Jump to content

User talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2009/December

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


The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

List of doctoral studies in Argentina

Hi Phantomsteve, I'm trying to enhance the article that you proposed for deletion by adding links and institutional information. Have a nice day. User:Carau/User Talk:Carau

Hi Carau. I see that you have added a comment to the AfD - may I also suggest that you explicitly state that you consider that this article should be kept on there. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Steve, thanks for the editor review, your comments will be very helpful. Click23 (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, do you mind if I remove Stoneacress comments from my review? He did not like the comments I left on a AFD he was involved in, and decided to leave a snide comment there.. Click23 (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the comment as it was not constructive - also, it would look better if another editor than yourself removed it. I'm glad the comments are helpful - if you feel the need to, come back in a few month's time and ask for another review. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Working Man's Barnstar
For your tireless effort on the WP:ER Project. Click23 (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops!

No problem at all. I just saw it so you were quick!Cptnono (talk) 08:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You're cool

Thanks for the help you gave me about a week ago. You are a good user and have inspired me to one day be a well-respected user on Wikipedia! Uncle Tech (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

User page Questions

Hi, Phantomsteve, I was scaning the help desk page and one of your answers caught my eye. I was courious about the what seem to be "Wiki Ranking" editors ranking, anyway I went to your user page to look at your flags,badges ect. All of this is very interesting to me and will probably be bothering you in the future for help on building my page. My question now is I lost my brother in Viet Nam, I noticed you have "In Memorium" setion where do iI go to set this on my page ? And again I will be asking many questions, I like the layout of you page. Oh and please leave a "talkback" Mark Pearcy (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mark. I'm not sure what you mean by "Wiki Ranking" - on Wikipedia, most editors are ordinary editors like you and me. There are 11,129,155 registered editors. Of those, 1,702 (0.015%) are administrators (who can delete/undelete pages, protect/unprotect pages, etc). There are 34 bureaucrats (0.0003% of all users, 2% of all admins) who can promote users to admin or bureaucrat and can rename users.
With regard to the "In Memorium" section, I used a user box I created, but it was written specifically for British 1st World War veterans. I could create one for the Vietnam war - but I wouldn't be able to do that until next week, as I won't be on much until then, due to family commitments. For the 1st World War, all participants received at least the British War Medal and British Victory Medal - albeit posthumously. Was there a medal which all combatants received for Vietnam? If so, let me know, and I will create a Vietnam War "In Memorium" user box. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask! However, I would like to remind you that the main purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia - and looking at your contributions, you haven't done much of that yet! Wikipedia has user pages - but they aren't the main point of Wikipedia - it isn't a socialising site -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam Service Medal

Inter-service decorations of the United States military

Mark Pearcy (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark - I'll work on that next week. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanx, Mark Pearcy (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA Comment

Hi there. At Basket_of_Puppies_2's RFA you asked an additional question that attempted to cite a request for CSD on criteron A1 that failed. However, the link you provided goes to a CSD using {{db-person}}. If I wasn't mistaken, it was identical to the link you made on the second example. I just thought I would let you know because I'm curious and want to take a look at that, and I think you copied the wrong URL. Regards, --Mpdelbuono (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I did indeed copy the wrong URL! Thanks for letting me know - I've sorted it out now! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Eliza Hancock

Hello Steve!

I have just left a message with Anthony.bradbury about this deleted article.

Thank you for telling me. How did you know, since apparently there was no advanced warning? Or was there, and I missed it?

Actually, I am a wee bit surprised at this procedure, since I believe this stub did give some sources, and that the role of Eliza Hancock as a major inspirational source for Jane Austen must have been quite apparent, 'notable', in fact...

Best regards. --Azurfrog (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I nominated the article for speedy deletion, as there was no indication in the article of her notability - it said that she was Jane Austen's cousin, but didn't mention anything about influencing Austen. As being Austen's cousin would not (in itself) make Hancock notable, it would not be eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia. However, if it had mentioned that she was an influence on Austen, I would not have nominated it for speedy deletion, as it would have indicated her importance. Perhaps you could ask Anthony,bradbury to userfy it to your user space? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, so you are the guilty one! . Well, my mistake if I didn't provide any information on why she was indeed notable (a full biography on her by Deirdre Le Faye, to start with), as I should know by now. I thought I had, as well as provided a few sources, what's more.
Anyway, can you arrange it so the stub is re-created as I do mean to expand it?
Thanks! --Azurfrog (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It has been undeleted by anthony.bradbury (the admin who deleted it) - however I should point out that it was not at my suggestion! He obviously responded to the message you left on his talk page. Re-reading the article, I see there is a minor mention of her influence - in the final paragraph - which I overlooked (sorry). It might be an idea to make a mention of this fact in the lead section of the article - along with inline citations. Regards -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Done! And you will find the article itself has been somehow expanded, too... --Azurfrog (talk) 09:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
It's looking good! I'll have a look at it properly if I get a chance, and see if I can find some more sources of information too! (No promises, mind!) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam Userbox

Thank you Steve very much. Nice job ! ! Mlpearc (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest (OpenCTM)

Hi Phantomsteve!

