User talk:Peridon/Archives/2015/April

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion tags.
Thanks for the advice - I've taken it on board, and yes there is a lot to learn.

Speedy deletion of Francis Sultana
Hello I didn't realise it was going to submit the article as soon as I clicked Save. I presumed it would stay as a draft until I submitted it and did not intend for the version you deleted to be submitted. I would like to create this again now but it says to speak to you first. Please let me know if I'm ok to proceed. Many thanks LittleGold (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good job you did speak first... It's now at User:LittleGold/Francis Sultana where it should be safe. Only hoax, attack, copyright violation and advertising get tagged in user space. You can work on it at your leisure, and save when you want. Give me a shout when you think it's ready for launching. User space is the best place for working on something - in article space we really expect something ready to stand up on its own feet. Peridon (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks Peridon for the education regards.--Rberchie (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

About the CSD G11 tag in User:Sipriot's page.
Hi, I see you have removed the CSD G11 tag placed by me on the user page stating that the page is a 'disclaimer'. I placed CSD G11 because, So, I came to a conclusion that the username was created by that organisation to promote their research in the articles of Wikipedia. Didn't I do the right thing? Or, did I make a mistake somewhere? I'm confused! Would be happy if you help! Thank You! --Jaaron95 (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * the user name was similar to the name of the organisation SIPRI(http://www.sipri.org/),
 * the user is making edits to the articles of each and every country (eg.Indian Armed Forces‎, Bundeswehr etc..) mentioning their arms import, sometimes not adhering to NPOV, and with references that are only from (http://www.sipri.org/), which I think is their own research! Does that comply with Spam??
 * Looks like you did your research properly. I'll have a word with them. Peridon (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

