the articles referenced from www.fnbnews.com . They are credible articles with good mentions of this particular brand. Look forward to your revert. - Sudeep88 (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Sudeep88 - my apologies, I forgot to look into this more! OK, I have now looked up, so here is what I think:
 * The Hindu Business Line: Personally, I feel that this does not meet the "significant coverage" which the notability guidelines say is required. A look for other coverage at nwes sites gave one: "When juices flow" which is a very minor mention ("New additions to the menu include Staetaflavoured soy milk said to be excellent for heart patients")
 * Food and Beverage News: I feel that this probably wouldn't meet the criteria for independent sources - its purpose is to highlight and publicise issues in the Indian Food and Beverage industries.
 * The other sources in the article are either from the company directly, or from press releases (from what I can see), or not the significant coverage required, in my opinion. However, this is my opinion: you might want to get other opinions - my suggestion would be that you go to Requests for feedback and see what other editors think! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 14:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that feedback. I agree that the references are a little weak but they do exist. Do you think it is possible for me to go live with the article now? Btw, I have put it up for feedback on the concerned page but haven't got any feedback for over 2 weeks - Sudeep88 (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You can certainly move it to the main article space if you feel that it meets the criteria for inclusion. Personally, I don't think it does, but I won't nominate it for deletion. However, should I see it come up for deletion at AfD, I would probably argue that it should be deleted. As for not getting feedback - like all of Wikipedia, the editors there are volunteers, and with the new system of archiving, most requests are only seen for a few days! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

frosty heidi and frank page
How come you deleted the frosty, heidi, and frank page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.204.89.254 (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I deleted it for the reason shown in the deletion log:
 * 22:49, 18 August 2010 Phantomsteve deleted "Frosty, Heidi & Frank" ‎ (Articles for deletion/Frosty, Heidi & Frank)
 * Basically, the consensus at that discussion was that the article should be deleted. Here is my summary of the close:
 * The result was   delete. The fact that this article remains unsourced, that there is no independent, reliable verification of the information included (despite the author's excellent attempt at finding sources), leads to the conclusion that in this case the consensus is to delete. I should add, incidently, that the wording of the policy Verifiability states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true"
 * If you feel that I misjudged the consensus, the decision can be taken to Deletion Review (DRV) - but please note that DRV is not a place to re-hash the arguments for deletion or keeping - it is purely a venue to discuss whether the closure was incorrectly interpreting the consensus at the discussion.
 * Regards, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

A few more edits
Life has a way of interrupting work flow. I have now made a few additional edits to the page on Lee Aase and was wondering if I could get your thoughts on whether this is ready to move yet. Much appreciated. Carmen2u (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Carmen2u, thanks for contacting me, and for the work you've done on User:Carmen2u/Lee Aase. Personally, I'm not sure that I see enough to show that Aase meets the criteria for inclusion - looking through the sources and references, most of it appears to me to be interviews which are almost Press Releases! However this is merely my opinion - other editors' opinions may well be different! If you feel that the article would meet the notability guidelines and specifically the guidelines for biographical articles, you can move it to main space. I won't nominate it for deletion myself, although should someone else do so, I may take part in any Articles for Deletion discussion that is started. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me again --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hiya
Hi Phantomsteve, would you mind closing this RfA per WP:NOTNOW, the candidate removed the transclusion from the RfA page. Regards,  Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм &#124;  Champagne?  11:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorted! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Steve, my personal thanks to you
Steve, thanks so so much for voting in my RfA and taking the issue up with Gigs too. Your vote, comment, arguments mattered a ton. You were one of the first editors to welcome me on Wikipedia. It's an honour to be now able to volunteer as an administrator with you around :):) Btw, this obviously is not a thank spam :) Cheers   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  19:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Feel free to ask me if you need any help, admin or otherwise! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Beat Angel Escalayer
And what exactly about the "Keeps" that were not WP:ILIKEIT and WP:NOTAGAIN. Neither of them presented any reliable sources to show that the subject passed WP:NOTE. At most, this should have been relisted for another week, so I'm considering an appeal to WP:DRV to overturn the outcome. —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you feel that I misjudged the consensus, you are welcome to take it to DRV --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou !
Just a quick thank you for your help 80.47.125.248 (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome! We know that some innocent people get caught in range blocks, and will remedy this where possible --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

