User talk:Peridon

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.

"I deleted infox's talk page for no raisin. I hate grapes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.5.157.177 (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I don't like raisins, but do like grapes. Peridon (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC) I like this message.

Countly - Speedy Deletion

Hi Poseidon, may I ask why Countly was nominated as a speedy deletion where I was an author of this subject? Thanks, Gorkemcetin74 (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Because it was a leftover redirect from a move to Draft - Draft:Count.ly to be precise. It was obviously not reckoned to be ready for article space, but I wasn't involved there. Just tidying up. Peridon (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

But before then it was a real article. Can you elaborate? Gorkemcetin74 (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Not really. It was moved by the original author, who then requested deletion of the redirect. Nothing controversial there. If you object to the move, take it up with the original author. Peridon (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Original author jinlizzy is not a user? When I click on that name, it's not there anymore. Gorkemcetin74 (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Definitely a user. Just doesn't have a user page. It's not compulsory. In the 'tools' section at the left of the page (when you have clicked on User:Jinlizzy), you will see 'User contributions'. That is only there for actual users. It's not there on User:ToastMyButterfly because that one isn't a real user. Click it and you'll see the difference. Peridon (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, got it. The point is, I also made considerable additions to this article, almost on par with his contributions (check: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Count.ly&action=history). So do not really want this article to be removed. Is it possible to recover?

The article hasn't been removed. If it had been deleted, I could put it into user space, but it's not deleted and so can't be 'recovered'. It's there in Draft space where you have linked, and your contributions are still there in the History. I assume they're in the draft. I'd suggest liaising with Jinlizzy about its future. There's nothing I can do about it. The redirect that I deleted was a cross space redirect, and we don't have redirects from article space to Draft space. Peridon (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not something to make with Jinlizzy, as she asks for money to make it live again! Isn't it clearly an abuse of use of Wikipedia? Why do I have to be depending on her to rewrite Countly wikipedia page? (because I cannot regenerate this page again, make it draft, and submit for approval) 213.155.126.6 (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where she has been asking for money, as I can see no interaction between you and her. Do you know her outside Wikipedia? As to who can move things in and out of Draft space when there are two contributors to a draft, I'm not sure. I'll ask @Hasteur: to comment on that. I've never dealt with that side of things at Draft or AfC. Peridon (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I dont know her outside Wikipedia. I felt something fishy when she approached asking for money if she can make it get approved by Wiki Gorkemcetin74 (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

She can't do anything you can't. Articles either work or they don't. Why would she think you'd be willing to pay, anyway? I think I'll call someone else in here @JamesBWatson:.Peridon (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Users (Peridon—Gorkemcetin74—213.155.126.6—ToastMyButterfly) I won't comment on the suitability of the draft. I know there have been some "troublemakers" trolling around Draft pages and offering to get them into mainspace for a monetary consideration. I would treat these like a Paid Editing situation. Hasteur (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hasteur: I don't think ToastMyButterfly will be taking part in anything - that's a non-existent 'user' made up as an example... Anyway, it's the position of the article/draft that I'm interested in. Gorkemcetin74 wants the article in Article space, but creator Jinlizzy moved it into draft. Can a creator insist that an article stay as a draft, or can a contributor to it (or indeed, anyone else) just move it out against the creator's wishes? I'm not familiar with the protocols and procedures of AfC and Draft in this respect. I'm not commenting on the suitability either - but can just anyone call for review of a draft if they're not the creator?. I'm just wanting to avoid a possible edit war. Peridon (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I understand better. It lives in the Draft namespace which has 2 "use cases" running over it, "Articles for Creation" and Drafts. If the page doesn't have a AFC banner on it it's a regular draft. If it's an AFC page, then it's common curtosey to try and ask the author if you can take it over. If not, then anybody can put it in mainspace. I'm going to personally say that having looked at the page and it's references, it would not pass muster if it was coming from AfC. I imagine that someone pushed it up to mainspace there would be a AfD quickly made on the grounds that the references do not support the page as it is overly promotional and not reliable sources (PR releases, inclusions in lists of winners of competitions) and a sufficent "Internet Things" notability claim has not been proven. Hasteur (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Peridon (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Peridon, from looking at the history of the Draft:Count.ly article, it was created by and mostly "written" by User:Jinlizzy... though I suspect via unattributed-copy-n-paste from Draft:Countly... and then later, significantly added to by User:Gorkemcetin74 (who is also the author of Draft:Countly in the AfC queue). At one point, Jinlizzy moved the article to mainspace themselves, but then moved it *back* to draftspace themselves, after which Peridon (wiki-correctly) marked the mainspace-redirect as G7-blanked-by-user. So for anybody wanting to help clean up the content, it is currently at Draft:Count.ly -- and also simultaneously at Draft:Countly. As for the question of WP:OWN, the rules for draftspace are the same as the rules for mainspace, any wikipedian with an account can move the draftspace article Draft:Count.ly or Draft:Countly to the mainspace location of Countly (should be sans the period), if they determine that such a move will improve wikipedia. All draftspace content is subject to WP:MERCILESS editing by any wikipedian at any time. In other words, you (Peridon) or Hasteur or Gorkemcetin74 can, if they so wish, immediately mainspace either of the drafts in question.

