User talk:Phantomsteve
 |
|
 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Phantomsteve. |
 |
This will ensure that conversations remain together! |
 Archives (Index) |
|---|
| Threads older than 7 days may be archived by MiszaBot III. |
|
Contents |
[edit] Reminder: outstanding PRODs and AfDs
This will save me having to look through "My Contributions"! (NB all times UTC)
Please note that this is not always totally up-to-date, I update it as and when I get the chance!
Another useful link: Wikipedia:Deletion review
| Expiration | AfD or PROD | Article |
|---|---|---|
| None at the moment | ||
- Note: Contested PROD indicates that I am considering taking to Articles for deletion if further searches do not reveal reliable independent sources which give significant coverage showing the notability of the subject.
Deletion reviews...
| Started | Review | Article | Where restored if nec. |
|---|---|---|---|
| None at the moment | |||
[edit] Your AfD close of Seamus (dog)
Predictably, this close has already begun to waste huge amounts of editorial time -- see Talk:Mitt Romney#Seamus (dog) merge -- and we are nowhere near done. I don't know if you were simply assuming that "Merge" would be an incantation that would make all the disagreements go away, but it hasn't happened.
Given the extent of the discussion, the close division among editors, and your decision to merge disputed content into one of the most frequently viewed articles on Wikipedia, I respectfully suggest that it would have been useful for you to provide some explanation. (The DRV page says that I should try to resolve the issue in discussion with you, but I don't know where to begin the discussion because I have no clue as to your reasoning.) I further suggest that, in light of developments in just the few short hours since you acted, you might reconsider your decision. JamesMLane t c 05:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with JamesMLane that the decision to close the Afd for Seamus as Merge is problematic. It has led to an edit war for the Mitt Romney article between those who wish to incorporate the information from Seamus article as per AfD decision, and those who don't want the information in the Mitt Romney article, citing undue weight. The AfD for Seamus had 7 votes for Keep, 6 for Merge, and 6 for Delete with varying reasoning even within the three groups. Although I know that vote counts are not the sole deciding factor for AfDs, I really believe that the no consensus was reached, and I ask that you might reconsider your decision.Debbie W. 05:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for contacting me. I have reviewed the arguments and closed it as no consensus - although as I am about to leave for work, I cannot move the article back, etc (although I have update the AfD result on the article's talk page). Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Thank you very much for your help. I am going to recreate the article because there was no consensus, and no consensus on an AfD is supposed to give the same outcome as keep.Debbie W. 18:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Thanks for taking the time to re-examine your decision! JamesMLane t c 04:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I can't beleive you allowed this POV pushing article to be recreated. The dog is not notably outside of those that wish to use it as a political hammer. Your rational should not be a vote, for if it were there would be little point in even having an admin review the discussion. Why not simply create a bot so you don't even have to make a decision based on any policy. Arzel (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Edit history of wide left
I have made wide left, the title of an AfD you just closed, into a redirect. Would it be possible if you could restore the article's edit history behind that redirect? Hellno2 (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Done PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to drag you into this Phantomsteve, but that redirect should not have been created in the first place, and the AfD was clear about that. I've left a note at Hellno's talk, but if he doesn't delete it then I think we'll have another XfD. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 16:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Where is PHDL?
Steve, I see you guys went ahead and deleted the PHDL article. Mostly it violated the notability standard. I understand from my open source buddies that they often get deleted for that reason until their project gets wider appeal. I have been told that deleted articles are not really deleted but rather moved to a location that is not visible. I would like to move that deleted PHDL article into my private area so I can improve it until notability increases to satisfy WP. Can you tell me how to preserve a private copy of the deleted PHDL article? I have a lot of real life activities so I don't want to start over on PHDL when the time comes. Thanks. Padudle (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'll look at this in the next few days, when I'm not going off to work! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, as it was deleted as not meeting the inclusion criteria, the best thing to do would be to let me know when you have some reliable sources which are independent that demonstrate that it meets the notability criteria. If I userfied it, someone could propose it for deletion anyway, unless it meets the notability criteria - although user space can be used for drafting, it is not a place to keep an article.
- Having said that, if you find some reliable independent sources, let me know, and I'll gladly userfy it for you! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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!
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) 03:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] The Signpost: 06 February 2012
- News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors
- In the news: Leading scholar hails Wikipedia, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned
- Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts
- WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones
- Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Beats Per Minute (website)
Hi, I'm looking to make the wikipedia for Beats Per Minute (http://beatsperminute.com). Their old wiki is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Thirty_BPM but they've seen rebranded to Beats Per Minute. Although the old page is poorly written I think it can be fixed on this new page. Additionally I do think it meets the notability requirements.
They are a self-published site with a significant readership. They are featured and have their content syndicated on CBS's Metacritic (http://www.metacritic.com/publication/beats-per-minute-formerly-one-thirty-bpm), as well as through Complex.com [Criteria 3]. Have been cited by sites such as Forbes for investigative work (http://www.forbes.com/sites/leorgalil/2012/01/25/hip-hop-group-after-the-smoke-battle-with-youtube-and-umg-over-intellectual-property/) [Criteria 1 if I'm not mistaken].
Please let me know what you think. As a long time reader I think this site is on par with other music publications who have articles such as Consequence of Sound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequence_of_Sound) and Tiny Mix Tapes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_Mix_Tapes). I also believe I can create a page with proper 3rd party citations.
Thanks, Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulkeebler (talk • contribs) 23:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, I have moved it to Beats Per Minute (website) - Beats Per Minute refers to tempo, and would be the primary topic for the phrase beats per minute. I have quickly changed the name in the article to show the change, but the article can be edited neutrally by anyone. If I get a chance this week, I'll do some web URL changing etc. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
