Jump to content

User talk:Peridon/Archives/2015/January

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Barnstar

I appreciate it, thanks. Happy New Year :) LouiseS1979 (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

Ferenc Jolesz

https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_include_a_work_licensed_with_CC_BY_in_a_Wikipedia_article_even_though_they_use_a_CC_BY-SA_license.3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkikinis (talk • contribs) 21:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC) -- Rkikinis (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Florida Flight Deletion

I'd like to understand why you singled out and deleted the Florida Flight (basketball) and left many other minor league teams alone. What specifically drove you to delete them? Do you know they have played two recent games at the Amway Center (Home of the NBA's Orlando Magic)? That they've been operating for going on 6 years, and have played close to 100 games? That they've had digital billboards in Orlando, been on 3 radio station interviews, had a ton of news coverage. Major newspapers: Florida Sun and the Orlando Sentinel. Minor newspapers: Insight Magazine, East Orlando Sun, etc. The team was featured on multiple television spots: Inside Israeli Basketball, and also appeared with Rick Fox on an episode of The Glades (recently cancelled), airing on A&E.

There are other Florida teams that have barely played a game, yet you deleted the Florida Flight. What gives? Here is the supporting links in reference to this team (below) that you have deemed illegitimate. Consider this a request to not only reinstate the Florida Flight page, but also the pages that have also been deleted for the Florida Basketball Association, Commissioned by 2-time NBA Champion Greg Kite (Boston Celtics) and featuring the development team (Miami Midnites) for a mega power house international team, Maccabi Haifa, who has also played 7 NBA teams in the last 2 years of pre-season NBA action, as well as the page for the Owner of the Florida Flight, Mark King, who becomes more notable in this city and within the entire minor league basketball industry, as the FBA is the only minor league outside of the NBA D-League to play 100% of tFloking5 (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)heir scheduled games for their entire existence (going on 4 years now). This should be reinstated immediately.


Floking5 (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I take most deletion requests as they come to hand, and care no more about any basketball team than any other and have never even seen a game played (there is no basketball in my area that I know of and I'm not a fan of any sport or team at all). I judge on the article as I see it, and not on any other articles on similar subjects (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). You are free to repost it if you think it was deleted in error or if you can improve it, but I don't recommend that. I will look again at it if you give me a link to the title - your account does not seem to have been the creator of the article. I am willing to userfy it to your user space for any improvement needed (this does not apply in cases of attack, spam, hoax or copyright violation - none of those can be userfied). I would advise you to lose the Facebook and PRweb links as they are not reliable independent sources and won't help your case at all. BTW I've taken out the reference coding in your post above - only use that when referencing in an article. On a talk page, just put a star and the URL. Using the coding can make a mess sometimes on talk and discussion pages. Peridon (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Another BTW - posting on the talk page of a closed Articles for Deletion page won't be noticed by anyone. I only saw it while checking your accounts contributions to try and find the article you are talking about here. Peridon (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for the quick response. I know that Mark has some trollers (most from a site forum called Our Sports Central) that wanted him to fail, and quite frankly, he is not failing. He's surpassing all expectations. Deletion requests must have come from those individuals. It's quite sad, really.

I have no interest in being a Wikipedia contributor really, but wanted to get involved when it was brought to my attention by someone else that this entry was marked for deletion and then deleted. Noticing that other horribly performing minor league teams and leagues were left alone, the request had to have come from those trollers. Makes no sense otherwise. As a fan of minor league sports, Mark's efforts have been phenomenal and much needed in basketball.

Any assistance on reinstating would be grateful. Please to take another look. The title is Mark Anthony King Minor league basketball owner/player - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Anthony_King&action=edit&redlink=1

I'm happy to make some contributions to THIS SUBJECT of articles (Mark King, Florida Flight, Florida Basketball Association), but could use help (not my original intent to be so involved but willing to help). He didn't deserve the deletion, which is evidenced by the actual media coverage that is out there. No, he's not an A-rated celebrity, but he is making significant contributions to society and the professional basketball industry. There are other links and sources. I just grabbed what I could. The PRWeb links were pulled from the actual links anyway (higher sources). Just couldn't find them. The same for The Glades TV Show. The show was cancelled, so hard to find stuff quickly. It's there though. A Lot is out there. I'll see if I can't add those when I have time to search.

