User talk:Peridon/Archives/2012/May

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

CSD A11
Just in case you weren't aware, you deleted it under A11. The editor (Tomtom00) ment to tag it under G11 but did A11 and....  Yash  t  101   14:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. But I deleted it under the three visible cats - A7, A1 and A3. Here's a copy & paste from the last version before deletion: but it doesn't show up on the tag on the page. Try it yourself as a preview. I don't usually look at the editing window (unless there's a messed up reference), just the history and what links here. Tomtom put the A11 in, which doesn't exist. G11? What for? That was an attack page not spam! Peridon (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup I agree as it is not seen. Obviously its tomtom's fault. I dont know about the attack page... I don't remember actually the content in it.  Yash  t  101   15:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For obvious reasons I won't quote the bit in question. Probably not a serious attack, just someone winding a mate up, but we can't have them doing it here. Peridon (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Harrow International School Hong Kong
Hi,

ages ago you deleted my article of this name, and I never had time to get back to you or dispute it.

I am thinking of starting the article again though and wanted to discuss this. There are articles on Harrow International School Beijing and Harrow International School, Bangkok and the Hong Kong one is due to open this Sep 2012. Harrow International School Hong Kong.

I am not clear of the reasons why the article was deleted in the first place, nor what the significance of your copyright concerns were? Please let me know so that I can start work on a new article. I am sure it satisfied the notability requirements given the other articles on Harrow International.Eugene-elgato (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How can it be notable if it doesn't exist yet? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 17:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course it can ! e.g. the London Olympics have been notable for some time, without having been finished or ready etc. I mean, Harrow itself is very well-established and as I said there are already international schools up and running. Next is for HK ready for SepEugene-elgato (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Beijing article is referenced to two sites that I wouldn't count as WP:RS - FOBISSEA and the CIS are not independent as presumably the Harrow schools are members. Not that I've found any mention in them so far anyway. A not yet finished entity tends to produce worries about promotion, but I doubt that's the case here. HK was only linked to Harrow schools sites - not independent sources. Have another look through WP:RS and WP:GNG. I'll look again when I get a chance - possibly tomorrow evening (depending on the state of the M1 and M6...). Peridon (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I will do!Eugene-elgato (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I did have a look -- it doesn't seem unreliable surely? but still i agree there should be way more sources than just these memberships sites. what you reckon? Do you at least agree there can be an article on the HK school?Eugene-elgato (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If the schools are members, it gets classed as a directory entry (and they are inherently not reliable - for us, at least, even though possibly 100% correct at the time) - and I couldn't even find any mention of the members.
 * Another point on notability is that the 2012 Olympics has masses of reliable source coverage - and will remain notable even if it gets cancelled! Also, this is A Harrow school not THE Harrow School. Gives it a head start over some of the Dotheboys Hall descendant money makers and the (usually religious) indoctrination mills, but some of them are bad enough to be notable. Being good doesn't always get the interest of the press, etc... Peridon (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, you have made good points here - there are probably way too many schools featuring on wikipedia actually. have seen a whole bunch of local ones on here that aren't always notable. so no rush for this school for now. thanks for your views.Eugene-elgato (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Although, what about this kind of thing? There are a lot of Google hits now, e.g. Expat guide to Hong Kong: schoolsEugene-elgato (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to that one. A couple more like that might do it. Not directory entries, but things independently written as that looks to be. Peridon (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it be OK then for me to set out a proposed article on my sandbox, and then ask if you could take a look at it please?Eugene-elgato (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeh, no probs. Peridon (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please may you have a look at it User:Eugene-elgato/sandboxEugene-elgato (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks OK to me - I'm just one voice, though. I'll ask MelanieN to have a look too. BWiklins probably will too... Glad you took it off here again; I was wondering what to do with it and was checking your sandbox when you sorted it. Always, just a link is sufficient. Peridon (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is grand, thank you ! (yeah, always square brackets - hadnt realized the { would put the whole thing on here!)Eugene-elgato (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Eugene-elgato! Peridon asked me to take a look at the article in your sandbox and it looks fine to me. You have done an excellent job with the sourcing. There is already enough independent sourcing that I believe the article can "go live" even before the school actually opens.

