Wikipedia

User talk:Peridon/Archives/2013/January

< User talk:Peridon
Latest comment: 11 years ago by EdwardsBot in topic The Signpost: 28 January 2013

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Metcalfe's

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Hello

I recognized that you have deleted my article about Metcalfe's Food Company. To your reasons I have to say the following:

"Unambiguous advertising or promotion": I just described what the Company does. No advertising, no promotion. Pleas activate the article again. Regards sgarcia113 (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgarcia113 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, no can do. It is what we call a copyright violation. Text that is already published may not be brought into Wikipedia unless it is licensed under CC-BY-SA - please see WP:COPYRIGHT (or WP:COPYVIO if that wasn't the right one). In addition, the article failed to show the notability of the company under WP:CORP and had no reliable independent sources WP:RS. You could license the text, but a rewrite would be safer. For advice, see any of the three Users I list in the post below this. They're all good at advising newcomers and rescuing things. BTW please sign talk page posts with four ~ things. That puts a proper datestamp up. Peridon (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there

It is now no longer a copyright infringement. The owners of Company have confirmed to permissions@wikimedia.org that Metcalfe's Food Company Ltd is the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of www.metcalfesfood.com and they are happy to grant anyone to use the work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0".

Please can you now reinstate the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgarcia113 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

We did get usable permission, and so I've added the appropriate OTRS tag to the talk page of the userfied article. As it has been previously deleted more than once for additional reasons above and beyond the copyright situation I have not moved it back to mainspace. It should probably be reviewed for promotional language and have additional sources before it is replaced or else it may be deleted again. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming the above. I have tried to reinstate the page but wikipedia is not allowing me to do this. Can you please go ahead and do this for me? Thanks sgarcia113 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgarcia113 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's not ready to go live yet. Until the wording is checked to avoid any hint of promotion, and more references are added, it's likely to get tagged again. Merely being licensed doesn't make something fit to use. This is why I usually recommend people to rewrite rather than license. The editors I've recommended you to contact are good at this sort of thing, and they'll have it up and running in no time. When one of them gives the go-ahead, either she'll move it to main space, or I'll do it if she doesn't like moving things. (One doesn't...) Peridon (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
You don't need a copy on your user page, by the way. It's at User:Sgarcia113/Metcalfe's Food Company and that's where it should be because that's where the permission thing is. On your user page, it's likely to be tagged for copyvio without anyone knowing about the permission. I'd advise blanking the user page and leaving the user space one linked here as the working version. Peridon (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you please send me a list of editors I can contact to look at how we can change the page so it can then be submitted? Thanks sgarcia113 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgarcia113 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The ones I usually recommend are User:MelanieN, User:Tokyogirl79 or User:Cindamuse - all good at the job. BTW please sign talk page posts with four ~ things. It puts the time/datestamp on with your name. Keeps things tidy. Peridon (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Belated Happy New Year with a Toast!

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
float

Here's a toast to the host
Of those who edit wiki near and far,
To a friend we send a message, "keep the data up to par".
We drink to those who wrote a lot of prose,
And then they whacked a vandal several dozen blows.
A toast to the host of those who boast, the Wikipedians!
- From {{subst:TheGeneralUser}}

 

~TheGeneralUser (talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!


Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at ~~~~~
 


~TheGeneralUser (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

A Very Happy (belated) New Year to you Peridon! Enjoy the Whisky   ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Being on antibiotics I shouldn't really, but in my current state of health (drip, drip) to heck with it (glug...). Thanks, and all the best to you too. Peridon (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Aire Athletic FC

