Jump to content

User talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2010/February

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Additional References for Singapore International Energy Week

Hi Phantomsteve, Just checking in to see if everything's ok with the additional references suggested for the "Singapore International Energy Week" wiki entry. Feel free to let me know if there is anything more i can help :)


Cheers! Matthew.lim (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Matthew - I've been kinda busy recently, and to be honest, I'd forgotten! I'll look at them in the next day or so - if I haven't by next Monday, leave me another message! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Abigail's EP

Phantomsteve – I came by to thank you and saw you were up for admin. If there's one thing I won't withdraw, it's my support for you, thanks for your quick help! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 09:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome! I have added the two references which I referred to on the Help Desk. There may be more, but they'll do for starters! I thought it was very sensible of you to withdraw that particular AfD - it's an essential attribute for all editors, the ability to think "no, I don't think that's the right decision"! If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: BLPRFC

Hi, I was just browsing through your contributions for your RfA and I saw that you replied to me on the BLP RFC here. I must have missed it due to all the fast editing to that page, so to answer your question, yes eventually I want to see all unsourced material either sourced or removed and I would support a change in policy to enforce this. This wouldn't be a sudden change, of course it would have to happen over time, but I feel it would be a good goal to move towards. ThemFromSpace 12:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw this when you first put it on this page, but didn't respond at the time (I was busy doing something or other ) - but thanks for responding. I'm glad you took my question at BLPRFC in the spirit in which it was offered - as a genuine question about your thoughts rather than what could have potentially been seen as a sarcastic comment. I think the key word here is 'eventually' and the phrase 'over time'! It is a sensible approach to this. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Helpdesk question

Whats up with the helpdesk not parsing any html anymore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hybirdd (talk • contribs) 15:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

When you put in the <s></s>,...., you put it as <nowiki><s></s>,... - you didn't close the <nowiki> markup, so all the rest of the page content was assumed to not be Wiki mark up! I've corrected it now. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! and i just wanted to say , good luck at your future endavours! 16:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Earth, Inc."

I went ahead and closed this AFD by userfying the article, which seemed non-controversial. Then, on a second reading of the debate (after seeing your explanation at the user's talk page), I get the feeling I may have mis-read things. One Delete does not a consensus shatter, but it probably should have given me more pause than it did. If you like, I can back it out and undo the close - or I can leave it be. Either way, wanted to check in with you before doing anything to muck things up further. Best, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm OK with the close - your closing rationale summed up the situation well, and the nominator is happy for userfication -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Quite possibly the simplest wheel war I ever had! Thanks again, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 22:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
...Or non-wheel war, as it happens, though it appears that your RFA will quickly fix that. Good luck! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 22:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Maritz, LLC

Steve, I was working with you about a month or two ago on a Wikipedia page for Maritz, LLC. I have updated our page with appropriate references and wording and would appreciate you taking a look at for posting to Wikipedia. I believe I have met the guidelines requested.

Thanks, NRoth82 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nroth82 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I had a quick look at it and the main thing I thought was that it needs more reliable independent sources of information. The ones you have are good, but have they received coverage from other media like newspapers and magazines? When I read it, I wasn't struck with obvious non-notability, but neither did I feel that the notability was firmly established. Otherwise, I think it's OK, although I will look at it again next week and give more thoughts on it -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternate account of Phantomsteve] 11:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Phantomsteve

Good luck. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 02:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll second that (and indeed I have done). I look forward to giving you much less respect and kudos when you succeed! – ukexpat (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
And I third that. Apparently your talk page was still on my watchlist after a previous conversation, and I was just able to catch that you're running for adminship. Good luck =) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks like you're good to go! –Juliancolton | Talk 00:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
But with 5 days and 8 hours (or so) until it's over, you never know what will happen. We'll see. Let's just say that I'm not unhappy with how it's going (despite a POINTy oppose), but I'll wait until it's over and see how I've done. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I must admit, I am surprised at the number of !votes I've received in just under 2 days. Most of the names I'm not surprised to see, but there are a few who I read the comments, read the sig and thought "hmmm... I don't recognise that name"! I think most of the people that I expected to take part have done so (there are maybe 2 or 3 names that I thought I would have seen - whether in S, O or N - that I haven't yet seen).
I've seen RfAs which have been very emotional for the candidate for the wrong reason - I hadn't thought that it would be emotional for a candidate when it's not going too badly! I didn't realise how a lot of those people had seen me or thought of me, and it's quite a humbling experience to find out now! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
That was definitely the most surprising and pleasing result of my RfA too - "User:Example has noticed me and remembered our interaction? Wow!" Before that it was easy to look at unanimously supported RfAs as almost 'emotionally neutral' by default. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's about time! Good luck with it, though I think you'll have no problems :) GedUK  12:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Addition to DFC list