Thanks again!

Floking5 (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Now we're getting to it. I didn't delete the article about Florida Flight. User:Secret did that. What I deleted was a later redirect to a redlink. (That means a page that redirected the searcher to another page that either never existed or had been deleted.) Looking at the deleted Flight article, I would say that a team that plays at either a civic centre or a middle school is extremely unlikely to achieve an article here. If a club isn't big enough to have its own ground, it isn't likely to pass notability here. As always, there are exceptions - see Barbarian F.C. (but that is a player at higher than club level...). The Mark King article can't be restored into article space, as it was deleted at Articles for Deletion and if undeleted would very quickly go again under the speedy category G4. But... Either or both can be userfied, but you'd need help from someone more familiar with American sports to advise on the notability of Mark King. I do know that playing for a fully professional club in a fully professional league counts for notability, but I wouldn't know the status of any club or league. Secret or the participants in the AfD discussion could give better info on this. You're welcome to bring them here, but I don't hold out much hope. Peridon (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

That's kind of my point. The Florida Flight is playing at Amway now. Power 95.3 covered the story and promoted this (can't find direct links though). So as far as the Flight not playing in a legit arena...no longer true. Looks like some trolling shenanigans to me by this Secret character. Both the Florida Flight AND Mark King play in professional leagues. In fact, King played in the Continental Basketball Association, which WAS the NBA D-League before the NBA formed the current version of the D-League. I'm well versed in minor league sports. There are articles and evidence of major TV networks picking up the East Kentucky Miners AND Mark King story.

It's looking to be more work than I have time for though to get these things reinstated. I'm unfamiliar with some of the jargon of Wikipedia. I do find it so very unfortunate that trollers were successful in removing these things (and I do believe it to be at least instigated by them if not done by them). My daughter is one of many kids that have looked up to Mr. King. He goes into schools and youth groups all the time sharing his story of how he overcame so many things to be where he is at. In fact, the kids found it to be pretty cool that he is also in Wikipedia. It certainly helped his cause as he worked to promote his team. I'm sure you have lots on your plate and other articles to worry about, but any help and hand-holding would be appreicated to fix this. I'd hate to see those immature, hateful trollers win this battle. It's undeserved and sad. Unfortunately, for me, I don't know if I can be as involved as necessary, or help with some "userfied" page (still don't comprehend the difference). I just wanted to make an effort to reinstate. I find it EXTREMELY peculiar, too, that Secret is now a "retired" user. What a bunch of garbage. Sad... Floking5 (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No, Secret's retired because of a personal disaster and another serious problem. (I've only just found this out.) It's nothing to do with this business, although I have just noticed that he seems to have made the unusual decision to delete Flight unilaterally. While that is perfectly within the rules governing admins on Wikipedia, most of us tag and let someone else look at it (and they usually delete it). I'm going to ping the creator of the article, although I can't see how it lasted so long @LightningMan:. He's a bit here and there, so I've mailed him too. I'll userfy the two pages into my own space. One is at User:Peridon/Mark Anthony King, and the other at User:Peridon/Florida Flight. (Userfying is a Wikipedia word that means moving something into user space. The articles that everyone looks at are in main space, and they can have talk pages in Talk: space. User space stuff has User: in front of the title, and there is Wikipedia: space for official and semi-official stuff, Draft: space for creating things in, and so on.) I'll ping another editor (who lives on the opposite side of America...) to have a look at things here. (@MelanieN: Hi, Melanie - Happy New Year. I don't know if you know basketball, but you usually do know notability and referencing...) Peridon (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Peridon, but I'm going to have to pass on this one. Sports teams have their own special rules for notability, located here: Wikipedia:Notability (sports), but I'm not familiar enough with them to try to apply them. Sorry, and happy new year to you! --MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for popping in anyway. If you know someone who is into the sports side of things, I'd be obliged if you could point them this way... Peridon (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, taking a second look - it looks as if sports leagues are subject to the usual rules of WP:ORG or WP:CORP, rather than a special sports rule; the special sports rules only apply to people. I'll take a look and see how the article stacks up against ORG / CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, having looked at the draft article and the sources provided there and here: I'm sorry, but this team does not qualify for an article IMO. The problem is simply a lack of significant coverage from independent reliable sources, which is required per WP:CORP and WP:ORG. User:Floking5 offered several links above, but only the first three are from independent reliable sources, and all of them are more about Mark King than about the Flight. I think it may well be true that King himself is notable, based on this and other coverage. But the team: no. Only one team in the Florida Basketball Association seems to have received any kind of outside coverage, the Miami Midnites; it has gotten some coverage and currently has an article. That doesn't mean that the other teams in the league also qualify for articles. They need independent coverage of their own. --MelanieN (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Melanie for engaging. The first 3 sources are not about Mark King. Only the first one (but it is written BECAUSE the FLight were announced. Allow me to again post every article about the Flight:

These articles were from the main paper in Kissimmee, Florida (The Osceola Gazette in Osceola County), also picked up by The Florida Sun.

http://archives.floridasunonline.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6154%3Aflorida-flight-to-play-at-civic-center&Itemid=181 http://archives.floridasunonline.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6200%3Aflorida-flight-debuts-in-wba-at-civic-center&Itemid=181 http://archives.floridasunonline.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6716%3Aflight-pulls-out-of-wba-ending-basketball-season&Itemid=181 http://archives.floridasunonline.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6544%3Aflorida-flight-moving-up-in-wba-standings&Itemid=181

These 2 are from Insight Magazine, which covers East Orlando, and is run by the husband of one of Orange County's Commissioners.

http://www.insighteastorlando.com/rollingfeatured/florida-flight-soars-beyond-basketball-in-avalon-community/ http://www.insighteastorlando.com/featured/taking-flight-in-avalon/

This is coverage from a college of one of the Florida Flight players http://upikebears.com/news/2014/7/28/MBB_0728144608.aspx?path=mbball

This is a Television Show which features Mark, the Florida Flight and the FBA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7UfF7Qu9iBk

It should also be noted that although that first article was more about Mark than the Florida Flight, it still is about the Flight, AND...it was picked up by dozens of additional main stream media outlets (their online versions). Also, being in Orlando and keeping up with minor league basketball, this team is progressing. They are currently playing March 4th and the 20th at the Amway Arena, making them, as far as I know, the ONLY minor league team playing games in an actual NBA arena. If that's not notable and significant, I don't know what is. I'd be surprised if the news outlets don't jump on this and start covering them in 2015 and beyond.

