User talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2012/July

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Phantomsteve. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

It's been more than two weeks since you made this edit, and there has been no response and no editing of the page. MfD? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll be getting round to that when I get a chance - I'm on nights for the next few days, so if I don't get a chance before, I'll do it at the end of the week! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 16:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I got the chance to do it tonight - see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Chubbles/The Myrchents PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Phantomsteve,

I noticed you deleted the page about bots (edi). I am the developer of bots open source edi software. I understand this page was not as I should be? I would like try try to make the page conform the requirements. I am not very familiar with the way the wikipedia editing process works; to me it looks like most references to the article (incl history/talks etc) are deleted. So please have patience with my ignorance....

do you have an example of what such a page should look like for a small open source software product? (I do have the disadvantage that edi (and edi software) is a niche and quite unknown; it is not 'consumer' software...)

about references I could use in the article: - some software vendors use my software and have linked to it/written about it - I do have some links to reviews of my software, recepies etc. Is this the kind of references that are relevant for such an article?

kind regards henk-jan ebbers (<email redacted>) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjebbers (talk • contribs) 18:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for contacting me. I deleted Bots (edi) as a result of a discussion's consensus (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bots (edi)) which was that it was unsuitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. What we need is evidence that shows that it meets the general notability guidelines - the main part of which is that there should be non-trivial coverage at multiple reliable sources which are independent of the subject. In general, "niche" software which is "not well known" is, by its very nature, not notable as Wikipedia defines it. I can find no coverage at independent, reliable sources which demonstrate that is is notable, and as such it would not appear to be suitable for inclusion. If you could state which notability criteria it meets (along with some sources showing this), or explain why you think there should be an article on Wikipedia, then we can discuss this further. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw that you declined my temporary protection request, if you don't mind me asking why? its getting regular unsourced edits that are a pain in the backside. Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 10:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi! When I looked at the history, I saw there had been no vandalism in almost a week. If there is a high level of recent vandalism, protection is the right option - in this case it wasn't. If the vandalism occurs again, ask for protection as soon as possible after it has happened. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 16:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you may want to take another look at Richmond Fire Department as I have began rescuing it and now it has independent sources including some unambiguous in depth coverage of one of the many environmental catastrophes that occur in Richmond and that this department in particular is notorious for dealing with. I have found more sources and will be adding them, thanks for giving it a second look and if you have any input or could help expand, copyedit, or trim the article in any way please be my guest. Thank you. -Troy.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment left at AfD - I'm not convinced by either the sources or the arguments you present. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I redirected Janet Devlin per your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Devlin (singer), as it was the originally nominated article, and it appears you ended up only redirecting the redirect from a move. I think its resolved, but I wanted to drop you a note as you may want to review the situation in case there was something more going on that I missed. Monty₈₄₅ 04:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I use a script for such closures, but it doesn't notice when the nominated article has been moved! I forgot to double check that it was done correctly, so good pick-up! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KevJumba videography, Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 05:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for sorting out the AfD closure. Chip123456 (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you :D PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I was surprised to see ISSAP, ISSMP, ISSEP all deleted (almost a year ago!) for being "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (CSDH)) " not other rational was given.

Would you be so kind to explain why? The reference to G11 is not subtaintial enough.

Thanks

LarryG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:AE:0:1141:4916:B5CA:147B:64EE (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll look into those to refresh my memory and get back to you, hopefully in the next couple of days -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 00:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It took a bit more time to track down, as the initials were not enough for me to find them!. Information Systems Security Architecture Professional, Information Systems Security Management Professional and Information Systems Security Engineering Professional were indeed all deleted by me under the G11 criteria. They were tagged for deletion, I reviewed them, and agreed with the nomination. In all three cases, the article appeared to only exist to promote the awards. There was no indication that these certifications meet the general notability criteria - and no references provided other than to the organisation's own website.

