Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:01, 1 June 2010

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.

Archives

Archive 1: Pre-Jun 2009 Archive 2: Jun — Sep 2009 Archive 3: Sep — Nov 2009 Archive 4: Nov — Dec 2009 Archive 5: Dec 2009 — Jan 2010 Archive 6: Jan — Mar 2010 Archive 7: Mar — Apr 2010 Archive 8: Apr 2010 — Archive 9: Archive 10:

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Awesome Wikipedian

Awesome Wikipedian Phantomsteve has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Phantomsteve's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Phantomsteve! Keep up this work, --Extra 999 (Contact + contribs) 02:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Personally, I would call myself an "Average Wikipedian" - there are many others who do far more article creation, article work and admin work... but I really appreciate this all the same! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I would say above average. Anyone can work on articles, but Misplaced Pages is also about maintaining a good working atmosphere. I think the work you do aids others in contributing to the encyclopedia, so the end result is article creation. Some of that work is the kind of thankless administration that is necessary but not high-profile, so this is a good opportunity to thank you for your contribution. Weakopedia (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Aye. I'd second that. (By the way, I loled quite hard at this. Nice :) {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 09:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Aye, aye; an emphatic "third" to Weakopedia's eval. So pleased to see that you did become an admin, (and so bummed that I somehow missed that process, and voting). I can't think of anyone I've seen who deserves that more. Thanks again for your remarkable contribution here, very much. My best congratulations, though belated! Ohiostandard (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for your kind words - they mean a lot to me! I just hope that you feel the same way about me in a month, a year, two years.... -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Tom Samek

Ty. Ty 20:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome! I'm not perfect, and sometimes other people find sources which I don't have access to, or which I missed when I looked - and if I'm in the wrong, I'm quite willing to say so! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

To locate a person in USA

I would like to get the address/contact of of Mr. Johnson C Paulson, a senior Project Engineer in Philips petroleum co.USA and was responsible for the Cochin refinery Project in Kerala, India during 1964 to 1966.How to get the details. Kindly help.

Mathai Abraham India email:<redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.88.45.223 (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not in a position to help you! You might find what you are looking for through the external links in the Kochi Refineries - alternatively, you might want to ask this question at Wikipedi's Reference desk, who specialise in trying to answer just about any question in the universe! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Jerry Calypso

Hey there. FYI, this article, which you speedied as a blatant copyright violation, is baaaaack. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Muir Skate Longboard Shop

Booooooo (no, I am only teasing). Your closing statement was right on since it was a close call source wise.Cptnono (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Kidstart deletion

I am at pains why the article was deleted even though the article was relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a consensus may be reached, and no additional comments where made except my own. Plus it does seem that all my comments on that page have been ignored as there was no response to them.

I strongly disagree that the coverage linked to the article sounds like a regurgitated press release, when if anyone who actually spent time visiting these links will see for themselves that the are genuine independent articles from major media outlets. Surely a BBC News video is independent enough ?

I noted that you state significant coverage for relisitng, but can you explain how much coverage does one need ? I illustrated that there is plenty of coverage of KidStart on the web with following links Google.co.uk News Archives for kidstart and Google.co.uk General Search on Kidstart, plus included various notable press links in the article ie The Times, The Guardian, The Observer, The Sun and Daily Express as well as the BBC News video.

I also fail to see how this article is any different to similar Misplaced Pages articles: Quidco, Internet Cashback, Top CashBack (note: with similar citations), plus see other articles listed under Misplaced Pages category: Reward Websites, except that KidStart is unique as it only benefits children and charities, so is it for this reason Kidstart should be penalised and deleted whilst these other articles have escaped this kind of scrutiny and remained on Misplaced Pages?

I look forward to any guidance you can give on this article. Emmamme (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that I misjudged the consensus, please feel free to take this to Deletion review. My job as closing administrator is to judge the consensus of the comments made at the AfD - if I wanted to leave my own opinion, I would not close the AfD, but leave a comment myself and leave it to someone else to close it. In this case, the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/KidStart (2nd nomination) was to delete.

However, I should note that whether other similar organisations have articles or not is not part of my decision-making process. It could be that others exist because there is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources; it could be that they don't have that and so perhaps they should be considered for deletion themselves. In neither of these cases, though, is the AfD in question affected - I look at the consensus about that article, not on others that may or may not exist.

I am sorry that you are not happy with the decision, but yours was the only firm voice in favour of keeping the article, with two firmly in favour of the deletion (the nomination I ignore, as it was a procedural nomination, and King of... abstained from commenting). As I said, if you think I misjudged consensus, then list the AfD at WP:DRV - but please note that this is not a venue for a rehash of the arguments or a "second bite at the cherry"! If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me again -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. I'm sure you can appreciate it is very frustrating for myself, especially when the 2 nominations for deletion where given on the day the article was re-listed (11th May), even though it was suggested for re-listing the article it should be edited, which i did (considerably) on the 13-14th May. Since then no comment or nomination was made. This was endorsed by Tim Song who re-listed the article to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached on 19th May. Since then only myself made any additional comments and no nominations where made.