I would suggest, however (putting my copyeditor hat on), that it needs a little editing to "wikify" it, particularly the lead paragraph. Usually an article should start out with a sentence stating exactly what the subject is, for example, "Harrow International School Hong Kong is a private school located in Tuen Mun in the New Territories of Hong Kong. It is a subsidiary of the Harrow School in London. It is coeducational and serves students age 2 through 18. It is expected to open on such-and-such date." and so on. Of course, the article will have to be updated fairly frequently and will need a lot of changes when it opens. Also, I'm not sure that your subheadings make sense; the whole article is about "Harrow International School" and "The school," so you might give some thought to better headings, or to pulling similar ideas together into one paragraph. For example, a paragraph to explain about the former army barracks and the government of Hong Kong and the other schools (and maybe, if it is sourced, something about WHY the government is trying to promote new private schools); a paragraph or two describing what facilities and curriculum the school will have; a paragraph about the time frame (applications close, staff hiring etc.); and so on (As a professional writer myself I can tell you that the rewriting always takes three times as long as the writing; first you get everything down on paper, that's the easy part; then you have to reorganize it to make it flow logically.) Anyhow it looks like a very good article and I am sure it will pass muster --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi MelanieN, and thank you for having a look at it so quickly and the advice ! yeah i completely agree with all those points: and that thing about the section Harrow School International didn't work so far; eventually it is supposed to be a section about the private limited company that is running the school; then of course all those other sections you have suggested, in whichever precise format will be suitable. Thak you so much for all the advice - am gonna do some more work on it later today and then see if it is ok to go live:) Eugene-elgato (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please may you look now?! I touched it up a bit. I reckon maybe live others might get some ideas for it too. Thanks so muchEugene-elgato (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it looks good, except I would not include so much detail about the paying options. That kind of comes across as WP:SPAM. I would delete that whole section and just say something, under the sentence about estimated cost, that "various payment options will be available to parents." Something I still wonder about: how are students chosen? Is admission competitive, or is it simply a matter of placement on the waiting list? Also: if they are planning to open the school later this year, how can the campus plans be so indefinite? "up to eight storeys" etc. - I would think the height and architecture of the buildings would be pretty well established by now! But these are quibbles, I think the article is good to go. --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much again, will attend to those things, find out about the buildings etc.. then make the article ! Eugene-elgato (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Halp
Can you have a look over the edits here and take some action?

I posted on the reliable sources noticeboard for confirmation that ChaCha isn't a reliable source, I think I got that confirmation, though sadly from a bureaucracy fan.

Anyway, point: the article is about a band, the band broke up in 2010, and since then, IPs and others have added an unsourced or poorly sourced explanation as to why they broke up. The problem is that the explanation seems like sensitive information about a living person. From what I hear, the person himself has admitted that this information is true, but I don't know that, Wikipedia doesn't know that. I do think we need actual reliable sources to keep it there, exactly because of the nature of the explanation.

