Jump to content

User talk:Phantomsteve

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pianotech (talk | contribs) at 19:50, 25 June 2011 (→‎Mario Masic AfD: no problem). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


This user helped get the article Gilbert Thomas Carter to Good Article status. This user helped get the article William Stanley (Victorian inventor) to Good Article status. This user either created or expanded the article Gilbert Thomas Carter and got it a DYK.
This user is listed as a Highly Active User. This user uses the name Phantomsteve on IRC. This user can be contacted through Wikipedia's 'email user' function. This user has a Global Account. This user is an admin on the English Wikipedia. This user is the owner of an alternative Wikipedia account (Phantomsteve.alt) in a manner permitted by policy.
Due to work and family commitments, as well as stuff I want to do in the real world (working on my family tree, sorting out my own websites, etc), I won't be on Wikipedia as much as I used to! I hope to get onto Wikipedia most days (even if it is using my mobile phone and my alternative account Phantomsteve.alt.) However, there may be times when I can't get online. Please leave me a message and I will get back to you as soon as I can - and don't be offended if another editor who watches this page replies!

User talk
  • 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!


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)

Another useful link: Wikipedia:Deletion review

Expiration AfD/PROD Article
08:38, 26 June 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Only Dads Only Dads
03:59, 27 June 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben C Williams Ben C Williams
05:34, 27 June 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 153 (2nd nomination) London Buses route 153
14:34, 27 June 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Lombardi (businessman) Michael Lombardi (businessman)
05:39, 29 June 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 394 (2nd nomination) London Buses route 394
02:34, 01 July 2011 PROD In the Club (album)
00:08, 02 July 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Masic Mario Masic
09:41, 02 July 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Eastern Christian Centre South Eastern Christian Centre

KimSeoul

Hi. It is OK with our user name is OK. We thank you for message. --KimSeoul (talk) 05:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand - accounts are for *one* person only PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Far too speedy deletion / abuse of power

The Joe Clokey article was too quickly deleted. It appears that the notice of soon deletion was given on June 20. And yet the article was deleted that day.

If this is how the article was deleted then the deletion was an abuse of authority. There is supposed to be a discussion period of several days. Many of us have jobs and cannot be on wikipedia 24/7 to weigh in on debates.96.246.247.142 (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me about the deletion. I think you are a bit confused - the discussion of 7 days is for an article that has been nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion - however this article was not listed there, but tagged for speedy deletion under criteria 7 which is about the article having a lack of credible assertion of significance or importance. As the name implies, speedy deletion means that the article could be deleted in a speedy manner - possibly within seconds! When I get home from work in a few hours, I'll look at the deleted article and see if I was correct to delete it or not, and will comment here in either case -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 04:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, having looked at the deleted article again, I see that it definitely was nominated for speedy deletion, not AfD. The only "claims to notability" appear to be who his father is (which does not make him notable), and the animated film he created? However, although the film is mentioned in the main Davey and Goliath article, it is only a minor mention - and no mention of Clokey is made there. All in all, I see little evidence in the article that Clokey is significant or important - the mentions in the Washington Times and MSNBC are mainly about the animation, and a short bit about Clokey and his wife. As such, I believe the deletion to be correct. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this AfD

Heya Steve, Do have a look at this AfD please: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 153 (2nd nomination), Thank ye, --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: How did you create taht QR code?? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented at the AfD. As for the QR code, I can't find the site I did that at! I can find those that will generate it in colour, but not one which will embed text - I'll look for it another day this week when I have more time PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks sir. P.S I never noticed you turned admin, I only know that you gave me my review, :) Cheers, --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do look at this one too please, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 394 (2nd nomination) --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

Wally Jenkins

Restored, even though it could be speedied as spam Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: it was indeed speedied as spam later! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NHS Hillingdon

