User talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2010/August

For your hard work as admin I make you a member of the order. Happy editing! Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you very much! I find it a bit ironic that I'm awarded this when I've done hardly anything on Wikipedia for the last month, let alone admin actions! However, I am happy to receive it -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • You are busy in real life, but your past work was fantastic :) Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 08:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• As you may have seen, I am getting back to Wikipedia work again! Thanks again! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have requested that you decision to merge the above page be overturned as there clearly was no consensus to merge and there was a majority to keep. Was it your personal decision to merge or do you claim that this was the consensus view? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have just popped on quickly to check for messages, so I do not have time to respond to this fully at the moment. I will log in tomorrow and respond properly, explaining my reasoning. Should you feel that this is unsatisfactory, you are welcome to take this to Deletion Review! However, I will say that this was not a personal decision to merge (if that had been the case, I would not have closed the AfD but would have participated instead, as I did on another AfD today!) - it was what I felt to be the consensus view. I will look at it properly tomorrow (it's late in my locality, and I'm about to go to bed!) and then respond. If I feel upon reflection that my decision was incorrect, I will happily overturn my decision - but I want to look at it when I am more awake than I am now! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(responded both at DRV and on Martin Hogbin's talk page. Basically, I made a mistake, and support the close to be overturned to No consensus. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind reviving the above article please. Thanks. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have sorted it all out now - if there are any problems, let me know! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That was quick! Thanks. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a note concerning your relist on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German language films (2nd nomination): WP:RELIST would have discouraged this relist because there has been sufficient discussion but no consensus. Relisting is only done when there has been minimal discussion, not when things are "tied" and you want to flip the discussion to see if the next week will bring a result. This discussion should have been closed as no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me, Stifle. In this case, would it be in order for me to "un-relist" and close as no-consensus? Or do I need to leave it open now? Either way, I won't do anything now, as I'm off to bed (I only popped on quickly to check for messages!) and would rather do anything when I am more awake! Any advice would be most welcome - I am continually learning how to be a better admin! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, thanks for reminding me about the criteria for re-listing - sometimes we forget details, especially when we have been away for a month or so! In this case, there has been further discussion since it was relisted, so I feel that it would be germane (no pun intended!) to leave it open, but I would be happy to hear any further advice from you, should it be required! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You can just leave them be now; just think about the relist guideline for future closures. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop deleting this page. It is the only non-profit community actor promoting the space of ethical/sustainable fashion.

Best, G —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant-GATF (talk • contribs) 19:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Unless you can provide independent, reliable sources which show that it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria (including the notability criteria for organisations) then I fail to see that it warrants an encyclopedia entry - Wikipedia is not for promoting causes or organisations, no matter how worthy or noble they may be -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No need to worry. It happens all the time, the others don't really bother to tell me.

Many Regards, Yousou (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

New account, appears to be a sock of User:Rquattrocchi. Without the socking issues, he's just created a page where one already existed and just needed to be moved. Could the new page be deleted? I'm asking here because you appear to be online. sonia♫ 22:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have moved the page, deleting the new page. As for the socking issue, you need to take that up at SPI, as it is not my area of expertise! You caught me just as I was about to go offline, so I will say goodnight! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I was sad to see that yesterday you deleted the Gualtiero Piccinini page that I created. Piccinini is an internationally renowned, award winning philosopher who has made important contributions to the philosophy of mind, philosophy of computation, and philosophy of cognitive science. His work is discussed in the philosophy and cognitive science literature. In fact his work is mentioned or discussed in several existing wikipedia entries (including one in Finnish!) with which I had nothing to do. I think Piccinini deserves a wikipedia entry at least as much as many other academics who already have one. I would be happy to edit the entry further to justify its notability. Would it be possible to restore the Gualtiero Piccinini entry that I wrote? Gpgra (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the page as it was nominated for speedy deletion as an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. When I looked at the article, I agreed with this assessment. There are a lot of philosophers "working primarily on the nature of mind and computation as well as on how to integrate psychology and neuroscience" - what makes Piccinini notable?

In order to be able to justify restoring the article, I would need to see evidence of the following:

1. That Piccinini meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines
2. That Piccinini meets Wikipedia's Notability for academics
3. That there has been coverage of Piccinini at independent sources (see here) which Wikipedia would count as reliable (see here)

If you can provide evidence of this, I would be happy to consider restoring the article so that you can add suitable references -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Postscript: I should add that whether or not an article exists on another language Wikipedia (or mentions in articles exist), that has no bearing on whether there should be an article on this Wikipedia. Each Wikipedia is independent, and set their own criteria for inclusion. The English Wikipedia's criteria are linked to in points 1 and 2 above. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the page as I originally wrote it did not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. That was my mistake due to my inexperience with Wikipedia. But my mistake can be corrected and I would welcome your advice on how best to do so. Here is evidence that Piccinini meets several of Wikipedia’s criteria of notability for academics:

1. Piccinini’s “mechanistic account of computation” is routinely cited and discussed as one of the main views on the topic of computation in physical systems in the scholarly literature (e.g., Shagrir, O., “Why We View the Brain as a Computer” Synthese (2006). Fresco, N., “An Analysis of the Criteria for Evaluating Adequate Theories of Computation,” Minds and Machines (2008) 18: 379-401. Ladyman, J., “What does it mean to say that a physical system implements a computation?” Theoretical Computer Science, 410.4-5 (2009) 376-383. Aizawa, K., “Computation in Cognitive Science: It’s Not All about Turing Equivalence.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science (2010). Maley, C. “Analog and Digital, Continuous and Discrete”, Philosophical Studies (2010)).

2. Many of Piccinini’s papers on several topics are frequently cited or discussed in the scholarly literature (e.g., Machery, Edouard, Doing without Concepts, Oxford University Press, 2009. Alvin Goldman, “Epistemology and the Evidential Status of Introspective Reports: Trust, Warrant, and Evidential Sources,” Journal of Consciousness Studies (2004), 11.7-8, pp. 1-16. Daniel Dennett, “Heterophenomenology Reconsidered,” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6.1-2 (2007), 247-270).

3. Piccinini has been invited to lecture at selective international workshops and conferences (e.g., 7th International Conference on Cognitive Science, Beijing, China, August 2010. Computation in Cognitive Science, King’s College, Cambridge, UK, 7th-8th July 2008. Modeling, Computation and Computational Science: Perspectives from Different Sciences, Helsinki, Finland, November 2007. Cognition and Computation: Problems, Methods, and Prospects of Computational Explanations in the Cognitive Sciences, Padova, Italy, October 2004).

4. Piccinini has received prestigious awards, most notably: Fellow, Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel. Scholars’ Award from the National Science Foundation.

5. Piccinini holds a number of prestigious editorial positions: Editor of the Synthese yearly issue on “Neuroscience and Its Philosophy”. Associate Editor, Minds and Machines. Philosophy Editor, Journal of Cognitive Science. Board of Editors, The Rutherford Journal: The New Zealand Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology.

6. Piccinini has founded and administers Brains, the premier group blog in the philosophy of mind and cognitive science, at http://philosophyofbrains.com/.

7. Piccinini has been featured in the media, e.g., interview with KNPR – Nevada Public Radio, April 2006; Interview with Carola Houtemaker for the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad, in the article “Blogs uit het lab” (1/18/2008). Gpgra (talk) 02:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for those - I'll look at those later today, and get back to you: I'll have to look at the criteria for academics and match those to the above points, and as I'm about to go out for a bit, I'll do it later when I have the time to look at it properly, rather than rushing into it! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've looked into it a bit more and here is my response to the 7 points made above:
  1. Piccinini’s “mechanistic account of computation” is routinely cited and discussed as one of the main views on the topic of computation in physical systems in the scholarly literature
     • I do not have access to Web of Knowledge or Scopus, which WP:ACADEMIC refers to as a source of citations - but the free index at Web of Knowledge does not list Piccinini (see here for the index)
  2. Many of Piccinini’s papers on several topics are frequently cited or discussed in the scholarly literature
     • See previous point
  3. Piccinini has been invited to lecture at selective international workshops and conferences
     • A quick search didn't find any evidence of this where the invite would meet the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC ("Ordinary colloquia and seminar talks and invited lectures at scholarly conferences, standard research grants, named post-doctoral fellowships, visiting appointments, or internal university awards are insufficient for this purpose.")
  4. Piccinini has received prestigious awards, most notably: Fellow, Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel. Scholars’ Award from the National Science Foundation.
     • These do not appear to satisfy the requirements ("For the purposes of Criterion 2, major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc, always qualify under Criterion 2. Some lesser significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige also can be used to satisfy Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts (e.g. the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize), etc")
  5. Piccinini holds a number of prestigious editorial positions: Editor of the Synthese yearly issue on “Neuroscience and Its Philosophy”. Associate Editor, Minds and Machines. Philosophy Editor, Journal of Cognitive Science. Board of Editors, The Rutherford Journal: The New Zealand Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology.
     • Although both Synthese and The Rutherford Journal have articles on Wikipedia, I do not see any indication that these (or any of the other publications mentioned) meet the criteria of "a major well-established journal in their subject area"
  6. Piccinini has founded and administers Brains, the premier group blog in the philosophy of mind and cognitive science, at http://philosophyofbrains.com/
     • I'm not sure which of the criteria this meets - blogs are not generally counted as reliable sources as Wikipedia defines it.
  7. Piccinini has been featured in the media
     • Being featured in the media is not (in and of itself) a criteria for a person's inclusion on Wikipedia

Overall, I do not feel that Piccinini meets the criteria for inclusion. Incidently, I notice that your name (Gpgra) starts with Gualtiero Piccinini's initials Gp - do you have a connection with Piccinini? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I was working with Piccinini when I created my name; that’s my connection with him. Here are my responses to your responses.