  That said, as was mentioned above, Draft:count.ly/Draft:Countly doesn't appear to quite pass WP:42 at present, so maybe this is a case of WP:NotJustYet, and for the moment Draft:Count.ly/Draft:Countly ought to remain in draftspace, until more in-depth coverage in WP:SOURCES has been added to the draft. I found some legit sources, and listed them here, Draft_talk:Count.ly. Also, although apparently Countly is registered as a UK corporation nowadays as part of their SeedCamp funding-and-incubator procedures, it was originally a Turkish startup in 2011. That suggests that additional WP:SOURCES may exist in the Turkish language, and of course, such sources (newspapers/magazines/teevee/radio/etc in Turkish that discuss Countly in detail and with some depth) are perfectly legit for demonstrating wiki-notability of Countly the software-product-slash-corporation. Peridon, see also your 2013 work here, Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Gideros_Studio, which is likely a predecessor of Countly.

  Although I did not find any on-wiki data about the alleged offer of paid-advocacy-editing, this 2012 cite ("Countly's Gorkem Cetin argues open source is best when it comes to app analytics"[1]) strongly suggests how the person behind User:Jinlizzy might have been able to contact the person behind User:Gorkemcetin74 in off-wiki fashion. I suggest that we ask User:Gorkemcetin74 about the specific details of the alleged off-wiki contact with User:Jinlizzy, and see if perhaps OTRS and/or WP:CHECKUSER folks can help untangle these events. User:Gorkemcetin74, can you tell us more about the offer, that if you paid money, the wikipedia article about Countly would be "helped" in some way? Please DO NOT tell us ANY personally-revealing information about your off-wiki contacts, or for that matter about yourself, since that sort of information (real names/emails/IPs/phones/addresses/etc) is most definitely NOT supposed to ever be revealed on-wiki. But in a general way, can you say whether you were called on the telephone, contacted by email, or otherwise reached? Also, again in a general way with no particulars, can you please tell us the overall outline of the monetary proposition, what specifically was being offered, and what specifically was being demanded in return? For myself, this alleged episode makes me very curious... I'd like to know whether there are other articles in draftspace right now, which have mainspace redirects pointing at them, which were written by the person behind the Jinlizzy username, or by people using similar wiki-techniques. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

not-so-arbitrary-after-all section break

That's the only subject that account has edited on. Whether or not they have used other accounts is not available to me. Mainspace redirects to Draft and User spaces tend to get tagged fairly soon after creation as a rule - but I've don't know of an easy way of finding out how many DON'T get tagged at all. Peridon (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Somebody on the wikipedia-en-help IRC channel named User:matthewrbowker provided a modified toolserver script of their own devising, which ran the calculation. Turned up three 'active' hits (plus two false positives), which were fixed here,[2] by User:Howicus et al, see also User_talk:Howicus#mainspace_URL.2C_which_is_a_redirect_to_a_draftspace_article that I belatedly posted. Here are the bits I've found (so far!) that look similar to the Draft:Countly/Draft:Count.ly situation, that were formerly but are not longer a worry to me:

Heart_94.3FM/Draft:HEART_94.3FM was #wikipedian-en-help , NTA_(company) was OTRS request

