User talk:Peridon/Archives/2014/June

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion question
Hi, Peridon! Question for you (since you are an undisputed expert on speedy deletion): At Talk:Doctor of Chiropractic we reached consensus that the name of the article should be changed to Chiropractor. That title already exists here, as a redirect. I assumed I could just G6 the redirect page it to get it out of the way. But it turned out the page had a significant editing history, which I think makes it ineligible for G6 speedy. The directions at Redirects for Discussion seemed to say that my only other option was to do a Requested Move, which I did. But I am wondering, is there any alternative way to get rid of the target page, other than waiting a week for an RM discussion to run its course? Thanks for any thoughts! --MelanieN (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Errr. Sorry for delay in replying - I'm not at home. In view of the very lengthy histories of both pages (and my total lack of knowledge of the chiropractic business), I'd say you're probably right to wait for an RM. But, in a quick read of the criteria, I can't see that using G6 is forbidden. To be honest, I find G6 hard to understand except for the last bit about pages created in error. Someone like DGG or JamesBVWatson might be more clued about that than I am. Peridon (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

CDH Proton Center: 09 June 2014
Thanks for your response Peridon. I've uploaded a severely edited version of the original post to IChevako/Drafts. I've removed any subjective language. I'm hoping to get this reviewed for language and then try to republish if possible. Any assistance you can provide is greatly appreciated. I'm a total Wiki newbie so I apologize for any previous or future procedural mistakes. Thanks! IChevako (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a quick look - had a long journey. You can't have 'Learn more about...' - that's traffic directing, which is regarded as promotional. Also, your references look to need improvement. Far too much looks to be in house or press release. Please read WP:RS. Will look again later, but I don't think bios of the staff are relevant. That's stuff for the centre to handle. Peridon (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

AFD nomination withdrawn
Hi. I have withdrawn this AFD nomination. As you are an admin and apparently onwiki now, could you close it out so I can remove it from my watchlist. Thanks!! Quis separabit? 17:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Peridon (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Remember this one?
Hi, Peridon! I've been working with that user that you pinged me about a few weeks ago, Dpapa187, and you'll be glad to know they have been able to create a decent article about A.G. Leventis Nigeria Plc. --MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well done... Peridon (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops! I spoke too soon. Deleted again, still too much copyvio. Bummer. I hope they can reconstruct it, I do think the subject qualifies for an article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion
Hi there. Don't know if you remember me. We have interacted a couple of times here, my old account name being. As a fellow editor, I just wanted to ask you if you think I deserve rollback now. I know it was removed earlier as I acted immatured. It's been three years now since that incident. Everyone makes mistakes, but we all learn from them and I have. So please tell me your opinion on my edits. Thanks, &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 12:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You probably do merit it - but I rarely get involved with these rights. To be honest, I've probably rolled back myself more than I have others. Before I was an admin, I got reviewer and never really found out what it was for, and also got rollback and used it a couple of times or so. I work mostly in CSD and that sort of thing, where rollback isn't used - except for the cases of vandalism that turn up there. Even then, I prefer to revert with a brief summary if possible. Looking at your talk page, you seem to be giving good advice, and from your contribs you are involved with anti-vandalism. I think you'd get a better opinion from one of the admins that are found in the permissions area than from me. Good luck. Peridon (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Alamaj
There is a permission in OTRS system (2014060910014324) to use the text from https://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/Alamaj under cc-by-sa-3.0 and/or GFDL license, so the note: Alamaj (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|views) — http://www.sonicbids.com/band/alamaj/. CSBot reporting at 17:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC) in Suspected copyright violations/2014-06-09 and copyright related objections in User talk:Slickpaw84 seems no longer valid.

