User talk:Peridon/Archives/2013/September

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


Hi again, I see you reviewed this article and decided it doesn't qualify for A3 speedy deletion. OK, maybe you're right, but have you actually read the article? How long does it have to stay unreferenced? Why does it contain content only remotely related to the actual title? What can be done about this? Thank you for your effort, cheers --Cvalda (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did read it. And I still think it does not count as "an article that contains no content whatsoever, or consists only of external links, category tags, a "see also" section, a rephrasing of the title, an attempt to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments and/or images.". Like many of the CSD criteria, A3 is quite limited in scope. The only options for deletion are PROD or AfD. Peridon (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, I usually post more often on the Spanish Wikipedia so I'll have to check these deletion policies again. Thank you so much! --Cvalda (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Things do vary a lot across the languages. I've only tagged one in foreign parts (French) - even the procedure is different. Peridon (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Raj Kumar Lekhi

Thanks... I suspect it was finger trouble - I meant to click on bio :) Thanks once again Gbawden (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Wierd Contribs

Hi Peridon. Would you mind taking a look at Special:Contributions/Dwdimov? This editor keeps making the same article with different stylization rather than moving the pages and it's a bit much for me to wrap my head around this early in the morning. Ishdarian 12:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks to have settled to two (and one at AfC which is a duplicate). Can't say they look notable. Peridon (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks. I kept clicking the history and it was never the same. Gotta love it. Ishdarian 12:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Some new articles

Hello Peridon. I see you have speedied Kali Mark. Can you please also look at the editor's other articles: Frutang, Solo (Indian soft drink), Trio (Indian soft drink), Fruitnic. I can't find a reliable source even naming these products, but don't seem like going to AfD with these one line completely unsourced articles. Can you please suggest a suitable action. Thanks --SMS Talk 12:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've prodded them (at bot speed...). If they object, take 'em to AfD as a set. Peridon (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Leo Jee

hello my friend ... OMG it's second time that wikipedia deleted this article... u sad that info was took from yes man this is Leo Jee official facebook page... I'm admin on this page too i mean leos facebook page... this info everything about leo is wrote by me ... and i don't understand what i must to do please help me... drives me mad this situation :))))))--AlexSpancer (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The thing is that that Facebook page is copyright. To you, to Leo, to Facebook, I don't know. But Wikipedia is licensed under Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0 for free reuse anywhere by anyone. Your text isn't licensed. It's not free for anyone to use. So we can't have it in here. Even if you wrote it and it's your copyright. If you look in WP:COPYVIO you'll find information on licensing your text (which then makes it free for anyone anywhere to reuse and modify and do whatever sto o long as they acknowledge where it came from). If you want to retain the text on Facebook as yours, you'll have to write something new for here. And it must be new, not just changing a word here and there. If you decide to license it to us, it has to be done by the proper procedure - just saying here is no good. You might be AlexSpancer or you might by Kylie Minogue for all I know. (Doubt it...) OK? If you're still not sure, I'll put you onto one of our top copyright people. Peridon (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding speedy delete of Onarbor page

Hi Peridon, I created the page, Onarbor, and would like to fix it such that it will be acceptable to be published on Wikipedia. is my website and company. Our business model is based off of Kickstarter that is why I used Kickstarter's wiki page as a guide to developing our wiki page. I apologize for cutting and pasting kickstarter's page in order to create Onarbor's page. I took a break from finishing Onarbor's page before removing the blatant copyrighting without realizing that Wikipedia editors would delete it so quickly before I had a chance to finalize it. My sincere apologies, this is the 1st wikipedia page I've ever created. I've re-submitted the Onarbor page to address the copyrighting. I've removed all references that were Kickstarter-specific and changed the sentence-structure and wording to be unique to Onarbor. Hopefully this will be more in line with Wikipedia's policies. Again, I'm truly sorry about this. Thank you,