23rd August: copyvio-speedy of Heart_94.3FM, which links to the off-wiki radio-station homepage, at 12:10_UTC. Twenty-two minutes later, SPA[3] with possible COI creates Draft:HEART_94.3FM at 12:32_UTC. Interestingly-non-SPA arrives at 12:59_UTC, expends twenty-six minutes and fifteen edits on the draft, including creation of a redirect from mainspace, with one edit-summary that says "added given information by editor" followed by a self-revert of said information a minute later saying "did not realise previous CSD of same named article".[4] Existing NTA (company), article created direct in mainspace back in 2010,[5] albeit mostly edited by usernames and geolocated IPs that strongly appear to be associated with the corporation. Tagged as 'unreferenced' for most of existence. May 22nd 2015, stubification to remove uncited promotional prose, and tagged for notability.[6] Also removed eleven external links posing as 'refs' that were aboutself, govt database certs, or tangential industry associations. June 26th 2015, User:74.84.114.34 (edits NFL and NTA articles), which geolocates to NTA HQ also edited that Flammability article; NTA is a fire-certification-corp. Two minutes later, at 14:36_UTC, SPA adds promotional link about NTA to Flammability.[7] Two months pass. Aug 24th 2015, same NTA+NFL anon re-adds the promotional employee-biography prose ("added more historical description") to NTA (company) at 15:18 thru 15:40_UTC. Shortly thereafter (an hour later this time), once again, followed by the very same SPA username, who spends 42 minutes and ten edits fixing up NTA (company), starting 16:55_UTC thru 17:37_UTC.[8] The fixes consist of re-adding the cert-refs, adding the corporate blog per WP:ELNO, plus two new refs (one WP:NOTDIR but the NREL.gov one looks like legit WP:NOTEWORTHY methinks). Thirteen minutes pass; the interestingly-non-SPA User:Samtar, who has never edited the five-year-old article on NTA (company) before Aug 24th 2015, reviews the updates by the presumably-COI-anon and by the SPA User:Wscribner, decides that enough work has been done to pass WP:42, and removes the {{notable}} top-tag with edit-summary "further references added". At the time of the notability-de-tagging by non-SPA User:Samtar, one of the 'refs' in the article was the plaintext phrase <ref>United States Department of Housing and Urban Development</ref> ... but one minute after the article was detagged by Samtar, the NTA-specific SPA User:Wscribner returned for a final edit, to wrap that plaintext 'ref' into a template and include an actual URL.[9] I've not deeply investigated all of User:Samtar's contribs, because there are a lot of them, across a lot of article. Of the four known cross-namespace-redirects from mainspace-to-draftspace (the SQL tool by User:matthewrbowker only finds currently "live" instances of such redirects ... not ones that have already been deleted in the usual course of wiki-business, such as Countly was by User:Peridon), I've only looked deeply into the Countly/Count.ly stuff, and the Heart_94.3FM/HEART_94.3FM stuff, but not yet the Interactive Linguistics stuff, nor the Meat-free products stuff, except to note that in all four cases, there is always one COI-encumbered editor involved, there is always one distinct WP:SPA involved (often but not always the COI editor is SPA as well). Call me a conspiracy theorist, but my spidey-senses are blaring that this is the tip of the iceberg. Which really toasts my butterfly,TM to swipe Peridon's official catchphrase.  :-)     p.s. Still, I wish that we could get a response from User:Gorkemcetin74, and would also like to hear from User:Dtompos, about whether they were approached off-wiki, and if so what the general outline of those off-wiki discussions were (though I again caution both Gorkemcetin74 and Dtompos that they should NOT reveal any off-wiki names/phones/emails/IPs/etc here on-wiki which is WP:OUTING and considered VeryWrong&Bad). From some reasonable assumptions, based on the partial story that we've already heard from User:Gorkemcetin74, Gorkemcetin74 is a legitimate wikipedian who has WP:COI, but was using the AfC queue in proper fashion... and after an AfC decline, Grokemcetin74 was allegedly-approached off-wiki by allegedly-paid-editor User:Jinlizzy, who made some kind of pay-me-and-I'll-get-you-into-mainspace type of contractual suggestion, that Gorkemcetin74 found fishy-sounding.     