List of major home appliance manufacturers
I apologise in advance for the very boring heading. I only came upon this article by chance and soon wished I hadn't. However, if you have an idle moment, I would welcome your thoughts. My interpretation of notable, even within lists, is that it should either have an article here (simple) or be referenced by a reliable and robust independent reference. The principal author/editor here is reliant upon a single directory + some other bits and bobs to justify a list of all past and present manufacturers of large appliances (washing machines etc rather than trusses I suspect). I saw your name in passing involved in an erudite discussion on glossaries involving pewter which suggested that you were considerably more knowledgeable than me about lists on Wikipedia and might be able to help. My inclination is to wade in and reduce the list to that which is notable (as defined above), but having been rebuffed by the "owner" of the article I thought it prudent to seek a second opinion before  seeming to edit war over such an inscrutably boring article. If you are busy, please feel free to ignore and delete, I won't feel bad !. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 19:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that Lists on Wikipedia are really part of the indexing system that we don't have. If you see what I mean. You know, when you go to 'Help' in software, you often get the option of general topic areas or an alphabetical index that always uses a different name for the thing you are looking for. We have Search, and woe betide you if you don't get pretty close to the title you seek, or at least to a redir to it. Lists are to group articles in a more user friendly way than Categories does. 'List of Upper Slobodian Counter Tenors', or 'List of Welsh gold mines' - that sort of thing. On the whole, they are supposed to have articles, but one or two that are likely candidates may be redlinks. A list of mainly black linked things falls under WP:NOTDIRECTORY, especially when a website is linked for each and every one. I can't see some of them even being candidates for articles, let alone being 'Major' manufacturers. a365, for instance, has a rather PR worded 'about us' page, a reading between the lines of which makes me think they are suppliers rather than manufacturers. Warrington is very distribution oriented these days (a new warehouse seems to go up every day...), but still retains some of its old industries (like detergents etc), and the UK as a whole doesn't seem to manufacture appliances of this sort - Japan having been supplanted by China. As to the reference - it doesn't apply to the contents of the list at all, It references a historical position on manufacture. Basically, the list is WP:OR in my eyes. Peridon (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That I understand. I'll make a note to go back to the article when I can summons the courage ! Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 21:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Usage of CSD G11
It has been a very long time that I haven't been criticized for speedy deletions. I have some doubts with this article. Have marked Rahul Parmar with CSD G11, it is promotional because there are no sources outside and the person who has created the article is "Rahulmarvel" and these edits comes after 7 months.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd have said A7 myself, as assistant directors with nothing to show otherwise aren't particularly notable (or significant for CSD). However, this one does seem to have a good opinion of himself to judge from the user name, and the intention undoubtedly was self-promotion. RHaworth agreed with you, anyway, and it needed to go. Peridon (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Why did you delete our company entry?
The business is absolutely legitimate, established and definitely alive unlike many others listed at Wikipedia and especially the ones comparing with. Totally do not understand the point of keeping businesses that entered Wikipedia 10 years ago and not letting new entrants and giving unfair advantage to dinosaurs. Any answer to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timetrackr (talk • contribs) 21:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a directory, and unlike directories, we keep entries on entities that are now defunct. We don't have as many entries on new businesses because they aren't able to pass our policy of notability for companies WP:CORP. Or find the reliable independent sources WP:RS to prove the notability. The majority of businesses in the world do not have articles here. If you cannot now understand this, you are not understanding the role of an encyclopaedia, as opposed to directories and social media. All three have their place, and their different functions and rules. Apart from this, your article was promotional, and advertising and/or promotion are not allowed here. "Cronforce handles it on your behalf offering features such as..." is not the way things in an encyclopaedia are worded. Peridon (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW please sign talk page posts with ~ which puts your sig and the datestamp on properly, like this: Peridon (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This argument does not pass basic scrutiny - encyclopedia is giving full coverage of topic not just fragments of it - this is why you have to allow legitimate businesses to co-exist next to the stone age entries you are keeping. Let the audience decide what is relevant for them, break down this vicious cycle and closed community you have here. Half the existing entries do not pass the cited rules, cannot require from new entries to abide by them. Timetrackr (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The rules are made by the editing community here, and have evolved over the years. If a new entity passes the policy tests, it is likely to get an article - but not one that is written in a promotional way. Even if the subject is clearly notable, the article will be deleted if it is seen to be promotional. Yes, we can require new articles to fit the current rules. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The rules were more lax years ago, and there are well over four million articles so it takes a bit to catch up with the misfits that slipped through. This 'closed community' is not closed. Anyone who isn't banned or blocked can make proposals for change. But you will never get a change allowing advertising. If you know of articles that don't fit our rules, make sure you have understood the policies and let us know about them. I started here by removing stuff that didn't belong - that's still what I do. Peridon (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Ghar Wapsi
Definition of Ghar wapsi is wrong and that is why i edited it. i go on puttuing the correct definition and someone again put the wrong one. why is it so?how many times do you want me to recorrect the definition. i also added many things to ghar wapasi pages - some thing about its constitutionality, then why did some one keep deleting it. tell me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanism two (talk • contribs) 16:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

If you have not noticed this behaviour is not only for you but a norm here. 130.204.131.157 (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting into the rights and wrongs of the information. I am saying that until you discuss on the talk page what you want to do, you will be reverted if you are removing referenced material, or if you are adding unreferenced material. I have seen no sign of you trying to discuss anything - you seem to be pushing your own view against those of the other editors. You are wanting the changes - you must lay out on the talk page why you think things are not right in the article - and provide reliable independent sources WP:RS to back you up. Maybe you are right and they are wrong. Maybe they are right and you are wrong. Maybe there are two different ways of looking at the same thing and agreement must be reached on how they can both be included. Whatever the result is, you do not just keep[ on removing stuff if it is referenced. There must be discussion. I know nothing about Ghar Wapsi or Vivekananda, but I do know how this matter should be handled. If you don't do things the Wikipedia way, you will not be allowed to do anything here. Wikipedia is free to edit (so long as you are not blocked), but there are rules and procedures. Peridon (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all let take the case of definition of Ghar Wapsi. Its a fact that GW has been launched by Hindu organisation like VHP etc and they have their own definitions, which is original definition. Definition on the wiki page is not correct as it says its an attempt to convert Hindus. Correct would that GW is an attempt to Reconvert Non -Hindus who had fraudulently been converted to christinity and other religions- This is how Hindu organizations define the term.