Hello Steve, thank you for you for your reply. My grandfather was mentioned in dispatches and at least twice in a newspaper. I also have a considerable amount of gun film from his Hurricanes. Does this qualify as notable? Many apologies if these are stupid questions. Many thanks, 217.44.85.145 (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Tim (Is that how I'm meant to sign my post?)

Although on a personal level, all of the soldiers, pilots, sailors, etc of the wars are notable as heroes, on a Wikipedia level they only achieve notability if:
  1. Their war-time service was particularly notable. Being awarded a DFC in and of itself does not meet this standard, as 20,354 DFCs were awarded (the most of any award), with approximately 1,550 first bars awarded. The mentions in a newspaper (I'm guessing) are basically confirming the award of the DFC and the mention in dispatches?
  2. They need to achieved notability outside of the military. (this is where Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) comes into it!

If your grandather would not meet either of these criteria (it doesn't need to be both), then perhaps Wikipedia:Alternative might help with ideas of other sites (mostly not connected with Wikipedia) which might be able to have information about your grandfather.

With regard to the gun film - do you have that in a digital format, or only hard copy? The reason why I ask is because if you have it in digital format, it might be possible to use that in articles! If you do, let me know and I will explain how we might be able to get it onto Wikipedia.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Steve. Thank you for your informative answers. From your information I am of a mind that my grandfather would not qualify for noticeable mention on Wikipedia. I do know that he was a squadron leader and took part in the run to Vienna, which I believe was the longest run during WWII, and there are many family stories of his heroicism about him that may prove just to be just that! As to the the gun film, it is all on tape, but fills several large boxes. I have been hoping to convert it to digital but have not done so as yet due to time constraints. If at any time this may prove useful I would be glad to make it available. Thanks, Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.85.145 (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant to add that he received a bar on his DFC and that the newspaper articles detailed his fights with other planes, and that he was in mosquitoes, as well as hurricanes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.85.145 (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New contributors' help page#Vehicle Insurance

Ok you did that much better then I..i will follow your example from now on!! thers a ref desk cool!!..Buzzzsherman (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries! We have several Research Desks:
I try to find relevant articles, as well as referring them to the RD - but I don't check too hard through the article - that's for the questioner to do, I think! Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

GLNG

Hi, Phantomsteve. There is a discussion about the article's name. Your input is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Participation at my RfA

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. --otherlleft 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

RfA question

Hello there! At my RfA you asked me a question about criteria for speedy deletion and which one I felt was the most difficult to judge. I said A7. You and a few other people were worried because I said A7 was notability and it isn't. I'm very sorry to bother you with this but I've been trying to figure it out since my RfA and I can't see any practical difference between the 'importance' of A7 and notability. If you could please help me with this point it would be extremely appreciated. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't in whether an article shows the subject to be notable (or important, the two are similar) - it is whether it claims to be notable, and that that claim can be reasonably expected to be true (or is credible). For example, if an article said "Jennifer Roberts was the President of the United States of America for 2 months in 1990", then this would not be a reasonable claim, as we know that there have been no female POTUS's so far. If it said "Jennifer Roberts won an Oscar for Special Effects in 1974 for her work on My Smart Friend (which starred Robert Redford)", then this would be a 'reasonable' claim: It may or may not be true, but as Shirik said in their oppose at your RfA, "It is not an administrator's job to judge notability" - it would be declined as a speedy deletion under A7, because the claim is credible. In this case, we know the Oscar's have been going since well before 1974 (it was in 1929 that they started), we know there are Oscars for Special Effects. We know that Robert Redford has been an actor since the 60s. Whether there was a film called My Smart Friend or not is not relevant and neither is whether the claims are true or not: the claims seem credible, and so a Speedy Deletion under A7 would be declined. I hope this helps to explain it, but do contact me if you want more clarification, or any other help! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
That straightened it out for me! Thank you very much. And congratulations on being a sysop! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Glad to help! And thanks for the congratulations -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Congratulations

