This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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)
Merge decision for Redefinition of meter in 1983
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
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)
Relisting
Just a note concerning your relist on
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)
Global Action Through Fashion
Please stop deleting this page. It is the only non-profit community actor promoting the space of ethical/sustainable fashion.
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)
RE: Altered CSD.
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)
Hello, Phantomsteve. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
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)
Restoring the Gualtiero Piccinini page
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:
That there has been coverage of Piccinini at independent sources (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:
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)
Many of Piccinini’s papers on several topics are frequently cited or discussed in the scholarly literature
See previous point
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.")
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")
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
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"
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.
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
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)
Deletion of CAOT Article
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
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)
Church of the Week (band)
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!
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:
Wikipedia's general guidelines for notability
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
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