User talk:Peridon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Just in case anyone wants to talk to me.... Peridon (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The rest of this is archived somewhere. There's a nice little bot comes in and tidies up. (Could do with one at home...) A very kind person has organised an archive box that even has a search bar in it. (No beer, though...)

PLEASE ADD MESSAGES AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE SO THAT I WILL SEE THEM. I LOOK THERE FIRST. Post at the top and you risk being missed altogether. Thanks. Do put a heading inside == == and sign with ~~~~. If you don't get a reply from me (or one of the stalkers...) within a reasonable time, you've probably not read this. If you have read it and ignored it, it's your own fault. If you haven't read it, READ IT NOW. Another reason to post at the bottom is that if you post at the top and someone else posts at the bottom, I'll see their message, but won't suspect there's another. Up to you. Ignore this if you want. Just don't blame me.

Olviastar (POLYMETHYLSILOXANE POLYHYDRATE)[edit]

Hi Peridon, Fortunately, we haven’t violated any copyright and placed our OWN materials in Wikipedia. We don’t understand why you have deleted them. You’ve written us that another site possesses the copyright. However, this site has violated our own copyright, and according to our request has ALREADY deleted them (http://www.enteromedical.hu/sites/default/files/SG_2013_Ed1_EN_Office.pdf). Why do you give us the link to the deleted document? Please explain your decision in details. Best wishes, Olviastar 10:59 01 April (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olviastar (talkcontribs)

Whether or not the cited site is in violation of your copyright, the fact remains that the text IS copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0 for free reuse by anyone, anywhere, including modification and commercial use, subject only to acknowledgement of source. Your text is not so licensed - if it were, the other site would not be in violation... It therefore cannot be imported into Wikipedia. I presume that you must have published the material, or the other site couldn't have copied it. (If you hadn't published it, they probably wouldn't be in violation...) It doesn't matter who the copyright belongs to, so far as we are concerned in this matter. It belongs to someone by virtue of being published without a CC-BY-SA licence. You do have the choice of licensing it to us under CC-BY-SA, but that would be a waste of time as it is not written in a neutral encyclopaedic way, and would undoubtedly be tagged as promotional in minutes. If the text stayed up on here, if would be available for anyone to use - and that would not seem to be your object given that you requested removal by the other site. Post it on Wikipedia (with licence) and every man and his dog can freely use it, change it and even sell it. (There are books of Wikipedia pages available for purchase by people who gather them together and advertise them. Quite legal so long as they state the source.). We are very keen on removing material that is copyright for obvious reasons. Material in the public domain, such as certain US governmental text and material which is now free because of the expiry of copyright may be imported if suitable, and short quotations clearly labelled as such with their origins may be used. The cited site was the one our patroller found, and publication there was enough to trigger deletion. For more technical answers, I suggest User talk:Moonriddengirl or User talk:VernoWhitney who are two of our top copyright experts. BTW please sign talk page posts with ~~~~ which puts your sig and the datestamp on, like this: Peridon (talk) 11:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Open proxy block[edit]

I don't know whether you are interested in knowing the outcome of your request for help with an unblock request on my talk page (User talk:JamesBWatson#User talk:Jamdor), but in case you are, it has been confirmed that it is an open proxy, so no unblock. If you want to, you can read all about it at User talk:Sailsbystars#Request for second opinion on proxy block and User talk:Jamdor and User talk:69.63.114.3. Sailsbystars edited the IP talk page using the proxy himself, proving without any doubt that it is an open proxy. (See [1] & [2].) I had tried to do the same thing, but the proxy was down at the time. One of the most difficult things about checking open proxies is that many of them are intermittent, so that false negatives are very common. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Peridon (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

MinuteMenCreatives[edit]

Hi, please reinstate this page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonilanec (talkcontribs) 16:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest you rewrite is in an encyclopaedic manner without the promotional bits. Do it at User:Tonilanec/DRAFT (click and save). The use of 'we' and 'us' is regarded here as being promotional and not in an encyclopaedis style. First, read WP:CORP about corporate notability - applies to students as well as to the Saatchis of this world. Then read WP:RS about the reliable independent sources needed to prove that it is notable. These cannot be YouTube, Facebook, your own site, blogs, forums, the college/uni site or a student magazine or wikis, and they must cover MMC - mere mentions are no use, and pages that don't even appear to mention MMC (like your ref, which I found to be an appalling page to access because of the constant irrelevant feeds that would not stop even when told to - but that's not your fault, of course) are no good for showing notability. There's no point in restoring it - it would be tagged again almost instantly, even in your user space. It needs a total rewrite anyway. Look at other articles to get an idea of the style needed. Find references. Make it as boring as you can. Then ask for advice and opinion. I must point out that very few student organisations get their own article. Most end up as small sections in the article for the college or uni. Peridon (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
BTW please sign talk page posts with ~~~~ which is a bit of code that puts your sig and the datestamp on - like this:


Peridon: I'm not quite as code savvy as you are, hence my lack of timestamp. I'm still figuring out how to cite references properly! Would you be able to review the modifications I've made and supply me with a bit of feedback? This page has contextual relevance to the commons of wikipedia and of our collective history as MMC is the first agency in the nation to build this concept. The reference I listed was from Time magazine. I suppose they've let their web presence slip! Thank you for your brazen honesty. Would love more advice to bring this page into history using best practice.

Thank you!

Tonilanec (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No, you just need to type in the four ~ things (tildes) after your post. You've managed to link your name and my talk page link! When you've got something to look at (with refs - don't have to be inline, down at the bottom will do), let me know. I have trouble getting refs to work too, but I know someone who can do it right... Don't expect an instant response - some days I'm working at home, but I have to go and meet people sometimes. Peridon (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014[edit]

"Chrisbrain1907": April 7, 2014[edit]

If that is the rule is, do what is needed to be done, honest to goodness it is not my intention to sell anything using wikipedia and also i do not intend to own somebody's work, i even cited the source of the information. I accept my fault of not learning/reading the rules and guidelines in using wikipedia. My apology!

Regards to you all! GOD Bless! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbrain1907 (talkcontribs) 01:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014[edit]

Re: redirects[edit]

Oops my bad sorry dude and hanks for the heads up, I was kind of afraid of upsetting someone for blanking an article for deletion --KaraokeMac (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

So long as it's a sound redirect, most people will be happy. The person who created the new article may not be, but we don't have two articles on one subject. Peridon (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

qmoldyn[edit]

Please restore page for qmoldyn so that I keep updating it. Maybe you hate chemists, but that's no reason to give me some time to port the main page of our software to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauroesguerroto (talkcontribs) 15:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

As it's a copyright violation, I can't restore it - or else I'd be violating the copyright. You can't bring copyright text into Wikipedia. Here, we are licensed under Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0 for free reuse by anyone anywhere any which way, subject only to acknowledgement. I saw no sign that the text you imported was licensed this way, and so it cannot be posted here. If you are going to rewrite it, up to you. I would suggest that you do the fresh write in your user space at User:Mauroesguerroto/DRAFT (click and save) - but do NOT import the text as it stands. Remember that you have to show notability - most probably under WP:GNG as I can't think of a software policy (WP:NSOFT is an essay, and links to a different view but neither are policies but are opinions). You will have to reference in compliance with WP:RS (reliable independent sources). A lot of people think that they can just post stuff here with no worries. Sorry, it's free to edit but there are rules. I have no hatred for chemists as a group, and can't even think of any individual chemists I even mildly dislike. (I do detest that damn owl that Rowlands use as a sign, but you would probably regard them as pharmacists or druggists rather than the UK 'chemist'.) Any copyright text gets deleted as soon as we have checked it. I've seen things disappear within two minutes of tagging. Apart from the copyright problem, the text was not suitable for an encyclopaedia as it stood. Fine for a website, but we insist on a neutral and impersonal tone and style. Peridon (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
BTW please sign talk page posts with ~~~~ which will put your sig and the timestamp on. Like this: Peridon (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Morgan & Morgan[edit]