I am certainly willing to discuss re-creating these articles, however you need to provide me with some information so that we can continue:

1. Which General notability criteria do they meet
2. Have you got any reliable sources about the certification which are independent? Significant coverage in the press is a good start, if you can find it

If you can provide those, we can go from there! Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, how is this:

First, they are not “awards.” They are certifications, more specifically, a certification concentration within the Certified Information System Security Professional (CISSP) domains. They are obtained by writing a 3 hours multiple choice exam and holding specific experience in the specific information security domain (architecture, engineering or management), and holding the CISSP certification. One, the ISSEP is a requirement by government for specific information assurance roles (DoD Directive 8570.1).

Also I would suggested that the three (ISSAP, ISSEP, ISSMP) be marked as “stubs” until appropriately, referenced material can be sourced. The significant coverage, reliable, sources, and independence, of the three (ISSAP, ISSEP, & ISSAP) can be demonstrated by the following independent, verifiable references. My apologies they are in APA format as that is the one I work in.

• Chen, T. (2009). Exam Guide for the CISSP and ISSAP. Lrsmflordia.
• Drabwell, P. (2009). Finding your way: An overview of industry qualifications and associations. Infosecurity 6, (5). doi: 10.1016/S1754-4548(09)70106-8
• Harris, S. (2010). CISSP certification. New York: McGraw-Hill/Osbore.
• Information Systems Security Engineering Professional (ISSEP) [Power Point Presentation]. NSA Information Assurance Directorate. Retrieved from www.acsac.org/2003/case/thu-c-1530-Oren.pdf
• Krutz, R.L., & Vines, R.D. (2004). The CISSP Prep Guide: Mastering the CISSP and ISSEP Exams. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• Whiteman, M.E., & Mattord, H.J. (2007). Principles of Information Security (3rd ed.). Boston: Course Technologies.
• Wilhelm, T. (2010). Professional Penetration Testing: Creating and Operating a Formal Hacking Lab. pp. 55-57. Oxford, UK: Syngress.

The following references do not meet the independence criteria as ISC^2 is the administrator of the ISSAP, ISSEP, ISSMP, & CISSP certifications. They do however contribute to coverage, reliable, and sources:

• Tipton, H. F. (ed.) (2011). Official (ISC)^2 Guide to the ISSMP CBK. Boca Raton: Florida: CRC Press.
• Hansche, S. (ed.) (2011). Official (ISC)^2 Guide to the ISSEP CBK. Boca Raton: Florida: CRC Press.
• Tipton, H. F. (ed.)(2010). Official (ISC)^2 Guide to the ISSAP CBK. Boca Raton: Florida: CRC Press.

FWIW, I would believe the either a CISSP-ISSAP, CISSP-ISSEP, or CISSP-ISSMP is working behind the scences to ensure that Wikipedia is secure.....

Please let me know if additional references are needed to establish general notability. I tried to select easily locatable refernces, and stayed away from references that required access to accademic or trade journals ($$$).

Thanks for replying! Apologies for the "awards"/"certification" mixup... I meant the latter, but typed the former!

I have struck out the ones above which would probably not be suitable as references (they are closely connected with the certification, so unlikely to properly meet the independent criteria). I'll see if I can get hold of copies of the others and see what the coverage is. Obviously, as they are off-line resources, they may take a bit of time (online sources are easier to check!).

What I am looking for in them is more-than-routine coverage: it needs to be more than a sentence or two, and cannot be effectively a press release by being text given to the author by the certifying body themselves.

I'll get back to you when I've got some results to report! I am not going to create them as stubs without any suitable sources - there is no time limit on creating them, there is no reason to have unsourced articles when we don't need to have them PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Now I understand the type of references you are seeking. Interesting since they are different from academic i.e., peer-reviewed, references. Here are three that should be easly retrivable:

ISSEP:

• NSA partners with ISC2 to create new InfoSec certification. EDP Weekly’s IT Monitor 44(10), 6-7.

ISSMP:

• McKenna, B. (2006). Senior INFOSEC pros shift gears from technology to management. Infosecurity Today 3(6), 4-8.

