Jump to content

User talk:Peridon/Archives/2011/April

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


Deleting Jason Hudson

Why you speedy delete my article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poseidon1224 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it was a copyright infringement of http://www.gaiaonline.com/profiles/l-ezio-l/25295371/. Please see WP:COPYVIO for more information. Thanks. Peridon (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Jeffrey Goodman

Gelnd (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)You wrote: I would be interested to know why you consider the article about Jeffrey Goodman to be an attack. It looks quite well balanced and well referenced to me. If you can supply references that comply with WP:RS to support your claim, I will reconsider my removal of your speedy deletion request. Please to not add it again without evidence, and also please to not remove sourced material from the article, and do not restructure or reformat it without consensus reached on the article's talk page. Peridon (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I am Gelnd and the subject of the BLP article about Jeffrey Goodman. I do not know your system. I tried to take down what I consider to be defamatory material, but you overode this just as I was preparing to add my specific explantions for doing this to Talk. These explanations are given below. After I put up these explanations I was going to repair the article with published material about my work that is more recent than the 1970's and 80's material. But alas I am confused and feel I am being run over. On March 29 I sent an email to your Volunteer Response Team about this and since I received no response I moved to remove the objectionable material myself. I ask for your help in fixing this mess and giving me a chance to have a fair article done under Wikipedia's rules. You can call me collect if you want Jeff Goodman at xxx.xxxx. [Removed by Peridon]


Passages with errors that I tried to remove on April 1: Passage 1 Through "psychic clues" he predicted that an excavation there would find "carvings, paintings, wooden ankhs, cured leather and parchment scrolls with hieroglyphiclike writing" as well as an underground tunnel system, domesticated horses and other artifacts, none of which were actually found at the site.[2] What is actually written the book PSYCHIC ARCHEOLOGY (1977, p. 134) is: “Aron’s (one of the psychics discussed in the book) readings on the hypothetical full-scale excavation said that we would find evidence of other sophisticated practices as well – carvings, paintings, wooden ankhs, cured leather, and parchment scrolls with hieroglyphiclike writing. He even cited a mysterious underground tunnel system.” The quotation used in the Wikipedia article makes it seem that Goodman himself predicted these things, which is false. This is also contrary to the discussion in the book on p. 108 where Goodman tells how he made a list of Aron’s predictions for a 30 foot deep, 10 foot wide test shaft he was going to dig which says: “I had the predictions notarized and distributed copies of them to friends and enemies alike. Following the advice of my psychology professor, I sought an independent control on the predictions.” The illustration insert of the book that follows p. 112 shows this list of predictions made for the test shaft and the predictions made by two archeology professors who served as a control. Aron’s predictions for the test shaft basically mentions different types of stone tools that would be found at each depth. There is no mention of wooden ankhs and scrolls and such as the falsely attributed quotation states. The passage used in the article is false and misleading.

Passage 2 He stated that he had found what he considered were the most important artifacts in human history. This statement does not appear in Goodman’s books. Interestingly, in his book AMERICAN GENESIS (1981) a statement somewhat like this appears on p. 214: “Marshack said that if we could resolve these problems then the “Flagstaff stone” would be one of the most important artifacts ever found in the entire world.” 11 [Personal communication from Alexander Marshack, March 21, 1980.] It seems that the editor of this passage took this sentence and twisted it a bit and then attributed it to Goodman which is false. Also note that Marshack’s statement only refers to the Flagstaff stone, singular not plural. But, the false statement uses the plural (“most important artifacts”).

Passage 3 These were known as the "Flagstaff Stone" and the "Native First People Stone." In Goodman’s books he wrote about an engraved stone which he calls the “Flagstaff Stone,” but he has not have written about a so-called “Native First People Stone.” Nowhere in his writings does he write about the discovery of a second stone. The sentence in this passage is false and brings up the issue of vandalism. Thus, reference to a so-called “Native People Stone” needs to be removed.

Passage 4 However, it's not a stone. It's in fact a piece of tuff This passage says that the (Flagstaff) stone is not a stone but a piece of tuff. This passage is false because geologically speaking the “tuff” the editor refers to can also be called a “stone.” THE DICTIONARY OF GEOLOGICAL TERMS (1962, p. 512) defines “tuff” as “a rock formed of compacted volcanic fragments,” and it defines “stone” as a small piece of “rock” (p. 473). Webster’s defines “tuff” as “a rock composed of volcanic detritus.” Further, it is interesting to note that in none of Goodman’s published works does he refer to the stone as a “tuff.” In AMERICAN GENESIS (p. 211) he refers to the Flagstaff stone as “a piece of hard volcanic ash.” The editor gives no citation for saying that the stone is a “tuff.” Goodman has a professional degree in Geological Engineering from Colorado School of Mines (1964) and this passage seems to make it seem that he does not know what a “stone” or “tuff” is. In AMERICAN GENESIS (p. 215) he tells of having the Flagstaff Stone studied by two different petrographers (from different universities) who specialize in volcanic rocks of this type. In THE GENESIS MYSTERY (p. 218) he tells how Dr. Virginia Steen-McIntyre, a tephrachronologist also examined the stone.

