User talk:Peridon/Archives/2016/September

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Peridon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Sorry about this reversion. It was an accident. Apologies, - Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, can I get Godsent restored to userspace? Thanks.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. Now at User:Prisencolin/Godsent - and I wish you luck... Peridon (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, For example in article here is the list of manufacturers, where Thrustmaster, Logitech have their wiki articles. Why Fanatec can't have one? They manufacturing Hi-End devices for hardcore sim gamers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Limeoff (talk • contribs) 18:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

OK - first read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which explains why one article existing doesn't have anything to do with another article coming on here. Second, for the notability policy for companies please read WP:CORP, and for all articles, please read WP:RS about the reliable independent sources needed to prove the notability. Your first article was deleted as a copyright violation of somewhere, and the wording was somewhat promotional as well, but that wasn't put in the deletion reason. (By the way, we don't use the ® and TM symbols in Wikipedia titles or articles.) Your second told virtually nothing about the company or why it should have an article. Wikipedia isn't like Facebook where anyone can have a page, and it isn't a directory either. There is no 'right' to have an article. What they manufacture is irrelevant to being notable. That's why there is an article about a bus shelter on a Scottish island, but no articles about some fairly large businesses. It's coverage in sources that's a main requirement. If you try again, do it at User:Limeoff/DRAFT (click and save). So long as you avoid copying from other places, looking promotional, attacking someone or posting a hoax, you're safe in user space for quite some time to get the article built. When you thing it's getting there, ask someone like MelanieN or Ritchie333 for an opinion. (Put User talk: in front of their name in the search bar.) And finally, on talk pages, please sign posts with ~~~~ which tells the system to put your sig and the timestamp on. This page is covered by SineBot which picks up on unsigned posts, but many aren't. It looks neater if you do it, too. Like this: Peridon (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you've been closing some AfDs as speedy deletes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hebron church gudiyatham and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Father Saturnino Urios University - Arbp. Carmelo D.F. Morelos Campus and so on. There's something I'd like to note: if possible, could you write the results more clearly for bots, in style of "The result was speedy delete because/per [reason here]"? Mr. Magoo (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

So they need a 'because' in there? Peridon (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it just needs to say "speedy delete", "speedily deleted" or maybe even something a bit more freeform like "speedy deletion" right after the "The result was" bit. Anything after that the bots probably don't even parse. Other words than the standard in that part probably messes the bots up. There is also speedy keep, so speedy alone isn't clear enough. Otherwise nothing wrong. The because/per aren't necessary. Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. It's 'speedied' that they don't recognise. I'll try to remember... Peridon (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Can you please look at the page Mohammad Adnan AlKilani as I see you were the admin that deleted a very similar named page by the same editor. Many thanks Xyzspaniel (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted Mohammed A. zeid-AlKilani as 'requested or blanked by the author'. Same subject, but a lot less article. Peridon (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

You declined a CSD on Broken Lines because band had an article. Thanks for letting me know the CSD had dual requirements, but looking at band article, it was created by same user at same time. It was CSD by another editor and article creator deleted notice himself. I've posted a warning to original creator not to do that and put CSD back on page. It all seems to be an end run around CSD nomination to me and I wonder if CSD shouldn't be placed on Broken Lines again. Cotton2 (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Wait till the band article goes before tagging the record. If the article is a redlink, A9 is certain. Otherwise, A9 is out, it's not promo or anything else except possibly copyvio, and I don't think track listings come under that as they aren't intellectual works. (If they were, we'd have a load less pointless articles that only list the tracks. I can see the point of articles about things like Rubber Soul, but not every band's every album. I hadn't seen that the author had removed the tag, or I'd have replaced it myself. Good on you for checking it out. Peridon (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Peridon. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)