Phantomsteve

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Inter-service decorations of the United States military

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

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

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

• I've done it (had a few minutes to spare!) - see User:Phantomsteve/user-box/vietnam-in-memoriam which shows an example and how to code it. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Done! And you will find the article itself has been somehow expanded, too... --Azurfrog (talk) 09:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

• 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Yeah, I saw. Thanks for your help. --MisterWiki talk contribs 22:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply