User talk:Peridon/Archives/2016/December

Pocket Aces (Company) Page Deletion Query
This page was recently deleted on the grounds of the content looking like promotional activity. But the articles that have been shared are all from reputed newspapers and publishers. They are one of the biggest content creators in India and have the following brands under their portfolio - FilterCopy, Dice Media, Gobble. I just felt that they deserve to have their own page and also checked wikipedia content of similar content creators. The language in those pages was more promotional than on this page. Since, the company and their content is almost always in news, i thought the page deserves to be there. Also, the page was accepted at first but then was deleted all of a sudden, even though the content was not changed at all from the start. I would really appreciate if you can take a look into this and help me restore the page by mentioning what the exact problems are so that they can be solved. AnubhavRao (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)AnubhavRao
 * All I did was to delete an article that you had blanked. Blanking is taken as a request for deletion. I'm sorry I can't look into the article itself at present as I am very busy off-wiki. You could ask the admin who deleted the first version, or someone like MelanieN or Ritchie333 who is not involved. Peridon (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

You Deleted Page Draft:Tony Ramy
The reason was "(G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://hospitalityservices.me/en/newsdetails.aspx?pageid=10374)" However it's the opposite. The person I'm writing the article about is very influential in Lebanon but until now didn't have any presence online, most newspapers and magazines such as the article above list his biography. I am trying to make this biography properly public by placing it on Wikipedia. Can you please revisit? 18:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)18:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)18:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)18:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)18:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)18:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)18:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)18:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)18:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)18:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)18:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)~
 * Please sign talk page posts with ~ which puts your signature and the date stamp on. You can't use Wikipedia to make someone's biography public. That is not what Wikipedia is for. To have an article, a person must pass WP:BIO, and this notability must be proven with reliable independent sources WP:RS. The text you posted had already been published somewhere, and as it was not compliant with our licensing, it could not be used here. It also could not be used here as it was promotional in tone. Wikipedia does not allow advertising or promotion, or material that looks like advertising or promotion. So, if you want to get an article up, there must be notability shown, and this must be referenced to independent reliable sources, and the text must be neutral, with no sign of enthusiasm or promotion - and it must not be published anywhere else previously. Without these, there can be no article. Wikipedia cannot be used to make someone notable - the notability and coverage in reliable independent sources must come first. Independent means not connected to the subject in any way, and this rules out profiles, social media, and places like LinkedIn. Reliable means not editable by the public for one thing, and not places like The National Enquirer, The Sun, weebly, wordpress or blogspot pages, or blogs or forums (with a few exceptions for certain blogs like The Huffington Post). Peridon (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

GDSS (Group Decision Support Systems)
Hello I would like to write an article about GDSS, besides being a practitioner, I have an academic degree on the subject (from Lancaster University in the UK) and just realize that you have deleted this entry from the English wikipedia. Is there any reason I whould be aware? My point is that in other languages I have seen articles using the GDSS english expression as a tittle, so it is odd not seeing an article here. Thanks in advance. Nunesdea (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've deleted a lot of things... I've searched for all three possible article titles based on "GDSS (Group Decision Support Systems)" and can't find anything. Can you let me have the title as it was when deleted? If it was an A10 deletion, that means there is already an article that covers the subject, and that's the main reason I'm likely to have speedied it for. Except for G7 one author requesting deletion, or it being written like an advert. We still haven't managed to get the techie people to give us a search facility for deleted stuff - with an exact title, we can get to a 'Do you want to create...' screen and via that the actual contents, but without the exact wording, the search thing won't go for near misses. Peridon (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Secret Superstar
Hello, I noticed that you deleted Secret Superstar article stating unambiguous advertising or promotion. The article is about an upcoming film, whose shooting has been started. Here's the reliable source. Some other user added unambiguous advertising content. So I request you to restore the article and revert to my very first revision as the photography of the film has started. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 08:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't deleted for lack of notability, but for wording like "As we all know that Aamir is well know for his superbness and sublimity". There's no objection to you re-creating it as the redirect, or as an article in neutral words. (I avoid notability issues with Indian films, but spam is spam, and it looks like your redirect got hijacked.) Peridon (talk) 11:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I know that my redirect got hijacked, but the credit still goes to me for creating the article. If I would re-create the redirect, again someone will spam the redirect, which can be reverted. If the page contained spam content, then why didn't the speedy deletion tager viewed the revision history. If he had viewed, then he could had reverted that edit. Why didn't you checked the revision history before deleting it? It's a kind request to restore the page to the first revision containing notable content. Mr. Smart ℒION  ⋠☎️✍⋡ 15:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You started an article, and two minutes later, converted it to a redirect. An IP then started an article, and was reverted by Cyphoidbomb. Then the promo version appeared. I'll userfy your first effort if you wish, then you can update it if needed, or repost it straight away. Peridon (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you will restore the article to my user space, then someone else might start the article on the same topic on the main namespace. So my hard work and energy on updating it will be lost. Restore the article to the first revision on the main namespace. I can also update it on the main namespace. Mr. Smart ℒION  ⋠☎️✍⋡ 07:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Done, but please do understand that anyone may edit the article. Articles aren't 'owned' by anyone. Peridon (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Southern Westerly circulation
Hello Peridon. My teacher at Lund University just explained in a letter to me that the Southern Westerly circulation is part of the westerly winds on the southern hemisphere. Could this be used as a source to redirect people to Westerlies ? OliverBear (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. A personal letter from anyone is not accessible (WP:V), and doesn't count as a reliable independent source (WP:RS) as it isn't published. Obviously, the collected and published letters of someone like Einstein are a different kettle of fish. For a redirect, you don't need any sourcing as such, but there should usually be something in the target that mentions the term (and that is best with a source). I can't see much on Google for "Southern Westerly circulation" - there a couple or so of mentions in connection with New Zealand, at least one that is concerned with rather ancient circulations and possibly a few more that could be good. This is out of a mere 366 hits. While hit count doesn't indicate notability, a low count usually means there isn't going to be much after discarding the irrelevancies (some of which can be fun, and others of which can be amazing bits of SEO work - like a mention at one site I once found of a rather obscure Roman Catholic ecclesiastical procedure on what appeared to be a porn site...). Keep looking... BTW to link to a Wikipedia page while you are on Wikipedia, just put and  round the title (copied from the title, not the URL bar). (If you look in the edit window here, you'll see nowiki things round that - that's so there isn't a red and showing with no brackets visible.) If you are linking to a page not in article space like Draft:Fred or Category:Ernie, copy the front bit too. One with Wikipedia: at the start can be abbreviated to WP: instead.) Peridon (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

two pints
Lager award of 2016 from small edit idiot JarrahTree for Peridons message at Hacks talk page - ahh to have you accompany in a quiz night table, with an imagination (or propensity perhaps) like that is better than a tickle of the toes in the pub (sandals on feet of course) by a fabulous furry freak brother cat with a mutant tail soaked in apple cider JarrahTree 23:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: Sohan Roy
I think that happened because the page was created by. Coderzombie (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I think it was because was in the template of notification. Did you put  as the reason for deletion? That would trigger on the page and list it at CSD. I've nowikied them here. I have seen another case of this, sometime this year. If you did put it (and it came in with your edit), it might be better to just type in 'spam' or 'promotion' instead. They're safer. Ah, got it! You used db-reason and put the  as the reason. Use a straight Twinkle G11 instead of the 'reason' one. ('Reason' is best avoided anyway.) Twinkle won't then set the template in a template like happened here. You probably didn't look at Sohan Roy's user talk page, and wouldn't have seen the CSD tag that appeared there. Have a look in the history there. Peridon (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed your follow-up message, apologies for the delay. It was my bad. Will take care in future. Coderzombie (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just avoid db-reason... You wouldn't have known. Heck, it took me a while to work it out! Peridon (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: Beatrice Playne
Dear Risperidone® &/or Domperidone® -

1st, I have no issue with your clear & justified complaint about the page.

This was a concern as I collected the facts; I hoped someone would follow along behind me and improve my shortcomings. Had you checked the "talk" side of the page, you might have seen my concerns documented and provided guidance on the matter. I understand copyright issues and intended to minimize risk by


 * 1) citing the sources, which — for this person's rather significant contributions in an small & obscure topic — are precious few.  (I believe I found a total of 3 on the internet for this article.)
 * 2) inviting assistance on the issue.

So, I am not surprised that my overlarge quotation from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00450633/document (clearly cited as such) needed to be cut. I am, however, disappointed that you felt the need to kill the piece wholesale, instead of just lopping off the offending part.

Or, perhaps the entire article was so marginal that it was not worth your time to document more than 1 issue with it.....

In any case, I understand it's easier to destroy and be done with problems, rather than to puzzle through how build things up in the face of challanges. We each have our place in life.

For my part, I will investigate Wp's "new article" guidance more deeply to try and find guidance about "collaborative development of new articles." I saw nothing on this subject in my previous reviews of the "new article" documentation. It is not obvious to me that any articles I create in my sandbox would get the "pre-publication" exposure that I really would have preferred before taking this article live.

If you have any constructive guidance, I would like to hear it. Otherwise, all the best in 2017. 77th Trombone (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You can create at User:77th Trombone/DRAFT which will be in your userspace when you click it and save. There, it's safe from patrollers - except for spam, hoax, attack and copyright violation. Copyright violations (even good faith ones) have to be got rid of quickly as there are a lot of sites that mirror Wikipedia content. When the bulk of an article is copyvio, the usual course is 'kill' as the other way involves deleting and then hiding the deleted content, and possibly contacting Oversight to hide the revdelled (a Wikipedia term) stuff. Merely removing leaves the material available through the History list. Revdel, which all admins can do, hides the stuff from all but admins, and has to be applied to any 'differences' (changes) that might reveal the content. Oversight is confined to a select few who can hide things from even admins. I'm not an oversighter. It's mainly used for attacking material, personal details of minors, outing (revealing personal details of editors who don't reveal them themselves), and anything else very sensitive. If you get started, after Christmas you can contact MelanieN (she's away on holiday at present - that's not outing because she says so on her talk page which I'm keeping an eye on. Or there's Ritchie333, who like MelanieN is an admin, who may be around through the festive season. They're good rescuers. (I'm reckoned to be good at explaining things like rules and deletion criteria - and I should be good at proofreading and copy-ed (tidying up wording) given my background.) Anyway, over to you. All the best for whatever you celebrate, and good luck. Don't forget that while we like online sources (easy to get at unless behind a paywall), but published paper ones are OK too. (Some people invent sources - I found one who had created two online newspapers to back up a load of codswallop - and don't realise that we have librarians on our strength who can get at and things... Mostly, we don't need to involve them. Hoaxes are often quite easy to spot.) Get (but don't quote in chunks) your sources first, and build around what you've got. Peridon (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A point I forgot. In academia, it seems to be OK to use large quotations. Here, it isn't - even if you cite. Quite different rules. Peridon (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @Peridon
 * Thanks for the thorough explanation & the brief tutorial on Wp version control.
 * Had I crafted & stored my stub in User:X/DRAFT until such time as I found assistance with my issues, I would've been even more unpleasantly surprised to find my article deleted by some &copy;-bot. -whew-
 * “… as there are a lot of sites that mirror Wikipedia content.” — Gadzooks, I have learned that! Having updated a rather arcane article once, I revisited it a few months later to try and add further to it.  I attempted several internet searches for newer "public record" information:   virtually all  of my  search results consisted of "mirrored" versions of the article I had updated.  Wow!  My lesson at the time was:  If you publish 1 bad fact on Wp, you risk corrupting half the internet!  You have rounded out my understanding, so I understand I'd be feeding the IP lawyer-driven bots as well.  (obvious in hindsight...)