Tim Peterson User:Trpeters1 —Preceding undated comment added 15:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. You need to get your head around WP:CORP and WP:RS. Existence isn't the same as notability. On places like Crunchbase, Facebook and AboutUs you don't need notability - just existence. The difference is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. I'm looking at your second version, and there isn't one reliable independent source. All bar one are your own site, and the one is Crunchbase which isn't regarded here as reliable (not, for the purposes of notability are Facebook, IMDb, YouTube, AboutUs and Wikipedia). Yes, even us. Because we're editable. By anyone, in fact. The others are editable by you. (IMDb is there only as an example - unless you've got another career going after hours...) Try to find as many RS as you can, then make an article around them. Do it at [[User:Trpeters1/DRAFT (Just click and save.) This protects you from the patrollers so long as you avoid promotion ("we strive to exceed your expectations..."), copyvio (which you know about now) and attack (unlikely...). You can be non-notable in user space for quite some time - tagging for that is not allowed. When you've got something up, ask for advice/opinion. I know some good rescuers, but it's best for you to have a go first. A warning - Kickstarter suggests new, and new suggests that not much in the way of coverage will be found yet. If you don't get the article, remember that some companies with sales of millions of dollars weekly don't get articles. It's down to being heard of and discussed in RS. Peridon (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Dee for Biljana D. Obradovic

Hi Peridon, I filed a speedy deletion for Biljana D. Obradovic and I was hoping to get some feedback about your removal, for my personal growth. :) I didn't understand your edit summary, "claims to significance". I see an autobiographical article with no independent references to establish notability or verify content. I also notice that it is written like WP:PROMO, and after doing a search, notice that much of the text appears to be Bio copy/pasta from here (for example). I appreciate your thoughts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. Copyvio apart (I didn't check for that, assuming it would have been done), she's a university professor, and has received the Masaryk Academy of Arts Medal. That's enough to pass A7. That's claimed significance. Notability is a higher level, which real professors usually pass, but assistant professors don't. Lack of referencing doesn't come in at CSD, although good references make things more credible. Credibility is important - a 13 year old claiming to be the CEO of a multinational corporation isn't credible without the absolute best of references. This claim is credible. CSD is a filter for removing real dross. Other stuff has to go to prod or AfD, where referencing and notability is an issue. CSD can be tricky. Don't be afraid to ask or query things. Have a read through Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion (and the criteria on the page itself...), and see some of the discussions that go into the formulation of the criteria. (It's not as violent as AN or AN/I... ) Peridon (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, brilliant! I'll do my reading. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me. I never would have imagined that simply by virtue of being a university professor, a person is "notable". That seems counterintuitive to me, as everybody is part of the proletariat and has a job, y'know? But anyhow, that's beyond the scope of this query. Again, I appreciate your input. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
To me it's more logical than the footballer who plays one game as a pro and thus passes [WP:ATHLETE]]. Don't forget CSD is a low level. Things that pass aren't necessarily notable. The thing is that they need time at prod, or discussion at AfD rather than just a quick execution by one tagger and one admin. Peridon (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Hi sir,

Thanks a lot for helping me. As I said my Internet service provider gives me different ip almost every day. I changed the IP and problem was solved.

--Tatask89 (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

RE: Setter Capital Inc. - Unblock Request

Thank you Peridon for getting back to me with the unblock request. With respect to another username, I am not entirely sure how to go about renaming the account but if you have the authority to rename my account, I would be open to changing it to "RAK321" if it is available. I went through the policies you mentioned and I agree that having an article on a similar company does not justify Setter Capital to have their own page. However, given the scope of the company and its frequent presence in the media when referencing the secondary markets for alternatives, it is imperative that there is some sort of presence for Setter on Wikipedia. As mentioned above, the article would be fairly objective and neutral and include independent sources (news articles). Would appreciate it if you can further assist in changing the username and unblocking the account so I can start contributing to the website. Thank you. Secondary123 (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Right. If you're the same person, the other account can stay blocked. If not, they should use {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on the talk. Put the name in, and click Preview not save. Then use the thingy to check availability. When creating the new article, do it un user space. In an edit window, type User:Your name/DRAFT (with the correct name in, of course). Click Preview, then click the new redlink and save. In user space, you're not safe from tagging for spam, copyvio or attack, but safe from most other things. When the article's ready, ask for an opinion. The problem about not knowing how to get a name change was because Tokyogirl79 used an advertising only template instead of a spam username one - that has the unblockun thing on it. Don't copy it from the edit window - copy it straight from the ordinary view. TG79 is good at rescue and advice, by the way. Peridon (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again for your quick response. Passed on your advice and we have done as you said by requesting username change. I reached out to Tokyogirl79 as well but haven't had any response or progress on the unblock. We would appreciate it if you would be able to suggest the next steps in order to unblock the account. Also, can the user post a draft of the article (like you mentioned) while being blocked? Thanks Secondary123 (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