So this system has a slight flaw, in that you decided to take the nominations of administrators who commented on the day the article was re-listed and of which hadn't been revised, in effect basing your consensus on nominations based on the FIRST Deletion Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/KidStart NOT the amended article. Therefore i would state the case, that these 2 nominations are outdated and as such bare little relevance. Meaning and i quote from Misplaced Pages "If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed."

I wish there was a way to wave a flag and say please comment on my revisions (which i thought i did by commenting on the deletion page). As such, from the 13th May (13 days ago) not one administrator commented. Its very frustrating.Emmamme (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for KidStart

An editor has asked for a deletion review of KidStart. 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. Emmamme (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 24 May 2010

• News and notes: New puzzle globe, feature for admins, Israel's "Misplaced Pages Bill", unsourced bios declining

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Saints

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Horasis deletion

As closing administrator you decided to delete the article evaluating the given comments as a consensus for deletion. The nominator for deletion questioned the notability of Horasis.

According to WP:ORG an organization is notable if it has attracted notice and if there are significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. This has to be subject of significant coverage in secondary sources, which have to be reliable and independent of the organization. And if the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Furthermore attention by international or international, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability.

And no organization is considered notable except to the extend that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization – so if people outside noticed an organization, notability has been demonstrated.

According to these criteria Horasis is notable because at the different meetings convened be this organization it has gathered high-profile people to discuss topics of international relevance. This is verified by international newspapers, governmental statements, etc. As the significance was doubted if Horasis was not the main topic there is to cite WP:N: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

And significance for a source is established if it verifies the facts which make an organization notable. With the sources given here no one can doubt that e.g. the Prime Ministers of Portugal or the Indian Minister Anand Sharma attended Horasis meeting. Additionally the alternate criterion has been met with the participants at the Horasis meeting. So if e.g. the Secretary General of UNCTAD visits meetings convened by Horasis, and this is verified by secondary sources, this organization has obviously been noticed from outside and therefore obtains notability.

According to these facts I disagree with your deletion and ask for reversion. Also the “depth” of consensus was very thin as all the valid arguments from the beginning of discussion obviously felt out of consideration, together with all approval. Dewritech (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dewritech, thanks for contacting me!

As you will appreciate, I took some time to consider the arguments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Horasis (2nd nomination) (the "AfD") - and my job as the closing administrator is to consider the consensus from the arguments, not to have my own input!

I noted that all the "keep" arguments were at the start of the discussion, with later ones all being "delete". I also noted that almost all of the keep arguments were from accounts with little or no edits outside of the article and/or AfD itself. Here are the 'keep' arguers:

1. You (not surprisingly!) - and I note that all of your article edits (whether in mainspace, uploaded files or your user space) are connected with the article;
2. Candyisdandy: an account with 19 edits in total, of which 3 were to this AfD. I also noted that the account had not been used since January before suddenly appearing to comment at the AfD
3. Mbolekia: an account with 12 edits in total: 10 to the article itself, 1 to the AfD and 1 to the AfD's talk page
4. Johnbkidd: 3 edits in total, 2 to the article; 1 to the talk page of the article (which you copied to the AfD)
5. Documentarybuff: 3 edits in total (1 to this AfD, 2 others to an article deleted in 2008) - another editor who appeared out of nowhere - this time from 2008 - to argue that this should be kept.

Here are the 'delete' arguers:

1. Nancy: nominator - 20,000+ edits in a variety of articles and AfDs, etc
2. Cunard: although starting sentence as 'comment', ends in 'therefore, delete' - 18000+ edits in a variety of articles and AfDs, etc
3. Bearian: weak delete - 36,000+ edits in a variety of articles and AfDs, etc
4. Robofish: delete - 35,000+ edits in a variety of articles and AfDs, etc
5. Racepacket: delete - 7,000+ edits in a variety of articles and AfDs, etc

Here are the others:

1. Marasmusine: leaning towards keep, but not totally convinced by the above 'keeps' from new users

Although numerically it appears that there are equal keeps as deletes, the fact that 2 of the 'keep's only made edits to either the article or the AfD, and that two of the others have very limited amounts of editing, and appear to have returned to comment at the AfD (what are the odds that they would just happen to decide to come back to Misplaced Pages to edit, and find that AfD?) - whereas all of the 'deletes' are established editors, who have been regularly editing, and hence have a good working knowledge of policy.