This law firm and its figurehead are definitely notable. They have a high profile as a personal injury law firm hawked on numerous television commercials and John Morgan is leading the effort to legalize medical marijuana in Florida, as was noted in the article. Would you consider taking the article to an Articles for Deletion discussion if you still don't think it's notable? Tree are oodles of sources with substantial coverage of the firm and John Morgan. Thanks for your kind consideration. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Now on the stand at User:Candleabracadabra/Morgan & Morgan for more work. You think they're notable - now prove it. Campaigning by itself doesn't necessarily make notable. You need more about the firm, and reliable independent sources for the proof of the notability. The Tampa Bay one looks OK at a quick visit, but more refs are needed. High profile in adverts is not a sign of notability - it merely means they can afford to pay for it. Does notability for JM as a campaigner equal notability for the firm? Maybe - maybe not. BTW the other two deleted articles under this title were an office supplies company (before I started here) and another law firm in Georgia (which I deleted). The Georgia outfit seem to deal with bankruptcy cases. Thought I'd tell you in case anyone goes on about repeated creations. Peridon (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The sources cover his media campaigning and one source refers to him as a media "superstar". Coverage also discusses his involvement in the medical marijuana legalization campaign extensively. I added some additional content about his fundraising activities and more sources. I don't think it's really a close call. But feel free to take it to Articles for Deletion. I am not adverse to an open hearing. Thanks for your kind consideration. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi-- After I tried to CSD A7 Morgan & Morgan law firm, you userified it to User:Candleabracadabra. However, they added new refs and moved it right back. I still don't believe the firm is notable. Is this acceptable grounds for an AfD, or should I try something else? Thanks, OrigamitePlease talk here 03:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is. For me, it's borderline stuff. At AfD we stand a chance of improvement from input that the article probably wouldn't get otherwise, and if not, then a consensus decision one way or t'other. Obviously, if you can improve it please do. I wasn't expecting it to be back so quickly, and I'm not sure that it really works yet. Peridon (talk) 11:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of page Deneeraj for Unambiguous advertising or promotion[edit]

I dont understand why iam facing such deletion when it is doing well over a good period of time.It was nicely edited by some people already.This is an article which falls light on a renowned personality in the city called mumbai,India.His website link is already there for reference which shows that the person is there on web.As a matter of advertising,his personal identity is not being shown.There are other pages in wikipedia which have same issue that you described for my page.So kindly get attention to this article so that i can move ahead.I will wait for your faithful decision.
Deneeraj (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was advertising or promotion. It also failed to show any significance for the subject. Please read WP:CORP if it is about the business, or WP:BIO if it is about the person. In either case, please read WP:RS about the reliable independent sources needed to prove notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a directory. Subjects here must be shown to be notable, and there must be no promotion or advertising. The only editing other than yours was some tidy-up work, and the people that do that are just concerned with points of grammar or formatting and not with the subject. The article has been posted twice, and I feel it is possible that this was just one person despite the two names. If you try again, make sure that you show notability and prove it with good independent sources. As to other articles, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you see an article that you think does not fit our standards, please draw it to our attention. Peridon (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

RE:Deletion of page Deneeraj for Unambiguous advertising or promotion[edit]

I want to know that why this article[[3]] is not deleted if it is promoting an organization and if it shoudn't be deleted then what makes it different from my article.Thanks...
Deneeraj (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It isn't written in a promotional way, and it does claim significance. The references could be improved, and it is tagged as needing improvement. The article passes the speedy criteria for me, but if you feel it shouldn't be here (based on the article, not on yours being deleted), you are free to nominate it at WP:AFD. AfD is a discussion procedure for articles that may pass the speedy criteria (or the speedy criteria may not apply to them). Peridon (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of page BetterCMS for Unambiguous advertising or promotion[edit]

I am attempting to resubmit the Better CMS page but want to ensure the page is not deleted a second time. Could you advise as to where our last contributor went wrong? The original deletion occurred on 17:07, 1 April 2014 Peridon (talk | contribs) deleted page Better CMS (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsavage84 (talkcontribs)

Easier to say what was right - the infobox looked OK. The rest of it was unsalvageable. Saying things like "It makes any user feel like a veteran web editor with its simple, intuitive and customizable publishing workflow" and inviting people to 'check out' your website just scream ADVERT!!!. That is OK for directories or Facebook and other social media. But Wikipedia isn't social media or a directory. It's an encyclopaedia. Subjects are included if they are shown to be notable. I'm not sure what a ".NET Open Source CMS" is when it's at home, but if it's used online then WP:WEB is the policy, while if it's used on the clients' machines it'll have to be the catchall WP:GNG. To prove the notability, reliable independent sources have to be given - see WP:RS. Not blogs, forums, wikis, own site, weebly, or interviews that sound as if they were written by the PR department (and undoubtedly were...). You know the things - the CEO is quoted as saying things he wouldn't say even if drunk and taking the mickey out of real estate adverts. Without knowing what your product actually is and does, it's a bit hard to say if it's likely to pass. There's a heck of a lot of software of all sorts trying to get on here, and to be honest, not a lot makes it. Same with companies, rappers, and Filipina child actresses (unless it's the same one again and again...). Not being on here doesn't mean 'no good'. It means 'no coverage'. Look at other articles, read the policies, read WP:COI (conflict of interest) too, and have a good think. Then lock the PR people out. They sink more articles than you would believe, and can't see why we delete them. Even when we explain it. Perhaps we shouldn't use plain English to them... Peridon (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)