Re: “the free index at Web of Knowledge does not list Piccinini”. I don’t know how the index you linked to is compiled, but I noticed that the people cited there are all natural scientists, whose work ordinarily receives many more citations than philosophical work because that’s how the sciences operate. The number of publications in philosophy is much smaller than that in the sciences and people don’t cite each other as much. It’s just a difference between disciplines. So it’s not surprising that philosophers or other humanities scholars do not appear in the index you cited. In any case, a high number of citations is not required by Wikipedia Notability for academics. What you are responding to is a list of “a substantial number” of “academic peer-reviewed publications” that discuss Piccinini’s work and attribute to him “a significant new idea”, and you can find others if you look at the philosophy literature. This is verifiable through any academic library. This is the best and most direct evidence that Piccinini “has made significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline,” which is the first Wikipedia criterion of notability for academics. As the Wikipedia Verifiability page says, “Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available.” Let me quote from Wikipedia Notability for academics: “Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question.” That’s what my references demonstrate.

Re: “See previous point”. See previous point. I just gave you some examples. There are others.

I will add one more piece of evidence, which supports at least to some extent both Criterion 1 and Criterion 4 of Notability for academics (“The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.”) Piccinini is the author of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on “Computation in Physical Systems” (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computation-physicalsystems/). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) is the most prestigious and authoritative peer reviewed scholarly encyclopedia of philosophy. Since the SEP is freely available on the internet, SEP articles are the most widely used introductory materials in philosophy courses. In addition, Piccinini’s article is the only systematic introductory survey of its subject, so it is the only available educational resource of its kind. The article contains a section on Piccinini’s philosophical work on computation. Even though Piccinini is the author, this is a peer reviewed scholarly encyclopedia, so Piccinini would not have been allowed to attribute “a significant new idea” to himself if this had not been verified by independent referees to the satisfaction of the SEP editors.

Re: “Piccinini has been invited to lecture at selective international workshops and conferences. A quick search didn't find any evidence of this” and “Piccinini has received prestigious awards... These do not appear to satisfy the requirements.“ I will quote again from Wikipedia Notability for academics: “For the purposes of partially satisfying Criterion 1, significant academic awards and honors may include, for example: major academic awards (they would also automatically satisfy Criterion 2), highly selective fellowships (other than postdoctoral fellowships); invited lectures at meetings of national or international scholarly societies, where giving such an invited lecture is considered considerably more prestigious than giving an invited lecture at typical national and international conferences in that discipline; awards by notable academic and scholarly societies.” The items I listed satisfy these criteria. For example, Piccinini was invited to lecture at the 7th International Conference on Cognitive Science, which is an international scientific conference. This is rare and prestigious for a philosopher. The other invitations I listed are to specialized and selective international conferences and workshops; these invitations are “considerably more prestigious than giving an invited lecture at typical national and international conferences in that discipline.” I also listed a “highly selective fellowship (other than a postdoctoral fellowship)” (namely, at the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem) and an “award by notable academic society” (a Scholars’ Award from NSF is very rare and prestigious for philosopher and NSF is surely notable). Incidentally, Piccinini has received many other invitations and won many other grants and awards, although not as prestigious as those.

Re: “I do not see any indication that these (or any of the other publications mentioned) meet the criteria of "a major well-established journal in their subject area."” Are you kidding? Synthese is a major well-established journal in philosophy. This is common knowledge in the field, verifiable by looking at rankings such as the European Science Foundation‘s ranking of philosophy journals posted here: http://the-brooks-blog.blogspot.com/2007/06/best-philosophy-journals.html amd here: http://www.esf.org/research-areas/humanities/. See also this ranking: http://homepage.mac.com/mcolyvan/journals.html. Minds and Machines is a major well-established journal in philosophy of mind. This is common knowledge among those who work in this discipline. Being an editor at a science journal such as the Journal of Cognitive Science is also notable for a philosopher because there are very few philosophers who have editorial positions at scientific journals, even though the journal itself is not a major well-established journal it its subject area.

I accept you last two points.

Look, I already conceded that I initially made a mistake in failing to “credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject,” so you were justified in deleting the entry based on the way it was written. But it doesn’t follow that the subject is not important or significant. Mistakes can be corrected, right? I have given you strong evidence of Piccinini’s notability; much stronger than is provided by many Wikipedia entries for academics. I appreciate your work as Wikipedia admin and I respectfully ask you to take my evidence seriously and consider restoring the Gualtiero Piccinini page. If you have any advice on how to best edit the page so as to satisfy Wikipedia’s notability requirement based on the evidence I have provided, I would welcome your input.Gpgra (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your further detailed response! As you may have gathered, I am not an expert in the area of philosophy and the mind! I have userfied it to User:Gpgra/Gualtiero Piccinini - when you have added your changes to it, you can go to Wikipedia:Requests for feedback and ask there for whether it meets the notability criteria (alternatively, you could just move it to mainspace, and see what happens - I won't delete it there (unless it is taken by someone to Articles for deletion and the consensus is to delete) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I have userfied the page and moved it to mainspace. I think now it meets the notability criteria.Gpgra (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you deleted the page Inverse_Order, due to it being about a non-relevant artist or musician. I had a look at the criteria for relevance for musicians and found that they in fact meet several of the criteria namely:

