User talk:Peridon/Archives/2014/September

New entry for Declara
Hi Peridon

I am trying to create an entry for Declara. I am new to Wikipedia and still trying to get the hang of this. After more closely reading the Wikipedia guidelines, I understand now why you had deleted what I had started. Would it be possible for me to start that entry again?

I also wanted to disclose that I work with Declara and have been tasked with starting their user page. I have a draft of the page that I'd like to submit for you or one of your colleagues to review in order to ensure that it satisfies the minimum requirement of the Terms of Use, such as English Wikipedia’s policy on neutral point of view, that it be presented proportionally and (as far as possible) without bias, etc.

Do I need you or another Wikipedia voluteer to restore Declara so I can write a draft for submission?

Thanks, Ottomunaiz Ottomunaiz (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, Ottomunaiz! Peridon is busy right now so I will try to help you. You can put your draft into draft space or user space while you work on it; other people can help you with it there, but it should be safe from deletion (unless you copy-paste it from somewhere else; that is a no-no and will get deleted immediately). So here is what you can do: click on one of these red links User:Ottomunaiz/Draft or User:Ottomunaiz/Sandbox. Copy your draft there and save it. Then let me know, at my talk page, and I will come and look at it and advise you. First be sure to read the links at WP:COI (the guideline for writing about areas where you have a conflict of interest), WP:CORP (the notability guideline for a company to have an article here), WP:Copy-paste, and the information about independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI Peridon: I have worked with Ottomunaiz to create a better version of the article, and I have moved it into mainspace for them. Your evaluation is welcome! --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Maxdwhitaker
Are you sure? I know the spelling was a bit off, but there were no other pointers to Kirkpatrick, unless you know something that is not immediately obvious. The subject matter is not terrorism related, for one. I was on the cusp of sorting it out as it is of interest to me, having crashed only a couple of miles from my house.--Petebutt (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * He doesn't only do terrorism. There was also an incomplete article on another crash that for me also passed the duck test (deleted by someone else). I've added this one to the SPI without blocking the account as I'm not as expert in RK as others are. I'll be quite happy if it's not considered to be by RK and gets restored - and then tidied up. Give it a day or two and see what happens. Peridon (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Forbes Island
Hey, I see you deleted Forbes Island. I wasn't aware it was nominated, but the article clearly passes general notability guidelines. I intend to recreate it, if you have no objections. There are plenty of new sources on this one as well. I'll see if any of them merit an expansion. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The article as deleted read "Forbes Island is a restaurant in San Francisco, California, serving California cuisine at Pier 39." There was one external link (guess what?) and no refs. There had been a copyvio problem too. Go ahead. I only object when people repeatedly post a load of crap. Peridon (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Ping
Hi Peladon, ahem, Peridon. See User:Youssef Rakha. Pete "Alpha Centauri" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Tagged U2. (Not Who2 or You2...) Peridon (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And now G7. Peridon (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We used to hide behind the couch whenever Daleks came on. This was rather superfluous as "Aunty" showed them years after their original air date, so many British children had already done the same thing long before my siblings and I did. IMHO the original serial peaked between The Green Death and The Talons of Weng-Chiang then went into something of a decline. The re-boot with Eccleston Doctor reprized some of the best of the... no, wait, I never said any of this! I have no idea what "Dr Who" is and have no interest in what it might be. Pete "I never hid behind the couch when the Daleks came on, and what is a Dalek anyway?" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

CAN YOU HELP ME?
can you help me write the braindirector page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khuram12 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I could. I've just been through 12 pages of Google search for 'braindirector' with a minus for "brain director" (to narrow the search down), and I've not seen one thing that I'd class as a reliable independent source. Possibly it's too soon. Your site hasn't been around long, and it takes time to get the sources and coverage we require. You could ask MelanieN to have a look, but I don't think even she will find anything. Not every company or website gets an article - the vast majority don't. The trouble we have is that people think that having an article here will make them notable. But it's the other way round - you need to have the notability before you get an article. Peridon (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

said he
You mentioned in a deletion discussion to ask Boing! said Zebedee. I wish we could. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I missed that bit of bad news. Peridon (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Equipmentimes pageCderme (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Peridon,

I created a new page Equipmentimes,it's about website introduction, I wrote message about the history of background, still got deleted. is it possible to repost it...

thanks.
 * Please sign talk page posts with ~ - this puts your signature and the datestamp on. No, I'm not going to restore it. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a directory, and we do not allow advertising. Your article contained a lot of classic PR stuff, like 'dynamic', 'vision' (when not referring to spectacles...), and 'one-stop whole value chain'. It would need a total rewrite. Apart from this, we insist on subjects of articles being notable. In the case of a website, this would be WP:WEB for the notability, and WP:RS about the reliable independent sources you need to give to prove the notability. If you do try again, put it at User:Cderme/DRAFT (click and save) and avoid the PR wording. We don't like it here. In your user space, your draft is only at dander of being tagged if it fails on being a copyright violation (even if you wrote the original), an attack page, unambiguous advertising or promotion, or a blatant hoax. When you think it's ready, ask for advice. Most regular editors or admins will give opinions and possibly even help. Do remember that the vast majority of companies, websites and people do not get articles. There is no right to have an article, even if all your competitors do. Notability is the thing, not fairness or including everything. Peridon (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Owais khursheed
Thanks for your comments--Owais khursheed (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey peridon deletion of article Sant Jagjit Singh harkhowal is not right
Man, This article should not be deleted as it is regarding an important and a person of great fame in India. It's deletion is totally unjustified as it had almost no flaws in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeep7422 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting while I was editing
Just a thank you for deleting my user page while I was in the middle of editing it to conform to standards. Can't give a new person 5 minutes to fix their error????