Like I said (and I know it's not a legitimate argument but I'm still going to state this), I find it quite peculiar that of all the minor league teams that are out there, the Florida Flight, a team doing things that no other minor league team is doing, was marked for deletion. Smells fishy, and that is the backbone for why I've decided to get involved here. I'd be interested to see what Lightning Man has to say about all of this as well. Floking5 (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not realize I had actually created the original article. Thank you for the ping to join this discussion. I followed as a civilian for quite some time a local basketball team, the Wilmington Sea Dawgs, and during this created or edited many pages related to their past or present. The Sea Dawgs and the Flight played together in one league, the Continental Basketball League before leaving said league to, basically, start their own leagues. They have been developing relatively in parallel ever since. The main difference between the the Florida Basketball Association and the Tobacco Road Basketball League has been number of teams and volume of media coverage.
In the process of all of this, some things have happened that make me as a Wikipedian less able to be considered impartial. Number one, I developed a personal relationship with Mark King of the Flight, whom I initially met through Our Sports Central and the Wilmington Sea Dawgs. We are not fishing buddies or anything of that nature, but he and I have talked and are Facebook friends and so forth. The second thing is that I became affiliated first with the Sea Dawgs and then later with the Tobacco Road Basketball League as a whole. I currently hold a publicity position with the league working to get and keep media coverage of our member teams and the league as a whole. I have refrained from editing pages dealing with my league as per Wikipedia rules (although it is possible I made a minor correction or two since that point, just to be honest). And I was understated in my defense against deletion of the Florida Basketball Association page for fear of reprisals against the pages of my league. And lest anyone consider me paranoid, coverage of my league at Our Sports Central was reduced in direct response to something that Mark King said there.
To the heart of the matter, I find it suspicious at best that articles directed toward the Flight and the FBA were all under this type of scrutiny and up for nomination for deletion when my league and presumably other leagues were left untouched. I have already argued the notability fight elsewhere and lost and thus will not re-fight it here. All of this said, the Flight will be travelling to North Carolina this year to play one of our teams and will, if I do my job correctly, be getting coverage in the North Carolina media. In the run up to my taking the position I presently hold, I had a conversation with Mark about my thoughts and plans on how to execute it and increase the very same notability that is being asked for (although not in the specific context of Wikipedia). I hope to work with him and his league as a consultant to increase their media profile. However, it would be useful to know in a general way how much outside coverage is required before restoration of the article for the Flight as a team and the FBA as a league would be considered. Thanks for reading. LightningMan (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The above was edited to remove a redundancy that I would have realized had I actually been awake when I first typed. LightningMan (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
That's a fair question (how much coverage is required?). I'll comment since I've already weighed in on the negative side. Usually, coverage isn't even an problem with sports teams, because sports of all kind are so heavily covered by media - at least in America. Every newspaper has a separate sports section; every news program has a dedicated sports time slot; there are whole TV channels devoted to nothing but talking about sports. With all that time to fill, even the most minor sports subjects get reported on. So to me, any sports subject should have an easy time demonstrating its coverage - compared to, say, a subject involving academics or even politics. I'm not seeing here what I would expect for even a minimally notable team. The few items listed above as "demonstrating coverage" seem like grasping at straws. As I said, Mark King himself may be notable because his human-interest story gets coverage. What I find lacking is any coverage about the team itself, either about its makeup and activities, or about the actual play, i.e., any indication that anyone actually cares whether they win or lose. I found a little of that type of coverage for one team in this league, the Miami Midnites; I did not find it for the Florida Flight. (BTW thank you for so conscientiously disclosing your personal connection with this subject, and I promise not to go check out the other teams you mentioned, to see if they also fail of notability!) --MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
BTW here's what could be a fair solution to this question: rewrite and restore the article about Mark King, and make Florida Flight a redirect to that article - pending future expansion when/as/if the team becomes more notable. --MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I like that proposal, myself. Since I know Mark personally now, I think that would thus disqualify me from writing or rewriting the Mark King article. But I might be able to enlist some of the other editors of minor league basketball to take that on. Thanks for being reasonable. LightningMan (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Being in Orlando, I suspect the Flight has a challenge getting coverage opposed to other teams is because they play in Orlando, home of the NBA's Orlando Magic. Most minor league teams play in second tier markets and without an NBA team nearby. Media coverage (and the costs of such) is higher and more difficult to grab in bigger cities. The reason the Miami team doesn't have the same problem is their direct affiliation with Maccabi Haifa in Israel, a very will known major league pro team in Israel. Also, they aren't exactly playing in Miami. They play just outside, nearly an hour from the Miami Heat. In all fairness though, this team does not seem to have a million dollar budget. However, that's part of the intrigue. It's a grass roots effort, and likely why King's profile has risen in all of this. He's doing things that aren't seen very often. Floking5 (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking that starting with his notability is, as MelanieN suggested, a way to begin the return of the league to Wikipedia, and probably the way to go. LightningMan (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, Peridon has courtesy-hosted that page in his own userspace, at User:Peridon/Mark Anthony King. So if somebody wants to rework that article with better references, to make his notability more clear, it is there to be worked on. --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

Where is the meat???