If you feel that I have misunderstood the consensus at the AfD, you are able to take it to Deletion review ("DRV") - but bear in mind that the purpose of DRV is not to re-argue the case - it is purely to see if my closure was incorrect when the arguments are considered - i.e. that I misjudged consensus. Should you want to take the AfD to DRV, I will copy the above evaluation which I made of the arguments there - other editors have a chance to say whether they think that my decision was correct in light of the arguments (they endorse my decision) or if it was wrong (in which case they will suggest it be overturned).

I understand that you are not happy with the deletion - you put in a lot of work on the article, obviously - but I hope that the above explanation will show why I felt that the consensus was to delete. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Phantomsteve, thanks for your fast answer. The arguments for your evaluation of the consensus are stringent according to the numbers of contribs. But as mentioned bevore, I'm new here and what really astonished me was the fact that arguments often remained without any reply. So I'm really interested, what in your eyes is actually wrong with my argumentation according the notability of Horasis. Thanks in advance! Dewritech (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding! With regard to arguments remaining without a reply - that's due to the nature of Misplaced Pages: everyone is a volunteer, and so either may not log in more than once a week, or have a lot of other Misplaced Pages-stuff to deal with, and so may not always notice what appears at an AfD (for example, on my watchlist, I have over 6000 articles/pages which I keep an eye on, so things slip through the net sometimes!)

As for the notability of Horasis - the main problem that I can see is that the coverage isn't significant enough - here are some examples from the references in the final version before it was deleted:

1. (All the Horasis's own website references): not independent
2. "Interview with Frank Jurgen Richter and Pamela C. M. Mar" Business-in-Asia.com

   Confirms position - no mention of Horasis

3. a b "Enthusiasm, Tempered With Concern, About Business in India" The New York Times, July 8, 2009

   At the opening reception last week of the Global India Business Meeting, a two-day conference sponsored by Horasis, a kind of junior league World Economic Forum for the emerging market set - not significant coverage of the organisation

4. "Horasis Annual Meeting" AseanAffairs

   Basically a list of who is attending - not significant coverage of the organisation

5. "Meeting aims to boost EU-China business" USA Today, November 5, 2007

   That's one part of what the conference is hoping for, said Frank-Juergen Richter, president of Horasis, a Geneva, Switzerland-based group that is organizing the gathering. - not significant coverage of the company

6. "Germans fear backlash as China ties cool Financial Times, November 21, 2007

   (Only available to subscribers)

7. "Global Bailout" Newsweek, November 9, 2007

   On Thursday he spoke with NEWSWEEK's George Wehrfritz at the Horasis China Europe Business Meeting in Frankfurt - not about the organisation (or even about the meeting itself)

8. "Emerging Powers Seen Taking Lead in Recovery" The New York Times, November 20, 2008

   The Global China Business Meeting here, sponsored by Horasis, a consulting organization based in Geneva - not significant coverage

... and I could go on! All of the references provided confirm specific meetings, but do not go into detail about either Horasis themselves, or the actual conferences. That is why people said that the article should be deleted, and if I was to be commenting myself, I would agree with them.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed explanation. So it's up to me looking for further sources with more significance. My attempt "start at Wiki with a very good article" wasn't as successful as intended. But o.k., I've learned a lot and so it's good. Thanks again for all your efforts. Dewritech (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking it in the way in which it was meant! I did do a search myself for significant coverage (if I can find a way to include an article, I'd rather do so than delete it!). If you have any questions, or need any help in the future, please feel free to contact me! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Dark house

hey mate i was wondering if you could help me find the list that was on the deleted page Dark House? Uhuhuh8989 (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that you don't intend on using it to try to re-create the Dark house article (there really are no reliable sources that I could find when I looked a short while ago), but want it for your own use, here is the list:

• Satoshi Tomiie feat. Kelli Ali - Love In Traffic (Dark Path Mix)
• ECVM - Circuit Breaker (John Creamer & Stephane K Main Mix)
• Tijuana - Groove Is In The Air
• Jamez Presents Tatoine - Music (16B Remix)
• Pete Lazonby - Wavespeech
• Sinéad O'Connor - TROY (John Creamer & Stephane K Remix)
• Dirty Harry - Musica
• Moshic & Landa - Faza
• Angel - Powerplant (Hamel & Medway Remix)
• Filur - You And I (Trentemøller Free Dub)
• Federico Franchi - Cream
• Chris Lake - To The Point
• Voodooamt - Nachtschicht
• Pete heller & Smokin jo - Fishbone

Please note that should you be considering re-creating the article, I will be keeping an eye out for any such re-creation, and will delete/nominate for deletion any such article, unless there are reliable independent sources which verify the information given! This list is purely for your personal use! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what to do

I just moved a page into article space. (Now at Stephen Rice (journalist) ). Normally, if it came from a user subpage, I add a {{db-r3}} to the subpage, so it can be deleted.