This may be a bit premature, but I'm going to sleep and it's pretty much in the bag for you. I wanted to congratulate you for your adminship, it is well-deserved. I am sure you will be an extremely useful administrator here. (P.S. also congrats on being the first person I ever used "strong support" on; I never thought it would happen, honestly.) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Who says adminship's not a trophy?
Thank you both! I was surprised by the level of support I received - I never imagined that I would reach WP:100! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Grats, Steve. :) Pmlineditor ∞ 10:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks :D -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 10:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I look forward to doing my homework, and reading those! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations! Just saw the RFA closure in my watchlist. Best of luck, --Taelus (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you :D -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations Phantomsteve, I'm sure you'll make good use of those tools. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 13:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Congrats! You will make a great admin - you've taught yourself to be rational, flexible, courteous and even analytical in discussions, and above all you know not to take Wikipedia too seriously. I have no doubts that you can handle the mop with the dexterity of a Chinese gymnast. I most certainly would have supported you very strongly...if only I could remember to check RfA once in a while! Congratulations again, and viel Glück! Xenon54 / talk / 14:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Many congrats. Glad it went by so smoothly, well deserved! ~ mazca talk 14:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Congrats! Don't get me in any trouble now... :) –Juliancolton | Talk 14:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations, my friend! I'm sure you'll do a good job! HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 14:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to hell. Tan | 39 15:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

May you wear your t-shirt with pride and may your mop always be clean. Congrats, I know you will do a first-rate job. – ukexpat (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If his mop is always clean, he is not doing his job right Congrats Steve :-) Regards SoWhy 15:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you everyone! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

→ Finally! :)  fetchcomms☛ 16:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

...and congrats to you! I was so happy when you passed, those 8 hours when I was the junior admin were torture. You and I will have to have a beer someday. J04n(talk page) 16:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, and diff! Best of luck, –Black Falcon (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Black Falcon - both for the congrats and for the WP:100 edit :D -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Congrats, well-deserved. I was very happy to support, even though it wasn't needed.SPhilbrickT 18:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

congrats phantom, thanks for deleting my subpage! Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 23:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well done! 111/1? Wow, that's a really impressive result, though I can't say as I'm surprised! Anyway, if you've any mopping questions, please feel free to drop by and ask, I'm more than happy to help. GedUK  13:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and you should have a look at some admin monobook.js pages, for useful admin scripts. I've got a few, and so has SoWhy. GedUK  13:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well done Phantomsteve. You'll be a cracking admin. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Participation

Phantomsteve/Archives/2010/February - Thanks for your participation in my recent successful RfA. Even though your position was neutral, your comments were constructive and welcome. As the community has expressed its trust and confidence in me, and as you are an equal part of that community, deFacto your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

John Francis (Guitarist / Composer)

I would prefer that you delete the article for discussion related to this article as well. It was pretty contentious!

Thank You, (Johnjfrancis (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC))

Thank you for your message, however as a rule the AfDs are not deleted. Believe me, I have seen far more contentious AfDs!
Although there was obvious disagreement between yourself and some of the other editors (to be expected), I do not think that anyone comes away having embarrassed themselves. As such, I am not inclined to delete the discussion. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe I may be made the fool. I was under the impression I was being attacked, in the beginning. I believe this colored the entire debate from that point on. Still, I have no ill feelings towards anyone here and would rather no one thought I did, or any less of me because of this. My identity is not shielded as the others, so I am vulnerable, whereas they are not. I believe there have been exceptions. Johnjfrancis (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am a new admin (I only became an admin on Tuesday), so I am going to seek advice on this. I think that it would be permissable to courtesy blank the AfD, but I need to check this - and then I'll get back to you.
With regard to your name, this is one of the reasons why many people do not use their real-life names! If you think it is a problem (I'm thinking of the future), you can ask for a change of user name at Wikipedia:Changing username. Please note that even if your user name is changed, you are still reminded that Wikipedia:Conflict of interest still applies - your old name is still linked to your new name, even if it would not necessarily obvious to anyone seeing your new user name. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Looking into it further, I found it is possible (and allowed), and so I have courtesy-blanked the page. However, the discussion can still be accessed through the AfD's history tab should it be necessary. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I was completely new to this place, but have learned a great deal in the last week.Johnjfrancis (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi Phantomsteve,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?
As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).
Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?
Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.
Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

  • Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".
  • In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).
  • Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

My meaning for "none" was as per the 2nd version above (without ambiguity). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

CEE Council

Dear PhantomSteve,

Thank for having raised the ‘no footnotes’ and notability issues re: my short entry on the CEE Council, a relatively small but nonetheless notable think-tank

Following your advice, I have added five footnotes, including links to:

- George Mason University’s Library, which has the CEE Council as one of only two Canadian economic associations listed in its database

- The “Revue Analyse Financière”, France’s leading financial and economic research journal (2 links)

- Euromoney magazine’s Country Risk Index (widely used by institutional investors and economic forecasters in Europe and Asia), to which the CEE Council has contributed regularly for many years

Thanks for your precious editing help

Moorehaus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moorehaus (talk • contribs) 16:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I looked at it as a relatively new article. If I get a chance to, I'll look at it next week to see how it is going! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Merci! Moorehaus

Sano

Why did you put that on my talk page? RandySavageFTW (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I put that there because you had made a few edits to the Naoki Sano in July-September 2008, so I thought you might want to know about the proposed deletion. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure enough

Inre this diff, go ahead and userfy. Thank you, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll give it a cleanup as well. And if more sources become available, with your blessing, I'll move it to the incubator. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm quite happy for you to do that! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Congrats

Welcome to the mop. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Same here, congrats sir... Now I have one more person to repsect out here .... [:P] --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you! Rsrikanth: it's not a position of respect (especially from what I've been told by other admins!) - I have access to a few tools which help to maintain Wikipedia, but the really important thing is the creating and editing of articles - mind you, I will still be working on articles as well - and the editors I really respect (whether admins or not) are those who have done really good article work. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's true... there will probably be very little respect exhibited :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 03:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the Editor Review! I do plan on bumping up my mainspace edits in the near future. I have one new article that I started and has been on the back burner since last summer and one major rewrite waiting in my sandbox, but I just haven't had the time yet. Will have to do the small stuff for now. Thanks again! <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Admin Eligibility

Could you look at my edits and also my account history and give me a report on whether or not you think I'm ready for the mop or not, thought I'd ask you first rather than try another RfA as I didn't want to risk another SNOW/NOTNOW failure. Thanks Paul2387 21:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you highlight if any, things which need attention and high;light those which aren't a problem. Thanks again Paul2387 21:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I'll do that Paul - although this week I'm fairly busy in the real world, so it might not get done until later in the week, or even next week, if that's OK? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I see that you also asked this at the help desk! Well, the responses there basically say what I was going to say, but...
I said at your Editor review at the end of December that you should wait until at least about May/June time - and to stop chasing adminship as a trophy. You really need to listen to the advice that you are getting! As Belovedfreak says, there are plenty of things which you can do to help Wikipedia. Stop asking in various venues (including here on 31st January) when you will be ready for adminship. The best sign will be if an established editor asks if you would consider being nominated. You have a request at Admin Coaching (although I note that you do not appear to have visited the page since you added your request on 12th December) (Also bear in mind that some editors can hold admin coaching against you at an RfA - although most will at most have it as a factor which may incline them towards opposing - I've not come across anyone who would say that it would cause them to automatically oppose).
The more you chase adminship (and the more RfAs you have in a short time), the less chance that you will be successful. One thing that many editors will oppose on is the appearance of being "power hungry". Also, having a timetable for adminship, cratship, etc on your user page makes it look like you are looking for a trophy - and that is not what adminship is about! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Tony Winward

I don't know anything about this, I just performed a procedural rename. Andrevan@ 21:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

CSD A7 declined for Chun'be

I am not experienced at speedy deletions. Could you suggest a better tag for this article which does not assert importance? Thanks! jmcw (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

