User talk:Peridon/Archives/2010/November

Userpage G11s
Hello Peridon, I've noticed that every time you tag a user subpage for deletion, your notify the user on the subpage's talk page. They need to be notified on their main talk page (I've moved two of them already). Just a heads-up :). Regards, Airplaneman   ✈  23:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. One of the references was for the official tor blog, if something else is needed then let me know. Atagar (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It was with respect to a new article I added (Arm_(software)), and cider recommendations would be welcome too :) Atagar (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Alas, our cider selection over here is dismal. However, I'll hit a few shops and see if I can find them. And indeed, the cathedral crypt sounds awesome. :P

As for arm... a journalist once interviewed me about it (I have the audio clip) and I'm noted as one of the core developers on the tor people page - are one of those what you're looking for? Besides that, most tor and arm related discussions are on irc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atagar (talk • contribs) 23:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Like THIS?!?!

Pac is Back has survived
Hello, Peridon … Since your seconded Prod of has been contested by a WP:SPS anon, will you be taking it to WP:AfD? I'd do it myself, but I'm currently in that phase of my cycle. Happy Editing! &mdash;  00:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Pac is Back for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Pac is Back, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Pac is Back until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

jane Carr (brand) advert
Hello Peridon, Thank you so much for the feedback, I am new to this, and I am not professional at writing in an encyclopaedic tone, so I have been looking at other articles such as Alexander McQueen (brand), Calvin Klein and Christopher Kane to use as templates. Thank you for the reference about WP:KOI, I have taken a look at that. You said that this section of the article was not encyclopedic "The collection was emblazoned with honorary medals, gusts of feathers and scattered gems, emblems glisten with metallic foil and showcased in a vivid colour palette of cabaret, mink, chestnut, rouge and amethyst." If you feel that there are areas I could change the help would be fantastic. Thanks again. JANECARRMEDIA (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)JANECARRMEDIA

LOL

 * --Yopienso (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: International Theater Festival Sibiu
Hi! Yes, this one is legit: http://www.sibfest.ro/FITS-2010.aspx (this year), http://www.sibfest.ro/FITS.aspx (last year). Hope this helps! --Vlad|-> 10:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

potentially libelous usernames
It may not have been obvious enough since it wasn't in English, but in addition to blocking that one I'd had to oversight it and all contribs not only by it but related to it. When I got back to UAA I found that you had reported it again, which set off another cycle of having to do that. Please be careful with potentially oversightable usernames in the future. Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured something like that had happened. Don't worry; you were just doing your job. But do check to see whether something like that has been dealt with before putting it on the page in the future. Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Jane Carr (brand)
I have taken a look at all the advice that you gave me and have edited quite a lot out of the article, I was wondering if you would be able to take a look at it? Many thanks. JANECARRMEDIA (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)JANECARRMEDIAJANECARRMEDIA (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Peridon, I took a look at the Jane Carr article as you suggested. It still needs a LOT of work. I think the company might qualify as notable based on the two Vogue articles and possibly the London Fashion Week listing. I will go to the user's talk page with suggestions. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ti (Native American Demon)
Cheers for that. "Blatant hoaxes" is the G3 criteria is normally taken to mean something that anyone can see is a hoax without any further research (e.g. playing for a football team before they were born - and believe me I've seen ones like that) as otherwise an admin is just taking your word for it. My personal view, and one which has resulted in a admin deciding to speedy delete in the past, is that if you can provide evidence which makes it obvious why it's a hoax it's still a G3 candidate but that it shouldn't be left to a non-expert admin to work out why it's a hoax. In this case I think you've made it clear why it's a hoax so we shall see what an admin thinks. I was probably a bit stricter on this than normal as the very first article I saved from inappropriate speedy delete (at it's third creation as it had already been inappropriately deleted twice) was on a pretty similar subject, Engkanto, and that ended up with a DYK. Dpmuk (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Haji as Title
Before the arival of Islam in Indonesian archipelago, the title "Aji" or "Haji" (also mentioned in Chinese account of Srivijaya king as "Hia-Tche") is refer to "king" in both old Malay language and Sundanese language (to some extent, also Javanese). The name of a plant "Pakis Haji" means "the king of fern". In ancient Sundanese inscription Sanghyang Tapak inscription mention about Prahajyan Sunda, "Prahajyan" means "kingdom" from basic word "haji", pra-haji-an. After the arrival of Islam, the title Haji overlapped with title of someone that sucessfully perform Hajj pilgrim. While the title for the king shifted to already adopted term "Raja" from sanskirt.(Gunkarta (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC))

Moved
Ken Scott, Peridon. Gave a whole lot of info to Top Jim but haven't heard back (I know its been the weekend) but I'm a little concerned about the seven day rule and that we might lose everything we've worked on. Help!! Hayley douglas (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Mrika Tahiri
I think that the article should not be speedy deleted at this time just because it is not in English, feel free to nominate it under AfD, that will give other time to both translate and improve it. VER Tott  17:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Michael
It's not obvious to me that twitter is much less secure than a blog or an official website, and if it is linked to an official website too. There is secure login like there is for a blog. It's not as easy to edit as with wikipedia. And it has been increasingly relied on my by the mainstream, especially in the case of Michael Jackson news. So I think there can be more than one opinion on this or a time for wikipedia to change it's opinion Aleskr (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much the 'secure' aspect as the non-independence. Whose twitter is it? (I doubt it's Michael's - unless he took over Elvis's job at Macdonalds when he retired for the second time...) Wikipedia's policies have evolved by consensus largely, and there are procedures for suggesting changes. How far you'd get is another matter. I don't think you'd get much support amongst the regular editors - the ones who do the work that's not seen by most users. I've no idea what the problem here is - I just stepped in to explain what was and wasn't considered reliable. If you're trying to use 'unreliable' sources to add something, then I'm afraid that (right or wrong) you are on a hiding to nothing. Peridon (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peridon, I've also posted this on my User talk page but don't know if you would prefer I reply here. You can let me know.

As I have stated, the accounts were verifiable to the nephews and brothers (through Twitter verification & listing on their official sites) of Michael and what THEY were saying, not Michael. I was careful in putting this in my references and in my comments on the edits and talk pages. Yes I understand that there is a general feeling about twitter but I have explained why they may consider changing it.

So it's not a verifiability problem the way you described it. It is very much like just part of one's official website the way it was set up in these cases.

Aleskr (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)