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, You recently deleted an entire page that i created for our local football team. The reason given, that it was in breach of copyright, yet you failed to disclose what or who's copyright. I did not find a way to correct the issue, so the problem remains. Please, rather than deleting articles, give answers/help of what we can do to list the club on Wikipedia. Myself, and the rest of the team are very disappointed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AireAthletic (talk • contribs) 19:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Answered by nosy passing admin on your talk page. Peridon (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Copied-over comment: It was deleted as a copyvio of http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/aireathleticfc/a/club-history-26992.html which appears to be now unavailable. This does happen. Web pages we want to check back on disappear overnight sometimes, like this one has. Creation would have been declined later anyway, as Sunday League clubs don't meet our standards of notability. Clubs that are professional or which have been professional do meet our requirements. Sorry about that, but we don't and can't list everything here. This is an encyclopaedia, not a directory or free webspace. We are free to edit, but we also have rules and one is that if text has been published somewhere, it cannot be brought into Wikipedia (even if you wrote it) because it is copyright and we are freely licensed for anyone anywhere to use our stuff. Your text isn't free to use. Even if you licensed it, the club isn't notable enough by our standards. When you get into the professional leagues, OK, but not before. Peridon (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, much appreciated. That is one less reply in the "Remember to explain" queue. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, and and for the "Not available", that was actually quite amusing. It pretty much sums up as "Excirial: Tag the page after finding a (working) copyvio" => "Editor: Ask why" => "Editor: Posts a new version" => "Initial copyvio page suddenly 404's, though the old version was still entirely cached by Google". In short, i believe someone deleted it right after. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad I'm not the only one it happens to... Peridon (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Indef block for IP address 208.80.222.66

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello mate - thanks for helping with the IP unblocking. I just wanted to give one of the admins some quick info in order to maybe fix the current vandalism from this problematic IP.

First - The IP address in question, User talk:208.80.222.66, is the IP of my high school in Houston, Texas, United States. Every student (about 600+ overall) has their own laptop in which to access the Internet, and all users are tied to this single IP. Since I am a full time student, I make most of my edits on Wikipedia between classes, so an IP block can cause obvious problems. Once again, thank you for exempting me from the IP block. (By the way, I know there is some sort of template to allow for users to designate the account as a School IP, could I be directed to that so I can add it?)

Second - Being in attendance at this school, I know the particular person causing the majority of the problems on this IP. This same person also created User:PakistanSucks, which was the reason for the block. Later today, this same user also created User:Pakiblows following the block of the previous account. This user will most likely make more sockpuppets in the future following these blocks.

I hope this background on the matter helps in solving this problem in the future. I will be patrolling User talk:208.80.222.66 during the day and will revert any other vandalism I see on the IP. If you need any more information on this matter, please feel free to drop a line on my talk page. Cheers, Freebirdthemonk Howdy! 23:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In practice, quite a lot of school IPs are blocked more or less permanently. This is because of the anonymous vandalism from them. As soon as one block finishes, some stupid young person starts it all off again. This autoblock happened because your fellow student used accounts, and the blocking admin ticked the block IP box (or rather, left it ticked - it's the default). In my usual area of CSD and spam, I usually untick unless I suspect a multiple spammer or an SEO outfit. In vandalism, I leave the tick on. When the IP is blocked directly, registered accounts can usually edit without problems - but have to be created elsewhere. Salvio could give details of the school template, I would think. He's more in that sort of area than I am. Don't neglect your school work, and there's a nice little bot that will archive your talk page if you want it. Its home is at User:MiszaBot III and it will put things away after they've not been added to for however many days. Saves time. (A very kind person sorts mine out into months for me, for which I am very grateful.) Twinkle is handy too. Saves a lot of time when warning people or tagging things. Peridon (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and for telling me about MiszaBot III. Archiving talk pages all the time manually takes up way too much time. Cheers, Freebirdthemonk Howdy! 12:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nizar alkhatib

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey Peridon; just a quick question. I saw your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nizar alkhatib where you wrote "Prod has been declined, otherwise I'd have put a CSD tag on this." Does a declined PROD preclude speedy deletion? Or did you just decide an AfD would be more appropriate? I'm just curious; trying to learn more about deletion reasons and things. Thanks! —Noiratsi (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Like some others, I usually work in the order CSD, prod, AfD. There's no official thing that says something with a declined prod can't be CSDed. I'm not sure why it was prodded instead of CSD, unless the tagger thought there was a claim to significance - as opposed to the prod reason he chose - notability. The article could be regarded as claiming significance, but there's no proof (so prod blp can be applied anyway), but I don't think there's notability. Hence AfD. You can try a CSD if you like - might well work. Depends on the interpretation by the reviewing admin. Shouldn't really, but then again, when you look at how many different ways there are of interpreting contracts and religious texts, it's perhaps not surprising. Peridon (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of pages about JpLAM