The current sources seem to be someone's blogs (not reliable), wikianswers (not reliable) and chacha (not reliable). Talk:Fee_(band). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree about blogspot and wiki.answers.com as not being reliable sources. The comment that so-and-so said ChaCha gave the fastest answers (or whatever it was) isn't relevant - what's needed is to know where the answers are coming from. Looks like there are paid answerers, but it doesn't say where their information comes from. Until I was certain that they used reliable independent sources, I'd be inclined to treat them as unreliable as regards BLP stuff. Looks like an admin User:Ks0stm is taking an interest - I'd have a word with him/her or one of the other admins who frequent AIV. I'm not sure that reporting it at AIV would be right, as it seems to be more content dispute, but they'd be a better bet than me at the moment - just going out for a meal. Shouldn't have stopped to answer you, even... Peridon (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Email
 Yash  t  101   07:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Michelangelo Albertazzi
Michelangelo Albertazzi had been made his Serie B debut, at least pass WP:Footy criteria. Would you mind move it from my sandbox (either move or cut and paste) User:matthew_hk/Michelangelo Albertazzi to Michelangelo Albertazzi? Matthew_hk  t  c  07:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take your word on Serie B... I know little enough about UK football, let alone Italian. There's a bit needed to be done to the wording. (That I am sure about.) I've done some copy editing to 'Youth Career', bur I'm not sure what "However it also due to Milan "Primavera" failure in the group stage of its own league" means, or "The de facto Milan "Primavera" beat Juventus inferior reserve "Berretti" 2–1" (I changed 'won' to 'beat' - one wins a match but beats an opponent). Next paragraph: "Albertazzi did not play for the reserve in the first round of the playoffs, which Albertazzi was with the first team" and "Instead, he played 5 games for the reserve as overage player" - I'm not sure I understand those. as to the rest, I've made one or two minor changes. Best to get these things sorted now. I notice that the Serie B article needs some attention in this respect too. Peridon (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In Italy the youth system was in three major category: young (U15), Student (U17) and Reserve (U20). There is two competition in each category, provincial/regional and national in U15 and U17, so to form a youth rank, Serie A clubs may chose to form a pyramid with:


 * young regional 14
 * young national 15
 * student regional 16
 * student national 17


 * However, it created a gap between student and reserve. Despite some players would retire, the reserve would consist of U18, 19, 20, so, clubs would either loan out their U18 players and/or U20 to the reserve of second, third or fourth division, and professional team respectively. Or, some clubs would form its Berretti U18 team. Berretti is the reserve league of third and fourth division, but welcome teams of Serie A,B and D as wildcard. Wildcards had its own playoffs round, and traditionally Berretti was inferior/younger than Primavera, as talented players would promoted directly to Primavera. For the playoffs, Primavera had 3 groups, in the recent 2 seasons 3 runner-up and 3 winner had a bye to quarter-finals, and 8 teams compete for the rest of the 2 berth. That season Milan Primavera (U20 team) did not qualified to the playoffs (6th/14 of Group B), but Berretti U18 did, as the league was basically a reserve league and any players with age from 15 to 20 were allowed to play, Milan fielded its stronger team (or half of the players) Primavera against weaker, more immature Juventus Berretti (Juve did not use Luca Marrone nor Pinsoglio), instead using its original Berretti players (which Inter did use its Berretti players in order to enter the final of this season 2011-12).


 * For 2011-12 season, Albertazzi was not eligible to the reserve (born 1992 or after) but as overage player (as i remember at most only 3 to 4 born 1991 players a match). As he played 5 matches out of possible around 13 matches of the second half of the reserve league group stage, he was somewhat a active member of the reserve, however, the coach may think Albertazzi was more importance in the first team in order to chase for the promotion, so included Albertazzi in the first team and made his debut (Albertazzi did made some unused bench appearances in his first 3 months with Varese). Matthew_hk   t  c  15:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Inferior can mean lower (as in position), especially in medical usage, but in ordinary use it tends to mean 'not good enough' or 'of poor quality'. I think I understand the rest of it. One of my talkpage stalkers probably will. I'll look again when I get back in. Peridon (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the G10, how about a RevDelete?
Thanks for the quick G10 on Winston warner. It looks like the article creator was practicing on his userpage first... care to RevDelete this? Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 13:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Peridon (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