Just to be crystal clear here, Wikipedia 100% absolutely *does* allow editors with WP:COI (e.g. owners of companies and employees of companies and such) to edit the encyclopedia, as long as they are good apples like User:Gorkemcetin74 for instance, and follow the wiki-pillars. Wikipedia also 100% absolutely *does* allow paid editors, too, once again as long as they are good apples like User:16912_Rhiannon and User:CorporateM -- who I mention here, NOT because they have anything whatsoever to do with the quacks-like-a-duck cross-namespace-redirects being discussed, but merely because I've personally seen those editors on-wiki, following the proper wiki-laws that paid editors are supposed to follow, specifically as good-paid-editor-apples, in contrast to the bad apples that User:Gorkemcetin74 described, and the quacks-like-a-duck Wscribner that I believe presumably-CEO-of-NTA User:Dtompos may have gotten involved with. I'm truly not sure what role User:Samtar plays in this mess, since they are clearly not a single-purpose-account, but I'd like to hear from them why specifically they are involved with heart93,[10] and with de-tagging NTA when the article was in this state.[11]     p.p.s. Peridon, you expressed some sort of preference, during the Harry Braun discussions, that your personal usertalk might not be the best place for highly-detailed-and-informative postings, that Harry and myself tend towards?  :-)    Would you prefer we move this discussion about suspicious WP:SPIP-related cross-namespace-redirects, to some other place(s) besides your usertalk? If so please suggest a more appropriate venue-or-venues, where this discussion can be moved unto. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Carry on here - the Harry Braun affair looked to be getting a bit like War and Peace (and it has...) and has an AfD and other talk pages where interested parties can discuss things in detail. This one is one I'm not really involved with at all, having merely deleted a redirect, but here appears to be the only location where things are happening. You are right about COI and paid being allowed to edit so long as they play the game, but I'm not at all sure what Jinlizzy's game is. Peridon (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Comment: Unsure of why I've been dragged into this. I'd like to give the following comments regarding my involvement in certain mentioned articles. Involvement in heart93 - assisted in initial set up of article with editor from my role at #wikipedia-en-help (WP:IRC). We were given information relating to an article in channel from an editor who was struggling to add the information. I added the information for him to later edit. I did not watch the article afterwards. Involvement in NTA - OTRS discussion with an editor. Result was involvement by way of detag of article. I understand now that this may have not been the best move. I do not remember my reasoning to detag. I'd like to go on record that I am clearly not a SPA, and all edits I have made/make are in Good Faith, I am a helper on WP:IRC, I am identified to the Wikimedia Foundation for WP:OTRS. Thanks. samtar (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC) I accept User:samtar's explanation of their involvement, and thank them for not reacting poorly when I questioned their specific edits.  :-)     No offense intended, samtar, I'm actually quite relieved to find out you are a good apple. But the question then becomes, who was behind the OTRS request, related to NTA (company) article, and was that OTRS request wiki-proper? Samtar's de-tag was in good faith, it seems, and the article does have plenty of "references" added to it by SPA User:Wscribner, many to government agency websites which are prima facie WP:RS, though a deeper look might show otherwise. (Which, I *completely* understand, OTRS volunteers like Samtar often are too pressed for time to go into an article deeply -- I completely understand that bit, and find no fault with Samtar's actions.) As for the heart93 situation, there was again off-wiki contact, but it was initiated from the user with COI User:Rodcar1984, via the usual wikipedia IRC mechanism, to User:Samtar, and this is in fact a very common situation that I've personally seen happen, all the time.     So User:samtar the reason you were dragged into this, was this edit where you moved an article to draftspace.[12] There was a redirect (accidentally) left behind, from HEART_94.3FM pointing to Draft:HEART_94.3FM, which makes the draft appear in search engines like google. Looking at the countly/Draft:count.ly evidence above, with allegations of improper off-wiki contact, and at the Heart_94.3FM/Draft:HEART_94.3FM which seemed quasi-similar, I wanted to see whether that latter situation was wiki-proper. Hence, my note here.