Thanks for reviewing my page. I am still learning Wikipedia (I'm just starting to grasp all the mechanisms that make it work so great).

The OpenCTM page was marked for deletion, and indeed, it was written by the author of the software, and so it is a bit difficult to keep a neutral perspective, but I try my best.

The reason that it was created by me alone, and not someone else, is probably that OpenCTM is quite new. However, I have received much feedback and questions through various channels (mail, forums, interviews etc), so I thought that a Wikipedia page would be appropriate.

I have made some updates to the page (and I intend to continue to do so) - do you feel that the current version is more adequate? I also intend to add sections about the software library, the tools and the compression algorithm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus256 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  • The CoI doesn't need to particularly be a problem, as long as the article is written from a neutral perspective. The problem I see is the very fact that it is such a new project - the 1.0.1 stable release was 23 days ago. The problem here is that it is very hard to demonstrate that this is a notable. Although it is not a policy or a guideline, the essay Wikipedia:Notability (software) gives a good indication of what most editors would expect to see to show notability for software.
In general, subjects in Wikipedia should demonstrate that the meet the Wikipedia General Notability Guidelines, specifically:
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.
The guidelines go on to explain:
  • "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and 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. (Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) is plainly trivial.)
  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
  • "Sources," (Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and scientific journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article) for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. (Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.)
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. (Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.)
  • "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. (Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.)
I would suggest that the software does not yet meet these criteria. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Incidently, I have had another look for independent, reliable sources, but I have been unable to find any. I will look at the article in a week's time. If it still has no reliable sources, I will consider listing it at Articles for Deletion. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Thanks from Kaywesley

Hi Steve, today you rolled back a page I created that had been blanked by a vandal. I think the same person is repeatedly vandalising this page and putting defamatory/insulting remarks on it.

I think you do a great job, by the way, it's brilliant that you care so much to spend time and effort trying to make W a reliable source. I spent a long time doing research etc for the page I made and getting it "right" and it is very upsetting when idiots come and vandalise it.

Is there anything I can do about it? Thanks very much Kay Kaywesley (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kaywesley, thank you for your kind words! Sorry for the delay in responding: I didn't initially see your comment, as there was no header for the new section!
Incidently, I assume you are related to Jamie Wesley from the band? This isn't a problem, as the article was pretty neutrally written, but you might want to read Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines for reference.
I have tidied up the article a bit more - including the references (you did a good job there by the way - I just converted them to the format we use on Wikipedia, and renamed them from "referencexx"!). I have also added it to some WikiProjects (see the talk page) - as a start class article, with low importance. If they become more well-known, they may become more important, but at the moment I see them as low importance to the Rock/Progressive/Alternative projects.
I also used the references for more in-line citations - if the article confirmed more than one detail in the article, I have used the references there.
I'll be honest with you - the reason I caught the vandalism is because I sometimes do some "vandalism patrol", usign an automated tool, which makes it easier to find and revert such vandalism!
As for what you can do to prevent future vandalism - just keep the page on your watchlist and keep an eye on it. It's on my watchlist anyway - and other vandalism patrollers will generally catch most vandalism.
If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me again (I've left a welcome message on your talk page with useful links).
Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi again

Hi Phantomsteve,

It has been a while since I last logged on. Can you tell me where I can locate the live chat room where we met? I've some questions including whether or not I was able to get my "funshine" name change.

Cecn (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cecn, it's good to see you again!
OK, to answer your 2 questions:
  1. The IRC channel is #wikipedia-en-help connect
  2. Your user name usurpation didn't happen, as a bureaucrat asked a question on the usurpation page, and didn't reply a response! You can see their question here. If I was you, I would contact the bureaucrat who asked the question (MBisanz (talk · contribs)) on their talk page, and if you can confirm that yes, "you understand that the WP:COI rules would still apply, regardless of username?", then I am sure that they can change your user name (or they can explain how to go about it).
Let me know if you have any problems. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Carmen2u/LeeAase follow up

Dear Phantom Steve:

I really appreciate your guidance. Thank you for all your direction. I think I may have placed the references concerning 3rd party interviews with newsources in the wrong section. Your comment about the sparse References section made me realise I should shift those sources where they rightly belong as references! (Unless you think they should stay right where they are.)

