User talk:Peridon/Archives/2012/November

dude thanx a lot ........... i understood what you mean, but can You help me make a proper article on rezonha logarhia ? Please . Some links 

http://greatestchildactors.webs.com/

http://rezonhalogarhia.wix.com/the-greatest-actor
ANd brother can you please check if he really isn't important and tell me , and after that please can tell me some other websites in which this person's Details will be sufficient to upload.

Denzil909 (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sir, i am harish who created the article on sibichen k mathew,you deleted.sir it was deleted before because it looked like a resume.i have changed everything and made look like a wiki page.he merits an encyvlopedia article.i have given enough references.please look into it once more and try to resyore it.users had a prob because it looked like a resume and i changed it now it.now i have referenced it properly and i have established notability of the person..(Harishrawat11 (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I'm sorry, but I (and the patroller that tagged it) don't feel that the subject has sufficient notability. The references look to be just mentions, and the positions occupied are not notable enough for an article. Please see WP:BIO and WP:RS. If you still feel that there is sufficient notability, I will restore the article for a discussion at Articles for Deletion. I don't claim to be perfect, and am happy to get a consensus decision. Peridon (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of User:BlueGraceJax appears to be based solely off the possibility of a name relating to a company. I find this intolerable, that BluegraceJax was not allowed to give an explanation if they are affiliated to the company in question. Your co-operation with an investigation would be appreciated. Valientscout (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:USERNAME. It doesn't matter whether they are associated with the company or not - their name appears to represent a company or organisation and that is not allowed. Especially when they have posted what appears to be clearly promotional material. You may find that intolerable. That is your privilege. Wikipedia has rules, and 'no advertising' is one of them - see WP:SPAM. That is our privilege. The user is quite able to give an explanation on their talk page, as is clearly pointed out in the templated notice. I haven't revoked their access to their talk page. (I only do that when an account repeats the advertising there, is clearly bent on vandalism, or is wasting the time of the administrators here.) Peridon (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then the matter is therfore settled. Your block was valid, the user was properly informed, and has been given the right to explain themselves or propose a solution. Thank you for your time and co-operation during this investigation. Valientscout (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sir, can i reintroduce my article Sibichen K Mathew with only relevant points and having established notability.(Harishrawat11 (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

There's nothing stopping you - it's not a protected title. (What that means: when a title is repeatedly created with articles that are no good, admins will 'protect' the title to stop it being used. It's also known as 'salting'.) I would advise you to get someone to check the notability before putting it into article space. If you create it at User:Harishrawat11/DRAFT (just click that and save it), you can get someone experienced to look at it. Most admins and regulars would be willing to give opinions. One that I pass people on to is User:MelanieN who is experienced in many areas and who is fair minded. Doing it this way avoids the patrollers who can't tag for lack of notability in user space. They can tag for copyright violation, attack and advertising, but not notability. This gives the chance to rework things without getting into the 'repeatedly re-created' area. Unless you've got a lot more good coverage and can show that his jobs are notable by our standards, I feel you'll be wasting your time, but it's up to you. It's not so much points that aren't relevant - it's the lack of things that are notable. Peridon (talk) 11:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you please restore Wikipedia:Article Incubator/The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey? It was a controversial move, the move is currently being discussed at Talk: The Hobbit (film series)#Latest position. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need to - someone's moved it back. Peridon (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to let you know I appreciated you letting me know why you reverted the changes to the page, Telikin. I had tried to avoid the promotional wording, but I see the points you've made about the prices, the bio, etc. My goal was just to keep the page more accurate about the actual product, because as it is now, it kind of is confusing and now very clear. Thanks for your input, and I will only make changes to be strictly informative. Lauren1432 (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

how do you know that im doing my homework right know

x@vier (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psychic powers are one of the necessary things for becoming an admin. Actually, I was referring to the PRIMER as being your homework from me at Wikipedia... Thanks for the kitten. Peridon (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you welcome (>_<)and please talk to me in my box, talk box please x@vier (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thkidx (talk • contribs) 22:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thkidx (talk • contribs) 22:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] 