ISSAP & ISSMP

• Kimberley, D. (2010). Theorizing information security success: towards secure e-Government. International Journal of Electronic Government Research 6(3) 31-42

Here is the list of DoD Directive 8570.1 approved certifications. The ISSAP, ISSEP, ISSMP are all approved, not just the ISSEP as I mentioned earlier. You will note that the ISSEP and the ISSAP are the only certifications recognized under IASAE Level III.

Unfortunately most do not have a DOI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.14.244 (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Peer-reviewed references are OK, and references at independent, professionally accountable publication (such as national newspapers) are excellent too. The ones I crossed out above appeared to be exam guides, which would not be considered reliable/independent. I will look into this more later this week. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

My main experience in this situation is my knowledge of the notability criteria for articles on Wikipedia! Although the articles about "all other painting programs" may likewise not meet notability criteria (I haven't checked), that is not really the issue here. We are considering whether this article should be in Wikipedia, and I stand by my opinion above that this should be deleted. Those of us who are commenting here do not have to look for other articles to be deleted - although if you want to leave some links to them on my talk page, I am certainly happy to look at them and if necessary nominate some of them for deletion, subject to my time being available to do that! However, that has nothing to do with this current discussion - see here. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. The article about Pixia should be deleted because Pixia lacks in notability, the article reads like an advertisement and lacks references. Furthermore, the last version of Pixia has been released for those who liked the program and the author is now concentrating on a new program called Pierha, so the program Pixia has effectively disappeared. A new program named Pierha is released in its first beta versions and has no notability at all. Maybe one day, many years into the future, the program Pierha may reach notability enough to motivate an article in wikipedia, and in that case Pixia could maybe be mentioned as a predecessor in the Pierha article. The main site which supported Pixia, http://www.ab.wakwak.com/~knight/, has been removed from the web, most likely because the program has reached the end of its existence. When I searched for rankings for Twistedbrush I found many high rankings for Twistedbrush but Pixia was not included in any of those ranking lists. So if Twistedbrush is lacking in notability, the program Pixia has no notability at all. You can find my list of ranking sites for paint programs and graphic editors in general in the article Twistedbrush and its talk page.

And, by the way, the articles about all other paint programs (and graphic editors in general), except maybe for those produced by Photoshop and Adobe (Corel) should also be deleted, as they are all less notable than Twistedbrush. Check up my list of ranking sites for paint programs and you will see that I am right. Photoshop and Corel are also ranked lower than Twistedbrush in ranking sites, but they are rich companies so the notability for them can probably be motivated by being mentioned in books and magazines. So there should only be two articles about paint programs (graphic editors) in wikipedia. One about Photoshop and the variants of Photoshop, and one about Adobe Corel and its variants.

See Template:Raster graphics editors for more articles which should be deleted. If you want to reply to this message please do it here and not on my talk page. Roger491127 (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. A few points to make:

1. Defunct or unsupported software do not automatically fail the notability test - the question isn't "is this notable as a current piece of software", but "is this a notable piece of software". If it was notable in the past, it doesn't lose that status;
2. Rankings at websites/magazines are subjective - they are the reviewer's rankings, and not objective - unless there are fixed criteria like "Criteria 1: xxxx (1 point if it does aaaa, 2 points if it does aaaa and bbbb, 3 points if it does aaaa, bbbb and cccc)"... which is very seldom (if ever) the case;
3. "More notable than" - although there are obvious cases where notability levels are comparative (no would seriously consider the Croydon Post to be as notable as The Times, for example), in general the concept of "more notable than" is subjective;
4. "rich companies so the notability about them can probably be motivated by being mentioned in books and magazines" - if the mention in books and magazines are neutral, independent and in a reliable source, the richness or otherwise of the company is irrelevant. If the company has paid for the coverage, this is generally recognisable as such, and so is not considered to be independent.