Beyond the interviews, there are other sites that mention or note Aase as an authroity in social media use in health care. I'll add some of those as well. After I perform these tasks, I'll likely ask for your review again.

Many thanks and happy holidays, Carmen Gonzalez, also known as Carmen2u (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that I could help! All I would say at this point is to carefully read "Reliable Sources" and Independent Sources" which discuss the types of sources which are generally useful as references! Let me know if there is anything else that I can help you with. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supernumerary nose

Thank you for one of the best researched, clearest, and most well stated AFD arguments I've ever seen. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you File:Blush.png Actually, with that particular phrase, it was quite an easy search - I'd hate to have to do a search for a "John Smith" or something! But I do appreciate your message -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

MrKIA11 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy Report

The community gave feedback on a couple of policy pages at WT:SOCK#Interview for Signpost and WT:CIVILITY#Policy Report for Signpost, and there will be another one in Monday's Signpost that we're putting together at WT:Username policy#Signpost Policy Report. I'm asking for your participation because you made an edit this month or last month at that talk page. If you have questions, feel free to ask at WT:Username policy#Signpost Policy Report or my talk page. The best guide to what the community is expecting from the surveys is to follow the links above to see what they've already done; we haven't had any complaints. Thanks for your time. - Dank (push to talk) 17:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

NN

Thanks for taking that the way I meant it. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's OK. It was a point well made - as I say, I don't think that I often would use "non-notable" when discussing a person's article at AfD - just for an organisation! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

RFA

Thanks for your guidance. About the admin coaching, I'm listed on it, since many days ago. --MisterWiki talk contribs 21:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking my advice in the spirit in which it was offered! Please bear in mind that it can take quite a while to get a coach - as you will have seen, there are a lot of people waiting! Good luck, though -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw. Thanks for your help. --MisterWiki talk contribs 22:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Bye and Happy Christmas

Please accept my advanced Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.I will not be able to wish you on those days as I will be taking a Wiki break for one month starting tomorrow. Also wishing you a Happy editing.. :)  arun  talk  06:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Pune Locator map

i wish to know how do we create a city area locator map. I tried doing it with inkscape but it was quite difficult, especially drawing roads. i wish to create a Pune Area locator . thnx Nirvanareborn 10:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea! I'd probably ask the question either at Template talk:Location map or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps, as someone there would either know how to help you, or where to direct you to get help. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

RFA Question

Thanks for your kind words! That question is one of the key things I just an RFA candidate on, and when I see that question hadn't been asked yet, I figured that I'd do the honors this time.

Who knows? Maybe in 5 or 6 months i'll be able to answer that question :) Doc Quintana (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Admin coaching

Hey Phantomsteve. Um, I had a couple of users come to me, but no actual "training" took place, just discussions in what I'm lacking in. Well, since no "training" came about, I guess I'll remove the "Match pending", then. Update: I removed the "Match pending". --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Alabaster3000

Dear Phantomsteve,

I saw a message left on this users page about a IRC Chat, while I wasn't privy to the chat, be aware that there has been meatpuppet activity going back a few years with DoM. The coordinated planting of information by this organization is pretty well documented and was the subject one one very nasty arbitration decision. It surprises me a bit this has come back given the website is dead and the organization seem to have disapated. The last coordinated attack has been quite a long time ago, but it certainly looks like they could be gearing up for another one if their pattern of behavior is similar to the past. Feel free to have a look at the archieves of the DoM page if you want more info. I am not as active in Wikipedia as I was was and don't believe in the cause precisely because of this bs, but I do drop by from time to time. Davidpdx (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I got fed up with what they were saying on IRC, so that's why I left the message on their talk page. Basically, the user was trying to get the article deleted/amended. They claimed that DoM is no more — we pointed out that (a) we needed reliable, independent verification (they seemed to fin d it hard to believe that we wouldn't believe the say-so of the president — ignoring the fact that they are a fraudster anyway! (b) although with verification we would be happy to add a note that DoM no longer exists, they couldn't accept that most of the article would remain as it is!
I think 4 or 5 of us were chatting to them in IRC — all saying the same stuff! Anyway, I've done my bit: the DoM is on my watchlist, so if I see suspicious activity, I will do something about it — otherwise I'll have nothing else to do with it!
Thanks for contacting me. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

VQiPS

Phantomsteve,

Thanks for your quick response. My VQiPS page is a public information that I want to bring to WiKi community.

