Jump to content

User talk:Phantomsteve

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Smikect (talk | contribs) at 11:32, 29 September 2010 (→44 Parachute Brigade). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


This user helped get the article Gilbert Thomas Carter to Good Article status. This user helped get the article William Stanley (Victorian inventor) to Good Article status. This user either created or expanded the article Gilbert Thomas Carter and got it a DYK.
This user is listed as a Highly Active User. This user uses the name Phantomsteve on IRC. This user can be contacted through Wikipedia's 'email user' function. This user has a Global Account. This user is an admin on the English Wikipedia. This user is the owner of an alternative Wikipedia account (Phantomsteve.alt) in a manner permitted by policy.
Due to work and family commitments, as well as stuff I want to do in the real world (working on my family tree, sorting out my own websites, etc), I won't be on Wikipedia as much as I used to! I hope to get onto Wikipedia most days (even if it is using my mobile phone and my alternative account Phantomsteve.alt.) However, there may be times when I can't get online. Please leave me a message and I will get back to you as soon as I can - and don't be offended if another editor who watches this page replies!

User talk
  • 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!


vn-61This user talk page has been vandalized 61 times.

Kuzari Principle, deletion review pre-requirement

Hi Phantomsteve: This notification is in keeping with Wikipedia:Deletion review#Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions by discussing this with the closing admin, in this case you, with regards to your recent decision to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuzari Principle over-riding the consensus of a 5 to 4 to Keep. You are kindly requested to reconsider and re-instate the article because you "interpreted the debate incorrectly" and I "have some significant new information pertaining to the debate". Once you were going to ignore the majority WP:CONSENSUS of the 5 users who voted Keep, a radical move in itself, you could have merged it with the author's WP:BIO at Dovid Gottlieb or at The Kuzari article. The reasons that were cited to Keep the article were within WP guidelines, for example, the author, Rabbi Dr. Dovid Gottlieb is a notable academic, had been a professor of philosophy at Johns Hopkins University, and is currently a senior lecturer at Ohr Somayach, Jerusalem a mainstream famous yeshiva with a global network for secular Jewish intellectuals exploring traditional Judaism, known as Category:Ohr Somayach part of a global movement pertaining to Category:Orthodox Jewish outreach. The Kuzari Principle is noted on the official Ohr Somayach website, the equivalent of a professor's lectures and research being posted on a university web site, see 6. Revelation and Miracles - The Kuzari Principle divided into 5 lengthy sections. Similar work has been welcomed and posted on many related sites such as Talk Reason: The Kuzari – The Principle and the Formalism that it's not just Gottlieb's "POV" or "OR"; and a few more like this. The point being that this is key source material without which some of the key intellectual approaches in the Baal teshuva movement are removed. Without elaborating even more, it is respectfully requested that you either merge and redirect all the material that you deleted to the Dovid Gottlieb page, that would at least give the Dovid Gottlieb page the depth it deserves as a mark of his Jewish scholarship, or please relist the article as such, so that the next step of WP:DRV be obviated. Thank you, 05:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IZAK (talk • contribs) 05:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contacting me, IZAK. Firstly, as I indicated in the closure, numerically the figures were 5 keeps and 4 deletes. However, AfD is not a vote. I looked at the arguments presented (and I should note that Jayrav did not leave a !vote, but a comment - although you suggested that it be counted as a keep - in fact, reading through it, you could count is as a "merge" rather than a keep, but that is by the by. Let's look at the 'keeps':
  1. Jayray - it could be argued (as I have said) that this is in fact a merge rather than keep
  2. Noodleki - said it was "a fundamental argument for the truth of Judaism and acore tenet of faith", but with no evidence of this (and this was argued against in the following comment)
  3. Holoner - argued that the article is based on Gottlieb's work - but it should be noted that although Gottlieb has had work published, this particular work was published at lulu.com, which is basically a self-published work, and so not counted as a reliable source (I also noticed that Holoner has only made one edit in the last 2+ years which was not connected with this AfD, and that the edits to this AfD were their first contribution in almost a month, so I question how this editor just happened to stumble upon this discussion - especially as they have not contributed to any Judaism-related articles since 2007, and has never taken part in an AfD before in any of their 12 edits.
  4. Joe407 - probably the most elequent argument in favour of keeping the article, but the fact that this editors suggests that an alternate name may be better, but is unable to provide such a name - or reliable sources which mention the principle using that name - in my mind causes me to question the validity of that argument in this case
  5. IZAK - as Dougweller points out, the sources are not reliable (self-published books don't meet the criteria), and there is a question of the element of OR in the article.
In summary, I felt that the consensus was more heavily in favour of the 'delete's:
  1. Dougweller - nominator - notability not established, as the sources are not counted as reliable sources (self-published works, author's website, blogs)
  2. DreamGuy - non-notable (basically in agreement with nominator)