If it is not empty I want to know what is empty? Uncle Fred 15:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Фил Вечеровский (talk • contribs)

"Black sesame rice cake is a Chinese traditional cake made with rice and sesame." is not empty. It is a very short stub, but it says what it's about and what it is. It passes the 'no content' criterion. Empty would be "Black sesame rice cake" and nothing more, or "blacksesamericecake.co.cn" and nothing more. Or simply "[blank space]"... Peridon (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Madam Cutie on Duty

Hey there, i realized you deleted the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madam_Cutie_on_Duty&action=edit) that I started out with. Which part of it was inappropriate and infringes copyright? Do let me know so I can re do one that is more original. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderskain (talk • contribs) 10:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Please sign talk page posts with ~~~~ to put your sig and the datestamp on. OK. The Synopsis was identical to the text at http://mydramalist.com/9567-madam-cutie-on-duty which is marked as copyright. I don't know if it's a translation of the official website or not, but either way it can't be used here. Even if you wrote it in the first place. Wikipedia is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL for reuse by anyone anywhere. Text that isn't public domain (usually stuff where the author's been dead more than 75 years, or certain government material) or licensed compatibly can't be brought into Wikipedia. An exception is brief quotes that are clearly marked with quote marks and the source given. If you rewrite, do keep well away from any existing text - changing odd words isn't enough), and please note that the article must show notability (see WP:GNG - there's probably a policy specifically for TV shows too), and be referenced with reliable independent sources WP:RS to prove the notability. The official site can't show notability, and nor can plot summaries or listings. Peridon (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Right thanks for the clarification. Will take note when updating future contents Thunderskain (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

ogey250

Thanks for your understandable message, many things are clear to me now, though Im still learning. Ogey250 (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

SalesJunction

Exactly what part of SalesJunction wasn't appropriate? I want to edit it or delete it all together so it is not promoting in anyway Deeps90 (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deeps90 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Basically, the whole thing. The vast majority of businesses don't have articles and never will. To have an article here, a company must pass WP:CORP and there should be reliable independent sources WP:RS to prove this. I couldn't see that there would have been a pass even if the article hadn't been written in a distinctly promotional way. "company that exists for one purpose; to provide the very best", "prides itself in being a simple, affordable, online..." - those are pure PR talk. Wikipedia is not a directory where all and any get space to post as they like. It is an encyclopaedia where all the wording should be neutral and unbiased. In short, ABOUT not BY... Peridon (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
BTW it is deleted, and will disappear off the search engines in a few days time. We can't speed that up. Peridon (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

So citing pages on the website itself is not a credible source? I'm new to wikipedia. Sorry Deeps90 (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That's right. A company's website might be expected to be the best source, but... I've known more than one case where the only thing about the company that actually existed was the website. Besides, Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. We're supposed to have both the ups and the downs - and what company is going to say that they've lost a battle with the FDA because their skin cream contained arsenic, and that their shampoo was banned in Europe because its removal of dandruff also removed all the hair (and tended to dissolve the top of the bottle)? Company site can be an external link, or used sparingly for things like a list of current brands, or the name of the CEO. It can't show notability - that has to come from the RS type references I mentioned above. Not always easy. You can't copy the site for two reasons. One is copyright. We can't accept copyright text without the direct permission of the owner to license it under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL. The other is that the whole point of a company site is to promote the company, so it wouldn't be any good even if it were to be licensed. Don't worry about being new - we all were once. There's a lot to learn about this place, and I don't think anyone knows everything. Even us admins... Peridon (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Does Capterra count? It is a review cite. I am assuming it does not but I just want to be sure. Deeps90 (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

From a quick look, I'd say it's no better than CrunchBase. Best to find something that doesn't have user participation or blogging. Peridon (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

About how many independent sources are needed? Deeps90 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

How many you got? Obviously, don't give 50 refs for a three line article, but try to reference main points specifically rather than referring to a whole site in a footnote. I usually refer people with questions like these to MelanieN (see the very long thread on this page), but she's got a requests for adminship on her plate at the moment. She might like a bit of a change, so don't be afraid to ask her advice. Just don't take it hard if she's busy... Peridon (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Adena Regional Medical Center

Why was the info box deleted? The page is a work in progress. AStudent (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You're better to work on new articles in your user space, unless you can launch them fully equipped in one go. This had been left for five hours. Article space is really for things that can stand alone - it looks bad if someone looks up something and finds just an infobox. (There are editors who have created loads of infoboxes without articles. Not a good idea...) I've restored it to User:AStudent/Adena Regional Medical Center where it'll be safe to work on it. Peridon (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

Don't worry!

