User talk:Phantomsteve

---

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page — it will be on my watchlist anyway, so I will see your response If you leave me a message: I will answer on this talk page — please let me know if you need a talkback to let you know that I've answered. This will ensure that conversations remain together! Please click here to leave me a new message.

vn-61This user talk page has been vandalized 61 times.

---

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
20:04, 18 May 2012	AfD	Robert Muller
20:26, 18 May 2012	AfD	Affordable Medicines Facility-malaria

• 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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John F. Ashton

Judging by the commentary at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John F. Ashton, in which most editors were unswayed by the references provided by JJB, I would have adjudged the consensus to be delete. Please reconsider your closure.

I have not read the debate, so I may be missing something important. However, I do not believe your closing rationale ("The is no clear consensus, and the discussion is too long to justify relisting. However, this closure is without prejudice against a re-nomination in the future") is an acceptable summary of the discussion. The participants deserve a more detailed dissection of the arguments.

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum (disambiguation), Sandstein (talk · contribs) provided detailed closing rationales: breakdowns of whose votes he disqualified, summaries of the relevant arguments, guidelines, and policies, and explanations of how he came to a decision of "no consensus".

Would you consider doing this for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John F. Ashton? This will aid participants in future AfD discussions.

I found this AfD from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=492102253#Editor_deliberately_confusing_his_responses_at_AfD.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I would consider doing that, but it would have to wait - I have my kids waking up and needing to be dealt with, and then I won't be on Wikipedia for a week or so, as I'm back at work. As such, I do not have the time at the moment to write up a detailed breakdown. If you can wait, that'd be great - if you can't, and disagree with the closure, then I'm afraid you'll have to go to Deletion review. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not mind waiting one week for an extended rationale. I cannot take this AfD to DRV because I have not read the entire debate and cannot know whether it is a correct close before I hear your reasoning. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Phantomsteve. This is a reminder that you haven't added a closing rationale yet. If you don't have time yet to add a closing rationale, no worries. I do not mind waiting. Cunard (talk) 06:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cunard. Between work, kids and preparing for a wedding, life is busy. My suggestion is this - read through the discussion. See if there was a consensus which I missed. If there is a consensus, take this to AfD. Regards, -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 14:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

As the closer, you should be able to provide an extended rationale when asked. Because of current time constraints, you are unable to do so right now. I am willing to wait one week, two weeks, one month, or three months or longer if necessary until you have time to write an extended rationale. If you do not wish to provide an extended rationale, please undo your closure so another admin can reclose. I've skimmed the AfD, and I think a "delete" is the more accurate assessment of the AfD. Although I find "delete" to be more accurate, there is rarely a consensus at DRV to overturn long, convoluted discussions from "no consensus" to "delete" because participants give deference to admins willing to close lengthy debates. I'd like to hear your reasoning for "no consensus"; perhaps it is an accurate assessment of the consensus and I overlooked something. Cunard (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Not having the time to deal with this in the near future, I have undone my closure, and re-listed it in the "old AfD" list. Someone else can close this, and provide an extended rationale. My apologies for any inconvenience caused. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry that you don't have the time to provide an extended rationale in the near future. I would have been interested in your thoughts about this AfD.

Thank you for undoing your closure. I find that few admins are willing to reverse their actions when asked. Best, Cunard (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If I make a mistake, I am willing to change it! In this case, I don't think I made a mistake - it's not quite as clear cut as the current closing admin says - but I only get a few mins here or there, so would not have the time to type up a proper analysis of my thinking. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

• Special report: Wikimedia and the "seismic shift" towards open-access research publication

• News and notes: Finance debate drags on as editor survey finds Wikipedia too bureaucratic

• WikiProject report: Welcome to Wikipedia with a cup of tea and all your questions answered - at the Teahouse

• Featured content: Featured content is red hot this week

• Arbitration report: R&I Review closed, Rich Farmbrough near closure

• Technology report: Cross-wiki watchlist controversy; and is "go file a bug" really a useful response?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: E- kart

You're absolutely correct and I apologize for that. I misread the G1 section description, and will appropriately tag for translation. Thanks! Wrathofjames (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

• From the editor: New editor-in-chief

• News and notes: Two new Wikimedia fellows to boost strategies for tackling major issues

• WikiProject report: Trouble in a Galaxy Far, Far Away....

• Featured content: Lemurbaby moves it with Madagascar: Featured content for the week

• Arbitration report: No open arbitration cases pending

• Technology report: On the indestructibility of Wikimedia content

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)