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/currentprojects/videoquality/videoquality.htm


Best,

cluu2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cluu2009 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi cluu2009. Some comments:
  • As I mentioned on your talk page, the role of Wikipedia isn't for public information announcements.
  • If you are directly involved with it (as "My VQiPS page") seems to imply, then you might want to read the Conflict of Interest Guidelines
  • When you want to sign a comment on a talk page (never on an article page), instead of typing cluu2009, type ~~~~, which will add your username, along with a link to your talk page and the date/time.
  • If you want some of the information from the above webpage to be included in Wikipedia, your best bet would be to mention it at WikiProject Law Enforcement's talk page, where you can get advice on where (if anywhere) it may be suitable for inclusion.
I do not feel that this subject would be suitable for its own article, as I can find no references in Google News, Google Scholar or Google Books — and the 7 results from Google Search are either wikis, or www.safecomprogram.gov (not an independent source of information), a Press Release (or so it appears) from the DHS, a 1-line (name-only) mention at AMSII and a link at PDFXP (which is no longer accessible).
If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 2f0dc61dd55b22b9494a1a4a090ea663

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Poverty of "Development Economics"

Dear Phantomsteve - I have removed notability tag as have now provided evidence of notability. Is it OK or do you wish more referenes? (Msrasnw (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

Hi Msrasnw. I think that is enough to prevent me proposing it for deletion at the moment. However, I would personally prefer to see more evidence of the book's notability (if possible from weblinks at reliable sources - although this is not required, it makes it easier for readers in general to confirm what is referenced!). At the moment, I do not see much of a case for notability as mentioned at Wikipedia:Notability (books). I will keep an eye on the article, and if I feel that it is not suitable for inclusion, I will put it up for "Articles for deletion" in the New Year. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
My understanding is No. 1 of book notability is "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." These works "contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary". This book seems to clearly meet this and I am not sure why you feel the threat "I will keep an eye on the article, and if I feel that it is not suitable for inclusion, I will put it up for" AdD is polite or reasonable. (Msrasnw (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC))
I apologise if you thought that it was a threat — it wasn't intended that way! At the moment, I have not been able to access copies of those references to verify that they "contain sufficient critical commentary" - when I looked at the article, I didn't see anything that would show this beyond Szirmai's comments quoted in the lead. The 2nd reference (Behrman) is used in 5 places, but these seem to be either a direct quote from the reference (in which case, it should be shown as such — although the way the citation is being used, it would appear that big chunks are being used, which would possibly be against the fair use provision), or those chunks of information are synthesised from that reference. The 2 Times articles are in the Times Online Archives, but that costs money to access — so I can't see the by-line or any further details. The way the article stands at the moment, I see no reason for it to be deleted — but when I get a chance (probably in the new year), I will access the sources that I can at libraries in London, to verify the information. Once again, apologies for the misunderstanding! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Duntech

I knew you bastards would PROD it; why do you do that and claim it wastes bandwidth when EVERY revision of EVERY article is kept? How can little articles waste bandwidth with all that going on? I want an explanation that does not pertain to bandwidth. You are defying Wikipedia's moral hear, not me. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got the impression that bandwidth was involved here. I have never used that as a reason for deletion, for the reasons you give above.
If you had read both the message on your talk page that I left, and the message on the article, you will see that the reason I gave for PRODing it was "Insufficient evidence of meeting WP:ORG notability guidelines" - nothing about bandwidth, but about notability. If you want to discuss the issue that I PRODed it for (notability), instead of having a go at me for a reason that I never mentioned (bandwidth), I am happy to do so. I would suggest that you read the Notability Guidelines and the Notability Guidelines for Organisations first. 18:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm saying that unless something is total spam why delete it? What does it hurt for it to exist? Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
If notability can be proven, then it can be kept in. If notability can't be proven, then why should it be kept in? The guidelines say that a company or organisation needs to be notable to merit an entry in Wikipedia. There are other wikis around with lower standards that those adhered to by Wikipedia (and people can quite easily create their own wikis, if it comes to that). As to "unless something is total spam" - where do we draw the line?
If you object to the PROD, you are within your rights to remove the PROD, just as other editors would be within their right to take this to AfD. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

RE:Coaching

I was never picked up officially for an admin coach. It's been a while and I sort of stopped editing waiting for one to come up. Go ahead and remove my name. I may try adminship again some day, but not right now. Undead Warrior (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. I'll remove it as per your request -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Hi :)

Hi, how/where do I start a discussion wrt an admin policy suggestion I have? (do pl ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ on my talk, if you do) ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 20:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Deleted