ping
You have mail. Cheers. sonia ♫ 12:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So I see... looking at that now! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 12:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have oversighted it - that's the first time I've done that (I've RevDel'd before, but not OS'd). Thanks for contacting me (but remember you can always request OverSight here) --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 12:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, to be precise, I suppressed it rather than oversighted it, but that's a technical issue - the end result is to all intents and purposes the same: no one can see it, including admins, unless they are an Oversighter! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 12:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wasn't quite sure what to do with it, hence coming to you. sonia ♫  12:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Concern over result of Afd
Hi, with all due respect, I don't believe your closure of Articles for deletion/CubeCart as "Delete" was supported by the discussion generated. There were two keep recommendations and two delete recommendations, meaning that the result should have been a "no consensus keep". I realize that the debate was not a vote, but the Afd was obviously contested and supported by valid arguments. Anyway, leave me a tb on my talk page after you reply. Thanks. Guoguo12 --Talk--  19:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for contacting me. Firstly, I should point out that the nomination itself is a 'delete' - and that one of the 'keeps' was a weak one. I read the discussion of the first 'keep' where I noted that even that editor said The whole problem with establishing notability for PHP software is that there are no reliable publication that reviews them - when I was closing it, I basically saw the following:
 * 3 deletes (including the nom)
 * 1 keep, which was discussed and some valid points were raised about the lack of reliable sources
 * 1 weak keep
 * I judged the consensus to be to delete. If you still feel that this was an incorrect assessment of the consensus, please feel free to take the AfD to Deletion Review for the close to be discussed. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see your point. In that case I suppose your judgement was in fact sound. Sorry about that. Guoguo12  --Talk--  23:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries! I'm always welcome to people letting me know if they think I've made a mistake - after all, sometimes I do make mistakes! I'm glad that you understand why I made the decision, and there is no need to apologise - as an admin, I need to be able to explain my decisions/actions, and it's part of the accountability thing! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All right, thanks and happy editing! :) Guoguo12  --Talk--  19:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