None of the CSD criteria cover this article. If you want it deleted, I would suggest that you PROD it instead. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternate account of Phantomsteve] 12:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm away from my computer at the moment (hence why I am using my alternative account) but I'll look at this article later today. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternate account of Phantomsteve] 12:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I am watching your page, so you can rely here. jmcw (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Having looked at the article, and done a search on Google Web/News/Scholar/Book, I can find no reference to this term, apart from the Wikipedia article and mirrors of it. As such, although the article does not qualify as a candidate for speedy deletion (the A7 criteria is only for articles about individuals, animals, organizations or web content - all the other criteria are also very specific). A PROD would certainly be appropriate for this article (with a reason something along the lines of "A search did not find anywhere where this phrase is used.") - I'll leave that for you to do, if you wish! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion! jmcw (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

My Editor review

Hello Phantomsteve, I have put my name up for a review, and gave you this notice here for it. Please let me know if and when you do reply to it using the talkback tag please. (I know your busy this week, that is fine.) -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Recreation of article deleted at AfD

Hi Steve, it looks like Ben Mercer was recreated by the original creator today. I see that you're the closing admin so I thought I'd contact you. I'm a bit rusty in Wiki policy; I went to read the policy on recreated articles, and it looks like it needs to go through AfD again, if I'm reading it right? A talkback would be appreciated. Thanks, Doonhamer (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and relisted it Steve, here if you're interested. Cheers, Doonhamer (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm at the Hammersmith Apollo to see Dave Gorman, so I'll look at that tomorrow -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternate account of Phantomsteve] 19:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Hope you enjoyed the show! Probably won't be much to see for you in the morning, the article was CSD'd/G4, recreation of a previously deleted article. If I'd done a bit more research and stumbled across that category, I'd have likely gone that route myself rather than the 2nd AfD. Eh bien, it's been a learning experience for me. Cheers, Doonhamer (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
No worries! It don't log in as Phantomsteve when I'm on my mobile, I always use my alternative account (which isn't an admin account), so I can't see the deleted version and compare them. If it had still existed, I could have compared them, to see if it is a recreation. However, if you come across one like this, just tag it as G4 - if it is not a recreation, it can always be declined! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Newfatherofone

Mind if I unblock and actually discuss this with him first? That's pretty rough treatment for someone with no talk page messages at all. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have unblocked them (following your advice - as seen in the summary!). I was a bit hasty, thanks for pointing that out. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks much, Steve. I've left him some guidance, we'll see if it takes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi. I've tried to address some of the concerns you expressed on my RfA. I'd be grateful if you could have a look if you get the time. Thanks. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Review

Thank you for the brief review. Simply south (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

new article - where to work - thanks

to Phantomsteve

re search bar, copy from word, and article wizard.. many txs very clear

--AgRince (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

A big, sincere thanks for performing an editor review on me! I'd been confident that my contributions were essentially a "net positive" but sometimes working with Wikipedia can feel a bit like speaking into an echo chamber -- this was a valuable, useful way to get some feedback, and I enjoyed reading your thoughts on my contributions. Interesting stuff regarding how they'd be viewed if I were to jump into an RfA -- the automated edit contribution bit is something I've wondered about in the past, having seen that come up on some other RfA's. I have been working a bit more in AfD's and similar non-automated areas of late, but I don't foresee my automated ratio dropping precipitously -- vandal patrolling is something I enjoy, and Huggle is indispensable for it! Which is fine -- my attitude towards any RfA is that if it works, it works and if it doesn't, who cares? I'm enjoying my current work anyway, and I generally trust the RfA community. Decision-making there seems to be among the most balanced and well-considered (usually) of any area on Wikipedia. Anyway. I prattle on (you may have noticed that I sometimes babble, hehe). Regardless of all the above, sincere thanks again for doing a very detailed, very very helpful review. I will definitely do at least one on another editor to keep the good ball rolling. Thanks! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad it was helpful! If you really want to be helpful, could you review the oldest unreviewed request? If you look at the ToC, it'll be the last one ending in a '*'! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Aye aye, Cap'n! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
You know, the ER I just did was actually pretty fun to do. I think I'll do some more. For one thing, the editor I reviewed is so plainly intelligent, thoughtful and well-intentioned that it was difficult to think of any meaningful suggestions beyond "keep it up" and "maybe try to start working in more Wiki spaces because we need more people like you." Anyway, thanks again for the review, and for possibly turning me on to another area of Wiki where I can contribute. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a good review :D -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