Hi. How do I retrieve back an article that has been deleted. The title of the article was "Joget Workflow". I am new to this. Thanks. Jakkuku (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the article Joget Workflow was tagged for proposed deletion by myself the 4th December — which meant that if the tag was still in place a week later, it could be deleted by an admin. In this case, the admin MrKIA11 (talk · contribs) deleted it on the 11th December.
However, I should point out that the reason that I proposed it for deletion was that it did not appear to meet the notability criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. The reason I gave for deletion was Non-notable software, with one reference that appears to be based on a press release. Before doing this, I looked for reliable, independent sources of information about the software, and couldn't find any.
Bearing this in mind, you can ask MrKIA11 to "userfy" it so that you can work on it in your workspace. Once it is ready, it could be moved to the main encyclopedia — however, it would be essential to find the reliable sources which I mentioned, otherwise it would be likely to end up deleted again!
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me again! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback from Ukexpat (17 December 2009)

{{talkback|Wikipedia:Requests for feedback|Gilbert Thomas Carter}} Surprised to see you posting there, but happy to respond. ukexpat (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback from Wifione (17 December 2009)

{{Talkback|Wifione}} ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 20:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Re. this

I misspelled my own name in an email this morning, so if that's the worst mistake you make today you'll be beating my record :) Gonzonoir (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that — it made me -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Facepalm on Types of gestures

Thank you for your efforts in trying to find a reliable source that discusses facepalm as a gesture. Unfortunately, both of the sources you cite discuss *facepalm* as a written expression or internet meme, not a gesture. I think, therefore, that the information more properly belongs at the page Facepalm (making it a stub article rather than a redirect), and not on a page devoted to "culture specific gestures that can be used as replacement for words". I suggest that you (and not I) should move the information in order to preserve attribution. Thanks again, Cnilep (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair point, I will do that now! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice one. Thanks again. Cnilep (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Gestures

Still seeking consensus on Talk:Types_of_gestures#Proposed_merge. Thanks. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching

Thanks for doing that very much needed cleanup job at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching. Your work is appreciated! Have a cookie. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Fastily has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thank you! (Classical Esther)

Thanks for helping me with my question! Classical Esther (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome message (Daniel Christensen)

Why did you leave the welcome to wikipedia message on my talk page? It had a little flash animation, too in which the word "welcome" appeared in numerous ways. Daniel Christensen (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies! When I was leaving the "Proposed Deletion of Duntech" message, I accidently left my welcome message as well! However, I see that you have removed it anyway so no foul, no harm, eh? Regards -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you one of my friendly talk page stalkers?

Have a look at Wikipedia:Flagged revisions petition and consider signing it, please -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Review

Hey, thanks for the review. Just in case you were wondering, I was only planning to provide a Google Voice number =D. In regards to reviewing other editors, I'll definitely do that once I have more free time on my hands. Right now I'm in the process of recreating WP:ABUSE with a couple other people, which is taking up a lot of my Wikipedia time. Thanks for the review and happy holidays! Netalarmtalk 00:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping to get a few reviews done next week - at the moment I think we have 6 editors who have not been reviewed at all so far, and all of those only put their requests up in the last fortnight! Happy holidays! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Gilbert Thomas Carter

Updated DYK query On December 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gilbert Thomas Carter, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback from Wifione (20 Dec 2009)

{{talkback|Wifione|Admin policy suggestion}}

casa page

Hi Steve, I was getting help from Chzz but I see he is now unavailable. Chzz helped me create this page Centres_Against_Sexual_Assault but now it's got a note saying "This article needs additional citations for verification." I have lots of links eg to Victoria police, Department of Health etc all citing the CASAs but Chzz rejected these at the time of creating the page as he said they weren't reliable sources (I think that was the term he used). He wanted citations in newspapers etc which are harder to come by, hence the one used. I am unsure how to resolve this and what to add to the page to make it conform. Could you please help me or point me to someone who can? Thank you Peto Australis (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peto Australis. Firstly, when you are wanting to provide a link to a Wikipedia article within Wikipedia (including on talk pages), you don't need to use the full web address! Just use the format Article name.
Chzz is indefinitely away from Wikipedia for personal reasons (I'm hoping that he's back soon!), but he is quite right to say that we need reliable, independent sources. I'm busy at the moment with the kids (I'm sneaking a quick peek on Wikipedia while they have their breakfast!), but I'll look at this tonight or tomorrow (UTC). Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Phantomsteve, I have put some more references onto my talk page. When you get a chance could you have a look and let me know if they are useable? Thanks Peto Australis (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Phantomsteve, thank you for your comments about the references. I will look around some more to see what else I can find. Are references in paper books any good? I could also give you references where they are mentioned in Hansard which is the parliamentary record. As for moving it, I am not sure I'd do it right as I am still trying to get used to all the protocols and am concerned I'll muck it up and get the page banned or labeled as something which I don't understand yet. I would really appreciate it therefore, if you could copy and paste what you think is appropriate for this discussion. Perhaps by putting it there others may be able to assist with references or thoughts on what else to put in there to improve the piece. Thank you in advance for your time and input. It is very much appreciated. Peto Australis (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi again Phantomsteve, I have put in two more references. I am hoping I've put in enough details to make them easy to find. The heading is 'References 21 Dec 09'. Look forward to your thoughts. Thank you for helping me. Peto Australis (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Peto. I'll try to get a look at it later today or tomorrow. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick look at User:Carmen2u/Lee Aase