Is User:Harrison49/Hillingdon Primary Care Trust any closer to being ready for a move to the mainspace? Harrison49 (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see where the notability of the PCT lies. Looking at the references provided:
  1. "Public Board Meeting: 25 November 2010"
    • Confirms the chief executive and the 3 trusts being merged, but no the significant coverage about the Trust which the notability criteria mentions
  2. "Hillingdon PCT combined with Hounslow and Ealing"
    • Again, confirms the re-organisation of the 3 trusts, but not significant coverage about this one
  3. "Borough NHS chief quits in health service shake-up"
    • Confirms the departure of the previous chief exec, but again, not significant coverage
  4. "About us"
    • Not independent - but also has no mention of the PCT from what I can see.
  5. "Northwood Hills hospital 'in too difficult box' and set to 'wither for 10 years'"
    • This is probably the best source of the lot, but it's about a minor point (one specific hospital), and I would not count it as significant coverage of the PCT
  6. "CNWL become responsible for community healthcare in Hillingdon"
    • I see nothing in the article that mentions the PCT. It mentions Hillingdon Community Health, but nowhere has it been shown that HCH and the PCT are the same thing, or that HCH was part of the PCT. This would be counted as original research or synthesis, which are not allowed in articles.
  7. "Confidence in coping with huge changes to the NHS"
    • Confirms the status, but I do not feel that there is enough in the article about the PCT in particular (basically, it confirms the debt that the PCT inherited, but not much else)
Overall, I still do not see where the PCT meets the notability criteria for organisations (see here), which specifically excludes "routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel" and "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources". As such, I do not feel the PCT meets the criteria for inclusion.
This leaves us in an interesting position: draft articles cannot be left in userspace indefinitely! However, the above is my opinion, which may or may not be agreed with by other editors. If you believe that I am wrong, and that the Trust meets the criteria for inclusion, then move the article back to main space. I must warn you that I would probably take it to Articles for deletion for a discussion about whether the article should be kept or not.
Alternatively, if you think you can find some reliable, independent sources which would give significant coverage, you could continue editing it - however, if you don't think you can (and don't want to move it to main space) - or you do not further editing and adding further sources in the near future - I would consider taking the page to Miscellany for deletion (which deals with pages in user space).
I acknowledge that locally in Hillingdon, the PCT is important - but this isn't the Hillingdon Wikipedia, but the English-language Wikipedia: subjects need to meet the notability criteria, and regrettably, I don't thing the Trust does.
Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review. I know this isn't the Hillingdon Wikipedia but felt this trust was notable, partly on the grounds of there being other articles on primary care trusts but also that it covers the second largest borough of London. Some of the references you have mentioned cover the parts of text in the article in the way I intended, particularly the 4th, which covers the point of the hospitals run by the Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. I have no wish to create an article currently which will be swiftly nominated for deletion and so I will for now redirect the page to my userpage. I will continue to seek references to support the article and work towards gathering enough to support a future move into the mainspace. Harrison49 (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you can find some references which would meet the criteria. A few points though:
  1. Whether other PCTs have articles is not strictly relevant - it could be that they meet the criteria for inclusion, or it could be that they should be deleted - either way has no bearing on whether this PCT should have an article
  2. The fact that the area they cover is the second largest borough of London isn't relevant either. The main criteria is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list" - it's the significant coverage which is the problem (plus some of them are either not independent in their own right or are in independent reliable sources but appear to be based on press releases (i.e. they merely say what the PCT has told them - and so are not independent))
  3. By the 4th reference, I assume you mean the Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust one? As that is their own website, it can hardly be counted as an independent source can it?
  4. Again, the lack of 'significant' coverage at independent sources is the main problem at the moment. The general notability guidelines say "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material (emphasis mine)
If you think you have find sources which would meet the criteria (and that clearly demonstrates that the PCT meets both the general notability guidelines and the subject-specific guidelines for organisations, please do contact me again. Again, I must emphasise that this is my opinion from reading the article, the references and the notability/independent sources/reliable sources guidelines. Other editors may feel differently - and it is no reflection on my opinion on you as an editor - I see excellent work that you have done - do keep it up! Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolporter Holding