barnstars
ive been looking at your profile page and i seen that you have earned a few barnstars, i was woundering if there is out i could do to earn any. thanks --Tony Winward (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, you may want to check out the Reward board. Or, try joining the GoCE's September Backlog Elimination Drive or for the October Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive (the latter starts in October, but you can still sign up). Guoguo12  --Talk--  20:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, you can do what I do - not expect any, but receive them when someone notices you doing something! Every barnstar I have received has been a genuine surprise - and sometimes from people with whom I have had a single encounter! It's nice to get them, but it's not what I'm here for --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sock block
FYI. We normally do not take away talk page or email unless it's someone known to abuse the talk page. T. Canens (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also see User talk:Rigel0. Your comment would be appreciated. T. Canens (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick note (I popped on briefly, but am on my way out): The instructions said that a confirmed sock should be blocked, have the "sockpuppet" notice put on their user page, and have the talk page redirected to the sockmaster account's talk page. I inferred that access to the talk page should be revoked - I'll remember that for future use. I'll comment at the talk page later today when I have a chance to do so without being in a rush! Thanks for letting me know --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added a note on User talk:Rigel0 --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 17:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for closing the Afd on Cath beliefs on prayer. It was about time. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I closed it as the AfD had been open for the requisite 7 days! There was no other motive than that! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 19:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, in that case, I would like to request a full refund.... Just kidding. By the way, how is Croydon these days? I have not been there for a while, but used to be fun. History2007 (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Graham Langley
The two delete votes made special note toward the article seeming promotional... but style and tone are easily addressable issues. The nominator complained about Peacock and addressed the one source as "dubious" because it was no longer available online. After my own search revealed the individual having coverage in multiple reliable sources over a many-years period, and his meeting the GNG quite easily, the two delete voters did not respond to my comment, and the nominator made an rebuttal that indicated that WP:CREATIVE overruled WP:GNG... and that just ain't so. His argument was flawed and 91 news hits should be far more difficult to discount. While I think you acted per consensus in your deletion, the points I brought up in my per-policy/per-guideline response of the subject meeting GNG were not addressed... and so perhaps a relisting might have been more in order. As a DRV creates more drama than neccessary, please userfy this one to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Graham Langley so that I might address the real concerns toward style and tone... and then I'll add some 20 or 30 of the 91 reliable sources. After which I can either bring the vastly improved article back to you, or send it to incubation, for consideration of return to mainspace.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have userfied it per your request (and have commented out the categories while it is in user space). Thank you for understanding that I acted in accordance with the consensus - and I hope you can save this article - if you can, you might want to send it to incubation, rather than to me! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks and appreciations, as I believe the article is easily salvable. I always worry when editors offer well-meant opinion based upon current state and ignore the potential of an article's improvement through regular editing... specially when their own arguments were based solely upon issues that are so easily corrected.  Respecting consensus is often a tough call, specially as AFD is usually decided by guideline and policy based arguments, and not weight of numbers... but I think the mitigating factor is in how few editors even bothered to comment.  You will not regret the userfication though... and I'll be happy to send you a note to look in when it goes to incubation. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Last thought: Was there any discussion on the article's talk page that could prove useful?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no content on the talk page, apart from a note that it had previously been PROD'd, deleted and restored upon request. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just wanted to make sure I did not fail to look under every stone.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Vector quadruple product
Hi Phantomsteve. Do you think you could provide a close rationale for this AFD? Thank you, NW ( Talk ) 21:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added a rationale - I hope this clarifies how I judged the consensus --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Catholic beliefs article for deletion
Hello, I noticed you've closed the AfD on Catholic beliefs on the power of prayer, but while the other editors thought to keep it, they also agreed with my suggestion of a name change, and that does not seem to have been addressed. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't choose to close it with that recommendation, as not all the 'keeps' suggested renaming - three did not mention it at all, and the others gave a couple of possibilities (although 2 editors did agree with a possible rename). However, if you feel that the article should be renamed, then this needs to be dicussed at the article's talk page (I am adding this message to the closing rationale) following the procedure at Requested moves --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Bubba73test2
Bubba73 (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Userpage
Hi! Could you semi-protect my userpage? Dont see why anyone should edit it. It has not been vandalized too many times, but still. Thanks. Evalowyn (talk) 07:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (puts on best Yul Brynner voice): "So let it be written. So let it be done." --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :D Evalowyn (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steve :)
Hi. How're you doing? Wanted your action on this user's request for deleted contents. I generally have never provided deleted contents; so would not wish to do it right now. Thanks Steve.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  18:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I see that Excirial has done the necessary! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) See you later.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  15:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocking of User:ParaBde44
Hi

Can you please remove the block for ParaBde44. I have discussed the issue with him and he was trying to create a place to sandbox a Wiki article for the 44 Parachute Brigade, there already is an article for the Regiment. If I look at the article although not done properly at least has references and a bit more structure. The 44 Brigade does have particular historical significance to the South African military.

So can you unlock the account and he can get someone like one of the people from the other article and him to improve both articles.