Hi PhantomSteve:

I was taking a look at a couple of social media bio pages in comparison to the one I drafted on Lee Aase to see if I've hit the right tone. The two I referenced were Stowe Boyd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stowe_Boyd) and Guy Kawasaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Kawasaki). I think I've gotten close, but I'd like to hear your opinion as an experienced Wiki editor. Thanks for your input.

Happy holidays!

Carmen2u (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. If I get a chance to, I'll look at it today or tomorrow - otherwise it might not be for a week or so, due to the holiday! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Best wishes for the holiday season and the upcoming new year! –Juliancolton | Talk 16:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll second that. The same to you and yours! – ukexpat (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy the season!

Thanks for the review

Hiey Steve, thanks for taking the time to review me, I appreciate the depth you put into it. Happy holidays! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

editor review (MWOAP)

Hey, thanks for the review. I am on this late still, I just gave 2100hrs to be an estimate. I was wondering how you intended for me to help in WP:AN/WP:ANI/WP:RFA edits. I don't get that. The unspecified amount of time is only till about the weekend, I'm just not sure what day I am going to get back. Anyway, what do you think is a good time to start thinking about RfA, appox. like how many months? Again thanks. Replies after I get back. --MWOAP (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad it's not a long-term time away! With AN and ANI, look at the conversations going on there. If you feel that you have some insight or advice to add, do so. Despite their title, neither of them is purely for admin use! With regards to RfA, add your !vote in as many as possible — this has three benefits in my opinion: firstly, it gives you a chance to show that you have an understanding of what is expected of an admin — your !vote will show how well you can explain your opinion; secondly, your name will be noticed, so if you go for RfA then other editors will not think "who the hell is this, never seen them before"!; finally, you will see the kinds of things that people are looking for in an admin through the supports and opposes (and neutrals) of other RfAs — and that will help you to know if you really want to go through it yourself.
An RfA can be very emotional — especially if it does not go well! I've known a couple of editors who have either gone away for a long time, or (as of now) permanently left Wikipedia, following an unsuccessful RfA. I'd advise you to re-read the various guides to adminship (there are links on the RfA page, so I won't link to them here!) and maybe consider it in a few more months — you might like to get another editor review done at that time, before you submit an RfA, and see how it's going — in which case, specifically state at that ER that you are considering running for adminship, and that you would like a review based on that fact.
Feel free to contact me again for any advice (not just about RfAs!). Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at this page. Jusdafax 05:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Christmas wishes

Have a great holiday yourself. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Relisting TfD discussions

Hi! I noticed that you added {{relist}} to a number of discussions here and here, but it does not appear that you completed the relisting by re-opening the discussion on today's daily log page. I don't know if you are saving to a text editor and waiting to relist them all at once, but I wanted to be sure that you were aware of the second step to relisting.

Also, a few of the discussions (e.g., Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 16#Template:Always Sunny) do not appear to need relisting... Although only one other editor has commented, most deletion discussion processed do not require a quorum in order for a discussion to be closed. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 22:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know! They are my first re-listings (as you probably guessed, without even having to look at my contribs!). I wasn't aware of the 2nd step - I just assumed that it would happen automatically! I'll sort those out now.
With regard to the "only one editor has commented", I guess I was going by AfDs and MfDs where one !vote would not generally be regarded as a concensus! I'll bear it in mind.
Once again, thanks for letting me know: I'll leave a new message here when I have relisted them in today's log pages, and would be grateful if you would check that I've done it correctly this time! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
All the debates which had at least one !vote I removed the "relist" for. The other ones I have copied to today's Log. If I have not done anything correctly, I'd appreciate it if you would let me know (I also need to look at cfds etc) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
It looks good. I closed the old TfDs in order to direct any future comments to the relisted discussions.
Also, you're right about AfD and MfD, where participation by at least a few editors (3-4 or more, including the nominator) is generally a prerequisite to deletion. For pages that serve a mostly technical function (templates, categories, and redirects) or that have clearly-defined criteria for deletion (files), however, a nomination that is supported by even one editor is usually sufficient to close the discussion. In some circumstances (primarily for files and redirects), simply being uncontested can be enough to delete.
Happy editing (and please feel free to contact me if there's anything with which you think I could help)! Cheers, –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 22:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Relisting discussions