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there, I am not fully sure if this is the right page to be posting this on. But I have been trying to add a page for Jp LAM which keeps getting deleted under the 'advertising or promoting' clause. I am new to wikipedia, and trying hard to understand the do's and don'ts, and trying to make it unbiased and factual, can you highlight which bits don't conform to this? Thanks. EmmaB05 (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

To be blunt, the whole thing doesn't fit. It's a lovely example of how not to. Please read WP:SPAM about promotion, and WP:NPOV about neutral point of view (either you work in a promotional place or you've been copying from one...) to see why we're deleting. We don't allow any advertising on Wikipedia, and we don't make a distinction between intentional advertising and good faith mistaken wording when it comes to the delete tag and button. (We do tend to be more polite if we feel there is a desire to create an article rather than coming here purely to advertise something...) Then there is another question too. We not only delete articles that look promotional. We insist on notability in our subjects. This means good coverage in reliable independent sources WP:RS to prove the notability claimed under whatever policy applies - here it could be WP:BIO or WP:CORP. 'Mentions' only show existence. (If we can't find 'existence' at all, we go for 'hoax' quite often...) Coverage means things written about, not written by. It excludes those 'interviews' where the magazine sends a list of questions to the CEO, he/she crosses out some and sends them to the PR dept, who send them back to the mag who correct the spelling and publish it. Not reliable, and not independent. Those of us who specialise in the deletion area (like me, NawlinWiki, JohnCD and others) can spot this sort of thing. Also no good are things like 'Also seen at the Fishwives' and Junior Curates' Annual Ball were Joe Bloggs, Kara-Lynn Scrankie and Teddy 'Haddock' Flatts-Pinn.' The Ball is a (fictional) event patronised by High Society. Being merely a name in a list counts for nothing even there. Read the policies, have a think, do some Googling, have another think. Then compile a list of what you think are good refs. Put them at User:EmmaB05/DRAFT. Then make a totally factual, totally unexciting (in fact, boring) list of Mr Lam's achievements. Finally, contact User:Tokyogirl79 or User:MelanieN. Both like rescuing articles. I can't restore your earlier stuff - it would be tagged as soon as it appeared. It's a rewrite or nothing. OK? Ask (me or them) if still unsure. Peridon (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hyderabad Kalibari

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Don't feel bad about it, it wasn't my original tag. I found the article already tagged and deleted it, possibly without adequate reason. An editor requested undeletion and, as I had been a little uncertain anyway I was happy to oblige, but left the tag in position. The software identifies me as the editor because of this sequence. Perhaps remiss of me, but I have not patrolled for 2 or 3 years.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 10:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Zdenko Vinski

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

OK, good to know. Yes, please if you can, move it to my user space. Thank you! With regards --Eversman (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it doesn't need it now - it's been improved... Peridon (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Peridon. I am Miha. You send me a message about one Fijian god. I am grateful to you because of finding sources.--Miha (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
AfD isn't really for getting articles rescued - I've been told off for doing that before. I don't care. If it's the surest way to get a problem noticed, I'll do it. And it does work at times. (The other cases should have gone and did go...) Peridon (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion



Hi, Peridon!

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I am Xanxari en.!

Possibly review article for the Academy of Universal Global Peace!