    I still believe that the countly/Draft:count.ly situation was likely *NOT* wiki-proper, but need to hear more from User:Gorkemcetin74 to be sure. I also believe that the role of User:Wscribner (but not User:samtar) on the NTA (company) article needs scrutiny, and would like to hear from User:Dtompos about any off-wiki contacts, proper or improper. Given the explanation from User:samtar, however, I'm satisfied that their actions at Heart93 via legit IRC contact were wiki-proper, and also that the NTA de-tag via OTRS contact was in good faith (though may get reverted should the 'refs' prove more flimsy than they appear).

    Again, my thanks to samtar for taking this in stride; if you do need to move something from mainspace to draftspace, be aware that a redirect might get left behind, which should usually be G7-speedy, to avoid the search-engines treating the draftspace article as a part of the web-visible-portion of wikipedia. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

see talkpage section below this one, for reply from User:Wscribner, and also see Talk:NTA_(company). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

No offense taken! I just got a tad jittery that I had royally mucked up in some way. I've taken the above on-board and will improve my actions. I deserve a slap on the wrist for the non-deleted redirects, I may have assumed at the time someone would mop them up later :( the OTRS request was made by a user who would been seen to have a COI, which is why they emailed in instead of doing it themselves. I unfortunately agree that a great deal of pressure does often lead to sub-par decisions being made, and I apologize if this particular decision caused issues. Please don't hesitate to mention me again if you need any further clarification or assistance. Many thanks for your scrutiny, it's ultimately what Wikipedia needs. samtar (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Nah, you look like you're doing fine, Samtar, though it might help if you would please mention in your edit-summaries the key phrases, "info from editor via #wikipedia-en-help", and similarly "further references added thus de-tagging per OTRS request", or similar verbiage, so the nature of your off-wiki contacts is clear to later on-wiki reviewers. It was clear you had off-wiki contact, but I couldn't figure out from the edit-summaries what *kind* of off-wiki contact it was.

question about default behavior when pagemove from mainspace to draftspace happens

    As for the mainspace-to-draftspace goof... being an anon, I've never done a page-move from mainspace to draftspace... does that action, leave a redirect, by default? If so, probably the move-page-implementation needs some tweaks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I will in the future, I believe some of my recent OTRS/IRC interactions which have caused me to make article edits have been summarized in that way. And yes, it does leave a redirect by default, unless I'm leaving something ticked which causes it. As a completely unrelated side note, is there a reason why you're choosing not to make an account, if I may ask? Not that it matters :) samtar (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Gracias, samtar. Peridon, can you confirm (or can some talkstalker confirm) that leave-a-redirect is the *default* behavior for moving from mainspace to draftspace, or did samtar just accidentally tick the wrong checkbox? p.s. Re: username creation, editing anon is my attempt at a Profound Philosophical Statement^TM and simultaneously widens the bell-curve of what expected behavior from anons is perceived to be. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thought I'd answered this... Leave redirect is always the default in moves so far as I know, wherever you are going. There's a box to UNcheck that I see, but that may be just admin. I'll try from my alt account. Peridon (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

When I find the password.... Rarely use it. Peridon (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

As an admin, you can always reset your own regular-username-password.  ;-)   Somebody on IRC, believe it was User:Huon, said that only admins can choose NOT to leave the redirect after a pagemove. Seems like a bug to me, at least when the move is from mainspace to draftspace, the default behavior ought to be not leaving a cross-namespace redirect, which otherwise has to be cleaned up manually. Or maybe it is a "feature" since that manual cleanup step is what led User:Gorkemcetin74 to come visit you.... 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not a bug, it's a feature. Otherwise page move vandalism could take all new, complicated-to-repair forms, for example. That's not even mentioning the possibility that good-faith page moves might accidentally make pages vanish in projectspace without a trace that inexperienced editors can easily follow. Huon (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. And in this case, it turned out that the pagemove by Jinlizzy which left the (allegedly-)sneaky mainspace-to-draftspace redirect, led to the discovery of some other stuff needing cleanup. Though thankfully no other orangemoody-related-type things were discovered, that was a scary sockfarm. So all's well that ends well, I guess. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course, "ends well" is not really applicable, at least the "ends" part, because WP:NOTFINISHED.