I noticed you relisted some discussions on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 16 for the second time (that is a third week). That is a little unusual. It may be better to close the discussions as no consensus in such a case. This is my personal opinion, I do not know if there is any guidelines about this, but I wouldn't mind discussing it with others on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. Debresser (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions imposes a maximum of two relistings, so Phantomsteve's edits are within the limit. The policy does indicate that relisting "should not be a substitute for a no-consensus closure", but applies this principle to discussions involving substantial debate. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 00:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for this reply. I shall await Phantomsteve's reaction as well, to see whether that was indeed his reasoning. Debresser (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick response... Thanks for contacting me, Debresser (and for replying, Black Falcon!) Here is why I thought each of the relisted items needed relisting:
  1. Category:Wikipedia images by quality: 2nd relisting: I relisted this for two reasons: firstly, the previous week, an admin (Od Mishehu) has relisted it to generate more consensus, and there had been no further comments; secondly with the nomination there is 1 delete and 1 keep - so I thought as further week's discussion wouldn't harm. If there is no further comment during the next week, the closing admin can decide what to do!
  2. IPFW athletics categories: I relisted this as there were 2 renames (including nominator) and 1 oppose -I felt that further discussion would be useful - if there had been no opposes (or at least one more rename with no further opposes), I would not have relisted. When I read the oppose, I felt that it was something that could benefit with input from more editors.
For what it's worth, although I feel that the relistings are justified, I'd have no objections if Black Falcon (or another admin) choose to over-ride my re-listing and close them appropriately. As Black Falcon says, the "do not use instead of a no-consensus closure" clause in the relisting guidelines refers to debates with substantial - in these cases, they could have been closed as no-consensus for the "images" category and as a "rename" for the athletics.
I trust this explains my rationale! May I wish you a peaceful, relaxing and enjoyable holiday! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I for one am not an admin, and not in the habit of closing disucssion, except on rare occassions, so we'll see if this second relisting brings new angles of view to the old questions. Debresser (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, Phantomsteve/Archives/2009! May you be blessed with a full plate and a joyous spirit!
I hope that this Christmas season is one of celebration and rest for you and your family.  fetchcomms☛ 21:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

☯ happy christmas Phantomsteve ☯

File:Wikisanta-no motto.png

delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ is wishing you Happy Christmas! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Yuletide,Litha,Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukkah, Kwanzaa, Lenaia,Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

"The greatest gift they'll get this year is life." ~ Bob Geldof & Midge Ure

Spread the hugs & cheer by adding {{subst:User:Deliriousandlost/happy christmas}} to your friends' talk pages.

delirious ☯ ~ happy christmas~ 23:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

ryulong and treasurytag vandalizing pages on the discussion

Steve you can now see that both ryulong and treasurtytag have vandalized the page NUMEROUS times and then tried to cover it up. They have also sent to other mods that I did it. I have reported this. If I get banned for this there will be hell to pay and I guarantee ryulong and treasurytag will not be on this site anymore. Now steve they have vandalized numerous times the diffs I have posted against Coffee. I repeat, they have vandailized numerous times diffs I posted against Coffee. They then reported to another mod that I did it and they have deleted this off the history SEVERAL times. I already told an admin about it. You better do your job or I will raise serious hell over this and admin WILL be removed.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

  • I was surprised that you left me a message here, as you told me not to post on your talk page!
I have responded on your talk page - but in short, there is no way in which those two could have done anything to the history of the page - even if oversighted, this would show as a struck-out entry (e.g. 20:56, 25 December 2009) which does not show on the history - and neither of those two users (Ryulong and TreasuryTag) have either admin or oversight permissions. I have also advised you (once your block is up) to let this drop and just carry on with the good editing of articles you have done. Incidently, I am not an admin. In future, if you want to see what user rights an editor has (such as admin), go to this page and just put in the user's name in the "User" box, and click on Go. The various types are:
  • autoconfirmed: account has existed for at least 4 days and has at least 10 edits (with this, the account can move pages, edit semiprotected pages, and upload files)
  • confirmed: same as autoconfirmed, but added to a user's account by an admin when the user has less than 10 edits or has existed for less than 4 days
  • admin: an administrator
  • bureaucrat: a bureaucrat - they can alter an editor's account to admin status (or bureaucrat status) following a successful RfA/RfB
  • steward: a steward - users with complete access to the wiki interface on all Wikimedia wikis, including the ability to change any and all user rights and groups. They are tasked with technical implementation of community consensus, dealing with emergencies, and intervening against crosswiki vandalism
  • rollback: can use the rollback function to revert vandalism
  • ipblock-exempt: not affected by autoblocks and blocks of IP addresses and ranges that aren't made with the "anonymous users only" setting
  • accountcreator: can create accounts for other users without restriction
  • oversight: can oversight - they can permanently hide revisions of pages from all users
  • checkuser: can check users - are able to view a list of all IP addresses used by a user account to edit the English Wikipedia, a list of all edits made by an IP, or all user accounts that have used an IP address.
There are a couple of other rights (edit filter manager, autoreviewer), but the above ones are the main ones you will see.
I would like to add that I have also done nothing wrong (apart from disagreeing with you, apparently), so if you feel that I have, then you are welcome to 'report' me - but please make sure that you provide diffs showing what I have done 'wrong' - however once your block has expired, I am willing to let this be all in the past. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Using File:Symbol support vote.svg and similar in RfX discussions