Georgiagirl502 (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Georgiagirl502
 * Looked to me more like an hour since the tagging, with nothing happening. To be honest, we are often suspicious of new editors who post quite detailed stuff about themselves. A lot of people seem to think that they are entitled to a profile page here in the way they can get one at Facebook - but there seems to be more prestige involved being on here. My advice is to stick to a brief 'Hi! I'm a general assistant at McDonalds, having worked my way up from Tesco's' type of thing. (UK reference involved there...) As you spend more time here, you can add to it. (I started off in 2008 with three sentences, and have progressed to a full page that some seem to find entertaining. I've also got talk page stalkers who seem to enjoy this page too. They often give better answers than I do...) Anyway, no offence intended - we just reckon that if it looks like promotion it has to go. Or other people will start saying 'But they're doing it - why can't we?' Peridon (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Significance
Hi there. You recently removed my contributions of Chances Chilliwack citing "(A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)". Can you please explain how I can prove significance? I simply created a purely fact-based article from reference material, so just not sure how to better the page. Thanks!

Lemminggrass (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to show notability for long term survival. Siignificance is just for speedy deletion. Read WP:CORP, and also WP:RS which is the nasty bit, about the reliable independent sources you need to provide to back up the claim of notability. Don't go overboard - a three paragraph article doesn't need 30 sources, and the showing of notability mustn't stray into arousing suspicicions of promotion. Not all that easy. Most companies don't have articles, and never will. A company that needs to be on Wikipedia to boost itself up hasn't made the standard yet. Remember that this is an encyclopaedia, not a directory. Peridon (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The 31 flavors
Why was I not allowed to contest the speedy deletion? The band is important to the creation of Heavy Metal. Can I re create the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fruitloop11 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like you have... Make sure it meets WP:BAND and this is backed up with reliable independent sources WP:RS. Get your caps right (flavors), and do you really mean 'collage?' Peridon (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Re:Amor de Juventud
Hi, this soap opera does not exist. If you google you will not find any information about this telenovela. The article was invented by a user who was evading his block; (is now locked). Now, you have some reference to demonstrate the existence of this telenovela?. This telenovela will not premiere or 2015 or 2014 or any other year because it's just a made up article.-- ElSeñordelosCielos  (Talk)  22:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No - that means it's a hoax, but not A11. As I said, A11 is for possibly/probably good faith creations. Students with a marvellous new word that they want people to know about. A block evader is not usually assumed to be acting in good faith and that makes this a hoax - A11 strictly having the requirement that the thing is stated to be created by someone known to the author. To me, this isn't a blatant hoax - but then again I would also be unlikely to spot one involving synchronised swimming or ... It needs tagging for blatant hoax if you feel it is, and hope that an admin will also see it that way, or prod or AfD it. A11 is not the same as G3 hoax. We brought it in specifically for the things that weren't 100% certain hoaxes but were totally unencyclopaedic (and often slightly embarrassing). Unlike G3, it only applies in article space, whereas G3 applies anywhere at all. Peridon (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No thanks, I will not waste my time on that. If you want to have that in this wikipedia article, either. But I will not waste my time more. Then you say it is not a "hoax" and even has given no reference that says that soap opera actually exists.-- ElSeñordelosCielos  (Talk)  22:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No. I'm not saying it isn't a hoax. I'm saying that for me, it's not a blatant hoax, which is why I'm not tagging it. I am saying it is not A11, as it does not fit the criteria for A11. If to you it is a blatant hoax, as presumably you know what telenovelas are, and where this one is supposed to be coming, then you can tag it G3 hoax - but give good reasons on the talk page. Or put it at prod, or AfD where other people can add their bit of knowledge to the debate. Blatant means stands up and spits in your eye obvious. Like a 13 year old announcing that he's getting married to Madonna next month in Widnes. Even if you don't know Widnes, that is so obvious that even the most inclusionist admin wouldn't bother Googling. TV? I don't even watch it in my own country let alone know what goes on elsewhere. Peridon (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Help with what to tag
Hey Peridon. What would you tag for IOS 8 microwave charging hoax and Baghwar? Originally, I tagged IOS 8 microwave charging hoax for G2 because none of the other criteria really fit (I'm thinking of PROD? or is this article notable enough to be on wiki?). I tagged Baghwar as G3. The speedy got declined but I would actually disagree with the decliner. (see discussion in my talk page.) I know Baghwar is definitely not notable. Thanks, SmileBlueJay97 talk 13:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please advise? SmileBlueJay97 talk 05:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed this one. I think the Apple hoax one was best added to the main article, and this title left as a redirect. (It does show how stupid some people can be - both for starting the rumour, and for believing it without checking things out properly.) Baghwar - not a blatant hoax to me. Googling it gives some possible refs, but I'm not sure about the reliability. (Search was for 'baghwar tigers worship'.) The summaries for the ghits hint at non-Hindu nature worshippers. I would suggest looking into some of these hits and then if they seem reliable, adding them, or if none are, AfD as a possible non-blatant hoax. That usually gets people digging, some to unmask it, some to save it. Result is the same, AfD not being a court of law or national legislature (where is shouldn't be said that people lie to promote their side - it really shouldn't be said...). The other possibilities in both cases are to pass by on the other side, or righteously express doubts on the talk page. I didn't say that, and if you get to RfA, it's not allowed as an answer to a 'What would you do' question. Peridon (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Galina Vale
Please see my reply Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)