CEG International
Hi Peridon, I would like to ask why CEG International was deleted. I'm truly confident that our intent is not to promote our business but to give information to the people who want to search about consultants/engineering in Qatar. Our company has been founded in 1976, and for that 3 decades our contribution and accomplishment for some important architectural buildings/structure in Qatar has been recognized by the Government of Qatar. As for example, the article I found Balkanstroy, what is the difference between the article I wrote. Please review my article in my sandbox, and kindly guide us in writing my article for CEG International. We are willing to support the site. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cegdohaqatar (talk • contribs) 10:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please put new thread at the bottom of talk pages - I nearly didn't find this. A few points. Being willing to support the site (I am assuming you mean financially) is irrelevant. We don't take financial or editing contributions into account when considering articles. (We are always grateful for donations, but gratefulness is as far as it goes.) as to Balkanstroy, that's not a very good article to base anything on. In fact, I've just nominated it at Articles for deletion, and also, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It wouldn't have got past today's patrollers. Your deleted article didn't fit here on a few counts - one being the layout and another the wording. Your sandbox version looks good - so far. What it lacks is a show of notability - and references. Wihout both of those, it's likely to get tagged for lack of significance. (Significance is needed to pass the speedy deletion tests, notability makes things much more safe.) Please read WP:CORP and WP:RS (which is our policy on reliable independent sources). Not blogs, forums, wikis (including us) or the company's own sites. You can link to the company site as an External Link, but it cannot establish notability. (We had someone post about a multinational group that only appeared to exist as a collection of websites. He was very persistent, but so were we...) OK. Over to you now. See what you can come up with. Your new draft hasn't been tagged for advertising, so the patrollers are probably happy there. For article space, the refs and notability are needed. Peridon (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

About the article Jabong.com
The article was deleted after a reviewer tagged it with speedy deletion. I had tagged the page as a newpage and was yet to edit it fully. It was about an Indian website and there was no apparent reason for it to be deleted. Please revert me back if you can regarding what was wrong with it. Harsh 2580  (talk)  14:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Answered at your page already. Peridon (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your prompt response. Harsh 2580  (talk)  14:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If I m not mistaken, this user is on of the greatest admins on wiki ever. Perhaps you wanted to use instead of Thank you for lending your time to help us improve Wikipedia. If you are interested in editing more often than once in a while, we welcome you to log in and participate in our WikiCommunity. . Happy editing!   Yash  t  101   13:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Triple Bottom Line Development Page
Hi there. I have created a page for Triple Bottom Line Development Firm and it was deleted for advertisement reasons. Can you point out the errors of the certain page. Thanks, I would appreciate for your response — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hero125 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only that. There was no indication of importance or significance - see WP:CORP for our policy on companies and notability. And see WP:RS about the reliable independent sources needed to prove it. A lot of people think that Wikipedia is like AboutUs, where you can post whatever the PR department comes up with, and not have to prove it. Sorry, no. We don't have articles on all companies, or people (or underwater crochet clubs, performers on YouTube, or whatever). To you, the company is significant. (I presume it's paying your wages...) You have to show it is important to others. Fairly widespread coverage, and not just mentions. Not blogs, forums, wikis, press releases (including sites like PRWire) and not your own site(s). As to wording, articles here are written about, not by. Anything that uses 'we' is likely to have a promotional aim. Things like "The ongoing convergence and interchangeability" and "have obtain a wide experience and scope" (should be 'obtained' anyway) have the look of PR department involvement (or too close proximity to people who talk business-speak, and do lunch, and get their people to call your people), and 'leverage' is a killer. It means nothing most times. Here, it just means 'use'. Please see WP:NPOV (our policy on neutral point of view), and WP:SPAM, our policy on promotion. Peridon (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes ...
A CU can track an IP if they've used the special:email function. :) — Ched : ?  16:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Not a real person
*facepalm* It seems so obvious in hindsight. For some reason, I thought he was talking about a real person that was referenced in the play, not a character in it. Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wondered, and looked it up to be sure... Did Americans use numbering back then, or did they take up royal habits later? Peridon (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

My Editor Review
I have been here for a while and want to improve myself. Though I try my best to do the right thing, I may do something wrong. As you have seen me work, can you please leave me a review as I want to know where I stand so far and what should I improve to be a good editor. Your opinion has always been valuable and your review can help. Thanks :)  Yash  t  101   08:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