D.J. Cotrona

My love of cancelled tv shows has me asking you to move the above said deleted article over to my user space so that i can work on it. Ain't IRC grand at times. I thank you Steve. Cheers delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 00:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for SP

Can you look at my request on WP:RPP? It's for page Third North American blizzard of 2010. I want to get a chance to clean this article up, but it's impossible with all the edits. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

you were right...

...in declining speedy. Any thoughts on this? > Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rise of eternity. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've speedy deleted it as A7 (I only declined it as it was obviously wrongly tagged by an editor who was blocked for tagging articles for SD disruptively, and I was going through their tagging). I have also closed the AfD. Thanks for drawing my attention to this. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Account Creation Interface

Hello Phantomsteve/Archives/2010. I need some help. I am handling a request on the ACC, and the person who made the request is from a public computer at Ntelos Inc. He also has one edit, and it was vandalism. Besides that, everything looks fine. Should I make the account? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a lot easier to discuss if you are in IRC! At the moment, there are problems with the tool - but the edit was, what, 2 weeks ago? If everything is OK (I didn't check anything else), then I'd go for it - it's a dynamic IP address by the looks of it, and I'd AGF -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

De-prod Johan Olofsson

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Johan Olofsson, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Poulsen (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

RfA standards

Hi Phantomsteve/Archives/2010.
I was reading your RfA standards, and I noticed it said nothing about WP:AIV. If I become an admin, I will probably operate mostly in AIV, and so I therefore do not have many contributions in deletion areas. Would you mind adding something about AIV in your RfA standards? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That'd be covered by "Participation in AN/ANI/ANEW etc" - it's part of the "etc"! Besides, they are just a guideline for what I look for - it's not an exclusive thing. I tend to read the candidate's "What I would do if I were an admin" and look at the contributions related to that. If someone said "AIV", then I would look at their AIV contributions/RFPP - and ask questions about blocking accounts and page protection. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
So RFPP would count under the "AN/ANI/ANEW etc" section? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes! As I said, it's not a hard-and-fast list of criteria, it's just the guidelines I use, but I may ignore them in some case! (Sorry for the delay in replying - I meant to, and forgot!) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi there. Thanks for the wikification on West Georgia Technical College. The reason I tagged and watched was because I saw that an intelligent and persistent new user (with a COI) was backing the article. The tags were an attempt to get the user to improve the article themselves before I moved in. I will continue to watch the article for a while to check on excessive adspeak. Polargeo (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist too, so I'll watch it as well. If you feel that any of the tags need re-inserting, feel free to do so! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
No that is fine, a valid article but a little overpromotional, just a case of keeping an eye on it really :). Polargeo (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Maggie Who deleted article

I am not sure why you deleted the article "Maggie Who" that I created yesterday. The article was deleted while I was still providing references, citations and other source material. Maggie Who meets the criteria for bands as being notable. They have won the Beijing Battle of the Bands contest in 2007 and then went on to the China Finals in the Global Battle of the Bands contest in 2009. They could not advance to the Asia Finals in Hong Kong as they were not 18 years old--which was a contest rule. http://www.chinamusicradar.com/?tag=yugong-yishan

They are as notable, if not more notable than many other bands who have articles on Wikipedia. They write their own songs and have a record deal--with the first album already recorded by the National Academy for the Arts in China--this is unheard of for kids their age in China. I would like to post this article again. Will this be OK? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoshPitBeijing (talk • contribs) 15:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As I am away from my computer at the moment (I'm using my mobile phone to leave this reply) I can't look at this in detail. I will, however, look at this when I get a chance - though this may not be until Monday, if that's OK? In the meantime, may I suggest that you look for reliable sources for the information in the article and let me know them? You might like to read Wikipedia's guide to reliable sources. I'll look at this properly when I get a chance and get back to you -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternate account of Phantomsteve] 16:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are some reliable sources of information for the Maggie Who article that I would like to repost. I would hope you can reconsider your position as they are most definitely a band that meets the notable criteria of Wikipedia--in fact much more so as some of the other bands who have articles on Wikipedia. Please let me know if you have any further questions or if I can provide additional information. Please also know I am not connected to the subject matter of the proposed article nor do I have a personal or other interest in the subject matter of the proposed article.