Help requested

Peridon as you were an admin involved in my AE case I wonder would you be kind enough to supply an opinion at my AE appeal at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_SonofSetanta. I know you wouldn't be particularly keen but as you supported my view of confusion over what was happening on the day I think your opinion would be of great value to me. I'd be very grateful. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Making Kim Cesarion available for re-editing

Kim Cesarion is a talented and successful Swedish artist who has charted in four countries Denmark (peaking at #6), Sweden (#7), Finland (#11) and Norway (#13). But I noticed that after some earlier contributors establishing the page much earlier, they relaunched it abusively for a number of times despite deletion, thus the page was rendered inaccessible for re-establishment. I am independent of all previous editors of the page and have prepared a proposed draft for consideration and am requesting that the Kim Cesarion page is re-activated for editing. My proposed new article version is here: User:Werldwayd/Articles-New. Note that we already have pages for the artist in 11 languages: ar, da, de, es, fi, hy, is, no, ro, tr, sv In case you cannot effect it yourself, inform me where I should apply for reactivation. Many regards werldwayd (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. I've unprotected the page so you are free to move yours there. I'm not giving any guarantee about survival, as I haven't checked your refs. I usually prefer more than two singles, but you never know... Peridon (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Thanks. werldwayd (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

Newbies deleted page

Hi - I need some assistance and was hoping you could be of help since you flagged my article for deletion. If you have the time please review my sandbox at - what does my article need to be accepted??? Thanks!Ddebellis1 (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not very happy about the references. Most of them are just mentions or sound like enthusiastic PR stuff. For notability, Crunchbase and articles by Ryan Gilbert can be ignored - not independent. I've no idea what 'Pre-IPO' means, and there doesn't seem to be an assertion of significance. It's hard to draw a line between asserting significance and being promotional, however. I'll ping User:MelanieN who is very good at rescuing things. If she can't do something, then it's a matter of waiting until things get better known. Peridon (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
You rang? 0;-D I'm afraid I have to agree with you, Peridon. User:Ddebellis1 has worked very hard on this and they have done their very best to come up with references, but the references don't even come close to meeting the significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources standard for an article here. I also did a search, but I found nothing but press releases and such, which of course don't count for notability. The problem is not with the writing of the article, and there is no way it could be rewritten to make it better; the problem is that the company is just not notable as defined at WP:CORP. This is basically just another loan company - a "provider of small-dollar loans for consumer bill payment" according to one description I found - although it's very hard to tell that from the company's website or the article here. (It's certainly not a "technology company" as the article states.) The company is only four years old and privately held (I think that's what "pre-IPO" means - it means they hope to go public someday). Maybe it will develop more coverage if the company grows and if it goes public. But for now, the necessary coverage to support an article just isn't there, and IMO if the article gets reposted it is likely to get deleted again. Just MHO. --MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
An opinion I respect greatly, remembering the job you did on that skiing thing. (I didn't think that stood a cat in hell's chance...) As to the technology, I've seen something about someone 'using BillFloat software', but it was only a mention and gave no indication of whether it was software for outside use, or merely a way-in to the company's operation. Anyway, another company doing its job. Some day, when the coverage is there... Thanks for trying. Peridon (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Susan fitzgerald

