User talk:Peridon/Archives/2012/December

Elijah Ramos
I have talked to Wikimedia and the whole Wikipedia corporation and if Elijah Ramos is not undeleted i am able to remake it without any deletions noted i have permission from the company to keep Elijah Ramos Thank You For Your Time. Hulk3200 (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My reply is on your talk page. Peridon (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

i cannot photocopy the comment therefor i have no proof and let it go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulk3200 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Wifione  Message 04:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible COI at Richemont
The admin (I guess it's an admin) didn't seem suspicious on this, so why am I?

Hope you're warm and dry and unsniffly. Yopienso (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see that MJH reckons the IP is editing commercially, but I'm not sure. They do seem to have edited before the use of this IP. Wifione is an admin - even a member of the Order of the Mop, which I'm unlikely to ever be. I'll try to keep an eye on things in case he's missed something. Over here, it's (at the moment) dry and about 6 C. Nice and warm when in my new (to me) car - warms up far quicker than the previous one. Peridon (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Benefits of Using Signed Exact English in the Classroom
Just to let you know - I restored this as I had just declined the deletion before you deleted it. The content isn't really spammy and it has well referenced content that would greatly improve Signed Exact English. I'll ask the creator if they can do it. SmartSE (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh and I checked for copyvio but couldn't find anything. SmartSE (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the way it's worded. That's from a booklet or something like that. No-one writes like that normally - not unless they're pushing something in a booklet or handout. Peridon (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You recently blocked
User:Tysmooth. This editor created User:Nicole Haddad/sandbox which I nominated for deletion under U2 as a user page for a nonexistent user, since User:Nicole Haddad has no edits. Nyttend declined the CSD saying the account was created (as seen here). I left a query about this on Nyttend's talkpage but would appreciate your input on if I performed the correct action. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * He's also created User:Mia Medina-Schmidt/sandbox. The contribs of that one are the same sort of junk he's posting, including one in his sandbox. I'll keep a watch on them. If he uses them while blocked, I'll indef them. BTW if there is a 'User contributions' in the Toolbox, that account has been created. Nyttend was correct in declining. He probably didn't know about Tysmooth being a nuisance, anyway. The names are probably other people at his school. Strictly, he hasn't breached the policies on accounts yet. Peridon (talk) 10:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, I guess that's kind of a loophole I hadn't thought of....that an account can be created, but the only edits on its user pages are by another account but as long as it's been created, then for Wikipedia purposes it actually exists...heh, this sounds like a Wiki Catch-22. So he hasn't technically created socks with these two user-accounts that only exist in their user-pages' sandboxes?  I suppose if Mia and Nicole start having edits outside their sandboxes they then could possibly be socks... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * They are socks, IMO, but there are legitimate socks and socks for breaking rules. So far, these haven't broken rules. If they're found editing while TS is blocked, they should go to SPI. I'm not around for long tonight, and won't be until late tomorrow. Legitimate socks are declared and are for use in dodgy places, or for testing things, or bot accounts. Foundation employees have an account for Foundation use, and another for their ordinary editing. Peridon (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Your speedy delete of Slick Willie
You recently speedy deleted Slick Willie which in my opinion was clearly improper. Slick Willie is such a common and heavily reported nickname that it absolutely should redirect to Bill Clinton. If it were to appear at redirects for discussion, it without a doubt would end as a keep. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion to discuss this issue. (If you saw and article instead of a redirect, then you were negligent for failing to view the page history before deleting.) Ego White Tray (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Your speedy delete of P2P Financial
Disagee with deletion. P2P Financial was the first peer to peer lending company in Canada. The company was renamed to "Optimize Capital Markets" and continue to operate. M201001010 (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I hope Peridon doesn't mind me butting in on their talk page but I'm another admin so I had a quick look over this. I have to say that I agree with Peridon.  I suggest that you read this which explains in a little more detail what businesses do and don't qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia.--5 albert square (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The article contained references to several independent sources (newspaper articles) and avoids self-promotion. The article simply needs to be updated to increase the "depth or coverage" but should not be deleted. Please read Ontario examines ways to loosen crowdfunding rules which highlights potential changes to crowdfunding rules in Canada in the near future. M201001010 (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that I could see. The deleted version had Alexa as a reference, which counts for little or nothing, and there were links to the company site and a company blog - which are not independent and not newspaper articles. Promotion was not a reason for deletion, as the article was neutrally worded. Please see WP:RS about reliable independent. BTW I've gone through the first 10 pages of Google hits for "Optimize Capital Markets" and only Bloombergs appeared to be an RS, but unfortunately they were talking about 'optimize capital markets' not 'Optimize Capital Markets' the company. In a much earlier version, there was one reference which is now dead. The 'Globe and Mail' article you give doesn't seem to mention this company, and is only about regulation of crowd funding. Peridon (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've no objections to others joining in things here. It keeps the audience ratings up, and saves me work... Peridon (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi - This misunderstanding has everything to do with the fact that I (someone not skilled or experienced in editing wikipedia articles) tried to make the updates myself instead of having a professional do it. We are the first crowd funding company in Canada.  Our National Papers do confirm this in their articles.  I have now, properly provided them below.  I don't know how the Alexa or Blog Links got in there but it was certainly a mistake.  Pls review the below articles to see that P2P Financial, our company, is in fact the first crowd funding company in Canada.  If you do not approve of us changing the wikipedia's articles to reference P2P Financial as Optimize Capital Markets, its new trade name, then fine, but at least please leave the original P2P Financial Article and mentions.  The correct article references are provided below:

A place for pitches Matchmaker unites ideas with money Dating for dollars Match Game

Matthew McGrath (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For heaven's sake don't get a professional in. Most of the ones we see are worse than the rank beginners - they can't avoid being promotional (being PR oriented and not really knowing how this place works) and a lot can't even use correct grammar and spelling... Save your money. People here can help you for the fun of it. Free. OK. Macleans is no good. A mere mention in a scrap of an article - and it looks rather company supplied. The other three are better, but suffer from a concentration on MMG's saying things rather than being outsider stuff. I might be misreading it - still unfreezing after a long day of meetings with people in awkward places. Have a talk with User:MelanieN who is a good rescuer (see Northern Escape Heli-skiing and the talk page of its author for an example). I've userfied your article (a Wikipedia term for moved it into your user space) at User:Matthew McGrath/P2P Financial (at the second attempt...) Peridon (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Just an idle enquiry
I don't suppose, by any chance, you errrrr made a note of the phone number before deleting ? Purely in the interests of my Wikipedian research, you understand! Giano (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Many neglected, seemingly unnotable and yet worthwhile articles can be saved if given careful attention by dedicated editors, possibly by spending time in the field--any access to primary source material could only enhance the opportunities for exposition of this topic to come to full fruition. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ms. Alexa Stone
Great work. Sometimes page curation can be so blunt, it does need a novel subsec. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Viktor Lee CSD
Hullo! I CSD-nominated Viktor Lee but you found that it wasn't A7. I wasn't sure about what it was, but as it's a long article about a character in an unpublished book (by an unknown author...), I was sure it should fit some kind of CSD criteria, but not sure what. is it more of a Proposal for Delete matter? I'm not trying to second guess you, I'm just new and would benefit from knowing! GailTheOx (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And as I wrote this, you've already proposed it for deletion. Well, I've learned a thing GailTheOx (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict...) Just trying to message you... No, there's no CSD for books or characters, unless blatant advertising or hoax. No evidence that this exists, but none that it doesn't either. I've prodded it, and you're welcome to add a prod2. A7 is for living things or groups of them (and web content for some odd reason). Fictional things can't be considered living, even though some people write to soap opera characters. This could be considered a promo but it's only really the last line, which looks exactly like a book jacket blurb, but unless we prove it we can't get it for copyvio. Don't worry about second guessing, and always feel free to ask about the minefield of CSD. Things that aren't obviously CSD are best prodded and then taken to AfD when the prod is removed. Peridon (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Re:80/20
Well, it is very close to nonsense. I guess the reason I nominated it was because I read through it and it didn't seem like it made ant sense. Maybe it's just me. United States Man (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Could it be deleted on the grounds of original research? I see that it has happened with that page already. United States Man (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OR isn't a CSD criterion. That's for prod or AfD. CSD is very limited. I redirected one version of the article - the one without 'the' in it. Both pages are still there and I can't see a deleted version at either. 'Nonsense' is for things like 'uytcyttyjkjhjfd hyuregfgh' and 'breakneck aardvark potential green sit mediaeval microwave'. OR can go to prod - or maybe this is spam... I think I'll prod it now. It looks self-published. Beaten to it. I've prod2ed. Someone else has found the earlier name which isn't the same. I was a bit tied up and didn't get into contribs or her userpage. Peridon (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It has apparently been deleted for that. See here so you can see what I mean. Anyway, since it is nominated for deletion with a better reason, this doesn't even matter. United States Man (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


