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.

SIEW COI

Hi Steve, starting a new thread as the January messages are now archived. Wanted to follow up on the Conflict of Interest issue on the SIEW wiki. Would greatly appreciate your advice on the best way to proceed from here - many thanks! Ssumin (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at your additions and the reversions, I'd say the following:

• Your rewording of the first paragraph was unnecessary - and what is currently there says pretty much the same thing anyway.
• Regarding the "participation": the only reference for the figure of 14000 was at the main sponsor's own website - not independent - and I couldn't find anything that gave the figure elsewhere in independent sources
• The Flickr account obviously cannot be included as an external link - I would suggest that it be mentioned on the official website's home page (if it isn't already) - anyone going there from the "Official website" link on the article will be able to get to the Flickr account

Having looked at it in detail, I can't fault OrangeMike. My advice to you would be to find independent sources for the figure of participants, and not to reinsert the material which has been reverted - to continue to do so would be to risk being blocked from editing. Other than that, I can't really think of any other advice which I can give you. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steve, many thanks for your feedback. We have an independent source on the 2010 event participation - please see this article by a publication called Industrial Automation Asia. Would you be able to update the participation to 14,000 in the 2010 section and in the infobox?

Quick clarification that I had thought the issue was the Flickr link, so had tried to re-edit the number of participants, which I thought was a (non-problematic) factual update. Had immediately undid this edit once I realised it was actually a COI issue, but still got flagged as a "continued problem". Definitely noted on not reinserting material that had been reverted.

Lastly, the wiki is currently flagged for conflict of interest. I've been transparent that I work with SIEW and we're also cognizant of the need to keep the article factual and neutral, as you can see from my previous queries on making edits. Hence would really appreciate if you could share your thoughts on how we can work together to update the wiki, if needed, going forward?

Thanks, Steve. Separately, wanted to say that I rely on Wikipedia a lot - for e.g. reading up on countries/ cities for my last holiday and episode guides for my fave TV series - so really appreciate the work of wiki editors like yourself. As you know, it's my first time contributing to the community, so definitely look forward to your guidance on this. Cheers :) Ssumin (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me again, and apologies for the delay - life has been hectic over the last few days - although I am on holiday from work, there have been a lot of family stuff to work with!

Regarding "Industrial Automation Asia" - how independent is that particular article (I've no way of knowing, as I can't find mention of IAA on Wikipedia!) - and that article does not mention who wrote it - and sounds like a press release to me (but of course, I could be wrong about that!) - in which case it is not an independent source. If it is truly independent, and written by a paid reporter from the IAA rather than a press release, then it could be used and I would be happy to do so!

With regard to the "continued problem" - it is not now a problem as you have stopped inserting that material! I'd ignore that (as in "don't let it worry you", rather than "do it again"!)

With regard to the CoI issues flagged on the article - I acknowledge the fact that you have been open about your connection, and your desire (and attempts) to be neutral with the article (not "wiki" - that is the name of the software or any of the sites which use Wiki type software; this is "Wikipedia", and each 'page' is an "article" or "Wikipedia article", or at a pinch "Wikipedia page" - sorry to be petty about that, but I'm an ex-teacher, and like precision in language!) - I'd leave that there until you've done a few edits which demonstrate to other editor's satisfaction that you are not letting it influence your editing. I don't see it as a problem, or a reflection on you. When other editors on the article see that you are editing in a neutral, non-promotional way, then that will be removed by them!

Again, if there is anything I can do to help you, please contact me! I'll try to respond in a more timely manner! Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to respond and discuss your actions

re- the ola-abaza page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyrussell34 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that you have re-created it with references. I will look at them, and if the references do not meet our criteria, I will discuss it with you. However, because of work commitments, this might not be for a couple of days. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

hi- thank you very much. no problem about delay. I want to mention that i am new to wiki and dnt really know how to put references properly... i have tried though. hope its enough. other ppl who know how to use wiki could be very helpful.--kellyrussell34 (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

-Hey.. please consider that the subject of the article has clearly been publsihed several time son relevant topics, has been interviewed several times and has been no.1 on NZ's myspace charts for all generes before and currently for over a week...on these non-myspace links you can see independent descriptions of his position and work and current research on biology and otehr topics --kellyrussell34 (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, as no one has objected to the article's presence, I would take that as a positive sign. Ahmed Tarek Bahgat Abaza may or may not meet notability criteria, but as there are references in the press, I see no reason for a speedy deletion. If anyone has any objections, they can either propose it for deletion or start a Articles for deletion discussion. Just one thing - being on MySpace charts is not indication of notability - it's the non-MySpace references which are more useful! Hope this helps. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding - my time has been more busy than I thought it would be! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

-Of corse the delay is fine.. don't worry at all. I know myspace is not considered a reliable source but this is how i discovered him and his position is rather prominent. I thought it is ok to start this article obviously, and if i come acroos more refrences that are external i shall add the. thank you for your response and consideration. --kellyrussell34 (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

so have you removed the deletion and notability objections? are they removable by anyone? i have not touche dthem of course.--kellyrussell34 (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There is currently no deletion notice on the article. As for the notability tag, of the 34 edits, 30 have been by you. As for the notability issues... I am going to look in more detail at the provided references. My gut instinct is that he does not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, but I could be wrong! If I feel that he does not meet the criteria, I will list the article at Articles for deletion, where a 7-day discussion will take place, and consensus reached on whether the article should be deleted. If I feel that he meets the criteria, I will remove the "general notability" tag from the article - either way, I will let you know! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Data grid deletion

Hello!