  3. Edward321 - if it was indeed "Fundamental arguments" and "core tenets of faith", then there should be RS which verify this: there aren't so, it does not meet notability
  4. LuckyLouie - non-notable, "somewhere between WP:OR and WP:ESSAY"
If you feel that I misrepresented the consensus in this case (although I have to remind you again that it is not a vote), then please take the AfD to Deletion Review - although you should remember that that is not a place to re-argue the case for deletion/retention, but for discussing the closure itself, and whether or not that met the consensus shown in the discussion -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phantonsteve: I greatly appreciate the feedback. I am well aware that WP is "not a democracy" -- on the other hand WP is an encyclopedia that is in the process of being created and as such input from expert editors, meaning editors who have shown a consistent knowledge in their fields of editing over a long time and are respected as such by their peers play a vital role in contributing and assessing material and its use in an encyclopedia such as WP. Sometimes, as in this case, a very important topic comes up, and while on purely technical grounds it may be nominated for deletion, yet doing so impoverishes WP and removes a valid field of knowledge from it. In this case a majority of editors, mostly known entities in WP:JUDAISM voted to keep (Jayrav obviously wants to keep it or he needs to clarify his intentions with his work on it before the nominator came along, as there is a history to this), while a minority of editors who do not participate in Judaic topics voted to delete. There is a problem with that. The topic is one of Jewish philosophy and how it is being presented by a leading Jewish thinker, rabbi and professor. It is drawn from the work of one of Judaism's classical medieval rabbis, Yehudah Halevi from his classical work The Kuzari. The AfD left out much pertinent information about the WP:NOTABLE of the author of this new-old principle, such as I have mentioned above, yet it does seem very arbitrary that one the one hand you apply WP policies, but at the same time you ignore the key WP policy of WP:CONSENSUS of the majority by choosing to heed the minority over the majority's reasoning which is just as important as the seeming lawyering to dump this article. At a minimum, may I request that, since in any case you over-ruled a majority, that you at least respect them in some way by merging the article into that of it's author Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb because it makes no sense that WP has a WP:BIO about him, but tosses out his key work and what makes him notable. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I will not be merging the content with Dovid Gottlieb, as there is currently no mention of this "key work" on that article (other than a mention of Living up to the Truth in the list of his books) - and as such, I believe that merging the content would give undue weight. Also, although Gottlieb may or may not be considered an 'expert' in this area, the article itself was about the principle, which is a line of philosophic reasoning derived from the medieval work Kuzari - the article did not say that it was just the work of Gottlieb or that he is recognised as someone who is widely recognised as being a modern expert in it, and indeed the article only had two short mentions of Gottlieb: the first was 'a modern statement of the Kazuri principle' (referenced from 'Living up to the Truth', published by lulu.com, which makes it a self-published book) and the second was referenced to his website (again, self-published). Neither of these would meet WP:RS. I do not believe that I chose to "ignore the key WP policy of WP:CONSENSUS of the majority by choosing to heed the minority over the majority's reasoning" - consensus and majority are not synonymous. If you believe that I was incorrect in my closure, then please take this to Deletion Review - other than that, I believe that on this subject we have nothing further to discuss -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The move to take it to WP:DRV will need to wait after the upcoming Jewish holidays of Sukkot are concluded in about two weeks time, as most Judaic editors are pre-occupied with that as well. Thanks again for your honesty and feedback. Most sincerely, IZAK (talk) 07:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that you have a good Sukkot. When it is listed at DRV, I'd be grateful if you would leave a message here (this thread would have been archived by then). Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bubba73test2

Hello, Phantomsteve. You have new messages at Bubba73's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bubba73 (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

Hi! Could you semi-protect my userpage? Dont see why anyone should edit it. It has not been vandalized too many times, but still. Thanks. Evalowyn (talk) 07:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(puts on best Yul Brynner voice): "So let it be written. So let it be done." -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :D Evalowyn (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve :)

Hi. How're you doing? Wanted your action on this user's request for deleted contents. I generally have never provided deleted contents; so would not wish to do it right now. Thanks Steve. Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that Excirial has done the necessary! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) See you later. Wifione ....... Leave a message 15:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of User:ParaBde44

Hi

Can you please remove the block for ParaBde44. I have discussed the issue with him and he was trying to create a place to sandbox a Wiki article for the 44 Parachute Brigade, there already is an article for the Regiment. If I look at the article although not done properly at least has references and a bit more structure. The 44 Brigade does have particular historical significance to the South African military.

