User talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2010/November
In accordance with the suggested procedure outlined at WP:Deletion review, I am dropping you a note on your talk page requesting you to reconsider closing the above-linked deletion discussion as delete. I do not believe that any editors who voted keep presented arguments to counter those presented in the nomination rationale. One editor who voted keep, later voted delete as well (without striking his original vote). If the experience of the editors can be taken into account, as a gauge of how well policy is understood, that too was clearly in favour of deletion. Srnec (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 1 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Patrick Murray (politician)I was very surprised that you kept the article and have renominated it for deletion. I could see that the consensus was to keep it until after the election, but I read the discussion as delete it after he lost the election rather than keep it after he lost the election. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Chase (Transformers)Hey there. I wanted to ask that you reopen the deletion review article Chase (Transformers) for more feedback. It only had TWO delete votes, 1 keep and 2 merges, so it really was a mixed result with no concensus. I'd like to get more input. Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by 'no consensus'. There were no keep votes. Sumbuddi (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Why did you not choose to redirect as a reasonable search term? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Aaron Raitiere and Peter ShalvoyYou closed the AfDs for Aaron Raitiere and Peter Shalvoy as no consensus (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Raitiere), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Shalvoy). I think they should have been deleted because there's no evidence they satisfy MUSICBIO or N. The sources listed were week: unreliable, or from small and local publications. These arguments were noted in the AfDs, and the only people voting keep were the SPIs (apart from one "Sources show notability"). Would you consider revising your close and just deleting these? Christopher Connor (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
HiYou can keep the restrictions. I don't mind.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
why you removed my page ? Evesns TaianMarcosAndrade210 (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Page deletionI created a page entitled Here's What To Think that was marked for speedy deletion referencing the G12 rule. I asked what material on the page was the subject of the plagiarism claim, but received no feed back. I was in the process of rewriting any and everything I thought might be infringing on the material protected by copy write by blogtalkradio.com when the page was deleted. I was hoping that you might be able to reverse your decision to delete the page so I may have the opportunity to continue revising the page to meet wikipedia's standards. The reason the revisions were taking a long time was because I was listening to each show so that I could write a description without any input from the descriptions on blogtalkradio.com. If it matters at all, after the page was flagged for speedy deletion I contacted the creators and hosts of the program (though not the proprietor of blogtalkradio.com) and their response was supportive of my efforts. Please let me know if there is a possibility for me to continue reworking the page, it sucks to lose so many hours of work so early on while I was still making changes to bring the page into compliance with wikipedia policy. Thanks, Nikolakordic (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The only reason I mentioned the creators' support was in case their opposition would be influential in keeping the page deleted. I know that of course they would support any kind of press. But taking "publicity" into consideration as a factor for deletion would be unfair. There are plenty of TV and radio programs that have Wikipedia pages. While you note other reasons the page was deleted and my request ignored, I never received feed back as to what material was plagiarized. As I said, I was working to re-edit the page so that it didn't infringe on anything on btr. You also said the article didn't meet notoriety standards judging from your review of my citations and links. If I had been provided with this information in my request for advice I would have done my best to provide it. The website http://philalawyer.net ranks at 100,074 in the US according to Alexa and 722,201 world wide for number of page visits. While obviously sites like Google or the Sacramento Bee (coming in at just under 55,000) out preform his, considering that there are 234 million websites as of December 2009, I think that being in the top 1% world wide (including countries that don't speak English) meets some standard of notoriety. Since I was attempting to bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia's copyright policy I feel I should have been given more then a few hours to rework the article. Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or: * Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject[6] for advice on where to look for sources.
* Put the {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors.
* If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.