 * I think I'll just start over, rather than trouble anyone to un-revdel. I believe I had 2 sources, and a 3rd reference, which was Playne's book.
 * Re: your advice: “Get (but don't quote in chunks) your sources first, and build around what you've got.”  Not only do I understand, but I've had that sort of concept drilled into my head from a young age.  However, with only 2 sources & 2 "fact sets" for the good woman, I deemed rephrasing "source 1"'s fact set & "source 2"'s [separate & distinct] fact set could hardly be a defensible amelioration in this &copy;/plagiarism business.
 * That said, I believe I will retry crafting this stub, but leave it much more stub-like. I envision something along the lines of "Playne's book exposed the architectural & biblical manuscript legacy of Ethiopian Christianity to Europeans for the first time ever, including identifying the oldest illuminated Gospels in the world, which Ref 1 discusses in further detail.[1]" (with a similar statement for Ref 2 & its subject matter.)
 * &#8618; I would like to trouble you, good Peridon, with this question once again: With whom can I hash this small issue out?  Where would I find such a person and/or forum?  I'd accept your advice, or I'd be happy to take a referral to someone else.  FWIW, I think this article boils down to having 3 factors in play:
 * Playne did something really noteworthy, and her contributions are worthy of being cited in Wp.
 * Given the precious little info about her, any article I can provide can hardly be more than a minimal stub, leaving this article exposed as stub-bot bait.
 * Given the precious little info about her, any more than a nominal amount of rephrasing of the 2 single-sources would make this article &copy;-bot bait.
 * P.S. I have neither access to a university library to find other references, nor time to use such resources even if I had such access.
 * Thanks again for any guidance you can offer.
 * 77th Trombone (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For a 'forum type' place, there's the Teahouse WP:TEAHOUSE. As I said above - MelanieN and Ritchie333 are good rescuers. I've seem Melanie unearth refs for something I really thought impossible. She's away over Christmas, though. Don't know about Ritchie. Don't worry about stubs. They're not bot territory, so far as I know. Except for gnome-type edits. And your article wasn't tagged by a bot. It was by a real live Wiki-Gnome. (Gnomes are Wikipedians who tidy things up, sort categories out and so on. Very much behind the scenes work. Sometimes an article can be edited by six gnomes before someone notices that it's actually an attack, a hoax or pure spam. CAPTAIN RAJU does notice things, however. Some gnomish edits are done by bots, but they never notice things other than what they were told to look for.) As you're finding out, there's a world of Wikipedia that the casual reader doesn't see. One word of caution - there are people who others regard as notable, but there isn't any reliable evidence to prove it. In the internet era, evidence for things now is far easier to find. Evidence for things then is easier than it was, but nowhere near as complete as current stuff. Your proposed opening sentence does put a claim to notability - now the refs come in. If a bus shelter on a Scottish island can have an article, there's hope. (Yes, there really is such an article...) Peridon (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of joy jump article
Hi , The article I wrote for a client was not of promotional material and I followed article guidelines but it was deleted .If you feel it was promotional type why can't you simply edit it the way best suited ?as far as I know wikipedia is a source to gather information so why can't a company put some information about them self on wiki ?As I said earlier it was nothing of a promotional kind of an article ,Even if it sounds promotional you guys could have helped me to edit it rather than deleting completely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashmv (talk • contribs) 03:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The article was promotional in wording and could have been deleted for that, but I deleted it as failing to pass A7 (WP:CSD). Please read the policies linked at your user page, including the ones about paid editing and conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a directory and there is no right to have an article. Even if competitors have articles, a company's chance of getting one depends on its article not the others. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wikipedia has rules for inclusion, and these rules are enforced. If someone or something is not notable, it doesn't get an article. Peridon (talk) 12:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)|Legobot]] (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ta very much, and best wishes in return. It's warm (for the time of year) and wet here. Fairly normal for Christmas these days... Peridon (talk) 22:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)