However, User:Artemis39 created the page in a user page, not a user subpage. I don't think I want the page deleted, just blanked. Is that the right thing to do? --SPhilbrickT 18:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, blanking is the best solution! A redirect from user space to article space isn't needed, so I'll leave it to you - if you haven't by the time I next log, I'll do it myself! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\ 20:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, done. --SPhilbrickT 16:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Abdulfez

There is something more to be said.....you conveniently seem to want to leave it out.

Your job when you sign on here is to be an editor. What else is there for you to do then to check sources? I have never ever in my life seen so many useless people scurrying around wasting time on some much BS, politics and just general fantasy empire building.

DO YOUR JOB !

If you say an article is a HOAX then the burden of proof is on YOUR END to prove that. Simple right? Not for you.

Did you even read the abdulfez article? I doubt it. IF you did it states information that is in the public domain and easily verifiable -- but of course that is too much work for hard working editors to think about. That means actually getting off your backsides to check or verify something. What a radical idea for an encylcopedia. Name change to "Wiki" and, "poof" create your own upside down world Alice. It makes sense to me.

btw/ imdb is a reliable sourse and is good enough for most of the industry. Who do think you are to pass judgement on them?

Again I will make a claim that the editors that deleted my article probable have NOT ONE industry qualification towards what you would need to be a researcher or editor at a big encyclopedia company or major mainstream newsource. IF you did, you would not be wasting your time here. Go on prove ME wrong here. List those editors and show ME their qualifications.abdulfez 01:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulfez (talk • contribs)

Did I read the article? Yes I did - and found no reliable sources which showed that Cliff Taylor/Adbulfez was host at MTV Europe; that mentioned The Fez Brothers; no evidence that he did any shows on Radio 4, was a guest on Funky Bunker, or that he had any involvement with Spitting Image. All of this should show that I have read the article - but none of it was reliably sourced, and despite a search for reliable sources (which, yes, I did do) nothing was found. The AfD showed a clear consensus to delete the article (with the nominator and 4 other editors saying that it should be deleted - and no one dissenting).

The reason why IMDB is not generally reckoned as being a reliable source is twofold: firstly, in theory anyone can upload information - and the staff at IMDB only do minimal checks, as they are pretty overworked! Secondly, most of the information given to IMDB comes from production companies and artists' agents: these are not independent (and if they were to publish the information on their own website, these would not be counted as independent reliable sources).

To be honest, with so many claims to notability in the article, I would expect to be able to find several reliable sources to verify these claims. As myself (and others) searched, and failed to find any, then I would say that the burden of finding them is yours - we looked, and couldn't find anything to back up the claims: it's not because we are lazy, and can't be bothered: if Cliff Taylor/Adbulfez is not notable, let me know some reliable independent sources which verify the information that was provided, and I will gladly help you with the article. However, if they don't meet the criteria for independent, reliable sources (and as I have said, IMDB does not meet them for the reasons above), then I can't see any way in which an article could be created.

As for your claim that the editors here do not have industrial qualifications: some do, some do not: but I don't need a qualification in the movie or TV industry to be able to find some references to a notable entertainer. If they are out there, my experience as a researcher will normally locate something. So, it is up to YOU to prove that you (I presume you are trying to create an article about yourself?) are notable: there is no mention of you at MTV; no mention of you in various documentaries, articles and books about Spitting Image, etc. If you find reliable sources, I will help you with the article - if you don't, then I can't. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Chaning the picture of the Wiki Entry "Singapore International Energy Week"

Hi Steve, Hope all's been good with you.

I am writing to get your help in changing the picture accompanying the Wiki entry "Singapore International Energy Week". The current picture used is specific to the 2009 event. I tried editing the picture in the entry but was not sure how to do so. Can you guide me how I can either send you the picture file or make the changes to the entry directly myself?

Thanks.

Matthew.lim (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Matthew! I'll leave instructions on how to do it later today or tomorrow -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\ 08:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello again! OK, here is a quick list of instructions on how to update the image:

1. Save a copy of the image to your computer. Ideally if it is not already, resize it to be about 150x100 pixels (or similar)
2. Go to File:SIEW_logo.jpg
3. Near the bottom of the screen there is a link that says "Upload a new version of this file" - click on this
4. Browse to the file on your computer, and select it.
5. Keep the "Destination Filename" the same, so that you overwrite it
6. For "File Changes", enter something like "Updating to current version of logo"
7. For "Licensing", choose "Logo" and then click on "Upload file"

If you try this and have any problems, let me know, and we can go from there! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

When is consensus bullying?

I feel as though I am being bullied out of Misplaced Pages when all I do for the most part is qualitatively improve articles by adding citations. I have a group of malign editors that have formed a cohort against me. They have searched really hard to find a few matters of dispute out of my 20,000 or more edits that I have made to this Project. I would appreciate some of your time.
B9 hummingbird hovering 10:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)