Kind Regards

Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nibuod (talk • contribs) 18:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Tim, I didn't block the account because of the article (that's a separate issue!). I blocked because the username is in violation of the user name policy. The account's block notice gives details about how to change name. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Urutur Catholics
HI Phantom, this is a gentle reminder that i have put my comments/concerns in My Talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C9VReddy (talk • contribs) 04:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Doria Pamphilj
Why did you delete this article? As far as I can see no consensus or agreement was reached to delete. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Contaldo80, thanks for contacting me. I judged the consensus based on the fact that the nominator presented several arguments for deletion, gave a clear "delete" argument, and although it did not strongly influence me, Marlow59 also suggested deletion (the fact that that editor only had 3 edits before this is why it was not a strong influence); In contrast with this, you said that it should be kept, but your arguments seemed (to me) to be effectively counteracted by Cindamuse), and Andrew Duffell said to keep, but with no arguments at all (and so it was not a strong influence on my decision). Overall I judged the consensus was to delete.
 * If you feel that I misjudged the consensus, you are welcome to take the closure to Deletion Review (DRV) - but bear in mind that DRV is not a venue to re-hash the arguments, but to discuss whether I correctly closed the discussion with the arguments presented.
 * I understand that you are not happy with the decision, but I do feel that it was the correct one with the arguments presented. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't agree with this. In my mind Cindamuse has not effectively counteracted my arguments, and no-one has convincingly put forward an argument that the subject is not-notable (bearing in mind fairly extensive media coverage). Going through Deletion Review seems to me a hassle I would rather have avoided. Both Cindamuse and Favonian have declared an interested in peerage, and the suggestion seems to have been made the JDP is not a legitimate heir because he has been adopted. That seems to be driving views on the articles' suitability rather than directly addressing notability criteria. If this is an issue then it could have been best dealt with by adding a sentence to the article setting out concerns over official titles. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you don't agree with what I thought, but at the end of the day you have two choices: you can either accept that the article was deleted and move on or if (as you obviously do) you feel that my closure was incorrect, you need to take this to Deletion Review. I am not going to change my thinking, as I still agree with the thinking I have explained above. As far as I am concerned, that is the end of the matter, unless you do decide to take this to DRV. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 13:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Many thanks Phantomsteve, I'm so glad I can actually talk to you now :) I will be changing my name shortly ParaBde44  (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that the renaming has been done! If there's anything I can help you with, please feel free to contact me --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

New information for "Singapore International Energy Week" Wiki entry
Hi Steve, Hope all's been great!

Just like to check in with you if it'd considered promotional if I listed some of the ministers attending the Singapore Energy Summit. Thought of listing only the ministers in case people wanted to better understand which key delegates are attending.

Happy to hear your thoughts on this.

Matthew.lim (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Matthew, it's good to hear from you again! I'd say that it would be OK to add those details if they can be sourced to an independent source (e.g. a newspaper) - if the only source is the SIEW's own website (or one of the organisors' websites) then you shouldn't add it. This is the kind of information which is generally better off being added after the event. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Louise Carver (South African singer)
I found a few sources, and removed your prod. Is that enough for a keep? Bearian (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure that the sourcing (good finds, by the way) are sufficient. Let me explain:
 * Who's Who SA: Not an RS: Anyone can register and create a profile (see here for an example of someone you might recognise the name of!)
 * Channel 24: A review about the album - but nothing about Carver biographically speaking (incidentally, I have put the link in the reference)
 * City Press: A review about the album, again nothing biographical
 * First for Women: Confirms the sponsorship, but there is nothing biographical here.
 * All in all, I feel that the sources do not meet the requirements of WP:N (or WP:MUSICIAN) and so I will be taking this article to AfD - no disrespect intended! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at the article again, all we need to show that she meets the notability guidelines is evidence of her reaching reaching the 3rd position on the South African National Top 40 Charts (I'm not sure if the South African National Campus Charts meets the criteria, as there's no mention of those charts on Wikipedia) - I look into this later --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I can't find official sources of the charting details, but I find the information in various places. Unfortunately, I can't find any which are reliable from our point of view (last.fm can be edited by anyone, as can discogs). However, my thinking is not to take this to AfD, as the feeling is that she meets the criteria. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)