csd
Hello, I had tagged for csd this page Template:Labour Party (Turkey)/meta/shortname 2 months back. But I dont see any revision in the history !! How come !!! And the page need to be deleted. Thanks. -- ɑηsuмaη  ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ  16:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You did, and it was. As to deleting it, it appears to be fulfilling a function - go to it and click on 'What links here' in the toolbox. The other Turkish parties appear to have these templates too. User:Mikedaventry has been editing since 2005, so I presume he knows what he's doing, and so I'd advise just leaving it alone. Don't ask me to explain what it does - that side of Wikpedia working is a mystery to me. You wouldn't see anything in the history because the template was re-created. As an admin, I can see the previous deleted versions where you can only see the current undeleted version. (It's all still in store somewhere is the deleted stuff - including the Revision Delete that admins can do to hide things, and the things hidden by the Oversighters which admins can no longer see.) I suggest asking him to explain it as he seems to know what it's all about. Sorry I had to admit ignorance, but there's so much of this place that's behind the scenes and only understandable by those who have studied it. There seem to be two (at least) sorts of template: one which is obvious and puts boxed text and cross page banner text on, and the other which performs arcane tasks when set up right (and causes chaos when something goes wrong...). Peridon (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, got it. You always give a detailed explanation. Are you an analyst ? Thank you very much! :-) -- ɑηsuмaη  ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ  19:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

CSD help needed for Smiti singrodia
According to this, A3 is eligible, but I m confused that which is better: G3, A3 or G10? Please kindly guide me. → TheSpecialUser TalkContributions 16:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When there are multiple valid criteria you can always use a db-multiple with all of them. Monty  845  16:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good advice. If you find that one again, G3 vandalism and leave a note on the talk page to say it's been deleted at least five times already under two different versions of the title - and tell me or JohnCD (or any admin if you can't get us) so we can block the 'new' author as a sock. This author is blocked by JohnCD. He's protected this one and I've just protected the other version (Smiti). Peridon (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Julphar
Looks like we have a new SPA at Julphar: User:Redflower2012. According to their userpage they are not the same editor, but they are making the same edits and have disclosed that they work for the company. Pol430 talk to me 19:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest notifying someone who was involved with the SPI Sockpuppet investigations/Reema m h or open it up again if the edits are doing the same things as the last one did. She might have realised it's not a good idea to keep using her name, or else they've got a new patsy. They've very carefully not said they work for that particular company quack quack. I'm a bit erratic at the moment - right at this moment I'm sitting in the middle of a big field working with laptop and dongle. I'll look in when I can. Peridon (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. Makes a very wet night in a field feel a bit better... Peridon (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble again, but...
...This was about software and not my area to be frank and thus AfDed it. I had doubt about A7 and thus didn't tag. So is it eligible to get A7ed? → TheSpecialUser TalkContributions* 16:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. No. it's a word processor, and they have to be run on your own machine so they don't come under web content. Blogs, forums, photo galleries, sales places, online directories and social networking are all eligible for A7. Software, including word processors, browsers and firewalls, is not - but if the article is about the site where you can get the stuff, then it's OK to A7. Similar with games. If you have to download it and can play it without the internet connected, no. If you play it online, yes, even though you probably download a module in order to do it. Cloud stuff, in my opinion, is covered by A7 as it's out there not in here (so to speak). The article is minimally spammy as 'we can' appears. Oddly, I don't think 'we' means 'them' (the company) - I think it's 'we' as in 'we're going to take our nice medicine now'. 'More advanced than' usually indicates spam, but as it would be hard to get less advanced than Notepad nowadays, it's fairly sure to be true here... You were OK to AfD it, but I often try a prod first. Prod reaches the parts that CSD can't. Peridon (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem user
Hello! You might want to take a look at User:97.94.168.143. They seem to be getting away with multiple vandalism edits (14 so far in May) because of the fact that ClueBot always starts a new section and thus reboots the warning process. See what you think. Thanks, have a good weekend! --MelanieN (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Five days since last edit, so a bit tricky to block for that, even after a level 4. I've given a strongly worded personal warning and put them on my watchlist. I think any other admin will block after seeing that if any more happens. Peridon (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good solution. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Protection
Hi there, further to your deletions of those viking articles, could you full-protect this page please? Our viking-obsessive seems determined to vandalise it. Regards Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 12:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Three days blocking new and unregistered. Might go and play somewhere else. Peridon (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Been blocked indef now anyway. I'll leave the protection on. Peridon (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Junk
Yeah, I did wonder about that. I haven't seen that type of promotion before on articles but I'll keep an eye out for it in the future. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 13:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Message for you left on my talkpage
I seem to have been left a message intended for you on my talkpage. I don't appear to have ever interacted with this editor and have drawn a total blank as to why they decided I was you. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 05:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Peridon i want to know WHY YOU DELETED MY ARTICLE!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iuydf (talk • contribs) 22:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The articles were deleted because there was no indication of significance shown either for the named individual or the level of the sort being played. Wikipedia is not the place for blog type comments. Please see WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE and finally WP:RS about the reliable independent sources needed to prove claims. Peridon (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I am mad at peridon
Dear Peridon I AM MAD PUT MY ARTICLES BACK NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iuydf (talk • contribs) 10:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

