User talk:Peridon/Archives/2016/August

NPSS page deletion
You deleted NPSS page (Next Phase Solutions and Services) despite being factual and backed-up by credible sources. It may not have been perfect, but you should have identified the areas for improvement, NOT deleted it. All the content is missing and it was several hours of work to try and write a neutral article. Being new, there is going to naturally be less ability online to backup factually until time goes on. If you are going to delete new content as advertising then you should be neutral and delete ALL other content for other small business company history that is also written the same way. I compared the content to a lot of other Wikipedia content to help ensure neutrality and I am not involved in the business. Similar content like what you deleted is all over the place and your behavior was inappropriate given there was in fact, no advertising. As a moderator you should not just troll Wikipedia and do what you want. I have no idea how to get this content back for improvement after working so hard on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factmuse32 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please sign talk page posts with ~ to put your signature and the timestamp on. Thanks. OK. The main criterion for inclusion of an article is notability of the subject. If a company does not pass WP:CORP, then it is not eligible for an article. I could see no sign that this policy was passed. any notability must be backed up with reliable independent sources WP:RS. These do not include directory listings or mere mentions. New businesses often do not pass our policies, and for that matter, many long-established larger companies don't either. We work on the principle WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in connection with other companies having articles already. We also do not take potential into account. If notability is not yet achieved (or demonstrated), then the article must wait until this is so. I added the A7 (lack of indicated significance) to the original tagging of promotionality.  The article was written looking rather too much like a plug for the company, rather than being a neutral encyclopaedia article. (Your intention may not have been to plug - we can't tell that. It's the look that counts.) It is not easy to achieve the required neutrality, and in view of your user page comment "Looking to raise awareness of things missing on Wikipedia that are relatively recent projects, organizations, or ideas I participate in.", I would advise you to read WP:COI about conflict of interest. Wikipedia editors are supposed to be neutral, and editing about subjects you are close to conflicts with this neutrality. It is not totally forbidden, but is strongly not recommended. (If you were editing as an employee, consultant or owner, I would strongly advise reading WP:TOU (our terms of use), as editing for pay or reward MUST be declared.) Please understand that recent projects or organisations usually do not have the required notability (as I said earlier). I am not a 'moderator'. The term used on Wikipedia is 'administrator', and this position is awarded (or not as the case may be...) after a week-long open discussion where any editor with an account that is not at the time blocked or banned may comment. You may try again, and I would suggest doing it in user space at User:Factmuse32/DRAFT (click that link and save it) as the question of notability or significance does not apply there. WP:SPAM does, however, so I suggest being really neutral as if you were not "looking to raise awareness" of the subject. Wording like "much emphasis has been first placed on innovative solutions with the help of key partnerships" suggests PR (either meaning public relations or press release...). If you try again, first look for the reliable independent sources. Then work around them to make the article. Editors that may be able to help are MelanieN and Ritchie333. Both are admins, and they enjoy rescuing things. Good luck. Peridon (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hookson page deletion
The Hookson page has been nominated for speedy deletion despite being factual and backed-up by credible sources. Can I create this page or will it be deleted again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisagracetaylor (talk • contribs) 15:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Replied at poster's talk page. Peridon (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Sigma Alpha Gamma
I find it hard to believe that the page was deleted when it meets all the criteria as the other military fraternity pages that are up. Can you explain to me why it was deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by GammaMan (talk • contribs) 20:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't know about other "military fraternity pages", but they aren't really relevant - please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Part of the problem was that parts of the article were copied or very closely paraphrased from a copyright source. Wikipedia cannot accept text like this because of our licensing under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL for free use by anyone anywhere. Text that is not original to here, or similarly licensed, or in the public domain (usually because of its age or origins in certain US or Indian government departments) is not compatible with our licensing. Close paraphrasing is also a breach of copyright. I'm afraid we cannot just accept your word that you have permission to use the text. Please see WP:COPYVIO. The text was also in many places promotional, as can be expected from its website origin - that is what a website is for. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and does not permit promotionality. I could see nothing in the article to show that the organisation passes WP:GROUP or WP:ORG. As a side point not directly relevant to the speedy deletion, the referencing did not fit with our policy on reliable independent sources WP:RS as it was solely to the organisation's own site. for longer term survival, referencing compliant with RS is essential even though not a part of the speedy criteria. You are welcome to try again, but I advise writing from scratch and not copying from the website even if you paraphrase. Mottoes and slogans may be quoted, but should be in quotation marks to show they are not part of your text. Get the references together first, and write around them. I advise doing this at User:GammaMan/DRAFT (click and save) rather than in article space. Drafts in user space are still liable to be tagged if thought to be copyvio, advertising, hoax or attack pages, but are safe from notability and referencing problems while being worked on. I would suggest getting an opinion from someone like MelanieN or Ritchie333, who are both administrators noted for article rescue work, before relaunching into article space. Good luck. Do remember that any sign of enthusiasm for the subject may be regarded as promotion - the style to use is flat and grey. Peridon (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * PS please sign talk page posts with ~ to put your sig and the timestamp on. This page is covered by SineBot, but not all talk pages are. Peridon (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Disk Expert
Hi Peridon, the user who created Disk Expert also created "Disk Expert (disambiguation)", then moved to Disk Expert (software). It's unclear to me whether I should move it to "Disk Expert". (And along those lines, I think Talk:Disk Expert qualifies for G8) — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 15:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ooops - forgot that one... As to the move, can't see any reason why not. Have a word with him though, as he mightn't understand our procedures over moves, naming and disam. I'm not commenting on the notability of the prog. I tend to stay clear of software. Peridon (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

More MascotGuy sock pages to be removed.
Category:Talk pages of MascotGuy sockpuppets to be deleted Mage Resu (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ta for that - but I'm just off to bed... Peridon (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

St Forbadil
You took me to task for wanting proper references to the above. It concerns a subject from at least 1000 years ago, probably 1250. The only reliable primary sources are written ones. If we were dealing with more recent times, I would not be so scathing, but all the available material has been churned over by historians at great length and the possibility of a RS on a newly discovered bishop are vanishing small. The possibility exists of an archaeological discovery, but it ought to be possible to cite a publication of such. For example, I recall a coin being found a few years ago in the name of a previously unknown Roman Emperor; it then turned out that one other coin had previously been found. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Err, I wasn't taking you to task over anything. I was commenting that the sight of a list of paper references (with nothing at all online) for something that looks very doubtful implies to me that the creator doesn't really want it looked into closely, and makes it difficult. Usually, the books 'cited' are old and obscure (Victorian, for example). I was actually agreeing with you. There was no sign of the 'recent research' (the 2015 publication being either non-existent or so obscure as to be virtually non-existent), and the report on the bones being similarly difficult to pin down. The rest were mostly there to reference things that weren't relevant to the notability or existence of the subject. Peridon (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Block of User:Msysreach
Hi! You blocked with a blocking notice "Username violation, soft block". But, it was not a soft block, since you enabled autoblock and account creation block. Another user was caught by this autoblock, so I changed Msysreach's block.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine - I've no idea what went wrong there. Peridon (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: New Page Reviewer user right
A discussion is taking place to request that New Page Patrollers be suitably experienced for patrolling new pages. Your comments at  New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)