Hey I did that once :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was late being closed, and I figured that as the consensus was unanimous, and against me, no one could claim that I acted in a biased way! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs
Government shutdown
Janne Turpeenniemi
Amilcar Compound
DWNB-TV
Amilcar CGS
The Noise
Nikki Osborne
Amilcar C4
2011 Kurdish protests in Turkey
T.V. Mohandas Pai
Amilcar CGSS
Brett Le Man
Benimàmet, Valencia
Partabpura
Brian Lane Green
King of the Khyber Rifles
Amilcar CC
Memorial High School (Tulsa, Oklahoma)
Nangal Maja
Cleanup
Heidi Zeigler
Augustin Daly
Sam Trammell
Merge
Death of Osama bin Laden
Classic Comics
Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden
Add Sources
The Devil With the Three Golden Hairs
Cinema of Andhra Pradesh
New Year's Eve with Carson Daly
Wikify
Portlligat Museum-House
Kuppuswamy Nagarajan
Manakampat Kesavan Unni Nayar
Expand
John Costanza
M. Karunanidhi
Conservative Party of Canada

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) 13:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "South Eastern Christian Centre"

Could you please clarify the reason for the deletion of "South Eastern Christian Centre"? I felt that I had met the criteria and then explained why on the "talk" page, so am puzzled since no further explanation was given. As a reminder, the uniqueness of this church is that whilst already a significant size shortly after its inception, it experienced unprecedented substantial growth, a fact which was referenced accordingly. Rob Nyhuis (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I would like to acknowledge that this sounds impressive - but although it is a large increase in size compared to the average, I saw no indication that this church is the only Australian Pentecostal church to have anything like that growth. I also note that you are the current minister/leader, and although that has no bearing on the status of the article, I would like to take this opportunity to refer you to our conflict of interest guidelines.
However, it is true that this is a 'claim of significance or importance', and so I should not have deleted the article. I have therefore restored it. I will, however, be nominating it for deletion at Articles for deletion, where the community will have 7 days to discuss whether the article should be kept or deleted - this is based on the consensus, not a vote - but I will leave a message on your talk page when that is done, with a link to the discussion so that you can make your comments for keeping the article.
Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Masic AfD

Hi there! I hope my course of action was correct. The article was originally speedy'd, but that was removed, after which it was PRODded. A debate then started, so I decided to send to AfD instead since the deletion was becoming controversial. I feel in the end it should (and will) be deleted. Thanks, Pianotech Talk to me!/Contribs 12:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did the right thing! PRODs are normally removed by the "protesting party", but there was a clear objection so it was right for it to be removed! AfD was the next step, I only noted the PROD removal for info. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 15:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm curious, though.. I notice my revisions are showing up in the libel deletions. That almost makes it look like I'm one of the trouble makers. Any way to remove the problem statements without making it look like anything I did needed to be removed? Thanks! Pianotech Talk to me!/Contribs 16:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I had to RevDel back to when the potentially libellous statements had first been added - I could RevDel your username from the history, but any admin can see that, and to them it might make it look even more like you were the problem editor! If you really want your username RevDel'd, you might want to ask at WP:ANI for another admin to do it - I'm not sure when I'll next be logged into my main (admin) account rather than this alternative account I use when I'm on my mobile -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 17:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify that: if (for example) the 2nd edit on a page includes something that needs RevDel-ing, and the problem isn't removed until the 8th edit, the statement will be present in all of the 2nd through 7th edits, so all of those would have to be RevDel'd. That's the reason for the large block of greyed-out edits. I thought the two statements were sufficiently potentially libellous that they shouldn't remain generally visible in the history. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 18:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, that's good enough for me! :) No worries. Pianotech Talk to me!/Contribs 19:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Phantomsteve&oldid=436201306"