The page "Data grid" has been deleted by you, because of no objections after seven days. Where can I see the reason for the deletion? Is a data grid an irrelevant topic, or is it included somewhere else? Thank you for the information! Sae1962 (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason given by the person who proposed it for deletion was "data grid" refers to many different things, none of which are particularly notable - certainly this interpretation is less notable than, say, the microsoft programming construct.. Are you objecting to the deletion? If so, let me know and I will restore it (however, this does not prevent someone else taking the article to "Articles for deletion" for discussion). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

• News and notes: Foundation report; gender statistics; DMCA takedowns; brief news

• In the news: Wikipedia wrongly blamed for Super Bowl gaffe; "digital natives" naive about Wikipedia; brief news

• Accreditation: Gaining accreditation as Wikimedia photographers at sports events

• WikiProject report: Articles for Creation

• Features and admins: RFAs and active admins—concerns expressed over the continuing drought

• Arbitration report: Proposed decisions in Shakespeare and Longevity; two new cases; motions passed, and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Account Creation Improvement Project

Hello,

You signed up on the Account Creation Improvment Project on the Outreach wiki. Thanks.

Now, we are looking for help. We are going to test the pages that are in the account creation process right now, against any pages that you create. More information.

Best wishes, SvHannibal (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I will look at this in the next few days, when I'm on holiday from work! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I look forward to it.//SvHannibal (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124

Hi, you deleted Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124 as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124. I've no problem with your closure and accepted it at the time of closure, because the community decided that the accident didn't meet WP:AIRCRASH, which had changed since I originally created the article. However, since then, WP:AIRCRASH has been changed again. Under the current version, I believe that the article as it was on deletion would meet WP:AIRCRASH. In Accordance with WP:DRV#Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions point 1, I am therefore asking you whether you are willing to undelete the article, or whether you wish me to take the issue to DRV. I realise this doesn't quite come under the stated remit of DRV, as there isn't new info to add, but the underlying essay has changed. That said, I think DRV would probably be the best venue should community discussion be desired. If this does go to DRV, I will inform all users who participated in the original deletion discussion by means of a neutrally-worded note that the deletion is at DRV. Mjroots (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124. 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. Mjroots (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I have commented at the review PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I previously requested your help regarding an edit dispute which spilled out to Facebook. Thanksfully, I have not received any more email. Also, the article itself has not suffered too much. I could re-engage in that article to restore few deleted contents which has proper citation but I'm not sure it is worth it. I don't like to associate with crazed people. Anyhow, I would appreciate if you can wipe this page[1] and possibly censure whoever vandalise my page if IP address can be linked to any user. But then I doubt the person is that stupid. Anyway, thanks.

P.S. Can you also delete user account called "FWBO article" as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapour (talk • contribs) 03:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the user page to the previous state (i.e. blank), and remove the potentially defamatory information from the history of the page (only admins can see that).

I cannot link IP address to specific users, and even a CheckUser probably couldn't be that specific. In any case, the user of that IP now could be very different to the user when the edits took place.

Finally I cannot delete a user account - accounts cannot be deleted, and unless there is a problem, they are not blocked. I see from your username change request in 2006 that FWBOarticle is your former account - it's not been used since 2006, so I'd just ignore it!

Sorry for the delay in replying, I've been busy in the real world! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Numberjacks 0-9.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Numberjacks 0-9.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

note to self: current image says it is uploaded by the copyright owner, but as it's a DVD cover, it is unlikely to be the case. Check and delete as copyvio if appropriate and replace with above image. If it is correctly tagged, delete my file -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 12:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged the image for speedy deletion (I have not deleted it myself, as this could be construed as a conflict of interest). I have also replace the image at Numberjacks with the one I created - as it shows the 10 Numberjacks, I feel that this is more representative of the program (as a fair-use image) than the cover of a specific DVD which only shows a few of the Numberjacks. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

To all recent contributors to this page

Ironically, despite being on holiday, this has resulted in me being busier than usual! I have seen your messages and will try to respond either later today or tomorrow! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 12:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Zonnon AfD delete decision

We, as Wikipedia, have taken the time to consider this AfD, WP:Articles for deletion/Zonnon, and the process went to a stopping point as a SpeedyKeep.  The WP:Guide to deletion states, "A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached", but even though the AfD discussion states that a delete decision would be considered "controversial and questionable", this issue has not been addressed in the closing statement.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

With respect, you were the only person advocating a speedy keep, there was no consensus for it. I explained my reasoning fairly fully in my closure and feel that my close reflected the consensus. If you.feel that my closure was incorrect, please take it to deletion review, mentioning that you have discussed it with me -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 09:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)