Respectfully — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanxari en. (talk • contribs) 17:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

My comments are already on your talk page. I would suggest making a new draft in your user space, taking care to avoid sounding promotional, with good referencing in reliable independent sources. These must talk about the subject and not just be mere mentions, blogs or list entries. See WP:RS. Peridon (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
See also 'Speedy deletion of pages about JpLAM' above. Yours wasn't as promo sounding as that was, but a lot of my remarks apply generally. Also note the two editors I refer to who are good at article rescue and referencing. (If they weren't really good, I wouldn't recommend them.) Peridon (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


Honored Peridon

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I really don't understand your attitude! If in my article there was any irrelevant laudatory word about Madhu Krishan, praise does no harm to anyone, not even Wikipedia, but rephrasing a personality with these lines that he has left for his figure in encyclopedia, a user insults the personality and the encyclopedia as well. Can you explain to me where has Bharathiya met Madhu Krishan for whom he says that he has stated that he is related to unaccredited activities, which means illegal, etc. So this is the portrait that he has invented about Madhu Krishan, the portrait of a forger and for this it is him who should be punished and not me for saying a few more beautiful words. If you take him under your protection it is your choice, but you are making the wrong choice. If you punish me for raising my voice in defense of Wikipedia, I am telling you that you are wrong. I am one of the best journalists in Balkans and I am not afraid to raise my voice. This is how I have learned to win for peace against violence... I expect you to react as administrator, to remove the untruth from the article. I am not contrary the editorship of articles according to the principles of Wikipedia, but the deterioration by an Indian anonymous against an Indian figure who stands beside the figure of Gandhi, as well as Martin Luther King, Mandela, or Ibrahim Rugova of Kosovo. I wrote to you with politeness to denounce a vandalism and I expect your courtesy and not a threat for blocking.

He is the chairman of "Snahalaya Ashram"[2], an NGO and christian missionary in the Andaman Nicobar Islands of India. He is also the founder and chairman of an NGO called "Academy of Universal Global Peace". The Academy offers unaccredited Honorary Doctorate & Theology Degrees to various persons.[3] He is also the Asian President of Power Ministries International Inc., USA.[4] He also claims to be associated with several unaccredited and unrecognized organizations around the globe.[5] He also claims to have received awards and medals from various unrecognized NGO's that are known to be commercial or for profit.[6]

With these few lines it rephrased the protrait of a personality as Dr. Madhu Krishan, who is being promoted by a person from Balkans and is being vandalized by an anonymous from India. I will be waiting for your positive reaction.

Sincerely, Xanxari en. (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If you don't withdraw that remark about going to court, I will block you from editing until you do withdraw it. If there is anything in the article that is untrue, please produce acceptable evidence that it is untrue. No article on Wikipedia should contain wording such as you seem to think was fit - please read WP:NPOV. Bharathiya is not 'under my protection' - that is not how Wikipedia works. He is an independent editor and subject to the rules as is everyone here. There is no vandalism that I can see, but there is a content dispute between one who seems to adhere to NPOV and one who seems to have a conflict of interest WP:COI. My interest in the matter is the good of the project that is Wikipedia. And Wikipedia is not a place for anyone or anything to be "promoted by a person from Balkans" or indeed a person from anywhere else. The location of an editor is totally irrelevant. What is important is their ability to take a neutral view. Peridon (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

For Madhu Krishan

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Honored Administrator Peridon, It is known by everyone that Wikipedia at present is the most powerful media of internet. That is why it has created a wide network of professional, dignified and honest collaborators. By looking at the giant work and the great values that are reflected in Wikipedia, I became as well one of its collaborators. For several years I have been collaborating and to tell the truth for the first time I really feel extremely shocked and offended when I see how the article about Dr. Madhu Krishan has been vandalized by an Indian user so-called Bharathiya. It is obvious that he has interfered maliciously through transfiguring the article and transforming it in an unworthy defamation for a great personality such as Dr. Dr. Madhu Krishan who has been devoted to peace his entire life. The article of Bharathiya about Dr. Madhu Krishan is the best example, the best model of vandalism, violence against people who are committed to the work. It is a pure terrorist act. Violence and psychological terror against a personality for peace. With this act, Bharathiya shows that he is against peace. I do not believe that these kind of people should belong among the ranks of the collaborators of Wikipedia. According to me, he should be removed immediately from the ranks of Wikipedia. Please, interfere so that the article is returned in its previous state. It would be a very human, wise and professional act by you to return the article in its previous state. Otherwise, it is obvious that Wikipedia is turning into a weapon in the hands of terrorists to terrorize the eminent personalities who are devoted to work and peace. If we refer to the researches on Google, there so much information which shows that this personality works with accredited that you can write entire books. Why not refer to the lawful information about this personality instead of letting anonymous people as Bharathiya to misinform the public opinion? We hope on your professional intervention. Sincerely,