 TheGeneralUser  (talk)  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! 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 Merry Christmas, 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 cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Hello Peridon! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :)  TheGeneralUser  (talk)  13:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


Mediran ( t  •  c ) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! 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 Merry Christmas, 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 cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Munzee
Hello,

I recognized that you have deleted my article about the Munzee game. To your reasons I have to say the following:

"No explanation of the subject's significance.": In the article I mentioned that more then 238.000 Munzees are brought out until today worldwide (not only in the USA). There are about 10.000 users playing this game. Isn't this significant enough?

"Unambiguous advertising or promotion": I just described how the game works. No advertising, no promotion. The game is free, so I do not have any financial interest in it. Furthermore, I am not one of the creators, I am just one of the players. What about the article about the Monoploy game? Isn't this also advertising or promotion? And please recognize that the German Wikipedia article has been accepted without any problems.

Pleas activate the article again. Regards Hanky27 (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The rules and procedures on the different language Wikipedias are different. The rules on referencing are stricter on the English one than the others I have visited (which includes the German one). You only referenced to primary sources. Please read WP:RS about reliable independent sources. Also, wording like "No one knows when this special munzee shows up for sale in our store but when it does..." indicates to me that either the writer is closely connected with the organisation ("our"), or that there has been a copy and paste from the organisation's material, which is not allowed. It was a statement that indicates promotion. Promotion does not only apply to company staff - anyone can promote anything whether or not they are employed. However, on Wikipedia - and especially on the English language Wikipedia - we do not allow text that is or appears to be promotional. Referring back to the significance, having 10,000 users may or may not be significant. What is important is that that can be verified, and that it be shown that the game is known outside its own community - as Geocaching is. Monopoly is hardly a case with which to compare. Peridon (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I reworked my article taking your criticism into account.

1. "You only referenced to primary sources": I added some secondary sources under Weblinks (links to newspaper articles, Blogs and a TV report)

2. wording like "No one knows when this special munzee shows up for sale in our store but when it does...": I indeed copy and pasted this paragraph from the Munzee web site. I completely removed this paragraph.

3. "What is important is that that can be verified": I added a link to the About Page, showing that there are over 238.000 Munzees (Dec. 2012) deployed and more then 1.7 Mio Munzees have been captured.

4. "and that it be shown that the game is known outside its own community": I think the Weblinks (links to newspaper articles, Blogs and a TV report) show this

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hanky27/sandbox and tell me what you think now about it. Anything else I should change or make better?

Regards Hanky27 (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, your references still don't comply with WP:RS. Sites or pages belonging to or associated with the subject are not independent reliable sources. iTunes and the other app pages are not independent of the subject either. Your weblinks: the Telegram one looks reasonable at first sight. The munzee.com one won't count for notability. For an opinion on the rest (as I'm on a limited and slow connection where I am for the next week or so), I'd suggest contacting one of these editors: User:MelanieN, User:Tokyogirl79 or User:Cindamuse. All of them are good at assessing things and performing rescues. And, so far as I know, none of them are in a wet field connecting to the internet through a dongle, as I am. If there's anything else you've copied from anywhere, get rid of it quickly, no matter how neutral it is. You need to get your good referencing material into references, not in web links, as well. Ask any of those three for advice. Peridon (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We got Hanky's article into shape and it has been accepted at AfC. Now, what are you doing in a wet field with a dongle? (had to look that up) --MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Camping. The water level's gone down now where we are, and the only flood alerts up river are quite a way away. Thanks for another rescue operation, and Best Wishes for the New Year. Peridon (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And you're doing this (camping in a flooded field) for fun, I assume? Mark Twain said it best. 0;-D Have a happy new year yourself, and stay dry. --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)