Passage 5 This artifact may or may not be associated with the Flagstaff site. It has glyphic markings that have been interpreted as astronomical and calendrical and "considered by some to be to be the oldest written document in the world." Virginia Steen-McIntyre (a "tephrachronologist") dated it at around 250,000 years ago. [1] There is no direct citation for this passage, and as noted above Goodman has not published anything about a so-called “Native First People Stone.” While Dr. Virginia Steen – McIntyre a tephrachronologist did put a minimum date of 100,000 years on the Flagstaff stone (THE GENESIS MYSTERY, 1983, p. 218) Goodman did not publish anything about her dating it at around 250,000 year age, or about “glyphic markings.” In AMERICAN GENESIS (p. 214 and 215) he wrote about the “geometric arrangement of the groves” and “the geometric pattern” of the line work on the stone. This passage using the term “glyphic markings” is misleading, because in archeology it carries a very different set of implications that make his work seem far more sensationalistic. 

Passage 6

that his claims of having a Ph.D in psychic archaeology may be false; Cole argues it seems like an unlikely degree, and that the school from which he obtained it is given no credit.[3] Goodman has never claimed to have a Ph.D. in psychic archeology. A book review called “Notable – AMERICAN GENESIS” in Time Magazine (June 19, 1981) says, “The author, who holds a doctorate in anthropology.” The dust jacket of the book GENESIS MYSTERY says that “Jeffrey Goodman, Ph.D. holds a doctorate in anthropology, and the dust jacket of his book AMERICAN GENESIS says “in addition to his doctorate in anthropology.” In his new book THE COMETS OF GOD (2010) p. 576 gives a list of his degrees: “Jeffrey Goodman received a professional degree in Geological Engineering from Colorado School of Mines, a MA in anthropology from the University of Arizona, a MBA from Columbia University Graduate School of Business, and a Ph.D. in anthropology from California Coast University. He was accredited by the former Society of Professional Archeologists from 1978 to 1987.” 

 A review of his book THE COMETS OF GOD in ForeWord Reviews (January 6, 2011 www.forewordreviews.com ) says, “He holds a geological engineering degree from the Colorado School of Mines, a M.A. in anthropology from the University of Arizona, and a Ph.D. in anthropology from California Coast University. He also earned a M.B.A. from Columbia University Graduate School of Business.” This passage in the article seems to be written to disparage and smear.

Passage 7 Jeffrey Goodman is a proponent and practicer of psychic archaeology. He believes Homo sapiens arose out of California 500,000 years ago and this idea is the driving force behind much of his work. His influences include Edgar Cayce, known for his strong Atlantis channeling, and Stephan Schwartz. [1] This is a series of mischaracterizations. While Goodman has been a proponent and practitioner of psychic archeology, he parted ways with these things in 1987 after he became a Christian. The major influence for his book on psychic archeology did not come from Edgar Cayce, or Stephen Schwarz. On page 89-90 of PSYCHIC ARCHEOLOGY he tells how a series of dreams he had about making an important archeological discovery is what influenced him to take on psychic archeology. Stephen Schwartz got involved with this subject long after he began working on it. This again seems to be another passage written to disparage and smear. 

Passage 8

self-published This may be a small point, but in 2010 after writing 5 books for major publishers, and acting as a start to finish consultant in getting several books successfully published; Goodman has formed his own publishing company called Archeological Research Books, LLC. Archeological Research Books is the publisher of The Comets of God. Regarding the quality of this publication ForeWord Reviews (www.forewordreviews.com January 6, 2011) wrote: “This astute writer knows how to present his hypothesis in a concise delivery backed by an extensive bibliography, notes, and citations.” Goodman has a MBA and understands the business of book publishing and book promotion. Archeological Research Books already has several completed manuscripts to publish over the next few years, including a manuscript about ancient mathematics that Goodman pulled back from publication after Viking Publishing accepted the finished manuscript a number of years ago, a manuscript about Archeo-Linguistics and Biblical Meditation, and several manuscripts others have written. Baker and Taylor, the largest library wholesaler has agreed to carry Archeological Research’s books. Goodman has been writing articles and a blog: www.newscientificevidenceforgod.com 

Book publishing is a full time job for Goodman. Archeological Research Books belongs to several small and independent publishing associations and should be considered a small independent publisher rather than a self publisher.