Judging from your comments, the reason the article was deleted the same day it was created, even after my request for more editing time, was that you judged the article unworthy of space on Wikipedia due to lack of interest. As for references to 3rd party sources, amazon.com lists the books published by the hosts and I've requested BTR to confirm the hosts are who they claim to be. Though the sources referencing Here's What To Think do not include main stream news sources, the links and references to the site are numerous and include the personal sites of the guests that have been invited on, many of which have attained mainstream notoriety(the list of guests I started was incomplete due to lack of time). There's a lot of regulations for posting articles that I've read, but though I did my best to read through everything I though relevent to writing this article, I am not 100% versed yet. With a little feed back and sometime to edit the article I'm sure I can elevate the quality to meet the fair standards Wikipedia holds its contributors to. My passionate objection to the deletion of the article does not steam from any connection with the subject matter. At best I am a casual listener of the program. My passion is rooted in the hours I spent reading the rules, finding sources and actually writing the content. And also my personal time I spent listening to shows I had already heard so that I could write descriptions void of copyright infringements. You deleted the page while I was in the process of revising the episode descriptions. I think I have made a case that warrants the reversal of your decision, but I am still very green to posting. If I have misinterpreted any of the rules or their general intention, please let me know. Your clarifications would be something I carried forward to increase the quality of any future posts/edits I make. Thank you, Nikolakordic (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the chance at reworking the article. I will will apply the advice you've given me and won't repost the article until it meets general standards. Thanks, Nikolakordic (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC) JBA MotorsGood morning, RE: User: 04:50, 4 November 2010 Phantomsteve (talk | contribs) deleted "JBA Motors" (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject (CSDH)) Yesterday i created the page JBA Motors and when i went to view it today it had a been deleted by yourself. What was the reasoning for this? If it was ‘Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject’ I would be interested to know how I can indicate the importance and significance of the subject please. JBA Motors a new British Motor Company, stemming from the legacy of JBA Cars. I would be grateful of any feedback. Kind Regards Matthew Willcock
I went ahead and added sourced information about this film to the Jackass 3D article (see Jackass 3D#Jackass 3.5). Would you care to now go ahead and delete the Jackass 3.5 article and then set a redirect? Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Your message on my talk pageSteve, the note you placed on my talk seems very odd. I think it's because you've written in bold 'article needs improving and expanding, not deleting', which comes across as shouting. Accordingly, I suggest you don't use this phrase in notes on other editor's talk pages. PhilKnight (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Reconsideration of your recent deletion of the KMC Controls articleYou deleted the KMC Controls page sometime in the last 12 hours. I respectfully request that you reconsider and reinstate the page for the reasons below. This page is a substantial update and expansion of a page I did several years ago that was deleted because it lacked (at that time) sufficient third-party references to the company. (I was not aware that it had been deleted until much, much later.) The new, revised article has extensive references (several times more, for example, than in the article for its competitor Johnson Controls). Thus, the original reason for deletion is no longer valid. I can no longer see the messages that were attached to the new page last night. As I understand it, the page was flagged for possible copyright violation because it has similar text to an entry on a Wikipedia archive page. The archive page has a copy of the original text of the original article. A portion of that text has remained intact in the upgraded version and was flagged as possible copyright violation. But I was basically quoting myself. There is no copyright violation. Thus, the reason for the deletion of the new article is not valid. Please reinstate the page and remove the warning flags. I am a professional writer, but not a seasoned veteran on Wikipedia. I have complied with all Wikipedia guidelines to the best of my knowledge and ability. If there is something else I need to do to modify the KMC Controls article sufficiently for inclusion, please let me know exactly what that would be. Please give me a talkback as well. Cyberwriter (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Addendum to my message "Reconsideration of your recent deletion of the KMC Controls article"OK, I did find a copy of the messages. The alleged copyright problem was with http://wikibin.org/articles/kmc-controls.html, but again that was essentially a copy of my original work. So there was no copyright infringement. Also, I had added a "hang on" tag to the KMC Controls page after the first warning occurred, but that seemed to have been ignored? Respectfully, Cyberwriter (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:RESTRICTHi, I noticed you removed the "Molobo" entry from WP:RESTRICT, evidently after the recent thread on ANI. Somehow I must be missing something: when and how did Molobo's sanction actually expire? The ban expired, of course, but for all I can see the civility/revert restriction was supposed to be indef. Has this actually been superceded? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
HuggleWhen are you going to use Huggle again? Wayne Olajuwon chat 16:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
you deleted my page that took me 3 hours of work on...why? and how do i get all the information that i inputed, back? it is a musician/artist page in which i am the musician and all information is verifiable. 04:59, 4 November 2010 Phantomsteve (talk | contribs) deleted "User:KdotCole/Kandi Cole" (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement (CSDH))
thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KdotCole (talk • contribs) 22:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of KMC Controls page revisitedThank you for your reasoned response and clarification on why you deleted the KMC Controls article. I am, however, perplexed by your conclusion. I think close analysis of some of the references will show that there are indeed enough third-party, reliable, published sources to establish KMC’s factual statements and notability. The occasional references to KMC’s web site are useful to a certain extent because, in Wikipedia’s own words: “Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves.” As you said, there are, indeed, two news releases listed as sources, but they were NOT written by KMC! They were written by the other involved companies. Although they may be marketing materials, they still state facts about business relationships and actions, and they do support the statements that they footnote. The news release by Lynxspring in footnote #6 documents the existence of one OEM relationship (e.g., an HVAC controller may have a major brand name logo and be sold by somebody else, but it is actually manufactured by KMC). This is especially notable because most OEM relationships in that industry are strictly confidential and impossible to document from publically available sources. A large portion of KMC’s business is OEM and is therefore confidential and not publically available. Footnote #7 is a case study on the BACnet International web site of the HVAC installation at the Kuwait Oil Company Headquarters. KMC is mentioned in the article as well as several competitors. This footnote verifies that KMC indeed is established in international markets. Footnote #12 is an article that quotes a vice president of KMC as an industry expert (demonstrating notability). The last two footnotes are industry publications describing product awards given by independent organizations. KMC did not write those announcements, and it seems to me that receiving two industry awards within a year indicates notability of a manufacturer and its products. (Also, more information was given about the products in the print versions of these magazines.) Finally, the very first footnote is to a four-page (in print) article in an industry publication by a professional business writer profiling the company. The contents of that article all by itself back up almost all the statements listed in the Wikipedia article. I would think that article alone could almost qualify KMC for entry into Wikipedia even if there weren’t any other references. For the length of the article, I thought I had included more than enough third-party sources. I could, however, add more, but the article would have to be visible for me to do that. So again, I respectfully request reconsideration and reinstatement of that article. I would then add additional reliable sources as references. Thank you for your consideration. (I am aware that being a Wikipedia administrator must often be a thankless job.) Cyberwriter (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
RfAHi Steve. Yes, there are many reasons why the RfA process is a train wreck. I think more can be gained by consolidating the discussions in the right place than rather in the obscurity of Jimbo's talk page. Although I realise that's probably not how you intended the discussion to develop, Wales appears to be disinterested. I've suggested that that the thread should be merged to a more prominent discussion. More exposure is needed for this too because nobody returns much to the back page of an RfA after the event. There are also more fragment of the discussion here. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
List of Oldest Living Menhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_the_oldest_living_men There were four votes to keep and three to delete. Before submitting this to deletion review, I would like to ask you to reconsider. Even from an argument standpoint, I think the argument to delete was incorrect. We see LOTS of coverage of "oldest living men" worldwide. Even if individual-case nobability would be difficult to establish, general-topic notability has been rather easy. Also, there is a group of certain editors, mainly JJBulten, who have been canvassing and campaigning to delete articles on supercentenarians for religious reasons. For JJBulten, the Bible says that Noah lived to "950". Modern records show that humans don't live that long, so his head-in-the-sand approach has been to attempt to delete modern records. This is a continuing problem, the politicization or what should be an "encyclopedic" discussion. Ryoung122 00:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 8 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of KMC Controls page revisited (again)Thank you for your detailed explanation. I understand your reasoning better, although I still disagree with your conclusion. You certainly have high standards, and by your stringent requirements, there are many Wikipedia articles I’ve seen that should be deleted. I mentioned I had additional references. If I incorporated the following, would they cause the article to attain critical mass? News about KMC Controls from The International Association for Continuing Education and Training (IACET), a third-party certifying organization mentioned on the Wikipedia Continuing Education page: http://hvacrdistributionbusiness.com/news/kmc-iacet-ceus-1105/. I would add to the line: KMC maintains regional sales offices throughout the U.S. and provides training to and distributes its solutions and products through authorized installing contractors, wholesalers, and OEMs (original equipment manufacturer) throughout North America as well as authorized distributors worldwide. Additional case studies (international):
Case studies (U.S.):
Although BACnet International (footnote #7) does promote BACnet as an industry interoperable standard, it does not promote any one manufacturer above another. At the very least, the above links verify that KMC has had its products installed in a variety of high-profile buildings in the United States and internationally. I could also add references to the HVACR Distribution Business profile that is currently just noted in footnote #1 to other sections of the article that would be relevant. Concerning (footnote #4) KMC Controls ISO registration certificate being “not independent,” even though it is a file downloadable from the KMC web site, the certificate itself was issued by National Quality Assurance, an independent ISO registrar. This is also verifiable by doing a search on http://www.iaar.org/jadian.cfm (but no direct link to the KMC info works). Finally, concerning footnote #5, Intellon was later purchased by Atheros Communications for $244M (http://www.atheros.com/news/Intellon.html). Atheros does have a Wikipedia entry. There is much more “independent” media coverage about companies (especially large ones) that make consumer products, but smaller business-to-business companies in the construction industry generally appear only in trade publications and are largely lost in the background of cultural consciousness...even though they play crucial roles. I hope I haven’t made myself too much of a pest. Thanks for your attention. Cyberwriter (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Longevity COIA discussion about longevity WP:COI has been initiated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#End COI. As a recent contributor to this page, your comments are solicited. JJB 20:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBotSuggestBot 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 Nettrom (talk), 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) 00:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Query about copyright infringementHi, I am a new user karkanoid and wrote an article for this band, 81db. It was deleted by you for "Unambiguous copyright infringement". Please could you tell me what to not include so as to avoid this problem again? I have the article in my page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Karkanoid/81db_(band) thanks a lot for the help Karkanoid (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Ok, i think i got it, it's probably because i used text copied from other webzines as was. I'll try to write it my own. Is that correct? thanks again karkanoid Karkanoid (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Request for guidanceI attempted to nominate an article for Speedy Deletion but 1) doubt I did it correctly, 2) think I hosed something, 3) request your guidance to do it correctly. (I'll check back here, for your reply). Kernel.package (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