Has won or been nominated for a major music award (major in New Zealand - Juice TV Music Video award not sure if this counts?) Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network in NZ- KiwiFM and The Rock FM They have also charted in the top 40 of the New Zealand rock radio charts

I was planning on creating the wiki again, and adding these references in. Would it then satisfy the criteria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrJeems (talk • contribs) 23:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• I notice that the page has been re-created and that an Articles for deletion discussion has begun. I'll look at the article again (bearing in mind your points above) later today (when I have the time to do it properly, rather than rushing it) - I will then comment at the AfD either to delete or keep depending on whether it meets the criteria for inclusion or not! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have now commented at the AfD - I feel that the above facts are insufficient evidence to show that the band meet the criteria for inclusion (and have explained my reasoning at the AfD in more detail) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Phantomsteve, I created an article called CAOT (Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists), which is a non-for-profit organisation which provides service to health professionals in Canada and incoming therapists that have been internationally educated. I have modeled the article using the AOTA (American Occupational Therapy Association) and used the same format so that the article would not be speedy deleted. I would like to know a more specific reason for you deleting this article. Please post a notice on my talk page once you have responded. Thank you, Caoteducation (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Looking at the AOTA article, I am not sure that it meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, and I have opened an Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion. My reasoning is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Occupational Therapy Association. May I suggest that we see how the AfD goes before considering the fate of the CAOT article? If the consensus is that AOTA should be kept, I will restore the CAOT article (although I reserve the right to nominate that for AfD should I feel that it is necessary) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Phantomsteve, So I have read the code explanations for why the C.O.T.W. article was removed. As far as I can tell, it's due to the article not having enough explanation of the subject. I'm writing you to let you know that I am going to start another article (I'm not the creator of the original one, though I am in the band and have been consistently for over 5 years) for the band. Before publishing it I will personally make sure that the page contains pertinent, accurate, and unbiased information that satisfies both the admins at wiki, and the people in our camp. Thanks for your time, have a great day!

Johny6fingers (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Johny 6 Fingers

• I deleted Church of the Week because it was an article "about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Having pertinent, accurate and unbiased information is of course essential for articles, but that was not the reason for the deletion. For a band to warrant an article on Wikipedia, it needs to meet the following:

1. Wikipedia's general guidelines for notability
2. Guidelines for the notability of bands

Basically, the band need to have received significant coverage in national/international newspapers (or similar coverage, such as TV) at reliable independent sources - I can't find any evidence of this; they need to have had a charting single or album (not applicable in this case); have 2 or members who are notable in their own right (generally with articles on Wikipedia for either themselves or for the other bands in which they have been).

Further, as a band member, you have a clear conflict of interest (see here), so you need to bear that in mind. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

--Waldir ^talk 06:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Phantomsteve,

Would you please reconsider reinstating the North Corolina Baptist Convention?

The following are articles about the North Carolina Baptist Convention. My hope is that this will prove to you the importance of all state conventions of the Southern Baptist Convention. People do indeed believe these institutions are notable. Here is notable information.

The Chronicle of Higher Education http://chronicle.com/article/North-Carolina-Baptist/39936/

Time Magazine- second paragraph mentions the North Carolina Baptist Convention specifically http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,834733,00.html

According to this article on a CBS station newspage, Michelle Obama adressed the North Carolina Baptist Convention during the election. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:i-B11jGGj3QJ:www.wral.com/news/local/politics/story/3839671/+%22North+Carolina+Baptist+Convention%22+newspaper+article&cd=42&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I hope by listing articles from Time Magazine, The Chronicle of Higher Education, and noting the First Lady addressing a state convention I have proven that these entities are important. Would you please reconsider and restore all state conventions wiki pages that you have removed? Allowing these pages to exist will encourage others to add important information that you seek.

Thank you so much for your work, Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toverton28 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this, but have got caught up with other things! I will look at this later tonight or tomorrow, and get back to you on it! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have some observations:

1. Chronicle: To my eyes, this appears to be from a press release which the Chronicle received from the Convention
2. Time Magazine: This appears to be a minor mention: "Last week 3,500 delegates of the North Carolina Baptist Convention condemned the Ku Klux Klan and its "perverted use of the Christian Cross."
3. WRAL: Again, a minor mention: "In the early afternoon, she addressed the North Carolina Baptist Convention in Fayetteville." - this was during the electioneering, when many such addresses would have been made.