تشميع التفاح. Did you folks forget about this one? Should I research fruit waxing and overwrite the remaining Arabic so that I can justify moving it to the English title? Inquiring minds want to know what the primary reasons for waxing fruit are .... Yngvadottir (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeh - apparently the Arabic refers more to apples, but lemons get waxed too. (So do rubies, I believe...) Possibly more lemons than apples in my part of the world. I thought translation was going on. This does happen, though. Abandoned half way through. Should be on the English title whether finished or not. As it has become an unconsidered trifle, you are very welcome to do things to it. I'm surprised that we had nothing on the subject to begin with. Peridon (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peridon. Could you please move the deleted SAF Group page to my sandbox. would appreciate that. Thank you. Alijabari (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't think it's worth it. It would be tagged as spam within minutes. It needs a complete rewrite, after you have read WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV (neutral point of view), then WP:CORP about company notability (not every company gets an article - notability has to be shown) and WP:RS about the reliable independent sources you need to prove the notability. I have seen worse - there was one the other day that was so full of advertising jargon that I couldn't even work out what they did! Read those policies, and find the references first. Then draft an article around the references. Put it at User:Alijabari/DRAFT (just click that and save it), and ask for advice. Most regular editors and admins will give opinions. Peridon (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peridon! User:Nasir swabi has restored Khan Roshan khan from his userspace, without improving as required by WP:BIO. Can you have a look please. Thanks --SMS ^Talk 20:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not rushing to AfD it. It needs tidying up (I've just done a bit), but some things are hard to reference. Give it a bit - could be notable enough. (No worse than a load of others. Had some support at the AfD.) Peridon (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pack of wild IPs vandals there that kept on contesting such page for deletion, and we're worried about WP:3RR. Where can we report this or could you block them? Mediran ^{talk to me!} 01:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The places for reporting are WP:AIV (for immediate vandalism stuff) or WP:ANI (if it's thought more serious). Bongwarrior has protected the page and talk page now. 3RR is really for content disputes, and it doesn't apply to vandalism. I think that load of nonsense would definitely class in there with vandalism. If in doubt, go to AIV. BTW you didn't get an immediate response from me because I was in bed - I'm on UK time which in the winter is GMT. Peridon (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of current United Kingdom MPs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current United Kingdom MPs until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