A very quick look shows that the following members of Template:Raster graphics editors fall into these categories:

• Definitely meet the criteria for inclusion: GIMP, Adobe Photoshop
• Possibly meet the criteria for inclusion: Pinta (software), KolourPaint, Adobe Photoshop Elements, Corel Painter, Paint Shop Pro, Corel Photo-Paint, Pixelmator, Artweaver, Paint (software), IrfanView, Fatpaint
• Do not appear to currently meet the criteria for inclusion: digiKam, Krita, Tux Paint, GrafX2, XPaint, GNU Paint, MyPaint, Corel Painter, Corel Painter Essentials, Ulead PhotoImpact, NeoPaint, Pixel Studio Pro, PhotoPerfect, RealWorld Photos, TVPaint, Pixia, Paint.NET, PhotoScape

I have not looked indepth at sources, and have not looked for other sources. It could be that when I have done that, the above list will change! I'll try to that in the next week and get back to you. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello phantomsteve!

First, thanks for locking said page as quite a bit of violation seems to have occured. At this moment and time, there hardly is any debate about the status of Rangers FC (the club), even though the media and not least the support of rival football teams will try to make you think differently. The fact remains that Rangers FC is still and has not been liquidated or, matter of fact, ceased to exist. This can easily be verified from the club's homepage. The problem lies within the duality of club and corporate entity behind it - something very common in British football. The club as such was founded in 1872 and due to commercial and business interest, a corporate entity was founded in 1899. While it does own all the assets of the clubs, its shares, players and whatnot, it is the club who plays football and won all the trophies. That is essentially the same with any other British club, bar a handful of very small clubs who have no need for a company. The company behind Rangers FC since 1899 was called "The Rangers Football Club plc". This company went into administration in February 2012 and after a CVA failed, it was decided that this company (also cold the oldco (old company)) is to be liquidated, after (!) all assets, staff, shares et al are being transferred to the new owner's company, currently named Sevco Scotland Limited. This so-called newco (new company) is to be renamed soon, as the administrators said today. As can be seen, all the talk is about company here, not the football club itself. The football club was neither liquidated nor ceased to exist, which the current wiki page suggests. Unless the club is being wound-up and all assets are sold, as was the case with Third Lanark FC, it very much remains in existence.

Hence I would suggest to revert the page to a format where it shows that Rangers FC is still there and able to play football and add to its history. I would further suggest to have a Administration 2012 section included in the article, which can explain (even to the Scottish media, who openly takes delight in naming the club "Rangers newco" these days) the facts and figures and ends the constant wrangles about the page. Speaking of which, the website should, IMHO, be padlocked for the time being, so that only verifiable and correct material will remain on it.

Thanks for your time,

Ynnis (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

(Rangers FC shareholder) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynnis (talk • contribs) 08:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. Although I protected the page as a result of the request at Requests for page protection, I have no dealings with the page in general - I suggest that you discuss this on the article's talk page Talk:Rangers FC, where a consensus on your suggestions can be reached. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi phantomsteve. I though I should contact you to suggest that the Rangers FC page will need protection much longer than 27th July. I have got myself involved in this article and related articles because I am concerned that wikipedia will be damaged if we allow the large number of Rangers' supports to distort the truth about the demise of their club. Even the comment above by Ynnis is misleading: Rangers FC (the club) became a limited company in 1899 - the club was then a company and the company was the club. That club/company then entered administration, was unable to exit via a CVA and is now being liquidated. As part of the liquidation, the assets of the club have been bought by a completely separate company that wishes to continue to run a team it appears to wish to call Rangers FC in the stadium the original Rangers used. I, and some other editors beieve that this should lead to a separate wikipedia article on the new Rangers,(just like happened with other clubs that were liquidated like Halifax Town A.F.C.) and an article has now been started - Newco Rangers. Other editors are arguing that the club has not ended as it was bought along with the assets! They object to the idea of a separate article for the newco. Unfortunately I don't see a resolution or consensus any time soon - could long term protection be put in place until a resolution is achieved? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

i agree with fisher and we are opposite sides of the dispute i think indefinite is need until a cones us is reached it is heading to Request for Comment