So can you unlock the account and he can get someone like one of the people from the other article and him to improve both articles.

Kind Regards

Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nibuod (talk • contribs) 18:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urutur Catholics

HI Phantom, this is a gentle reminder that i have put my comments/concerns in My Talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C9VReddy (talk • contribs) 04:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Jonathan Doria Pamphilj

Why did you delete this article? As far as I can see no consensus or agreement was reached to delete. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Contaldo80, thanks for contacting me. I judged the consensus based on the fact that the nominator presented several arguments for deletion, gave a clear "delete" argument, and although it did not strongly influence me, Marlow59 also suggested deletion (the fact that that editor only had 3 edits before this is why it was not a strong influence); In contrast with this, you said that it should be kept, but your arguments seemed (to me) to be effectively counteracted by Cindamuse), and Andrew Duffell said to keep, but with no arguments at all (and so it was not a strong influence on my decision). Overall I judged the consensus was to delete.
If you feel that I misjudged the consensus, you are welcome to take the closure to Deletion Review (DRV) - but bear in mind that DRV is not a venue to re-hash the arguments, but to discuss whether I correctly closed the discussion with the arguments presented.
I understand that you are not happy with the decision, but I do feel that it was the correct one with the arguments presented. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't agree with this. In my mind Cindamuse has not effectively counteracted my arguments, and no-one has convincingly put forward an argument that the subject is not-notable (bearing in mind fairly extensive media coverage). Going through Deletion Review seems to me a hassle I would rather have avoided. Both Cindamuse and Favonian have declared an interested in peerage, and the suggestion seems to have been made the JDP is not a legitimate heir because he has been adopted. That seems to be driving views on the articles' suitability rather than directly addressing notability criteria. If this is an issue then it could have been best dealt with by adding a sentence to the article setting out concerns over official titles. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you don't agree with what I thought, but at the end of the day you have two choices: you can either accept that the article was deleted and move on or if (as you obviously do) you feel that my closure was incorrect, you need to take this to Deletion Review. I am not going to change my thinking, as I still agree with the thinking I have explained above. As far as I am concerned, that is the end of the matter, unless you do decide to take this to DRV. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Many thanks Phantomsteve, I'm so glad I can actually talk to you now :) I will be changing my name shortly ParaBde44 (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New information for "Singapore International Energy Week" Wiki entry

Hi Steve, Hope all's been great!

Just like to check in with you if it'd considered promotional if I listed some of the ministers attending the Singapore Energy Summit. Thought of listing only the ministers in case people wanted to better understand which key delegates are attending.

Happy to hear your thoughts on this.


Matthew.lim (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matthew, it's good to hear from you again! I'd say that it would be OK to add those details if they can be sourced to an independent source (e.g. a newspaper) - if the only source is the SIEW's own website (or one of the organisors' websites) then you shouldn't add it. This is the kind of information which is generally better off being added after the event. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

44 Parachute Brigade

Hi Steve,

I am making progress with the article I am creating on 44 Parachute Brigade. I notice in my last save the article was deleted by yourself due to the fact that there were copyrite infringements cited as a possibility. (I have requested that it be recreated by ticking this option)

Please note that I have permission from all the authors listed within my Bibliography to use extracts from their works which they forwarded to me. I have taken each piece and 'sewn' it together to make an evenly flowing account of history of the Brigade as there are many units within this Brigade.

I ask you to please bare with me on this one being a first time user I'm trying to format it and tidy up the content so that it resembles a factual historical account. Any suggestions from yourself will also be appreciated.