PERIDON HADN'T RESPONDED
PERIDON PLEASE RESPOND TO MY REQUEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 * Peridon didn't have time to finish typing and eat his breakfast... My reply:
 * No. You haven't had the time to really read those policies yet. Wikipedia is "free to edit" but that doesn't mean that there are no rules. Were I to restore those articles, they would be deleted again by another administrator anyway. You have to show significance to avoid speedy deletion, but notability must be shown to avoid other forms of deletion. You showed neither. Read the policies. Find references (not blogs, forums, wikis, wordpress pages or anything self published) that show notability for your subject. Tell me what they are. But read the policies FIRST. And please sign talkpage posts with four ~ things. It's a good idea to find out how a place works before charging in. I may not know the detailed rules of whiffle ball, but I'm not telling you how to play it... Peridon (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You can go to WP:DRV (Deletion Review]] about it - you might be lucky. I doubt it, though. Peridon (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ring EXchange - Adventures of a Multiple Marrier
Hi Peridon,

I spent hours upon hours yesterday writing the book entry "Ring EXchange - Adventures of a Multiple Marrier" which then immediately was marked for speedy deletion. I am writing this on behalf of my partner, Pam Evans, the author of this book. I used another Wikipedia book entry as a template with the intention of writing it in a correct manner as per Wikipedia. Thus I would be very grateful if you could explain which text pieces that you deem inappropriate and the reason so that I can fix those items and reinstate the posting. Also please email me a copy of the original post so I do not need to start from scratch again.

Thank you for your assistance.

Christian Olsson San Francisco, California — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byteshield (talk • contribs) 21:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid my advice is not to start again - not yet, anyway. One of the reasons for deletion was that part of the text was the same as (or very close to) text at Amazon. Please see WP:COPYVIO about what can and can't be used here. Please note that even if you wrote it, it's still unusable here as it has been published elsewhere first. The other reason was the promotional tone of the article - Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion (whether deliberate or not), so even if you licensed the copyright bit it wouldn't be accepted. Apart from these reasons, it's far too soon for this book to be considered. It's only been out about a week, which isn't enough for a book by a new writer published by a main-stream publisher. I'm sorry to tell you that self-published books, like this is, rarely get articles here. This is because they rarely achieve the notability needed. Any book needs notability (as also do hamsters, rappers, footballers, wrestlers, executioners, etc etc), and this is shown in coverage in reliable independent sources WP:RS. A regularly published book will have a head start because of the publisher's publicity department will get copies of the book to where they will be noticed. (Like on the desk of the literary reviewer at The Guardian, for example...) Self published authors can't match this. My advice is to do the best you can to publicise the book (but not here), and to try to get it in with a regular publisher. The percentage of the profit is lower, but 10% on sales of 100,000 is a lot more than 50% on sales of 25. Harry Potter didn't get taken up by the first how many publishers? And you won't be, either. Don't give up. Find back door contacts. Talk to book shop owners - not the chains, but the independents that are still surviving. If the book lives up to the promo you've come up with so far, you might well get taken on by a regular. Good luck - but remember that like the music business, it's hard work until the sales start to rise. Peridon (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the very detailed recommendation which is very appreciated. I will hold off with a Wikipedia entry as you recommend and will keep on executing on our marketing/pr plan which includes a lot of what you recommend. Many thanks again!!Byteshield (talk • contribs) 00:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)