Could you, please, verify whether it inflicts the deletion process of this article (the reason shown in the deletion log suggests the deletion was not related to copyright). Ankry (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The OTRS ticket only affects (not 'inflicts', please...) any copyright issues. I removed the copyright mention from the deletion tag before deleting on the separate issue of advertising or promotion. A permission to use copyright text does not overrule any other possible considerations, which is why I usually advise people not to bother licensing the text from their website as it isn't going to be suitable for use here anyway. Websites and profiles (outside the academic world) are designed to promote the subject - that's what they are there for. That's not what Wikipedia is for. My note on Slickpaw84's page explains this to them briefly. Clear promotion was the deletion reason, but no indication of significance either. Peridon (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explanation. Ankry (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

For you
I thought that you might like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Like it! I'll play around to get it in place. Ta muchly. Peridon (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Page Deletion
Oakville Family Ribfest page! I see there are other similar wiki pages. I am attempting to add the content to meet the criteria. What do you suggest is needed? RamandeepTiwana (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. At the moment, there's a lot of events being removed for not passing WP:NEVENT - OK, strictly for not showing significance which is the lower level used at A7. Previously, they weren't subject to speedy deletion, and the other forms of deletion are harder work. Notability is to be aimed at, not just the significance required for passing speedy. If you can show that the Ribfest passes NEVENT, with reliable independent sources WP:RS to prove it, you should be home and dry. Note that papers like The Deadwood Flats and Yellowbone Gulch Herald Tribune are not likely to count. Nor are the National Enquirer or The Sun. When you think you're getting somewhere, start it off at User:RamandeepTiwana/DRAFT and ask for advice. However, as I remember, this is a student based thing - and apart from some Oxford and Cambridge or Harvard and Yale things, student stuff is generally not of note. Prove us wrong... Peridon (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Oakville Family Ribfest Page Deletion
The citations listed are from the "Oakville Beaver" (yes silly, but real name) Which is a reputable Newspaper and their articles are often syndicated through Canadian Press. http://www.metroland.com/Communities/100151/Oakville_Beaver

The event is not organized by a student organization. It run by Rotary International https://www.rotary.org/ Rotary Club and the local club http://www.rcot.ca