http://www.gbob.com/news/2009/09/18/beijing-regional-finalists-ready-to-do-battle/ http://www.chinamusicradar.com/?tag=yugong-yishan http://beijingdaze.com/tunes/2010/02/23/whooo-are-you-who-who-maggie-who/ http://www.weliveinbeijing.com/GroupNews/news2.rails?Nid=1000000963 http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:Z33cXpVyjqwJ:hr-hotels.com/newsviewer.asp%3Fid%3D41%26section%3Dcafe+%22Maggie+Who%22+beijing+%22battle+of+the+bands%22&cd=20&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoshPitBeijing (talk • contribs) 12:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This is just a quick message to let you know that I have seen the above messages, and will be looking at it in a bit more detail later today -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your messages, and the links which you provided. I have looked at them all:
    1. ChinaMusicRadar: This is a blog, and as a rule these are not accepted as reliable sources, as the facts in them are not necessarily verified from independent sources. This one in particular would not be counted as reliable, as it is maintained by the promotion company Split Works.
    2. GBOB: These are not independent - they are the organisers of the "Battle of the Bands". Anything on their website could be construed as being overly positive about the band, as they are in the business of promoting the bands and the events, to get the sponsorship they require to run the competitions
    3. BeijingDaze: Another blog - not by an industrial expert, but just a resident of Beijing who writes "about strange and unusual happenings in this concrete urban jungle [he] call[s] home."
    4. WeLiveInBeijing: A very minor mention: "GLOBAL BATTLE OF THE BANDS, FINAL ROUND: SSS, Out of Control, Metoo, Rustic, Pai'er, Boy #6 and Maggie Who to battle it out for the final round in the local leg of the Global Battle of the Bands." on a list of events
    5. Hard Rock Cafe: Another very minor mention ("Two of the bands were International High School battle of the bands champions, Maggie Who from 2008 and Teddy Beers from 2009").

I cannot find the significant coverage of the band at independent sources, and without that I cannot see how you could bring this article up to the level of inclusion on Wikipedia - there is insufficient evidence of their notability at this time.

As this is the case, I am not going to restore the article. If you still feel that the article should not have been deleted, you are welcome to list it at Wikipedia:Deletion review (DRV), where other editors and admins will consider whether the Speedy Deletion was correct or not. Feel free to mention this discussion at DRV!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Diseases with no known cure

I came across a reference to a deleted article List of incurable diseases. I'd like to see if that list can be used to fatten up Category:Diseases with no known cure. Could you userfy it for me? TIA.  --Lambiam 20:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not on my computer at the moment, but I'll look at this on Monday and get back to you if that's OK -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternate account of Phantomsteve] 13:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I have placed the last revision at User:Lambiam/List of incurable diseases. When you have finished with it, just tag it with {{db-self}} to get it deleted. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilbert Thomas Carter

Hey Steve. Belated congrats on the admin bit- it's nice to get the odd reminder that RfA isn't completely broken! I was perusing GAN looking to see how my own nom was getting on and saw your sig. I'd be happy to review Gilbert Thomas Carter for you. The article looks in good shape so it shouldn't take long. If you'd drop me a talkback when you're ready, I'll create the review page. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This is just a quick message to let you know that I have seen the above messages, and will be looking at it in a bit more detail later today -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd be quite happy for you to review GTC! I'll do a review of Cross, but it's late now, and I'm not sure I'll have time tomorrow, as I've got Real Life™ stuff to do tomorrow - but I should be able to start it on Wednesday, if that's OK. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Awesome. That's unexpected, but if you've got the time, please do. No need to rush on my account, though. I've just finished a rather complicated GA review (I seem to have a knack for picking those) so I'll do GTC now and give you a few points to get on with in your own time. I spend far too much time on here so if you want me, I'll likely be around! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2010/February&oldid=1149834040"