If some definition is incomplete then it may lead us to systemic bias. This in turn will lead to credibility loss for Wikipedia. Therefore, i propose the to change the definiton first. In fact, i am asking for a complete definition. Defining something consistently and completely is essential, this is what we intend to do while we define anything in mathematics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanism two (talk • contribs) 12:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Why are you not replying now when i have started the talk. You understand that definition of GW is not right and therefore i am again going to change it, if you do not reply back within 2 days.
 * If I don't answer, it usually means I can't answer because I'm somewhere without an internet connection. Peridon (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I still can't see any sign that you are taking part in the discussion that has started on the Ghar Wapsi talk page. I am taking no part in the discussion of the content there because I know nothing about it. I am only involved in making sure that our rules are adhered to. Peridon (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Current state
Hello You said to let you know when I was ready to re-submit this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LittleGold/Francis_Sultana Please can you take a look and let me know how to do that please? Thank you LittleGold (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A couple of points first - you don't need to copy the title from the URL bar - just copy the title at the page top and put it in two pairs of [ ] brackets. Second, when starting a new thread on a talk, put a heading in two pairs of = signs. (I often use a pun in mine, but that's perhaps better avoided until you are established here...). OK. In articles, we don't refer to 'Fred Bloggs' as 'Fred'. We usually call him 'Bloggs', although if there other Bloggses mentioned, 'Fred Bloggs' is OK to clarify things. The refs are a bit enthusiastic, and the article a bit minimalist (better than being promotional, though...). I'll ask to have a look - I think it might work as it stands, but I'm not quite sure that there's enough about him rather than the collections. Perhaps some more about the V & A and NSPCC connections? Peridon (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, Peridon. To User:LittleGold, thanks for your work on this article. There are two questions here: is the article ready to submit? And, does the subject even qualify for an article? The answer to the first - is the article ready? - is, not right now, but you can fix that. For example: refer to him as "Sultana" or "he" after the first mention, as Peridon noted; and format your references properly (see WP:Referencing for beginners). The answer to the second - does he qualify for an article? - depends on whether he meets our criteria for an article, which are described at WP:General notability guideline and WP:BIO. He has to have received significant coverage from Independent Reliable Sources. Right now, only one of your references qualifies as an Independent Reliable Source - the one from Architectural Digest. And it isn't about him, it's about one of his collections. So based on your current references - no, he does not qualify for an article. However, I found some other Independent Reliable Source references that you could incorporate into the article, and they could help to establish his notability. Check out these sources: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/style/homes_and_gardens/My_Place/article1512905.ece, http://www.houseandgarden.co.uk/christmas/ideas/francis-sultana-christmas-decoration, http://www.harpersbazaar.co.uk/culture-news/bazaar-art/my-week-a-frieze-francis-sultana-art. See if you can use any of them to expand the article, or cite some of its information. It really does need more biographical information - the article is a biography, after all - but that seems to be hard to find. After you make these improvements: I don't promise that it will be accepted as an article, but it well might be. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Seidlitz again...
Many thanks for your communication, Peridon, and sincere apologies for not acknowledging it earlier. I had a several attempts at adapting the article for UN, but it wasn't quite funny enough to stand alone in its own right, not least because UN ≠ WP rejects. Instead I re-wrote the WP Seidlitz powder article and added the original 1916 'Flight' article as an unobtrusive external link, although it might not belong there either... >MinorProphet (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you tried... Peridon (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Platinum tetrafluoride
You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so I have restored it, and let you know in case you wish to consider AfD. I have left a note at WT:WikiProject Chemicals in case anyone there likes to pick it up. JohnCD (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)