User talk:Peridon/Archives/2008/December

NPOV
Out of interest, do you regularly contribute to the NPOV noticeboard? -- Skarl 20:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No - don't get time to go everywhere. I'm mostly involved with new accounts, and some articles for deletion. (I defend some things that are flagged for deletion, and flag others myself. I seem to do a lot with vandalism on school articles, and other stuff that the people using the wiki tools seem to miss.) I do copy-eds sometimes, bein very good at grammer ans spelink. I just picked up on your dispute somehow and sought to defuse the situation. Peridon (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, sorry to be so terse, I'm just a bit irate at the moment. You clearly acted out of good faith and I should have no complaints in that regard. -- Skarl 21:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 'S OK. See my suggestion at NPOV board about how to get it sorted. Peridon (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Todos
Hi. I converted this into a redirect, since I have no doubt that that is what the original author would have intended had he known what he was doing. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Gary
"is an American Judo Leader, a successful sales entrepreneur", "Gary found his way back to judo forming Goltz Judo Club in 1987 which is today the largest in the US Judo Association. He helped coach the US Blind Judo Team at the 1991 World Championships in Tokyo and has been a Defensive Tactics Advisor to the Los Angeles Police department since 1997.", "Gary today holds a 7th degree black belt and has become a national judo leader. He is volunteer Chief Operating Officer for the USJA. In 2006, Gary hosted the first Judo Winter Nationals helping to unite the USJA with its former rival organization the USJF", " He was awarded his 1st Degree Black Belt at 21 and went on to become Judo Chairman for the Allegheny Mountain Region of the Amateur Athletic Union (AAU)." are all assertions of notability so it can't be speedied. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 19:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Gary Goltz revisted
I had a look at this, too, and I understand your concerns. It does, however, assert notability. It would be interesting to go through the copious external links, to see which are WP:RS and which need to be removed. I started, but it will take more time than I have. I did not do a search for RS. left a note on the creator's talk page. Anyone who can right and link as thoroughly as that should have no trouble fixing whatever problems are fixable. Cheers, and happy editing. Dloh  cierekim  20:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said, the thing has its problems. Haven't looked for sources, so don't that it would/would not survive AFD. or even PROD. If you've done the leg work-- looked for WP:RS with WP:V that would support/establish notability, and come up empty, then you could prod or AFD the thing. If you do AFD, and RS do turn up and the subject really is notable, then that can be embarrassing. Just because something does not meet WP:CSD does not mean it can or should stay. It just means further effort should be made in the decision. It might be worth the effort to fix. It might not. If you feel strongly that this should go, and that's the sense I get, then you can always PROD or AFD. Cheers, and happy editing. Dloh  cierekim  20:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Prod
Hi Peridon, just a quick note re this,, it is actually acceptable for a user to remove the prod tag from an article they created, see Proposed deletion. Major weakness I know, but there you are--Jac16888 (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Raglan
Your thoughts coincide with mine, but I admit it escaped my attention that there was anything on the talk page. Deb (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Folder Scout
Hey, i've removed your csd tag from this article. The text of the article does not constitute spam; simply being about a product is not enough to classify it as an advertisement. Ironholds (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong tagging for speedy deletion
Hi. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted you to inform that I declined to delete First Purpose Evolution Theory, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion because of the following concern: The reason you used is not a valid criterion. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered Non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or file them at articles for deletion. Regards  So Why  16:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadeperson (talk • contribs) 17:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)