Jump to content

User talk:Peridon/Archives/2016/October

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


Those Pretty Boys

You removed an article regarding Those Pretty Boys because of CSD. This is subject relevant to Comedy Rock, and was listed as a link in Comedy Rock. I am new to Wikipedia, and was trying to edit the blank article. Best regards, (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Miowla (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)Miowla

OK, fair enough. But, your article didn't show any significance for the group. It was basically a list of names, none of whom appear to have articles here. Please see WP:BAND about notability for musicians, and WP:RS about the reliable independent sources needed to prove the notability. Not every red link needs to become an article - it's merely an indication that someone at some time thought it an idea. If you try again, I suggest you do it at User:Miowla/DRAFT as it'll be safer from the patrollers there. Just click that link and save it. (And make a note of what it is as this page gets archived regularly be a nice little bot, and a kind person comes in every so often to sort the archive.) Get your references (not YouTube, Facebook, reverbnation, iTunes, Twitter, last,fm, blogs and weebly, Old Uncle Tom Cobley and all...) together first, and write round them. Other things can come later. When you think it's OK. ask for advice. I usually recommend asking MelanieN or Ritchie333 (just type User talk: in the search bar followed by their name) as they seem to enjoy rescuing things, and are often willing to help rescue something. Over to you - good luck, but remember that the vast majority of groups don't get articles (I know, I've played in some of them...). Peridon (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
BTW it looks as though you are constructing your signature by hand, Just type ~~~~ at the end of your post, and like magic it will become (in my case) Peridon (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC) with Miowla instead of Peridon in yours. Clever people these programmers. Some of the time...
Thank You! This information was extremely helpful to me, and I will try to keep this in mind when editing articles in the future! Happy editing!

Miowla (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Hi can I get Lemondogs restored please. Thanks.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

At User:Prisencolin/Lemondogs, and I wish you luck... At least the misspelling is constant in it. Peridon (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Good day, recently I’ve discovered that my Wiki page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucid_Samples ) has been deleted due to Criteria A7. Yes, the page contained information about a company, but its only purpose was to provide some reliable information. I see the value of your work. You are one of these people who help preventing Wikipedia from turning into a scrapyard. However before making any contacts people tend to learn about the company, where does it come from and what can be said about it. The page used to link to few independent brand press articles and was never meant as a way of advertisement. As you probably know it is difficult to find a reliable and independent information source on the internet. Especially about small, not easily recognizable brands. Wikipedia is one of these few places where everyone can edit or discuss the content of an article. This place is also first choice of media reporters who want to make an interview or write an article. Assuming above, I’d really like you to review your deleting decision. I am willing to change whole article to fit criterias if you point me certain paragraphs which should be changed. It is my wish to people tell about the brand, its history and people who helped me through all the way from the beginnings several yers ago. Looking from this angle, the article could be prepared and used further as an educational example of building and establishing a company that cooperates with DJ’s and music producers from several countries. On the other hand there are some Wiki pages describing competitive firms which still exist and, in some cases, are more advertising style like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopmasters

Mtix (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

OK. First, please look at WP:CORP and WP:RS. That's company notability and reliable independent sources. You can't use the company website to prove notability, and also out are Facebook etc, reverbnation etc and YouTube etc. BTW to link to a Wikipedia page, just type the name in two pairs of square brackets like this [[Lucid Samples]] (which didn't come up as a link because I 'nowikied' it to make the brackets show). I'll ping @MelanieN: and @Ritchie333: who are good rescuers (and admins, so they can see deleted pages). I couldn't see any indication of significance (or notability which is more important). They may disagree. As to Loopmasters, I agree, and I've added a tag about the promotional style. But please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and remember that the vast majority of companies don't and won't get articles. What media reporters want is not necessarily what Wikipedia is set up to do. Peridon (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


I understand your work and your point, but for small companies it is hard to find reliable articles. Big companies buy articles and can use them as a source. It this case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_(software) has also a lack of WP:CORP and WP:RS as most of links come from company website. Am I right? Is there any chance to restore the page? I will do the best to correct page to meet with guidelines which you wrote. Thank you for help and for your work guys. Mtix (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I got an edit conflict; trying to write while you were writing. 0;-D Thanks for the ping, Peridon, and hello, Mtix. Thank you for trying to write an article. Our job is to see if it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. As Peridon pointed out, most companies don't, especially small companies. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, and any subject to be listed here has to be notable enough for an international encyclopedia. The way we determine that is by seeing whether independent, "reliable source" third parties (like newspapers etc.) have written about the subject. If independent third parties have written about it and can be cited in the article as references, then it is accepted. Wikipedia is not the FIRST place a new company gets listed; it is the LAST place, after information about it is readily available elsewhere. I know that feels unfair and can be frustrating for an entrepreneur. You will say "well, how come that OTHER company has an article?" If you look at those "other companies" you will see that their articles are supported by independent references. That's the difference. In a quick look at this article I didn't see any such sources, and in a quick internet search I didn't find any. As you admitted, it is hard for small companies to get coverage, but without it, they don't get an article either. One other thing: take a look at the conflict of interest policy. We generally discourage people from writing about their OWN company, or book, or career, or whatever. It is almost impossible to be neutral about your own thing, and the feeling is that if the subject is truly notable, someone among the thousands of Wikipedia editors will eventually write about it. With all that said, I will defer to Ritchie's opinion about this specific company. This subject area - English music - is right up his alley, and if anyone can rescue it, he can. --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. And you may be right about Reason (software). It is very promotional, way too detailed (WP:NOTCATALOG), and does not have independent sources. It should probably be redirected to its parent, Propellerhead Software, whose references are also weak but not quite non-existent. I'll leave that one for Ritchie to look at also. You're welcome, Ritchie. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there a change that you will restore the page, so I can update it to meet guidance add independent sources? Mtix (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Now at User:Mtix /Lucid Samples. I've corrected a typo and 'nowikied' the categories as they shouldn't be active in user space. Peridon (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Page Creation