Hi. I'm trying to move Susan FitzGerald to Susan Fitzgerald, per standard naming and sources. Unfortunately, in trying to get the existing Susan Fitzgerald (which is a redirect) out of the way, I moved it to Susan fitzgerald. What I need is to delete Susan Fitzgerald and Susan fitzgerald so I can move Susan FitzGerald to Susan Fitzgerald. There are a handful of inlinks, too, that I'll change so the Susan FitzGerald redirect to Susan Fitzgerald will not be required. Make sense? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC) edited —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Sort of... I've deleted F_g as a single author request for deletion. f_g can be altered when you've done the move. It'll probably be redlinked then, so just change it to fit. It's harmless and not in the way. Leave F_G up as a redirect, too. (That'll make a discussion necessary if there's trouble...) Peridon (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a template for this - I can't find it in Twinkle, but a lot of people use it. I don't, being not much of a content creator. More of a dustman... Peridon (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Yeah - seems like I've used twinkle or something for this elsewhere.
Thanks for your help. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Looks to be {{db-move|reason}}. It is in Twinkle, one of the G6 variants. Peridon (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
(ec) OK. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd leave 'em be, per my remarks above. Not doing any harm. Peridon (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear sir/madam

How can I create the new article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wathnakvy (talkcontribs) 11:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have replied to you on your own talk page, a place where you already had this information prior to asking Peridon. We will be pleased, any of us, to answer your questions once you have read the information you had already been given. Fiddle Faddle 11:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film)

I believe an article on the film is inevitable because yes, the topic of the planned film is getting and will likely continue to get lots of coverage. My own thought is that when considering planned films we look to the applicable guideline and consider whether or not that coverage gives us anything solid about the film itself... casting, production, plot, etc. To be fair to our readers, I think a temporary redirect to either J.K. Rowling or the article on the 2001 book "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" by that author (and where this adaptation IS already written about), is a valid consideration. The arguments about how the film topic might become supremely notable have a bit of merit, but I think it logical that we send readers for now to where it makes sense under policy, guideline and essay to keep readers informed. What'cha think? Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If it's already in the book article, then that one would be best - especially as it will come up on the search list first. When there's enough solid coverage to merit a fork, then the article. Either way of keep or redirect, so long as we've got the info somewhere and this title is present, we're doing our job... Peridon (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Sud Sound System Article deleted?

Hi There,

I think you made a mistake in deleting the Article on the Italian group Sud Sound System. I managed to read it thanks to Google cache The first part of the article was factual and to the point and does not qualify for the justification (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). The second part of it was indeed not suitable for wikipedia since it was pretentious and glorifying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I did - it looks more a notability case than spam. I must have misread the tag. I've moved it to User:Peridon/Sud Sound System for anyone to work on. That second paragraph needs toning down, and most of all, references WP:RS need finding. Their own site cannot show notability. I'll contact the first author - just in case that's not you... Peridon (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


Hi Peridon! You probably barely remember this article, but this is an article you speedy deleted in May 2012 under A7. The page was recently recreated, and the editors currently working on it asked if I could fill in some gaps from the pages history (see User talk:Singularity42#You got five minutes to look at a page history?. I did so, but in the process I thought your A7 deletion was a bit... odd. The article had been nominated in 2009 for AFD. The result of the AFD was delete. The article was then edited on semi-regularly for the next couple years, and then was speedy deleted under A7. Given the AFD result, I'm not sure A7 really applied...

Anyway, in fairness to the earlier contributions, I was thinking of restoring the edit history for the version of the article created in 2009 and deleted in 2012.. As the deleting admin, though, I wanted to check in with and get your thoughts. Singularity42 (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

Request Sandboxing of Baby Face (toy)

This was speedied earlier today, could you either restore it to a page in my sandbox or to a sandbox of the original Author User:MEL BIRNKRANT.Naraht (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you've seen it already, but now it's at User:Naraht/Baby Face (toy) as I think you stand a better chance of doing something with it. Might be an idea to explain 'encyclopaedia' and 'encyclopaedic' to the author... Good luck. Peridon (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, he is a little bit enthusiastic. Started out a couple of days ago by adding links from a number of old toys/comic strips to his web site. While these were deleted as Spam, the scary thing is that for a number of them it really makes sense. He was a professional toy designer and now has a *huge* collection of well organized toys and books on a website going back to the 19th century. Now that I've seen what he created for Baby Face (toy), I understand what he said when he indicated that he thought it was a talk page. I really *don't* want to lose him as an editor, but it will probably take 2 or 3 mentors by the time we're done. :) Naraht (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it was the links that made me delete it. As you know, we get a lot of link spam. And art spam. And people who can't see that "We look forward to hearing from you and always strive to give you our best..." is promotional. This one could be useful, as you say. It'll take a bit more patience than I've got, though... Peridon (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
On the bright side, he thought it was a talk page for putting information on since it was a redlink from the page that was created about him. He *is* notable (We've got a life magazine article as well as 15 links from google news archives). He is convinced he created the worlds worst possible Baby Face (toy) page, and won't try it again. You may want to watchlist his talk page just for the headshaking value. He was born in 1937, so he's 76 years old. I'm not saying that it isn't possible to have Vandalism by those on the high side of 75, but I'd guess it occurs slightly less often. :)Naraht (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