I will still be available to have "seemingly impossible articles" dumped on me. I enjoy that kind of thing (BTW did you see the decent article about Near-sourcing that eventually emerged?) And several people have advised me strongly to spend at least half my time in article-related editing - so that I don't overload on admin stuff and burn out. I intend to take that advice. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Re "silliest oppose anyone's posted"; no, that would be User:Mkativerata's (#53). I've seen them do this before - vote in the "support" section, but call it "oppose" as a joke. I like it. We need more humor/levity at RfA. --MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I do try. (People do say I can be very trying at times.) I still miss Keepscases' questions, and enjoyed the one he set me (I think I made him laugh...). I found them quite valuable in deciding about some candidates, even though most people found them simply weird. I like to see reactions to the out of the ordinary. BTW if you get a moment, there's someone higher up this page (SalesJunction) who might be able to use some help. He's ref hunting at the moment, and I'm trying not to hold out too much hope. Peridon (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Apparently humor is NOT allowed at RfA. About that "silliest oppose" I referred to above: Somebody didn't get the joke, so they moved this comment - "53. Oppose. Should have run for rfa earlier given obvious aptitude for the job." - from the Support section to the Oppose section. They were rewarded with both a trout and a whale by the people who moved it back. --MelanieN (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I was quite surprised when I saw who had moved it. I thought he had a sense of humour... Peridon (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
When you've spent an average of an hour a day on RfA/Adminship stuff, stats and all, over 6 years, and spoken about it on 3 continents, you get to see the bigger picture. It's thanks to Keepscases finally giving up on his ludicrous hobby and leaving WP for good, and people like Kiefer Wolfwitz being banned, and some people with high edit counts being blocked or told in no uncertain terms they are not welcome at RfA, and some defrocked admins who are rightly too ashamed to show their faces, that we have the relatively mild environment we have today. Except for the RfA by a high scoring, very knowledeable, very mature editor being sabotaged by an IP in November, every serious RfA passes, we are no longer scared to nip the trolling in the bud, and 100+ support votes is now so absolutely commonplace we could almost deprecate that score list. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Nicolas de Blegny

Why was this page deleted? I am the copyright holder and have sent an email allowing use of the material.

Friendofnick (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Until an OTRS ticket is issued, the text cannot be used on Wikipedia because it is copyright. Wikipedia's licence under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL for free reuse by anyone anywhere is not compatible with copyright text. Until the ticket is issued, those of us on the ground have no verifiable way of knowing that it is allowed. Peridon (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Manage Plus

Can you please elaborate on why the Manage Plus-page and subpages have been deleted? I was in the middle of creating the pages (copying from a local wiki where all content has been created and checked). The Manage Plus programm is a EU-funded programm to develop and share knowledge about revitalising and reuse of cultural heritage (see also www.manageplus.eu and the wiki interreg page). The programm is finishing this year and all involved parties agree that in addition to writing the paper reports about the findings, these findings should also be made available on a wide spread platform for other people to use free of any commercial obligation. The knowledge gained was paid for by EU-money and the interreg/manage+ charter explicitly states that this information should be used free of charge. I mentioned this as soon as the nomination for speedy deletion popped up, trying to get a response from the editor but without any feedback the pages were deleted. Pinsquare (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of free platforms for hosting things like this - wordpress and weebly are two, not to mention Facebook etc. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a webhost. We are not obliged to carry anyone's findings, no matter what they decide. Whoever the funding came from is irrelevant - for there to be an article on it there must be notability shown. (Note that I say 'about' it. Not 'by it'.) I would advise reading WP:GNG about general notability, and WP:RS about the reliable independent sources needed to prove the notability. EU (or any other governmental) funding does not give notability per se. The article you posted looked promotional - written as if by the organisation - or possibly even copied from it. "The approach is characterised by extensive stakeholder involvement and professionalisation" is not encyclopaedic writing - that is PR speak. An article here should as far as possible be written in a neutral style, preferably without a proliferation of polysyllabic phraseology ;-) and with referencing that complies with WP:RS. BTW you have said that you are 'contracted' to produce this article. That puts you under an obligation to disclose this relationship with the subject. Please see WP:PAY (part of WP:COI our policy on conflict of interest) and https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use for more details. Peridon (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Just to set things straight, i am not contracted to produce the article, i am contracted to convert the already produced reports by the partners of the programm into wiki-pages. We were under the impression that 5+ years of gained knwowledge and experience in developing cultural heritage sites would be a usefull addition to public knowledge. The bit about 'extensive stakeholder involvement etc..' just describes the method used (have a look at for example the page about agile development). I will convey your message back to the partners of the program.Pinsquare (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Now, there could be a problem. The stuff posted LOOKS like a report, and if it is already published, it's not usable here unless licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL. If it isn't published, but is the report, then it also is ineligible as being original research WP:OR. We don't publish new things. We report on things that are already known about and discussed in the sources I referred to. (Even when an almost step by step report on the last UK Royal Wedding was posted, it was all referenced to sources. We didn't have someone with a mobile phone relaying live reports...) Sorry to seem nitpicking, but there are quite a few legal considerations, and we have to prevent Wikipedia becoming a free web host or another Facebook. As to knowledge, I found an article once that said "Shawn is awessssoooommmmmeeeee!!!!". His girl (or boy...) friend might know that. But we require verifiability and sourcing. We do have an article about a bus shelter on a Scottish island. The article is sourced with international press reports. We don't have an article about a large American company whose products are on the tables of millions of American homes every day. They are successful but virtually unknown. They make own-brand goods for big chain stores. Not one thing that leaves their factory has their name on it. Just some examples of how we work. Peridon (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The rangeblock