— Richardguk (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the heads up. A little wiser now! Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 11:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: No problem. I was going through the log file of edit filter 499. Interesting that an IP continued to post there. Usually they don't. Maybe their spambot was broken? Since the IP appears to be a static IP, I blocked the IP for a month, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could be that it was a very good title... I often wonder why they keep on when we just delete the stuff. And why their bots sometimes don't even post adverts, but just post drivel. Peridon (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never figured out what the point of the drivel stuff posting either. I get random chunks of text in email spam to fight against bayesian filtering, but it doesn't make any sense on wiki spam. I think the spammers can be fairly smart getting their spam operations working, but also incredibly dense by not realizing their posting doesn't work because of formatting errors or that it keeps getting deleted (though they probably just figure to keep posting and maybe something will get through). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Peridon! I have been working with the user Neheliski that you referred to me. (You were generous to allow them to keep that username; do you think it might cause problems for them?) Their article is almost ready to move to mainspace, but I haven't ever moved a user sandbox page to mainspace. I assume I can do it, or does it require an admin? Are there any special tricks or requirements for that kind of move? I assume they won't want a redirect from their sandbox, is there a way to prevent that? Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problems about the move - they probably could do it by now, but possibly safer if you do (or pass the buck back to me - not worried. Just take care with the move to use (Main) as the selected destination area, and (if you can) uncheck Leave redirect behind. If you can't, just tag it G7. If you move it, you'll be the author of the redirect (even though it's in someone's user space). With both the article redirect and the talk page, watch that you're tagging the redirect not the new pages. A look at the title will give it, and you then just click the little coloured 'Redirected from xxxx' up in the top left (speaking for Monobook...). I'm just going for a takeaway - will look at it when I get back. I will also advise NEH to change his/her name... I'm surprised we've got away with it so long. Probably people think it's Polish or Russian... Peridon (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a name change and have copied my sandbox just in case. Thank you both for your help. I love to learn new things and the proper way to do them. Neheliski (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Peridon, I'll let you do it if you don't mind. Sounds complicated. This will preserve the user's sandbox so they can use it again to create other articles - right? --MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can do - only takes seconds to create a new one anyway. Sandboxes are an environmentally friendly throwaway... Will do the move after name change. Peridon (talk) 12:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Peridon. Thank you for all of your help in setting up my wiki page. Melanie has asked me to discuss moving my page with you. If you can help me, please let me know! Thank you again! Neheliski (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Peridon (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see my mistake now. Generally most admins will accept a G8 as a rough equivalent to an A9 when the situation is that one page in a series of two or more 'dependent' pages gets speedied for whatever reason (usually A7). In this case, the author article was A7ed, so I tagged the book article with G8. My mistake was that I inlined the link to that page in the rationale of the db tag, but you probably didn't notice it because the text is red [1]. Anyway, if the PROD is contested it will have to go to AfD because I can't CSD it again, so if you want you can rollback, or we'll see if the PROD gets nuked. Sorry about that :) §FreeRangeFrog 18:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looked to me like you were saying user page. But something in the main article space is only dependent when it's a redirect or talk page. There can be articles on books without articles on the authors. A9 is only for recordings where the artist doesn't have an article - gets interesting in the case of compilations, though. I reckon if one artist has an article, A9 doesn't apply. Prod's the thing. Books can only be speedied for promo (which needs to be blatant, not just the obvious intent of an article about a self-published book by a non-entity and which hasn't even got fake reviews on Amazon - or isn't even ON Amazon...). CSD is rather restricted, and 'most admins' shouldn't speedy for dependence like that. Dependent is redirects and talk pages. There's absolutely no point in either without their target or main page. Any other article stands alone. (OK, sometimes a group of things gets to be at AfD, but they're not dependent. Just the same shit by the same author, if they are deleted. (They're related subject articles by the same author if kept.) It'll probably go to AfD - they seem quite keen on publicising it all round. I couldn't see anything in 10 pages of ghits, which is my usual marker. If it's all blogs etc, it's a campaign. Peridon (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it. §FreeRangeFrog 19:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Peridon. Melanie said that my page is ready to be moved. Once she moves it, she will add categories to it. Would you be able to do that for me? Thank you so much!! AshleeSphinx (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record - I moved it and Melanie added the cats. We're happier that way. Peridon (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you spot that at the same time as I did, or is that an all-time record for responding to a speedy-delete nomination? — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 22:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found it on the CSD page. I usually leave non-spam articles a bit longer, but that was so blatantly advertising that I took it straight out. I think I'd just refreshed the list. From the history, it looks like I caught you unawares... Peridon (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW If you find any userpages selling 'Latisse', I've already blocked four accounts with identical guff. I've put the IP blocking thing on, so they might get the message, and I can't find any more so far. If they don't, and you do, add a sock notice to the CSD notice and refer the admin to my contribs. If they go on it might need an SPI and some range blocking. Peridon (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I've got a userpage flagged for G11 and probable (per the lesser-cited portion of WP:DUCK) G12, if you're not doing anything, by the way. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 23:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) Indeed. But that definitely makes this the fastest I've ever seen an admin respond: By the time I'd loaded the talk page, the userpage was a redlink. (We also went for the username at the same time - I refreshed history once before giving the warning, and by the time Twinkle had loaded, as you've noticed, you'd already blocked him.) — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 23:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plase read Talk:Pingler.com. Thank you. --BiH (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC) "This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is about well known method of webpage pinging, used by many users worldwide. I have only mentioned facts about this company and services it provides without any intentions of breaking any rules. I would like to know which part is disputable and I would change or remove it. Please note that this article is in "development" process and there are many other 3-sentence-articles out there that are somehow approved and this one can't be!? Any suggestions are welcome.. Thank you --BiH (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)" Copied from the talk page - we don't have unattached talk pages. Peridon (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Articles on Wikipedia have to show some sort of significance to escape speedy deletion, and real notability to survive WP:PROD or WP:AFD. These should be referenced to reliable independent sources WP:RS. I could see neither significance nor notability. The references were barring one were to non-independent sources, and the one that looked possibly independent was about two sentences long, and disagreed with the article in that it quoted a price of $2.99 (as I recall) while the article says 'free'. Please read WP:CORP about corporate notability (not every company gets an article), and WP:RS. Other articles may be out there, but this does not indicate 'approval'. There is no form of approval as such, except at Articles for Creation, and that is merely like the UK's MoT test on older cars - it means that at the time of inspection fault wasn't found. Half an hour later, with a different inspection, it might be, There are several forms of 'disapproval' - speedy deletion, proposed deletion, and Articles for Deletion discussion. Other articles may show greater notability, or might simply have slipped through the net WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I would advise reading WP:COI as (being cynical) I doubt that you are totally independent from the company and writing the article out of the goodness of your heart. (I could be wrong...) I would also advise you too that others may edit the article, and those may include people who wish to balance viewpoints, and who may add 'Controversies' or other negative sections. If these are sourced in accordance with RS, these cannot be removed (unless better sources disprove them - this must be done with discussion on the matter). Some companies and individuals have greatly regretted posting articles about themselves. Peridon (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I objected to the deletion request and you deleted it without any talk with me. You didn't gave me a chance to improve the article with your advices in mind. How come this is not notable, when it is used by over 100,000 user, begining with me, where I use it to ping my blog (how I found about this service). I would really like for you to be more cooperative and give me a chance to improve it to meet all necessary rules. Thank you --BiH (talk) 07:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't noticed, I copied what you said on the talk page to here - it's still there at the top of this thread. I have given you the necessary advice above. As to notability, I have also detailed why it failed, and linked to the policies. I'll tell you about a company whose article was deleted from here. (Can't remember the name, sorry.) It was a manufacturer whose products were used by millions daily. However, it failed our notability criteria. It made own-brand goods for big chain stores - nothing that left the factory had it's name on it. Outside the immediate customers (the chains), the suppliers of raw materials, and the Infernal Revenue, it was unknown. No coverage, no nothing. Pingler may have the required coverage - it wasn't referenced to. You are quite welcome to try again with better references. Please note that the requirements may be different here from those on the Bosnian Wikipedia. We are stricter on referencing than a lot of the other language Wikipedias, as I have found on my visits to them looking for references to help an article here survive. I would also advise avoiding wording like "gained phenomenal success" which is regarded as promotional, hence my suspicions about conflict of interest. If you wish, I can restore it into your user space for improvement to meet our requirements. Or you can re-create it afresh. Your decision. Peridon (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I was talking about. I will re-work it in my user space with better references and I'm sure it will be OK. Thank you for your help, I really appriciate it. --BiH (talk) 12:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now at User:BiH/Pingler.com. Peridon (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the Author's page was removed, probably for perceived lack of importance? He is a well known author. e.g. he has contributed material in the Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism on Baader, Bourignon, Gichtel, Law, Lead(e), Novalis, Poiret, Pordage and Zeigler. He has also authored many books on a variety of Esoteric subjects. If the page (deleted) did not mention his contributions, that can be fixed.... Thanks ahead for any feedback. JEMead (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to do a new one, go ahead. That one consisted purely of a list of publications and a link to the man's website. Not a thing about who or what he was, why he or the publications were important, or one single reliable or unreliable independent source. Looked a bit like advertising, even. If you want the list, I'll put it in your user space willingly. Not my scene (I did once address a philosophical society on the subject of Schopenhauer and have read some of the works of Mme Blavatsky - I chickened out of Buckminster Fuller). Peridon (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine. Actually, it is often easier to start with the old one.(?) I think you can put in my sandbox... I think that would work? suggestions are always welcome. JEMead (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's at User:JEMead/Arthur Versluis minus the speedy tag and an unaccountable speedy deletion talk page notice... I prefer to keep things with their title, unless I'm dealing with a raw newbie who is likely to run enthusiastic and fail WP:NPOV, in which case I call it DRAFT. Here you've got the whole history. I didn't see anything worth anything there, but you might. Peridon (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and advice, I have a much better idea of what content should go on my user page thanks to your input and the links you provided.