VOSS SolutionsHi, you deleted VOSS Solutions a few months back as it was deemed to be unambiguous self-promotion. I am the VP Marketing of VOSS Solutions and I think that our previous marketing person was over zealous on trying to get VOSS onto Wikipedia. So no complaints there. However, I do think that VOSS is creating a new category in our industry (Unified Commincations Service Delivery) and we want to have UC Service Delivery created as a new topic on Wikipedia. Are you able to help me to undelete VOSS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cm10654 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Unblock Videogamer13Videogamer have shown that page of his edit on his talk page, and he needs to be unblocked. --TheDefender999 (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Consensus not evidentGreetings, Regarding the below article, there were four votes to "keep" and only "three" to delete. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_the_oldest_living_men Please explain how you arrived at consensus to "delete."65.182.37.210 (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Please restore this article. The college basketball season has started, and new sources can now be found. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi this is Mary Buffett and you deleted my wiki pageDear Steve, I understand that you work tirelessly in order to ensure a quality educational product that people can rely upon, so that it really means somehting significant to have a well edited page. I just would like you to understand my situation. I never knew who originally put up the page...or the picture of me. I finally did find out who put the picture of me up and then I had my friend who is proficient at computers, replace the pictue with one that lookked more like me. I am not adept at these skills. I now understand that I need to be organized having sections about my back ground and accomplishments, also that my page only linked to Warren Buffett's page. I could link to many other pages now that I know. Since i was not the one to put it up originally I understand that it looks like shamelss self-promotion and welcome some critical comments as well. If you could give me some suggestions I would have another friend of mine who is a Wiki author and has volunteered to help me with this, as well as some other authors that can wirte about me and what I do. The one problem I have is that now that I can't see the page that was up, I don't know what was there. If you could please give me a chance and put it back up, I can then put the links to value investing, Benjamin Graham, the Pledge, Berkshire Hathaway, Novo, Enviromential Media Association and others. I understand that you are one of the worldwide mavens of Wikipedia working tireless for no pay to make it better and would welcome your advice and any help you may be able to offer. With great respect, Mary Buffett 76.167.156.114 (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
HAPPY HOLIDAYS- 18:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Re: OneSavingsYou deleted this article that I created, with the reason that it was advertising or promotion. I created the article as it it the subject of major interest in the British financial services sector, and soon to be a large company. I have no connexion with the company whatsoever, and would have no reason to advertise for it. A search on Google News for "OneSavings" produces many results from major British newspapers, so the subject is notable, especially considering that Kent Reliance Building Society, which will soon become OneSavings, already has an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buybooks Marius (talk • contribs) 02:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deletion review for OneSavingsAn editor has asked for a deletion review of OneSavings. 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. Buybooks Marius (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC) The Devil's Tree AfDHi, I am currently working on several topics involving the paranormal. I was a bit confused here with the result of this AfD. It seems that this AfD should be in favor of no consensus. Of course my opinion could be incorrect. I was wondering if you could restore this article, I would not mind a second nomination I have also found additional sources, however the Courier Post and NJ.com are non-trivial independent sources and should by itself be enough it address the concerns of the nominator. The local lure is hardly minor and passes WP:V and GNG. Weird NJ, despite dealing in paranormal subjects also has a long history of debunking local myths and approaches subjects with rational skepticism. While, I am aware of the DRV process, I personally find it to be extremely inefficient and flawed. I was wondering if you could restore this article and the talk page. I can take it from there and make sure it passes wiki standards! Thanks!Valoem talk 00:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear , I put 2 references to the article Charles Villeneuve , why it is deleted --Mohamed Ouda (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
dumbassHey Dumbass, why did you delete my page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.70.235 (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of the diseases pageWhy did you have to delete the diseases page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.50.5 (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank youThank you for putting in the time, effort and patience to mentor me. I learned so much from you that was invaluable at my RfA and will continue to be so as I move into being an admin. I know things are busy for you right now and if you ever need someone to send people to please feel free to send them my way! I hope we'll keep in touch and I hope you aren't away from the project for much longer. Your support has meant so much to me and I will do everything I can to live up to it. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 November 2010
|