Overall, I do not feel that these references would meet the criteria of either notability for organisations or the general notability criteria. Incidently, even if they were to show the notability of the North Carolina Baptist Convention, this would not mean that all the Conventions are notable: notability is not inherited or shared. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As he is now signed, I was going to userfy if there are no objections. Dlohcierekim 16:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• I am quite happy for userfication - although I believe that the criteria for it being in the main space is for him to actually play, rather than to be on the 40-man roster, or am I wrong on that? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd not read WP:MLB/N before. He must "have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, . . .". Cheers, Dlohcierekim 18:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if he appears in one game, then he'll meet the notability guidelines, I think! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

for commenting out the cats. Dlohcierekim 18:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! It's easily overlooked, I know I have forgotten it before when I've userfied an article! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

how do you earn awards like barnstars and that?Del Boy (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Other editors notice that you do something which they think you deserve a user award for, and give you one (see "My Barnstars" for examples! There are no automatic awards - although you can add Service awards yourself. Some people do lots of work on Wikipedia and get no barnstars etc, others get a lot - I just have a few, but the fact that there are not many makes each one more meaningful to me! Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Steve,

As a pastor I can assure you that politicians and others pay attention to what SBC state conventions do. They are autonomous bodies who often have a mind of their own. These state conventions often own a operate major universities (Wake Forest was started by the NC state convention. . . see wiki page). When the first lady speaks to a state convention doesn't this mean she believes they are notable? As have been documented earlier, the North Carolina Baptist Convention has 1.5 million people in it. In addition, before the article were removed it came up in the top two searches for google under North Carolina Baptist Convention. In short, these pages are being used. I also want more information present, yet allowing these pages to exist enables others to add more information. I don't know your religious background, but I assure you that evangelicals believe this information is important. Please reconsider and allow all the state baptist convention pages to be reinstated. In your mind, what would make these organization notable? Also, these state conventions own and operate state newspapers, children's homes, camp/retreat centers, universities, foundations, and the like. They have multi-million dollar budgets and use the funds for influence and speaking about their faith. The Kentucky Baptist Convention has almost single handed defeated state legislation that supported gambling. Once again, these state entities are important. Thanks you for listening, and please reconsider.

Blessings, Tim

Thank you, Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toverton28 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tim, thank you for your message!

Before responding to your last message, I looked at your sources, and at sources I could find. They may well be important to the people/bodies you mention - but on Wikipedia, we look for the following:

• That the organisation meets the criteria for notability of organisations
• That the organisation meets the general criteria for notability

An important part of those criteria is that the information can be verified using reliable sources which are independent of the subject.

I have considered what you said (both in the previous message, and in this message), and I am not convinced that the Conventions meet the notability criteria as defined by Wikipedia. If you feel that my speedy deletion of Baptist State Convention of North Carolina was incorrect per the Criteria for Speedy Deletions, you can go to Deletion Review. If, however, you have some reliable independent sources that show that that particular Convention meets the general notability guidelines and/or the notability guidelines for organisations, please let me know!

As for the other Conventions: even if you were able to show that the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina was notable, that does not confer notability on any other Conventions - each seperate convention would need to have reliable independent sources that show that that particular Convention meets the general notability guidelines and/or the notability guidelines for organisations.

Finally, my beliefs are irrelevant to my work on Wikipedia as an admin: if the convention article had been about a Buddhist organisation, a Sikh one, a Hindu one, a Jewish one, an atheist one - the outcome would have been the same. If the article does not show that the organisation meets the criteria for inclusion, then it would be deleted, regardless of the faith or otherwise of the organisation, and regardless of how noble or worthy it might be (on occasions, I have had to delete articles about charities). Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

How Come they are pages like this Choice Cable TV, Crestview Cable, Patriot Media, MetroCast Cablevision, Blue Ridge Communications etc. How come they are still here. Also, how come you deleted an article only minutes after its creation and not allowing the creator to establish notability. I can still establish notability and you deleted it minutes after it's creation. Shouldn't you wait before you do that. Most of the time when I nominate things for speedy deletion it's still their for at least 30 min (unless there's a BLP issue or it's a vandalism page). I also see you did this to another person. I urge to wait for creators to respond to speedy tags and establish more notability before you delete them.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Two comments here:

1. Other pages existing or not existing had no influence over whether Cable Cable was deleted or not. It may be that some of those others need to be deleted, maybe not - without looking at them, I don't know: I was looking at Cable Cable which had been nominated for deletion.
2. Establishing notability: before I deleted, I did a quick Google News/Archive search for "Cable Cable": I found a report at Mediacaster Magazine] which is based on a press release from the company. I couldn't find any others. If you have some sources, great - let me know what they are and I can consider undeleting them. As a rule, before I delete an article about a person or a company, I will usually do a quick Google search, looking for reliable, independent sources.

"Speedy Deletion" means that it can be deleted at any time, if it meets the criteria given. In this case, following a Google search, it appeared that the criteria was met. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw you speedy deleted this article a few minutes after the first stub was saved, on the basis that it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant. I strongly disagree with this assessment. In a few years the subject managed to turn a small local church into a megachurch with up to 13,000 weekly attendees. The subject is discussed in a number of independent publications, which are cited and clearly establish notability. Please restore so I can continue to expand the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have userfied it to User:Aymatth2/Bob Merritt for you to continue working on it. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

But what is the problem with the article as it stands? Why the urgency to delete? Aymatth2 (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it does not meet the criteria for inclusion. I would refer you to the general notability guidelines and the biographical notability guidelines. It was tagged for speedy deletion, the criteria that it was tagged under appear to have been met, and so it was deleted. The "Speedy" part of the name "speedy deletion" refers to the fact that once it has been tagged, it may be deleted at any time if it meets the criteria.