• I'm currently working on cleanup of NTA_(company), which appears to be potentially-salvageable, now that the copyvio issue has been straightened out, and the COI-encumbered folks involved are beginning to understand WP:RS. If anybody would like to pitch in, please see article-talkpage thereof.
• Draft:HEART_94.3FM looks abandoned at the moment, and I'm not sure they can pass WP:42, but as an FCC-recognized radio station, they might qualify as quasi-inherently wiki-notable? Anybody know about radio-station-articles, and want to clean that draft up sufficient for mainspace?
• As for the Countly article, I believe it is still borderline about passing WP:42, but I've left some additional WP:SOURCES that I dug up, and instructions for good-apple User:Gorkemcetin74 (if they haven't left wikipedia in disgust at the pay-up-if-you-want-an-article fiasco), over on the Draft:Countly page, which I will note was the *original* draft written by selfsame good-apple User:Gorkemcetin74, *before* the jinlizzy-SPA-sock tried to hijack-and-copyvio following an AfC decline. Point being, please don't delete Draft:Countly as a copyvio, it is the other way around, and the copyio has already been nixed.

Point also being, if somebody would look over the refs at Draft_talk:Countly, and give a second opinion on whether it is still WP:NotJustYet, or whether it has enough refs to demonstrate wiki-notability and satisfy WP:42, that would be appreciated. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Wscribner

    I had posted this a short while ago lower down on your thread, but I am copying it to here, to make sure you were able to see who I am:

In regards to the questions about the NTA (Company) page, I am the Marketing Communications Specialist for NTA, Inc. I was asked by the President of the company, Dtompos, to add the proper citations/references to our wikipedia page to avoid being in danger of the page being merged, deleted, or any other negative actions. I had added some "references" earlier this year, but did not realize that I had added them with the incorrect formatting. When I went in and added them correctly (I think), the warning at the top of the page did not go away. I contacted a help person, who removed the warning about our page lacking notations, references, citations, etc. We try to keep our wikipedia page as correct as possible, for anyone seeking to find information on us. In that vein, there is information regarding the founding family of the company that will show the expertise of the individuals involved. We are not attempting to "self advertise", but to inform anyone looking for information on NTA, of our qualifications as a testing, inspection and certification company. That is why the links to government sites (a thoroughly legitimate reference, as the certifications we have earned, and our ability to perform certain services that require government approval must be able to verified, and they are verified as shown on the government websites). No one contacted us outside of wikipedia to ask us to do edits. We simply check on our page on occasion to ensure everything is accurate and up to date. Wscribner (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Regards;

Wscribner (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Howdy User:Wscribner, thanks for your response. Probably the article about NTA (company) needs some pruning, but I'll be happy to help with that. Factual info is not enough; it needs to be WP:NOTEWORTHY info, which was mentioned in some kind of independent WP:SOURCE like a book/teevee/magazine/radio/etc. Now, this *specific* conversation here above, on User:Peridon's talkpage, is mostly about improper cross-namespace-redirects, which were NOT used at NTA (company), so I suggest we move further discussion of the wiki-notability and prose-content of the NTA article over to Talk:NTA_(company). I'll open up a new section there, and if you like, give you my crash-course on the recent changes to the WP:COI and the wikipedia terms of use, that you may not have been heard about yet. As with samtar, my appreciation for your calm response, thanks.  :-)     Should get this sorted shortly. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. As we are a B2B, we are not really mentioned in general TV, although the DIY Network had a show, Deconstruction which our test lab as part of an episode on SIPs. That video is on our website. Other than that, we are referenced mainly is studies or engineering articles that our engineers participated in, or our company aided with. An example would be a study on the Seismic properties of SIP Panels (as seen here: http://www.ntainc.com/pdf/sips-white-paper.pdf). This is the struggle that precipitated me to contact a help person in regards to removing the banner regarding a lack of references, as we do have references, they are just not what would pass for the "norm". We can take the this conversation to the Talk:NTA_(company) so that it is easily accessible for others questioning the changes made to NTA (Company). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wscribner (talk • contribs) 13:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I have copied this over to Talk:NTA_(company), User:75.108.94.227 for future use. Wscribner (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for requesting other views on this deletion