The event passes the Inclusion criteria, since it is recurring annual event that is growing in size. The charitable goal is of great significance to the local and international causes it supports. RamandeepTiwana (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Choosecarseat
Hi Peridon. Thanks for helping out at. I've been wondering for some time if there was something we could do to reduce the number of people who honestly believe that WP is an acceptable place to advertise their wares. Nothing we can do about the determined spammers, of course, but since I've been spending more time recently in NPP, I've seen a lot of what appear to be honest misunderstandings. Any thoughts about this embryonic idea would be welcome: I haven't even looked to see what is shown in the run up to creating an account, but it seems that some sort of message at that stage might help. —S MALL JIM   15:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've argued (somewhere or other...) for an intro to new users to explain no spam, not social media etc. I'm sure it could be done as a reasonably brief 'read this or turn into a pumpkin' thing as a part of agreeing to the terms and conditions (which would take a week to read in full...). I too see a lot of people who think we're the same as Facebook in not monitoring stuff for quality. The Google link always fades out after a day or two, but talk pages might pop up. Mine does on Google, but the seating one didn't (could be the noindex working but I wouldn't have thought it would be that quick). As to the intro - I would think something longer than a visible screenful with big bold at the top to hit them before they scroll down to find the 'next' button that they won't be able to see (unless on a Mac with newspaper proportioned screen - if those are still in use). I'll have a think and make some notes. There will be weepers and wailers claiming that we're trying to restrict inflow of new editors. Hell, that IS what we're out to do. Sort the tares out of the wheat before needing to use weedkiller. On a side tack, I think that there is outsourcing of page writing going on. One heck of a lot of non-notable small businesses and non-notable bods seem to have Indian names for the author. Can't see a way of proving it or stopping it, though. Peridon (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with all that, and if we knew that they had clicked an "I have read and understood the above" button below a clear and simple explanation, we'd be on much stronger ground in dealing with infractions: the explanation could be linked in warning/block messages – "you signed up to this". But I suppose the legal bods would have to be involved for that to happen. I look forward to seeing your notes in due course!
 * Regarding outsourcing, yes, I've seen the same thing: it's just another variety of paid editing, isn't it? There must be adverts online somewhere... —S MALL  JIM   18:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Magic of Science
I see you prodded the article. The PROD was removed and I placed an AfD on the page. Bgwhite (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for adminship
Hi, I'm A.Minkowiski. I noticed that you deleted some of my tagged pages. I'm fighting against vandalism and my main focus is to revert vandal edits and reporting them. I would be very happy if I become an admin to fight against vandals directly. First I was an long term IP editor and now, few months before I created my account and started fighting against vandalism. I have requested same message to others if some one look at my work. I hope to hear from you soon. Plus, I'm familiar with blocking policy and other policies too. Plus, I also want to monitor CSD page and deleting them if they lie under deletion policy. Thank you. A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 18:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. To be honest, you don't stand any chance until your account has been editing at least a year and has 5,000 edits. You've had 1209 when I just looked (plus deleted edits on things you've tagged, which comes to a couple of hundred more). There's no rule, but I've not seen anyone succeed with less. Your IP editing is unlikely to count as it's unprovable. In the mean time, visit WP:RFA regularly - you don't have to !vote, but look at what people are saying. The current candidate made a mistake six months ago and that's causing him some problems... Make sure you've got a few articles you've created. (I got away with two, but I was mainly a patroller). Be seen at the admin boards and Village Pump - but don't comment just for the sake of being seen. Take part in AfD, MfD and anything else fD. Be prepared for "Why did you edit from an IP for a long time?", "What other accounts have you edited from?" and the other regular questions that come up. No offence intended, but you could do to brush up your use of English. That will definitely be made a point by the people who make a habit of opposing. We have admins whose native language isn't English, and some whose native language is English but at times you'd not think it... You are quite understandable. Aim for perfection. Aim for perfection in all things, even. Don't even think of telling someone to piss off and get a life. Watch admins at work - as best you can and as many as you can. Not all would pass now that passed then. And don't be afraid to ask questions. Adminship is no big deal, it's said. RfA IS a big deal. We don't usually delete pages by ourselves, by the way. Only if we find a clear attack or other copies of something that's already been dealt with. If we find something else, we tag it for another admin to deal with. And we deal with the ones that other admins have tagged - and we don't always automatically delete those. Enough for now, except to say it's too soon now. Look at the advice that the others give and compare it with this. The rest is up to you. Peridon (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. I got your points clearly now. I would surely go through your suggestions. Thank you once again :). Best regards A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 15:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And yes one more question, is content creation necessary for RfA in future ? A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 15:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For some editors, it's absolutely essential. For me, it isn't. You don't have to be able to cook to appreciate a good meal. It does no harm to get an article or two in your lists, or fairly noticeable improvements to existing ones. Some talk about needing FAs and GAs - I wouldn't know the one from the other. Not everyone is a writer. (I am, but not here...) There is no way of telling who will come into an RfA and what they'll do. Go to WP:RFA and look at some of the previous ones - both successful and otherwise. Peridon (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * About whether content creation is necessary for a successful RFA, I would answer that with a qualified "yes, it is". There are quite a few people at RfA who will automatically oppose any applicant who hasn't been involved in content creation - at least copy editing and expanding articles, preferably creating at least a few new articles. Thanks for wanting to help Wikipedia in this way! but I agree with Peridon, it's a little too soon. --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. Being an admin, do you think I'm doing good at the moment in WP (means my contribution) ? A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 16:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, can anyone grand me autopatrolled rights if I'm eligible for that ? A.Minkowiski_Lets t@lk 16:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That one is, so far as I am aware, for content creators with fifty (might be thirty) articles or so created. I have given it once (I think...). It's for people that are trusted not to need their work being scrutinized by the patrollers. I never had it. As to your contribs, I can't go digging at the moment (waiting for a phone call), but I will look when I get a chance. Or Melanie might give a (probably better) opinion... Peridon (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (Still stalking) Per WP:Autopatrolled, "A suggested standard is the prior creation of 50 valid articles, not including redirects or disambiguation pages. This user right is not normally given to brand-new editors, regardless of the number of articles created." It's intended for people who have created so many articles that their articles don't need to be patrolled by anyone else. It's not something you should even consider at this point in your Wikipedia career, I'm afraid. By the way, here is a tool that shows what you have been doing at Wikipedia since registering with this username. At this point you have made only 200+ edits to article space, so that is something you might want to do more of. --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ... and saying "oh, if I cannot have Admin, can I have autopatrolled" makes the whole thing sound like hat-collection. Rights, priviliges and reputations are earned  the panda ɛˢˡ”  17:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