I looked at the references provided:

1. "Top 100 Fastest Growing Churches". Outreach Magazine.
2. "Top 100 Largest Churches". Outreach Magazine.
   • This confirms the "30th fastest growing church in the USA and the 38th in size based on attendance of 10,334" facts - but it could be argued that this does not mean that the pastor of the church is notable as a result of this: if it was in the top 5 or top 10, then perhap.
3. "His Church Messages Reach As Many As 13,000". The Globe Leader newspaper.
   • This was a good article, and would qualify as a reliable source - but the criteria mention multiple sources, one isn't enough on its own - and the others don't "add up" to enough alongside this one - especially as the Globe Leader is a Community Newspaper (from what their own website says), and so would show that Merritt is notable on a local level, but not necessarily on a global scale
4. "ebc history". Eagle Brook Church.
   • This is not an independent source!
5. JEFF STRICKLER (July 19, 2008). "What makes a gigachurch go?". Star Tribune, Minneapolis St. Paul.
   • When I saw this, I though "A-ha! A major newspaper!"... however, when I read it, I saw it was about the church (which the article isn't about) and not about Merritt (which the article is about) - in fact the only mention of Merritt is "Eagle Brook's attendance explosion over the past decade occurred under its senior pastor, the Rev. Bob Merritt, who is on sabbatical this summer writing a book." I also note that there is a difference from Outlook magazine - they said it was the 38th largest in size, whereas the Star Tribune (also from 2008) says 58th.
6. "ChristianMingle Singles Ministries". Spark Networks.
   • This is about the church not about Merritt ("In 1991, Bob Merritt became senior pastor and brought with him a vision to reach people who are far from God and grow them in their faith." is what it says about Merritt)
7. "Accomplished Professional Instructors". Bethel Virtual Seminary.
   • This confirms that he is an instructor - but it's only a minor mention.

As you will gather, I don't just think "Oh, someone wants it deleted, I'll do it" - I look into the article's sources (and if there aren't any, I will do a Google News/Archive search). My intention is to keep articles which meet the criteria for inclusion (my preferred action) - but if an article does not meet the criteria for inclusion, then they should be deleted. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You checked very fast. The article was nominated at 16:37 and deleted at 16:38. The article makes it clear why its subject is significant: it does not qualify for A7 Speedy. Speedy should be used only for pages with no practical chance of surviving AfD discussion. This one clearly has an excellent chance of surviving. A Google search on "Bob Merritt" pastor gets 1,520 results. Given what this first version of the article says about the subject, it is likely that several of them confirm notability. This type of abrupt action may strongly discourage promising new editors. It is far better to drop a note on the creator's talk page explaining the problem and leave time for them to react. There is no urgency. In this case, I ask that you restore the article, and then if you choose place it in AfD. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, it was a quick check - I checked the 2 newspaper articles (as the most likely to be notable). The review of sources above (apart from the 2 newspaper articles) were from a look at them when you left your message here. I caught the SD nom probably as soon as it was done - hence the speed with which I dealt with it. However, I may have been a bit hasty, and so I will move the article back to article space. I will not consider putting it up at AfD yet - I will give chance for the article to be expanded with references from reliable, independent sources. However, I will look at it at a future date (it will be on my watchlist anyway!) and see how it is going. If it turns out that I was wrong to delete it, I apologise now - if I was wrong, then no long-term harm would have been done!

If there's anything I can help you with, do feel free to contact me -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I was impolite in the above. I have been on a run doing megachurches and their pastors, not sure why. We have nothing like that in my country but I can imagine the huge building, the mass choir, the pastor pounding out his message and the congregation joining in to praise the Lord. I will almost certainly never experience anything like that, but to me a massive building and organization like that seems almost certain to be notable and the person who made it happen is likely to be notable too. I admit that I did not carefully check for notability first, just saw a lot of hits on the name and assumed there would be plenty of material. Looking more carefully, I suspect this one is marginal: a lot of sources but mostly peripheral rather than discussing the subject himself. Harmless though. I may expand it a bit, but would not fight too hard in an AfD. I was annoyed at the Speedy, which I really think should be kept for the clearly hopeless cases. We are so short of new editors... Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