i am in the process of this hopefully a cone sense can be reached by involving editors with no conflict of interestAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Until 27th July, only admins can edit the page. I am not going to extend the protection beyond that date at this time - if when it gets to 25th or so, there is no sign of a consensus on what should happen, contact me again, and we'll look at the benefit or otherwise of extending the protection. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello PhantomSteve, their is currently a debate surrounding the Rangers FC page where alot of contributors are unhappy that the page is not consistent with other Sports Clubs who have underwent similar insolvency events. The Old Company which owned the club and assets recently sold the business & assets in a process called liquidation which in turn raises funds to pay the OldCo's creditors. Such insolvency events are uncommon, nor unprecedented. Charlton FC, Leeds United FC, Bristol City FC, Napoli FC & Fiorentina FC (to name a few) have all undergone similar insolvency events, where by the Old Companys have been liquidated or dissovled, and a NewCo has 'purchased' the 'legal identity' or 'brand name' if you prefer, from the old bankrupt company. You will see that Wikipdeia does not document Sports Clubs as companies, and that none of the afore mentioned clubs are reffered to in the past tense, or have 2 seperate articles. Referring to Rangers in the past tense is nothing short of vandalism and hugely damaging to Wikipedia's integrity. I strongly reccommend the page is reverted back, or 'undone' & locked, for the time being, until concensus is reached. Having it in it;s present form makes it seem as if a decision has been reached by the Wikipedia community on how to document Rangers. On the issue of establishing concensus, i have provided very strong factual evidence bolstering my above points in more detail, which I hope will establish concencus. Ricky072 (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This is being discussed on the article's talk page and on the talk page of WikiProject Football, and Andrewcrawford is working on starting a Request for Comment. As such, it is inappropriate to either revert the page to how it was before, or unprotect it. At the moment there is no consensus, and so the page will not be altered. Also, please note, I am not the person to contact, as I will not be there person who will be judging the consensus here! I protected the page from editing as the result of a valid request, but have no interest in the article itself (in fact, I am going to repost this on the article's talk page). Please do not contact me again on this subject, as future communications on this subject will probably be ignored. Feel free to contact me with any other problems (not connected to this issue!) that you may have. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, but you have effectively locked the page in a vandalised state (or at best, highly controversial). The las tedits should have been undone, and then locked to protect the credibility and integrity of wikipedia. Ricky072 (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It's an content dispute, not vandalism. Some people think the version as it currently stands is correct, others (including yourself) think that the previous version is correct. I have no way of knowing which one is the more accurate, so I protected it from editing in the state in which it was left. If it had been out and out vandalism, I would have reverted it before protection, but content disputes don't get reverted before protection. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Institute of Management and Development, New Delhi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CAT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you be interested in helping us upgrade an article. We need someone who knows the system so we do it correctly and within all Wikipedia guidelines.

We will pay you for your time.

Alec Schibanoff <email address redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aschibanoff (talk • contribs) 19:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alec, firstly I do not really have time to work on an article indepth at the moment - but I am happy to look at an article and help improve it if possible. I am assuming that you are referring to General Patent Corporation for whom you work, and American Innovators for Patent Reform? When I get a chance, I will look into those - but be warned that if I do not see them meeting the notability criteria for inclusion, I will nominate them for deletion. We do not take payment for work - and the fact that you are willing to do so leads me to believe that you are wanting to use Wikipedia for promotion of your own company and associated interests, which to be honest leads me to investigate whether the articles should perhaps be deleted. I will look at those when I get a chance, and go from there. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs			Cleanup
	Sway (Bic Runga song)			Titan (roller coaster)
	Eastwell, Kent			Walter Van Tilburg Clark
	Akritogyra			V803 Centauri
	S Pegasi		Merge
	Tatiana Riabouchinska			Melody Time
	Stonebridge Green			Boughton under Blean
	Boughton Aluph and Eastwell			Boughton Street
	St. Christopher's School, Bahrain		Add sources
	Tepepa			Abbeydale Grange School
	Boughton Corner			Abdul Qadeer Khan
	TZ Cassiopeiae			Paul Sand
	Wye with Hinxhill		Wikify
	RT Carinae			Lil' Thunder
	Akritogyra curvilineata			Schussboomer
	Shirkoak			Marjorie Thompson
	V602 Carinae		Expand
	Akritogyra helicella			Akritogyra conspicua
	Westwell Leacon			History of the roller coaster
	Ali Mansour Alwan			Total Drama: Revenge of the Island