Question: is this the normal way to message a user? i.e. creating a new section on their talk page. The help page was unclear on this to me. Mborchelt (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's fine. A lot of people just reply at the page where the talk started - keeps a thread as a thread that way. I usually watch a talk page for a few days if I've left a message. If I'm not sure that someone will expect a reply on my page, I use 'talkback' {{Talkback|<username>}}}. I'll put one on your page to test it - I do it a different way normally). Just put it at the bottom of the other person's talk page and put the target's name in (without User:). Peridon (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like tb will work instead of talkback. Has to be a | and name. I use something called Twinkle which automates a lot of stuff like this, and real complicated things too. Peridon (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response to speedy deletion at Talk:Crowdfunder (US). Notability of the subject was attested to by independent coverage by several well respected sources.--Nowa (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CNet is a one sentence mention, Forbes is written by Chance Barnett and is therefore not independent, and TechCrunch appears to be relying on company supplied info. These don't constitute widespread independent coverage in any sort of depth. As Travelbird points out, there is plenty of coverage for the concept of crowdfunding. That is not relevant. We need WP:RS reliable independent sources that cover in reasonable depth the company itself. As a start-up that hasn't even started up yet in terms of providing services, it's most likely too soon. Peridon (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point on the Forbes article. I missed that.--Nowa (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted it by going through them and thinking, 'Hang on! I've seen that name before...' when I saw TechCrunch (which probably isn't an 'independent' source if it's associated with CrunchBase) refer to the CEO by name. A quick look back told me where I had seen it. Peridon (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hey, I would like to know if there is any way to delete the spam-article Stronda music, a fan here in Brazil is trying to get a musical group famous by creating these articles in several wikis. "Stronda Music" is not a musical genre, you can google it, you will only find two "almost-famous" groups, and that has no encyclopedic content. Sorry if I made grammar mistakes, but please, help me to do something about it, I don't know very much about the rules here in En.Wiki. Crash Overclock (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could be taken to Articles for Deletion WP:AFD. If you don't feel up to it (if you don't use a thing called Twinkle, it's not easy to understand the workings of AfD), I'll put it up there and you can do the explaining bit. Not right this minute - I'm off to the dentist. 8-(:) Peridon (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I recently conducted an article on artist Michael Anthony Williams and realized I had redirected the article to a nonexisting page. I need your help. The artist is visually limited and I thought I could add the article in the "Blind Artists" category. What category can I use for this artist?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquewanders (talk • contribs) 02:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]