To be clear on why this is something I am personally concerned about, see User:Jomillsjo with whom I share an IP and the associated talk and edit history. An enthusiastic editor with unique knowledge starts an article, gets a slap in the face like this, and loses all interest in further contributions. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• There is no need to apologise! I understand your frustration - and that a new editor could be put off by having an article they create get speedily deleted. I try to check before deleting a nominated article (albeit a quick check, as I mentioned above) - but as a human, I'm going to make mistakes. Thankfully, there's usually someone who will let me know if I make a mistake! Of course, sometimes someone will contact me saying I shouldn't have deleted an article, and I disagree with their arguments for keeping - but I am open to the possibility. Each case is unique, and I try to treat them like that. Anyway, once again, thanks for contacting me - and feel free to contact me again if there is anything I can help you with -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this was a typo or test, but either way I don't think they got your message. :) Just happened to see it in the filter logs and wasn't sure if you caught it or not. ^Avic_ennasis @ 08:36, 12 Elul 5770 / 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Well spotted. I have deleted that page and moved the MfD notification to the proper page! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey could you help out with the Pending Changed Vote Commenting, User Off2riorob is not being co-operative and I would request that you deal with it since I don't want to engage in an edit war with him, thanks Ғяіᴅaз'§Đоом | Spare your time? 03:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind Fetchcomms has clarified the situation and I have apologised. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đоом | Spare your time? 04:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad it has been sorted! For future reference, I don't tend to be online between 2200-0700 UTC (and can't guarantee when/if I'll be online between 0700-2200!) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok, good luck with getting OS :) Consider me a tps :) Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Spare your time? 02:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I have just returned from vacation and see that you have removed the page referencing Desire2Learn. Can you please explain to me your reasonings/rationale? As a user of the software of this vendor I think it is important that they have a listing on Wikipedia -- just like other learning management system vendors. I attempted to address the previous concerns and sought out external, public, references (e.g., journals, online publications) to information regarding the statements made about the company. They are not, as was stated, self-referenceable. The citations/refernces were all from sites unassociated with Desire2Learn.

I look forward to your response.

Thank you!

WildWomenWin (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi WildWomenWin, thanks for contacting me. The reason that I deleted the article was because the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Desire2Learn was that it should be deleted. The article was listed for two weeks, and the nominator and one other editor said it should be deleted, and no one argued for keeping it.

I have just looked at the deleted article (as an admin, I can see deleted articles), and have found that the references are either from the company's own website (which is not independent), press releases (which are from the company) or from websites which do not meet Wikipedia's crtiteria for reliable sources.

Whether there were other learning management system vendors with articles on Wikipedia has no bearing on whether Desire2Learn has an article. It may be that some of the other companies' articles should be deleted (if they are not suitably referenced, or if they fail to show that the company meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for organisations or Wikipedia's general notability criteria) or that they meet the criteria for inclusion - in either case, that has nothing to do with Desire2Learn's article.

I trust that this explains why the article was deleted -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, on 11th August the article for this English footballer was deleted, because it should not have been created as at that time Halstead had not played a single professional game. However, this evening he makes his professional debut for Blackpool F.C. in a League Cup match, so rather than creating the article again, could you please, as the admin who deleted the article, restore it so that I can then update it? For information about his appearance see here - BFC site Thank you for yous assistance.--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As he has played (Sky Sports reported at 3 mins after kick off: "Direct free kick taken right-footed by Mark Halstead (Blackpool) from own half, resulting in open play.") I will restore the article now -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I need this article userfied, or whatever the term is. It can go here: User:GaryColemanFan/RD. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have userfied it to User:GaryColemanFan/R. D. Reynolds. Please note that I will be keeping an eye on this article, and if I do not see any work done to make it acceptable according to Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, I will re-delete it: user space is not a place to have articles which would otherwise be deleted. I have also re-protected R.D. Reynolds from re-creation: if you feel that the article is ready to be put into main space, let me know and I will look at it, and if I agree, I will move it to article space. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Phantomsteve! I saw somewhere that you're being considered for oversight authority. I was glad to learn of it, but I was wondering whether there was or is any opportunity for users to comment on your candidacy? If you could point me to such a page, I'd be grateful. Btw, however that process turns out, I just want to reiterate the gratitude I've expressed in the past for your tremendous support for the encyclopedia... Also, I think I remember reading previously, too, here on your talk page, that you have a new child in the family? My very best congratulations to you and your wife! Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you are too late to comment! The request for such comments was made on 16 August, and the 'closing date' was the 25th August. The announcement was made today that everyone who put themselves forward were accepted, and so my appointment as an Oversight volunteer begins on 1st September. Thanks for your congratulations on the birth of my son - I'm still over the moon 8 weeks later! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! as the iconic Homer Simpson is wont to say. Sorry I missed the opportunity to comment, but glad to hear the result! And congratulations again on your son; with you for a dad he'll be a good 'un, without a doubt! :-) Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus has emerged on the notability of state conventions of the SBC. Would you please restore the conventions you deleted? Thank you so very much. Please see talk concerning Alabama Baptist State Board of Missions.

Thank you! Toverton28 (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)toverton28

• AfDs last for 7 days - until the Alabama Baptist State Board of Missions AfD is closed as a keep, I will not restore the one I deleted. Contact me when the AfD has been closed, and we'll see from there! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Colorado Baptist General Convention (AfD discussion)

I've just Kerrrzapp!ed this, and Arizona has changed since you last looked at it. (So has Alabama. Aymatth2 has suggested a DYK nomination.) Uncle G (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Excellent work, Uncle G! I have amended my !vote. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey there! I noticed that you were interested in admin coaching. As you are a former coachee of Juliancolton (who I was with until he decided to take 'sabbatical' from coaching), I would be really interested in learning from you. Do you still have a spot open? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be honoured! I'm a bit busy at the moment, but on Monday or Tuesday, I'll set up a Coaching page, update the status on the Admin Coaching pages, and we'll get started! Enjoy the rest of the weekend -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I know you had a Coaching page with Julian, but I will start a new one - some of the questions I ask may be the same or similar, but it's useful for you to answer them without referring to what you wrote at User:Panyd/ADCO - I'll be able to see if anything's changed, without you being influenced by what you wrote before. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I really appreciate it. And no problem, I won't cheat I promise. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