--Xanxari en. —Preceding undated comment added 10:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I am an anonymous person on Wikipedia too, as are you. The last version of that article that you edited was distinctly promotional in tone, and Bharathiya has taken the article to a neutral view of the subject. At Wikipedia, we should not be either for or against peace, war, Christianity, Islam, Milwall Football Club, hamsters, carrots or any thing or person. This is an encyclopaedia, and whatever we believe in or hate has to be left behind hanging up in a cupboard while we edit. I may be wrong, but I feel that you have an interest in promoting Madhu Krishan and his doings, and that you should perhaps at present stick to producing reliable independent evidence that the article is currently not correct, and letting me or another admin see the evidence. What Bharathiya removed was undoubtedly what we call 'peacock' writing, which is not what an encyclopaedia is for. At somewhere like Facebook or LinkedIn, yes, it is acceptable. Here, no. Peridon (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Please see your talk page for my response to a remark of yours on Bharathiya's talk page. Peridon (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Further to your request on my talk page (answered there) although the legal threat is perhaps less realistic than some, he has made it twice, and therefore in my view a block is justified; I have applied one, with explanation and sole condition for unblock. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

OK!, Thank you! Long live to the vandalism of Bharathiya! This issue with you dear heroes will be resolved by Jimmy Wales or International Court. Remember that Facebook has lost the trial in front of the honest citizen!... Xanxari en. (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Topincs (Re)

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for the explanation. Actually the article didn't have any real content at all at the time when I tagged it, but I see that the author continued to work on it right after tagging. Widr (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

User page move mess

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Special:Contributions/Rimzanms has kicked off a bit of a tangle with user page moves. To cut a long story short, it looks like an undelete and a move is needed over a redirect, as he changed both the article space and the username. Can you please undelete the deleted user page and talk page (not sure which one it is, but the talk page had significant edit history, including a deletion warning from Blanchardb in the history) and move it back to User:Rimzanms where it belongs over the borked double redirect, along with his talk page? Thanks, Altered Walter (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

~It was at 'User:Mohamed Rimzan'. I've manually added in the bot post and moved it back, along with the talk page. I've left a note on the talk page to reinforce MrX's note about moving things. I'll keep an eye on the page for a bit - might be a good idea if you do too....(he says hopefully). I think I've deleted all the mess. Peridon (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes it definitely looks like you've sorted it all, even after my cack-handed attempts at fixing. Thank you! And yes I'll keep an eye on it. Altered Walter (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Xanxari en.

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Blocked for legal threats, not only has he stated in no uncertain terms that he will bother the court with his frivolous lawsuit, but he's using his talk page to reiterate the spam articles he wanted to impose on us. I've deleted the article in its entirety. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine by me. I was just waiting to see what he did about appealing with that lot there... I'd left him 24 hours to withdraw the threat, and then asked Anthony Bradbury to look at the situation when he didn't. I wanted an uninvolved opinion, but he just blocked him instead. I'd say there's a serious case of CoI in these articles (being one to understate things...). Peridon (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Vox Populi (art gallery) deletion

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Could you put the content back up please? I didn't even have a chance to reply to the "Speedy deletion" notice on its talk page. thanks--Aichik (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Now at User:Aichik/Vox Populi (art gallery). You want a bit better in the way references, to my mind. The AOL one looks like a profile, and the CBS Local one is about one artist. It's the gallery that needs to be notable... Peridon (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I was about to. Don't assume worst, it went up yesterday!! There are New York Times links but it will take time to find them. The gallery is a busy one and they don't archive old press clips and "Vox Populi" is a search term for MANY things on the New York Times website.--Aichik (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I thought you would. I do prefer to say it, just in case... I find a lot of problems can be sorted by making silly suggestions. Gets people thinking. Peridon (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you very much for your help. --Cormag100 (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Peridon,