KcicketGames Article deleted

Hi Peridon. I see that you deleted an article I created yesterday : KricketGames. It was a draft of an article, I was planning to finalize it today (add links to newspapers , press articles that talk about the company, etc. Is there a possibility to have the article back?

Thank you in advance, Raissa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raissa25 (talkcontribs) 08:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It is possible, but what sources are you going to give? I've just been through the first 15 pages of Google hits for "Conectys" and didn't see anything that would fit in with WP:RS (our policy on reliable independent sources). Please read that policy, and also WP:CORP. I would advise looking at other articles, too, as yours was more like a directory entry than something for an encyclopaedia. I've restored it and moved it to your user space at User:Raissa25/CricketGames. I would also advise you not to put it into article space until you've had an opinion from someone who is experienced on Wikipedia. User space is the best place for starting articles. In user space, only attack pages, advertising, and copyright violations get speedy deleted. Peridon (talk) 11:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Page removed because of copyright violation

Hi Peridon. You have removed the page I have created because of copyright violation. Now I see that you are totally right. My bad! Sorry about it! I just wanted to ask, why the page is still available when I search after it in a search engine? Will it be removed later and this is just old cache? I also would like to know whether it is possible to create same page later, with more reliable information? Thanks! Danesh Daroui (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The page may be listed, but only the 'deleted' screen will be seen. It's a problem with Google, sometimes. They pick things up quickly, but don't let go as quickly. It will go fairly soon. There's no objection to you having another go, so long as you read WP:CORP and WP:RS (notability, and reliable independent sources]] first, and then do a complete rewrite. I usually advise finding the references first, and then writing round them. Not all companies get articles, because some of them are behind the scenes specialised ones that no-one has heard of - or ones like the one turning out millions of tins of food a week, all bearing someone else's name (own-brand goods for chain stores). BTW if something like this happens again, please tell us the name of the page - some of us delete loads of things and can't remember which was which. We can find it in your deleted contribs list, but it saves time if you tell us. Good luck. Peridon (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

Afd for Sublime (company)

Hi, I thought I'd let you know I've posted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sublime (company)‎‎ for a company already speedily deleted twice in the last day or two, once by you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Please consider create protection for Abubacker

I've requested it in the formal place. A note form you on the editor's talk page might be useful to try to help me and others explain why the page(s) he creates about himself are not appropriate might be useful. With the new user alert mechanism I suggest you look at my own contribs log to see what that talk page might be. I do not want them to feel persecuted, just well and strongly advised. No need to reply to me unless you want to. Fiddle Faddle 12:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It's been deleted three times now, and also as K. A. M. Muhammed Abubacker and his userpage. I'd forgotten about the other title. BTW Admins can see deleted contribs, so it's easy for us to view the history of deleted pages and find talk pages etc. 8-) I usually don't protect after only a couple of attempts, but this has gone on long enough. I'll leave a message, but I can't see it getting through. Peridon (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Protected both titles. Peridon (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
All we can do is to try. Thank you for helping. Fiddle Faddle 13:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Swiss thiss

Hello. I noticed that you declined a nomination for speedy deletion for Swiss thiss because of the article having new references. Well, I've checked them (see my comments at AfD), and they're either dead (Stern), fake ( or the company's own press releases (PresseAnzeiger). Plus the company's own Youtube and Twitter channels. Meaning that there are no reliable sources whatsoever. Just thought that you might want to know. Cheers. Thomas.W talk to me 19:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But they were there, making the article different. AfD is the correct place for it. Peridon (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Pat Fear

Please can you restore this redirect, it's perfectly valid. GiantSnowman 12:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. Peridon (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)