I'm going to post this here since it doesnt directly relate to the IP user 83.10.170.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I softened the block after a user from the Polish Wikipedia came to IRC and convinced me that there was no way for him to unify his global account to en.wikipedia unless the block was lifted or softened. (We even tried Special:CreateAccount.) He then started editing from that account which proved that it worked. Since the block is due to expire in a month anyway, I figured I'd leave it to the other admins ,particularly FPaS, to decide what to do next. I thought I posted on FPaS's talkpafge that day but I must have forgotten. Let me know if you have any questions. —Soap— 17:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm not sure what the requester's been doing since 2008, but it doesn't seem to have been on that address. See what FP says, anyway. Peridon (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

Amari Rainey

Question about the article Amari Rainey. It has been deleted three times, twice by you. It's actually a hoax, if you read it carefully; the article describes him as a high school student, but also gives a long and lurid and obviously phony history of his athletic prowess. I'm wondering if it ought to be salted, or is it not yet ready for that step? (I'm asking this as part of my learning process as a brand-spanking-new admin. Hey, at least now I can read the deleted page! 0;-D ) --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about the hoax - I don't know much about football etc. I did know he was non-notable. I think it's been up under another name as well (but don't ask what. I've no objection to it being salted, and any other title it might have been under. (Have a look in the author's deleted contribs, another thing you can look at now. It's very frustrating on other Wikipedias where those remain locked away...) Peridon (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
After a little more exploration: I see that the author also has the complete text of the article as their userpage: User:ARIZ35. I don't know if that is allowed or not? I know that people do have pretty free rein with their user pages. Also that after their third creation of the article (fourth, if you count Amari rainey 2 - you were right about that), they were warned about creating inappropriate pages. --MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The user page can be tagged U5 - I would doubt that there are any other edits of any value. I use the inappropriate pages warning quite a lot - it gives a start to the process of blocking for those who don't take any notice.. I start on level 2, and depending on what sort of stuff it is, either progress steadily or jump to level 4. (Level 1 is namby-pamby - only fit for borderline GF cases. I think this one might be due a new level warning and salting of both titles. (I put a note in to say there is more than one title, especially when a title has only had one incarnation. It would probably be assumed by most admins, but there are one or two nit pickers who don't like to see anything go.) This is the sort of stuff that's hard to find out before you get the mop. Peridon (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Whoa! I don't know my own power. I thought U5 was a good idea so I went to tag it using Twinkle. I didn't realize that my Twinkle now doesn't post a tag - it actually deletes the page! So I deleted it, without intending to. Should I restore it and tag it instead? (Now I see the little box at the top of the Twinkle window that says "tag only, don't delete".) --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I should have warned you about the little box... I keep it set to 'tag only', and use the ordinary 'delete' button rather then Twinkle. Makes things simpler. Possibly best to restore and tag - especially as a beginner. I don't think anyone would worry, but it keeps things straight. Admins are entitled to delete straight off, but normally it's only done with a blatant attack or other horrendous vandalism. Tagging gives another set of eyes as a check. Peridon (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Just looked - I didn't warn but Vanjagenije did and it's on a final already. Some give two days, others (including me) usually indef. NOTHERE is a good one if there are no other contribs. They're never going to be a real editor. They're trying to look good to their mates, and wasting our time. One or two come back when they've grown up, and are allowed back (and watched...). Peridon (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I restored and tagged it. I'm kind of terrified of my new tools - especially the fact that every user now has a "block" button right next to their name. I'm scared I might block someone by mistake! Well, off to New Admin School to see if I can figure this stuff out... --MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I still take it cautiously in some areas after over three years... With things like requests for unblock, use Watch and see what goes on. (Some admins can be rather rude there - they usually have a good reason. I tend to be more polite, but I did say to one sock (absolute duck case), who said he didn't know the sockmaster, to try looking in the mirror... Peridon (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
BTW You can't block anyone that easily. You have to set times and reason and then confirm. And it won't let you NOT set a time, so you're safe there. Peridon (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's a relief. I see that as an admin I now have Rollback. I hated Rollback when I had it, and got someone to remove it. I like to always have a second, confirmation step before taking action. --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I use it mostly on myself when I've done an oopppsss, or for speed on rare occasions. I like to give a summary on article edits. (Talk page stuff speaks for itself usually.) Oh yes, you can't delete the main page any more. Apparently the system won't allow it without the necessary sacrifices, dancing girls and boys, incense swingers, and proof of a double O number. Peridon (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Can't delete the main page? Gee, I think I'll go test that out and see if it's true... Just kidding. I actually have read the Admin Hall of Shame at Wikipedia:Village stocks. It's enough to strike terror into any new admin. --MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Bill Barwick