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You deleted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mannargudi Sambasiva Bhagavatar as a blatant copyright infringement. At the AfC help desk the author asked for an explanation; he claims he didn't copy the content from anywhere. I cannot look at the deleted content myself; could you explain to him why the draft violated copyrights? Huon (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Responded on AfC Help desk PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hiya,

Can you extended this protection there is still no consensus but we are finally making progress the request for comment is on hold for now since we are making progress on the talk page, but i dnt want to see all the good work we have made go down the drain when the protection expires and almost certainly edit warring will begin again, a extension of at least 1 week would be great more just gives us more time on itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

One week seems fair enough. After that time, the page will be automatically unprotected. If you guys reach a clear consensus before the week is up, please go to WP:RFPP and request unprotection. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks i appericate it hopefully by monday we might have the consensus meaning we sart moving forwardAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been bold and made a very minor modification to your vote. I'm 100% sure it was an unintentional typo. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} —Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed you extended the protection on thr Rangers FC article to allow more time for consensus to be achieved. You may not realise but the Newco Rangers article and the Rangers FC article previously had protection due to expire at the same time - could I suggest that it might be helpful if protection on the Newco Rangers article was also extended so that protection on both is eventually lifted at the same time, once consensus is achieved? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You might want to take this request to WP:RFPP as I'm unsure when I'll be able to log onto my own computer and do this. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 15:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been bold and made a very minor modification to your vote. I'm 100% sure it was an unintentional typo. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} —Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed you extended the protection on thr Rangers FC article to allow more time for consensus to be achieved. You may not realise but the Newco Rangers article and the Rangers FC article previously had protection due to expire at the same time - could I suggest that it might be helpful if protection on the Newco Rangers article was also extended so that protection on both is eventually lifted at the same time, once consensus is achieved? Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You might want to take this request to WP:RFPP as I'm unsure when I'll be able to log onto my own computer and do this. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 15:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, can you please close this move discussion here Talk:NKOTBSB (group)#Requested move and move the articles? It's been more than a week and nobody objected but nobody seem to care moving them either. Thanks in advance.--Krystaleen 16:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Done... I hope I moved everything correctly, especially the talk pages - let me know if there's anything not quite right! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think everything's correct, thank you! You haven't closed the discussion though.--Krystaleen 16:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Just saw you've closed the discussions. I think everything's correct now. Thanks again!--Krystaleen 17:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hiya,

Can you extend the protection to this article by another week, we have now finally moved forward and got agreement on one point, but we are still not at a point where we have a article ready to go. We are working on getting a neutral non bias article ready in the sandbox but we are still some way off from getting a consensus on it. Could you also extend the Newco Rangers article as well as these two are interlinked and edit warring will begin as soon as protection is lifted because there is still no consensus. I will request the admin who protected it extend it as well just rather get both extended it might be best looking at 2 weeks as it really taking time to get this dispute resolved but 1 week gives us more time, by us i mean my self and User:Fishiehelper2 as we are on the other side of the argument to each other but we are working to get one article that will combine both the above but we are meeting with opposition so it is hard work to get the consensusAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hey Phantomsteve, I'm the protecting admin over at Newco Rangers article. I'm going to be traveling, and will not be able to respond to requests as much, so per Andrew's request over at my talk page, I am giving you explicit permission to change protection level at Newco Rangers. (I devised the protection expiration time from your protection time, anyway.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 12:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

  Because of work commitments over the next week, I may not be able to log on under my normal (admin) account, just this alternative non-admin one. As such, it would probably be quicker to go to WP:RFPP where other admins can respond in a more timely manner! Obviously if I'm online under my proper account, I will deal with any requests but it may not be possible to do so - my manager and client are great believers in me doing my job when I'm at work! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 18:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)