Hi there. Would you mind stopping to use , etc. when commenting in an RfX? The community has long ago decided against such images in discussions (per Voting is evil and see related TFD at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/June_2005#Template:Support_and_Template:Object_and_Template:Oppose) because they are increase page load times, make discussions seem like a vote, may distract from the actual comment itself and are generally adding nothing to the page except more text and a nice looking image that no one really needs. Unless you think your comments need to stand out amongst others, there is no reason to make them in such a way. Regards SoWhy 16:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, SoWhy! I was not aware of those discussions, and wasn't trying to make my comments stand out per se.
(puts on best Yul Brynner voice): "So let it be written. So let it be done." -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Question: In that case, shouldn't the tally counts not be shown at the top of Rfx? Showing them at the end, when the result is decided would be appropriate, but surely they shouldn't be there during the duration of the discussion? xfDs don't have them. Also, surely SoxBot shouldn't report the numbers either? Is there a reason why they are allowed? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, that's an age old discussion. Logically, you are correct but somehow they have always been allowed to have a rough indication how the RFX is going, since RfX discussions, unlike deletion ones, have rough fail/pass percentage (e.g. <70% is usually fail and >80% is usually pass in an RFA). If you have a lot of time, you can check the WT:RFA archives for past discussions of that topic but it's probably sufficient to say that this is an issue where the community has decided that some vote counting is okay but not too much. Regards SoWhy 17:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying it! I wasn't being picky or anything - I was just genuinely puzzled! As for the symbols, I will no longer use them! Enjoy the rest of the holidays (I'm assuming you aren't just Wikipedia-ing! - I'm sneaking the odd five minutes here and there to keep abreast of what's happening, but not really doing much on WP). Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for that. We're very proud and happy for reaching this number. Greetings from Bonn --Sir James D (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome - it's a momentous figure to reach! Continue the excellent work -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Julian's RfB / discussion deletion scramble

Wanted to thank you for finishing the sorting and making sure the thing was in proper form[1], and I'll thank TreasuryTag as well for catching it orignally. I'm going to AGF on it too since I've always seen MF as obviously knowledgeable on discussion rules there's no reason at all to think they removed my comment in pure spite. I consider mine a reasonable comment on my part since the !vote given is a very IAR-style reason to oppose that may well have never previously been used at that high a level of discussion and I wanted to express my respect for the !vote compared to my original confusion. If inquiring about IAR-style opposes in a tight discussion is a problem, I'd rather MF have taken it up with me. No end harm done, and again my thanks.

...Being RCP-style reverted at an RfB discussion gave me my laugh for the day, at least. Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Please believe me when I say that no matter whether or not I agreed with your comments I would never have deliberately removed them. It was just an edit conflict cock-up, no malice intended. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
That's what I'd assumed as I've never seen you do that with comments you disagree with! I just wanted to make it clear to others that it looked like an AGF issue to me! If you thought I meant any criticism of you, be assured that I did not! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
So all 4 involved persons are kind of running around in a circle holding up a sign saying "AGF" and a down arrow, pointed at self? Is everything so delightfully polite once the 'A'-name sysop turns to 'B' in discussion areas? Jeesh. Is edit warring via pillow fights? (Okay, know that's actually that great, but a comical thought compared to standard ANI shenanigans). Thanks to you both then :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I can not post or edit with WIKI PEDIA

Hi Phantom, I think my IP address was blocked by WIKI. I post this question by using other IP address. Could you check this range of IP: 202.79.27.X which I can not edit or post any article in wikipedia at all.

Thanks a lot for your kind response.

Regards, Borin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.15.90.130 (talk) 08:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  • The block log shows:
11:20, 30 July 2007, Ryulong (talk · contribs) blocked [[2]] (talk) (no expiry set, account creation blocked) ({{blocked proxy}}: 202.79.24.0/21 )
I would suggest contacting Ryulong about it - I am not an admin, so I cannot really do anything about it! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2009/December&oldid=1138300609"