Peridon: Back in 2011 you deleted an article on Bill Barwick because it didn't show his notability. I just started a new one that pretty much shows that pretty strongly. Please let me know if you disapprove. Lou Sander (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Can't say that I've ever put a horse away wet either. (There's always been a flock of little girls in wellies with forks and barrows there who were eager to rub the horses down. Kept them out of mischief, I suppose...) Yeh, at a quick look I'd say it was a lot better - and it's been up half an hour without a tag on it too. I'm not looking too closely at the refs, but at least it's GOT refs. (I'm not really in a fit state - still wondering if that chili is going to be digested before it burns its way out, or if the beer is going to anaesthetise it for a while. Hottest chili I've ever cooked...) (I'm not making this up to fit the cowboy theme.) See how it goes, anyway. Good luck. Peridon (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hoylake Urban District

Thanks for reverting the article - I am developing the articles on Urban districts formed in England and Wales 1894–95 in 'thin slices' (unless 'someone' adds the categories etc before I do). Jackiespeel (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ponyfag

I'm confused -- how was removing the RFD notice for an active discussion tidying up? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that's how. :-) I see the confusion - I killed the AFD and refiled it as an RFD. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

Gsir001

What about User talk:Gsir001? —George8211 / T 10:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Removed the bit at the top and warned him about messing with warning notices too. Peridon (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Rsk07

Hey listen man ! If someone creating any article then give it some time for improving. You don't have to delete anyone's article. Wikipedia is not owned by your father.

Please note that Wikipedia isn't a directory or a place like LinkedIn. I advise reading WP:BIO about notability for people, and WP:RS about the reliable independent sources needed to prove the notability. No, Wikipedia is not owned by my father, but I an an administrator here. As your article stood, it showed no significance under our policies, and AllyD was correct in tagging it, and in warning you about removing speedy deletion tags. I have now deleted the article as you had blanked the page. We take this as a request to delete, as only admins can delete and new editors don't always know the db-G7 code for requesting deletion for a page they have created. If this wasn't your intention, let me know and I'll put it back (complete with the AllyD's tag). Peridon (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peridon/Archives/2015/January&oldid=1125494984"