How can F9 not apply and G12 does? Eeekster (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• My bad - I meant to click on the "F9 criteria" to delete, and clicked on "G12" by mistake (both say about copyright!). However, the end result is the same! Thanks for drawing my attention to it - it's one of those silly things, where I saw "copyright" on the drop-down list, and clicked it... call it being human! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Was just wondering since you left me a note about the change. Thanks Eeekster (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I use a script called the CSD Helper, which notifies the tagger if I delete using a different criteria than the one they tagged the article with! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

How was my page not fair use of the author's work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDTilley (talk • contribs) 23:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Fair_use#Text says Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. - the "Copyrighted text that is used verbatim..." bit refers to brief quotations. If you feel that the decision to delete was incorrect, you may bring it up at Deletion Review -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to write a good entry for the Darkside on the List of Transformers Spaceships page so you can redirect that page to it. Can I do so? Mathewignash (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me know when the List of Transformers spacecraft is more than just a list of spaceship names, with each ship having an entry rather than just a link to another article, and I'll userfy Darkside (Transformers). In my opinion, it makes no sense having a single link for each of the other spaceships, and then more detail on Darkside - each of the ships should have some content on that page, with {{Main|xxx}} linking to main articles for each ship, where such an article exists. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like the text of the Darkside page to work from, so I can pull the good bits from it and put them on the list page. Mathewignash (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

So your intention is that the list will be a list, apart from this one ship which will have detail? Either all the ships should have the "good bits" on the page, or the list should only include ships which have articles. Come back to me when you have expanded the list page - as I said in my closing statement: If someone wants to expand one of those, I'll happily userfy the article to enable the content to be merged to one of those! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just editing the Transformers Spaceship list page to start off giving all the ships a single sentence description. I had hoped that any merged/redirected ship could then have a larger description, where the ones that maintain their own article could just keep the single sentence and the link. Is that okay, or do you have a better idea? I'm open for ideas, as I still a bit new at this. Mathewignash (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, instead of a "list" page an article about spaceships in Transformers is possible. I'm not sure which would be more acceptable. Let me know. Mathewignash (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Is that a start? Mathewignash (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think what you've done there is good - although I feel that the amount of detail present is sufficient for Dark Side. Also, you might want to remove the "Main article" link for it, as there is no article! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Given that none of the Keep !votes gave a decent rationale, one of them (the IP) is almost certainly a sock of another, and the third said "or Merge", would you like to look at this close again? (I know it can just be nominated again, but...) Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 08:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at that again later today, when I get a chance to. If I haven't responded here by tomorrow, leave a message to remind me! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternate account of Phantomsteve]} 09:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If I can put set things straight, I am not guilty of using a sock puppet, however, I have done wrong by Wikipedia in another way. I was not familiar with deletion protocall for canvasing and I asked by brother in law, who works at the same company, to chime in on the deletions. I didn't know he would just go in on the company computer anonymously and vote to keep on a bunch of articles I voted on. The result was him voting with the same IP as some edits I have made from the same company (different computer, same IP). If there should be further disciplinary action against me, please contact me directly. I would like to thank the Deletion Rescue team for explaining the canvasing rules to me so I won't violate them any further. Sorry for any trouble I caused Mathewignash (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not on my computer at the mo, so I'll look into this later. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternate account of Phantomsteve]} 14:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for a sanction against Mathew now that he knows what he did wrong; however the !votes in those AfDs, of course, should be discounted (I'll strike any that are still open). Black Kite (t) (c) 14:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• I agree about the lack of need for sanctions. However, I have reversed the close, and closed as 'delete'. Mathewihnash, you are welcome to expand the 'Nemesis' entry on the list, and remove the link to the main article, as there now is no main article! Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Since there are lots of links to the now deleted Nemesis (Transformers) and Darkside (Transformers), can we put redirects on those pages to the list I started? Mathewignash (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, there were a lot of links! I have now created the Nemesis/Darkside as redirects to the list, to make the links blue -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Nemesis had over 250 links to it's page. Possibly a vote in favor of it's notability, but I guess that debate is closed. Mathewignash (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's actually a lot less than that, because every page that has the Transformers template at the bottom was shown as linked to it, even if they didn't link in the actual article. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; but please be advised that this is not necessary in the future. I have a self-improvement habit of checking if the pages I tagged were deleted and for what reasons so that I can learn from mistakes in the future. Thanks again, Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• I use CSD Helper, which automatically notifies taggers of a change in deletion criteria (well, in those cases where it can work out the tagger, sometimes it can't for some reason!) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

hello, Talk:Antoine_Dodson says the result of the discussion was to keep, but it currently links to the 1st discussion which was to delete. i thought you could fix this. thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Sorted! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)