You are welcome to !vote in the discussion, but I advise brevity if possible. I am not trying to censor anything. However, we do have a policy which concerns politicians. As yet unelected candidates cannot draw notability from their candidature or the publicity surrounding it. To have an article, they must show notability separate from the election. Donald Trump definitely has notability, and is not the author of that page. Articles about people who are candidates should not be used as web space for putting their manifesto before the public. That is what I count as promotional, and including the wording in places. I would advise you to read WP:AUTOBIO about (surprisingly) autobiography, and WP:COI about conflict of interest, which is about editing on subjects you are very close to. Both are strongly not recommended, although not forbidden. Our policy on candidates is to prevent Wikipedia being used as a platform for electioneering. As I said, you are welcome to !vote and comment, and that is where you should be making your points. I am neutral, and took the article to AfD in order to get a consensus. You are free to change the article in order to show that you pass WP:BIO without the election, and to reference that with reliable independent sources WP:RS. (I am saying !vote as it isn't a vote but a discussion. Each participant is allowed one Keep or Delete, and as many Comments as it takes. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but apart from in certain legal matters, we are governed by consensus. As I said, brevity is advised - we even have a policy WP:TLDR about lack of it... Peridon (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Peridon, thank you for your speedy response. Please note that I have absolutely no business or financial relationships with any of the references I cited. I have been retired since the year 2005 and am solely focused on my scientific research and my presidential campaign, that will go nowhere if I cannot get a page on Wikipedia, which is necessary for being listed as a presidential candidate on Facebook. As such, I will remove whatever is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry W Braun III (talk • contribs) 17:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

What you have to do primarily is to prove notability by our standard in WP:BIO. If you look at WP:GNG and its subdivisions as well, it may help. This has to be based on you as a person, not you as a candidate. The references showing notability must be more than mentions, and not publications by the subject. In academia, number of papers counts for a lot more than it does here. I have never before heard of Facebook putting restrictions on people that insisted on them having Wikipedia pages, but I'm afraid it won't help here. Usually every man and his hamster can get a page there, which is why we do not count Facebook pages as any indication of notability. (Same goes for YouTube, Twitter and all the rest of the social media.) The discussion may decide that being a presidential candidate IS notable - things like that can happen. In most cases, it's candidates for Representative, or for city councils (which is a specifically non-notable position by itself, that I deal with. Here, I removed a tag for 'something made up' (which may have been a click in the wrong box), and decided against replacing it with a 'lack of significance shown' tag because I felt consensus was needed. Note that that tag doesn't say that someone is not notable - it says the article failed to show significance. Articles for Deletion is the only way for a discussion to be noticed by a wider audience in the community here. It often leads to an improvement in the article. Feel free to ask questions in the discussion. Wikipedia is free to edit, but no-one says it's easy. I'm an admin, and still finding new things. Peridon (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Braun, if I may comment here: I understand why you are frustrated by all this. Here's the problem: Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit," but it doesn't accept every article about any subject that anyone wants to add. This is an international encyclopedia, and it has definite standards for what kind of articles can be included here. The standards are not arbitrary or based on people's opinions; they are very specific, namely that there must have been significant coverage of the subject by independent reliable sources. That criterion cannot be met by things you say about yourself, or links you provide to show that you were right or there is evidence to support your ideas. The links must be specifically ABOUT you, by independent reliable sources such as major newspapers. So when we talk about whether to accept your article or not, there is no "censorship" involved. It's not about whether people agree with you or not. It's not about judging your worth as a candidate. Probably some of us agree with your ideas, or might even vote for you if the opportunity arose. Some others have no opinion at all about the U.S. presidential race, being citizens of other countries. It's all about whether there is enough third-party coverage to show that the subject (in this case, you) qualifies for inclusion in this encyclopedia. That is why Donald Trump has an article and you will probably not. A search of Google News turns up 29 million hits for Trump. A search of Google News turns up exactly one hit about you: a passing mention in the Piqua Daily Call.[13] See what I mean? --MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

And what I *actually* came over here to say, before noticing the Countly-vs-Count.ly mystery and talkpage-stalking, was that being a presidential candidate doesn't require you to be wealthy. What is does require is for you to have at least one (1) megadonor, somebody with upwards of ten million bucks to spend, on your presidential campaign alone, who will fund your super-PAC. See the explanatory paragraphs, with links, at Fundraising_for_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election. Some of the new campaign finance laws are VERY new indeed, and 2016 is the first presidential election where they will be seriously tested... which is to say, bent, broken, bypassed, et cetera. Braun had a PAC of some sort, circa 2003, but I'm not sure what his fundraising is like for the 2016 campaign. Theoretically at least, it only takes one Tom_Steyer#Political_activism backing Braun's campaign on environmental grounds, to pick a hypothetical example, in order to make Braun'16 a powerful force in the 2016 primaries & caucuses, however. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

• Op-ed: WP:THREATENING2MEN: The English Wikipedia's misogynist infopolitics and the hegemony of the asshole consensus

• In the media: Politically controversial science; "Wikipedia hates women"

• Featured content: Dead parrots, live frogs, a symbolic kiss and what do we get? Enrique Iglesias!