User:A.Minkowiski, I just noticed that you have been making this same request over and over, on the talk pages of different admins. (Examples: ) They have all told you the same thing: Way too early to even think about it. You need to stop wasting everyone's time like this. Everyone is responding gently to you, counseling you, answering your questions - but you are ignoring everyone's advice and continuing on your quest. Stop WP:Forum shopping, stop WP:Hat collecting, and work on building an encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And after all that good advice from lots of different people... they applied anyhow! --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Page Deletion
Hello,

Thank you so much for your feedback!! As per your suggestion, We are editing our https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RamandeepTiwana/DRAFT Page. We have added some content relevant references as well. What else do you suggest is needed? 209.151.137.41 (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks better, but I'll ping to have a look. She's good at this sort of thing. Peridon (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I'm sorry, but this will not qualify as a standalone article. Ramandeep, you have done a great job digging up references and I commend you for it - but the references to show that this is a notable event simply don't exist. In order for this event to have an article, it has to have significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. That doesn't mean calendar listings or articles in the small hyperlocal newspaper, or publicity from the sponsoring Rotary Club. We expect significant notice in papers of at least regional importance. I was going to suggest that this could be made into a paragraph at Oakville, Ontario or Sheridan College. I see it already has a mention at the Oakville article; that could be expanded slightly, but not with all this full information. I notice that the festival is only three years old; maybe in the future there will be more coverage from a broader area; but for now it just doesn't qualify. I'm really sorry, I can tell you have worked hard on this, but Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and it has to have standards for subjects to be included here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Melanie. (I've been waiting for a comment from Ramandeep, but it hasn't come.) BTW I don't think of you as an Ogre - you're the nice one who rescues things from that horrid admin, and the one who explains better than I can why some things can't be rescued. As to our friend higher up the page, he reminds me a bit of someone, but there are probably more like that. Ask for advice, and then go and do exactly what they were advised NOT to do. BTW 2 someone once told me what those colons in links (see your links above) were for. Can't remember what they do - and don't think I've ever used them. Peridon (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that our eager friend has been begging for admin status (and other hats, and barnstars, and, and, and) since the first month he was here. Even the admin who nominated him advised against it, but he was not to be deterred. I don't exactly understand the colons myself; they seem to make the link kind-of-work and kind-of-not-work. The colon-tagged link takes you to the target if you click on it, but it doesn't do anything else. In this case, they take you to the Sheridan College page, but your talk page doesn't show up on "what links here" at that page. In the case of a category, like Category:Wikipedians who like Monty Python, they take you to the category if you click them, but they don't add the page you are on to the category. I guess I really shouldn't use markup that I don't understand, but hey, we're all a little reckless sometimes. Maybe one of your talk page stalkers can explain it to both of us. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah! - it stops linking... Must remember that. Peridon (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I poked around a little and found a sort-of explanation at Help:Link: "Attempting to link normally to an image page, category page or interlanguage link will produce a different effect: this will respectively place the image on the page, add the page to the category, or create an interlanguage link at the edge of the page. To override this behavior, insert an initial colon ":", as in File:Mediawiki.png, Category:Help, fr:Help:Link. " For what it's worth. I think my explanation was clearer. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)