How to give reference?I think I am the reference of that and I know the vary person and I am writing about him.Don't you think deleting the created page is violation of Public journalism?Everybody has right to know about the persons,incidents and facts happing in the world.Wikileaks has a free and convinient way of Journalism without any restrictions,throttling and capping of information.Point that I am not doing vandalism in any means.I noticed that some of the pages that are here in Wikipedia deploys wrong informations and are locked from editing is that your Real and Respected Journalism in the name of vandalism protection?I am not writing the articles that detonates conflicts among the peoples.I am sticking the real facts about something in Wikipedia.So give me the peace way to Journalism.BivekAaron (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding Wikipedia. It is not a newspaper or magazine, so public journalism isn't what it's about. I advise you to read WP:BIO which is our policy about notability for people, and WP:RS about the reliable independent sources needed to prove the notability. You are not a reliable independent source. 'Reliable' here implies published in a reliable publication where it can be seen. Your knowledge can't be seen by me or anyone else, and you are obviously not independent. I can't use myself as a source here. If you know of errors in Wikipedia, and the page is locked ('protected' is out term), you can post on the talk page there to let someone know that you think something is wrong. As to Wikileaks, that is not a part of the Wikipedia family of encyclopaedias (there are over 200 Wikipedias in different languages) of the Wikimedia group that hosts us. A 'wiki' is an open to edit site, and there are many that are not connected to Wikipedia. Wikileaks is not connected to Wikipedia in any way other than we have an article about it. If you are writing about yourself, please read WP:COI in addition to the two policies I linked earlier, and WP:AUTOBIO as well. And once again, journalism is not what Wikipedia is about, but Wikinews is a journalism site in the Wikimedia family. Peridon (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Setuled

hello you deleted my article about setsuled, could i get the content of that article please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdaZaurak (talk • contribs) 20:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

OK. It's now at User:AdaZaurak/Setsuled. You should read WP:BIO about biographies, and {{WP:RS]] about the reliable independent sources needed to prove the notability. Blogs (apart from a few like the Huffington Post) aren't regarded as reliable independent sources. By the way, when you start a new thread onb a talk page, put a title inside two pairs of = things. In the edit window, It'll look like this ==Fred== but when saved it'll look like the other headings up this page. And when you've finished a talk page post, please sign it with ~~~~ which puts your signature and the time stamp on. This page is watched by a bot that signs things, but most aren't. It makes life easier if we know who said what. Thanks. Don't put your article back into article space until you've got an opinion from me, or MelanieN or Ritchie333 (or any other regular editor that has been here for a long time). As it stands, it wouldn't survive in article space, but it's OK in user space for some time until it gets fixed up. Peridon (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


Deleted talk Page

Hey there- I am a member of a course looking to build the page 'Indigenous Planning', and you seem to have deleted our talk page. Can I ask why? Thanks! Jkivettk (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

First a technical point - to put a header on a talk page post just type == at each end of it. OK - your talk page. Wikipedia does not allow unattached talk pages (except user talk pages, which may exist without a user page). Unattached talk pages in article space get deleted. Very occasionally, one created as an article will get moved to being an article, but that's rare. Article space should not be used for communications such as yours. Also, if you are working as a team to create an article, I would strongly advise doing it in user space for safety. I hope your team all have accounts - there must be no password sharing on a single account. Once again for safety, it should be declared that there is a team working to avoid suspicions of sockpuppetry WP:SOCK). As to the article, I don't know what your subject is about, so here are the main relevant policies on notability: WP:GNG for general notability, WP:CORP for companies, WP:GROUP for groups, WP:BAND for musicians]], and WP:BIO for guess what. In all cases, WP:RS (our policy on reliable independent sources) applies to references supporting notability. Beware of sounding promotional - even without intention to promote, use of PR jargon leads to fairly quick deletion. Also, don't copy text from other sources. Unless text is original to the article here, or is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL like Wikipedia is, or is in the public domain (mostly stuff from certain US and Indian government departments or by authors dead for more than about 75 years), it cannot be used here. Anyway, create your article at somewhere like User:Jkivettk/DRAFT (click and save) rather than in user space. You can use the talk page there for messaging as user space is only really subject to patrolling for advertising, hoax, attack and copyvio (and user pages that appear to be rants...). When you get going, you can ask for opinions or advice. MelanieN and Ritchie333 are usually willing to help this way. All in all, Wikipedia is easy to edit, but sometimes not easy to get right. Peridon (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Suspected talk page abuse

Hello, I wanted to let you know that user:109.255.193.50 is posting this weir content on his talk page, and I am not sure if it is allowed. I just wanted to make you aware of it. CLCStudent (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I've tagged it for CSD as blatant hoax. If that film got made, it would be the most expensive ever... Keep an eye on it, in case of template removal. Thanks for letting me know. (I've not deleted it myself as there is an outside chance it's real. If it is, I think I'll start buying lottery tickets.) Peridon (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Has been deleted. Peridon (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

Moved to user page. Many thanks. Peridon (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peridon/Archives/2016/October&oldid=749399980"