Can you please delete my article, Avianna Chao now? I don't want to waste time of waiting. Sorry. Bear my patience okay. Thank you. Raymarcbadz (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks so much for redirecting the Golovchenko pages. He gets referred to by so many variations of his name that is makes life pretty hard when trying to cite him. Much appreciated. Ybidzian (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If there are variants, it's best to use the redirect thing rather than put up a brief article containing a link. Those tend to get tagged, while clear redirects don't. Peridon (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I confess I looked for the redirect thing but I couldn't find it. I thought only special editors could perform that function?? Ybidzian (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that's moving things and overwriting stuff in the process. To redirect, just type #REDIRECT [[your target]] (obviously putting the target page name in...). For more about redirecting, see WP:REDIRECT. There shouldn't be anything else on the redirect page, by the way, or it probably won't work. Peridon (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Speedy deletion

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I am writing to contest the speedy deletion of my article. The organisation it relates to has made significant contributions to local government in the South West of England and also occupational safety and health through the Chartered Insitute of Environmental Health (CIEH) and Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH). They are also involved in projects of public interest in Cornwall, England involving improving standards of care in statutory health and social care services. I have added various links as appropriate and more content will be added shortly, bearing in mind this wiki has only been live for a matter of hours.

Many thanks (Joshbourne (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC))

To start with a nit-pick - it's not a 'wiki'. Wikipedia ia a wiki - a community project. What you added was an article, otherwise referred to as a page. Anyway, you didn't manage to show notability WP:CORP, and you didn't give references that fit with WP:RS. The promo side was fairly minor ('offers' is not a good word to use - it suggests PR dept at work...). Your references merely show existence. Well, one does. The other didn't seem to mention the company. (This is in the second version of the article.) The one that did mention the company was a profile, and looked to be company supplied and in a directory. To show notability, references must be independent of the subject and must actually cover the subject in more than a couple of sentences. They must be in reliable places. (That is, not blogs, forums, wordpress, MySpace etc, LinkedIn etc, CrunchBase etc, The Sun, The National Enquirer, and so on.) Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and there is no 'right' to an article here. There are thousands and thousands of good reliable businesses doing a good reliable job, and they don't have articles. (One had a millions of dollars turnover, and their products were used by millions of Americans every day. No article. Why? They made exclusively own-brand goods for chain stores. Their name was on nothing. Apart from the Infernal Revenue, their employees, and a limited range of corporate buyers and the suppliers of raw materials, no-one had heard of them or written about them. Zilch.) Being a good reliable doer of whatever doesn't always get coverage. If you feel there is a chance (after you've read the policies), contact User:Tokyogirl79 or User:MelanieN who are good rescuers with plenty of clue. If they can't help, probably no-one can. But don't take it as a reflection on the company or us. It's our community established policies on one hand, and getting on with the job quietly and reliably on the other. Peridon (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for the help! Have a good weekend! Location (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ghost Town

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey Peridon, I need help with a page I made. You deleted a page I made to give information on a band called Ghost Town but you deleted it. I understand I violated A7. Could you please help me to make the article better and bring it back? I don't know how I would indicate the band's importance like the criteria says. Please reply so this band might get a wikipedia page. Just trying to help, Thesoundofgrafix (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Thesoundofgrafix

I've already told you on your talk page. If they don't meet WP:BAND there's no chance. If they do, then you need to collect reliable independent sources to prove they do. Work at User:Thesoundofgrafix/DRAFT (just click that and save - and copy the link somewhere you won't lose it...). Get the info and refs together. You need to be clear WHICH band called Ghost Town you're talking about as there's at least two (see lastfm). Remember that for notability, you can't use lastfm, reverbnation, YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, blogs, forums, the band's site, the record label's site, the man who drives the van's website, wordpress pages, etc etc. Make a note of the two editors mentioned in the section above that's headed 'Speedy Deletion'. They're good at rescuing if there's a chance it might work, and they're good at assessing when it won't. Peridon (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peridon/Archives/2013/January&oldid=1143223278"