My intention is to eventually add pictures and also submit it within the category "Brigades of South Africa" on Wikipedia

I beg your patience as I make this journey

kind regards

ParaBde44 (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smikect. Firstly, your signature has "ParaBde44" - could you please remove that, as it implies that you have an official capacity representing them.
Secondly, as the article used extracts from copyrighted material, it cannot be restored.
Thirdly, saying you have permission to use extracts is not sufficient. Please read WP:IOWN which explains how the authors can officially inform Wikipedia of this fact. Even if you do get these permissions sent to Wikipedia, we would still prefer that the article be in your own words.
You might want to read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide#Units_and_formations which talks about notability of units and formations.
Please do not re-create the article with the extracts, unless permission has been received by Wikipedia, and an OTRS ticket number has been issued. If you do so, you will be risking being blocked for disruptive editing, which I really do not want to happen - I'd rather you were able to create an article which would meet Wikipedia's standards and expectations.
Have you considered writing a book rather than a Wikipedia article? If you have the permission to reuse the extracts, then you'd have no problems with copyright (you'd be able to show the written permission to your publisher) - we can't accept scans of any such letter here at Wikipedia, we'd need to hear directly from the authors themselves.
If there is anything else I can help with, please feel free to contact me. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Steve,

Thanks for the advice. I have changed my Signature and learning in the process thanks

1. I will read up on the links you have provided and approach the sources for their permission 2. Once this is done I will attempt to re-write the entire content in my own words if possible (There are large areas on the content under the individual units within 44 which does not already exist on Wiki and this may not be able to be re-phrased or written as it is a factual record i.e. The officer in Command of a certain unit and the dates they served)- I'd like your views on this if possible 3. In the mean while I dont seem to be able to view what has been formatted and created anymore, can you refer me to a link? 4. Lastly, what is the filtering criteria that wiki uses when checking copyrite? Does it scan sentances and check for duplication accross other Wiki pages? Please orientate me towards this logic so that I am aware of how I need to edit so as not to infringe copyright

many thanks and I hope my new signature is correct Smikect 10:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smikect (talk • contribs)

Thanks for changing the signature! Responses to your individual points follow:
  1. The copyright owners (that is generally the author, or their estate if they are dead) need to contact Wikipedia directly (see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials which explains what it means to donate material to Wikipedia, which has important notes such as If you are the original author but the rights have been assigned to your publisher, you have given up the ability to license the work to us.). Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission explains how to get the permission - and again gives useful information such as The main legal issue that is important to explain to potential contributors: they would be agreeing that their material can be used freely by Wikipedia AND its downstream users, and that such use might include commercial use, for which the contributor is not entitled to royalties or compensation.
  2. Obviously, certain things cannot be re-worded ("Colonel John Q. Greed was the Commanding Officer from 1902 until 1905", for example). But the majority of the text should be in your own words.
  3. As the text was deleted as a copyright infringement, I cannot give you a link to see it - only an admin can see deleted text. If it was not a copyright infringement, I'd be able to send you a copy, but we are not allowed to do so with copyrighted material.
  4. Copyright checking is of two varieties:
    1. There are some bots which check content against other website contents, and if they find a copy, they flag it as a copyright violation
    2. Editors see the content, and find it is using copyrighted material. To be honest, often it is painfully obvious that content has been copied from somewhere, and it is just a case of finding out where!
Again, I would refer you to WikiProject Military History's notability guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide#Units_and_formations. I would particularly point you towards this: As a general rule, sub-units that exist below the level of those formations listed above—such as sections, platoons, troops, batteries, companies, and flights—are not intrinsically notable. Such information as can be suitably sourced should normally be included, with appropriate focus, in an article about a notable parent formation.[1] Rarely, some sub-units will meet Wikipedia's general notability requirements. These however will be exceptional cases, such as E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States), which is notable because it was the subject of a best-selling and detailed book and TV miniseries.
Again, contact me with any questions - oh, and replied are normally inserted below the last comment in the discussion, not further up the page! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Steve,

Many thanks for your patience, it's alot for me to take in and I'm learning. I will go through all your recommendations and read up and proceed step by step with getting the content authorised by the individual authors. I can show them a copy of the trail of our correspondence as reference. I have volunteered on behalf of a group of about 5 key stakeholders to put this content together (including senior officers of the former unit, authors, writers etc) and will need to report back to this group of the current status, but I would have liked to have shown them my progress before my last edit was blocked and deleted by an admin. It is for this reason that I asked you if I couldnt get a copy or view a copy of my last edit just to give them a feeling of the challenges in making this Wiki a reality. It would be great if you could assist me in this respect

kind regards Smikect 11:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Precedents were set for this in deletion discussions here and here, where it was held that information contained in such articles should be merged with the units' parent formations.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Phantomsteve&oldid=387706793"