• Travelogue: Seeing is believing

• Traffic report: Straight Outta Connecticut

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Blog: How Wikipedia responds to breaking news

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandeep Maheswari

• Hello Peridon, you deleted Sandeep Maheswari. Can you please considering SALTing this page as it is being recreated frequently? This page has been deleted twice and one under slightly different name (Sandeep Maheshwari (Motivation Speaker)). I incidentally tagged both pages for CSD in the past. Many thanks. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I usually give then four goes, or five sometimes. Let me know if he goes beyond the current three. Peridon (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• I sure will Peridon. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Page Issues For Artist

Hello I am Joey a manager at Forever17 Record Labels and I have heard that one of my artist Shabazz Sallier name has been banned from wiki! Fans tell me that someone from your great site claimed that the page they have created was to much promotion, so I have a question for you if I give you guys information about my artist Shabazz Sallier can you unlock his name and add the information onto your site the best way you can without anything sounding like it's trying to promote my artist Shabazz Sallier because he deserves a page just like anyone else on this planet. Please let me know all of the options that I will have thanks so much Wikipedia I really appreciate it a lot . I think the page says this right now This page is protected from creation, so only administrators can create it. Joeysevenforever (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Joeysevenforever: You left the same comment on my talk page. I moved it to your talk page and replied there, explaining your options as you requested. Please continue the conversation on your talk page at User talk:Joeysevenforever. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

• In focus: An increase in active Wikipedia editors

• In the media: Russia temporarily blocks Wikipedia

• Op-ed: Wikimania—can volunteers organize conferences?

• News and notes: Re-imagining grants

• Featured content: Out to stud, please call later

• Arbitration report: Reinforcing Arbitration

• Recent research: OpenSym 2015 report

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

NTA, Wscribner

In regards to the questions about the NTA (Company) page, I am the Marketing Communications Specialist for NTA, Inc. I was asked by the President of the company, Dtompos, to add the proper citations/references to our wikipedia page to avoid being in danger of the page being merged, deleted, or any other negative actions. I had added some "references" earlier this year, but did not realize that I had added them with the incorrect formatting. When I went in and added them correctly (I think), the warning at the top of the page did not go away. I contacted a help person, who removed the warning about our page lacking notations, references, citations, etc.

We try to keep our wikipedia page as correct as possible, for anyone seeking to find information on us. In that vein, there is information regarding the founding family of the company that will show the expertise of the individuals involved. We are not attempting to "self advertise", but to inform anyone looking for information on NTA, of our qualifications as a testing, inspection and certification company. That is why the links to government sites (a thoroughly legitimate reference, as the certifications we have earned, and our ability to perform certain services that require government approval must be able to verified, and they are verified as shown on the government websites).

No one contacted us outside of wikipedia to ask us to do edits. We simply check on our page on occasion to ensure everything is accurate and up to date. Wscribner (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

• Special report: Massive paid editing network unearthed on the English Wikipedia

• News and notes: Flow placed on ice

• Discussion report: WMF's sudden reversal on Wiki Loves Monuments

• Featured content: Brawny

• In the media: Orangemoody sockpuppet case sparks widespread coverage

• Traffic report: You didn't miss much

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Dr J.S. Rajkumar

I want to discuss about DR JS Rajkumar page. I don't know how the content is present on wordpress though it was mine but it surprised me too. Since it is deleted, I would like to get one more chance to create a new page on the same topic. Can you please help me and guide me that how can I come out of this issue.The new content will be as such so that no breaking of wikipedia policies will be there.So please suggest me How can the page can be created further. Looking forward to your reply and suggestions.

Aarvig (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)