Passage 9 Under Goodman’s list of publications the article lists: • The Origins of Mathematics and Science in Prehistoric America No citation is given for this publication and Goodman has not yet published anything on this subject. If anyone has a copy of one of Goodman’s early manuscripts on this subject, they may be in violation of his common law copyright.

Passage 10 Stephen Williams In his book Fantastic Archaeology: The Wild Side of the North American Prehistory, Stephen Williams says “he [Goodman] commits an intellectual crime on the very people he seeks spiritually to uplift with his discoveries, the Native Americans.” Here Williams is referring to Goodman’s excavations of Flagstaff, Arizona and his attempted re-writing of American Indian prehistory[1] As shown above in passages 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 Williams has made substantial errors regarding facts and quotes and his criticism is not neutral and not qualified.

Jeffrey Goodman

Gelnd (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Thank you for your speedy response. If it will speed things up I can send you copies of the printed material in question or post copies on my talk page. I do not know what Afd is and when I clicked it I got an unrelated answer. What is AfD and what does taking the article to them mean? I do not mind open discussion if Wikipedia abides by its own rules

While this article in my opinion paints me as a unbridled nut I have articles from Publishers Weekly, Time Magazine, the LA Times, the Chicago Sun Times, and ForeWord Reviews that make a very different asessment of my work. For the last 20 plus years I have been doing Biblical archeological research and this Wikipedia article seems way out of balance with its preoccupation with Psychic Archeology and the Flagstaff Stone which both make use of inaccurate quotes.

I have a new book that just came out and the timing of this unfair Wkipedia article seems suspect to me. So to say the least I would like this matter cleared up as soon as possible. Please tell me how this can be done.

Jeffrey Goodman

Gelnd (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Thank you for your speedy response. If it will speed things up I can send you copies of the printed material in question or post copies on my talk page. I do not know what Afd is and when I clicked it I got an unrelated answer. What is AfD and what does taking the article to them mean? I do not mind open discussion if Wikipedia abides by its own rules

While this article in my opinion paints me as a unbridled nut I have articles from Publishers Weekly, Time Magazine, the LA Times, the Chicago Sun Times, and ForeWord Reviews that make a very different asessment of my work. For the last 20 plus years I have been doing Biblical archeological research and this Wikipedia article seems way out of balance with its preoccupation with Psychic Archeology and the Flagstaff Stone which both make use of inaccurate quotes.

I have a new book that just came out and the timing of this unfair Wkipedia article seems suspect to me. So to say the least I would like this matter cleared up as soon as possible. Please tell me how this can be done.

You can't post the articles as articles, but you can use them as references. Peridon (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


The article was created as part of a series of articles created by some students on fringe archaeology subjects. I doubt very much that the student knew anything about your new book. Can you scan any of the material and email it to me? I agree that it needs content about your more recent work to meet our guidelines and policies. Dougweller (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Temple Beth Am

Dont understand why a place of worship that served a community for 60 years fell under A7..and was speedily deleted. there are plenty of places of worship on wikipedia with same criteria. Explain. TheNYCdan (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There probably are, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There is no real indication of anything of note, which may also apply to some of the others that haven't been spotted yet. The references were either not independent or didn't show any notability either. Whether it's a place of worship or a carwash, it has to comply with WP:GNG and WP:RS. If you think you can get it to fit, re-create it on a subpage and ask for advice from any admin or regular editor. I assume you have a copy as it was reposted. Please don't repost until you have got a second opinion. It saves a lot of bother for all of us - you included, of course. If you know any other similar articles that don't fit the criteria, please feel free to tag them for consideration. If you would prefer to get a consensus at Articles for Deletion, let me know and I'll undelete it and put it up there. 60 years isn't all that long as places of worship go. There's one a couple of miles from me that's been going for 120 years and it doesn't have an article. Peridon (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

Dr Prithviraj

Would you mind taking a look at the above as it seems to be a recreation of a SD? Thanks. Paste Let’s have a chat. 08:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a rewrite which gives his current position better. (And introduces the naked Finn!) His previous position was somewhat like a cross between Coroner and J.P., but I don't think either UK or USA has an equivalent to his current one. It looks to be closer to the medieval English Sheriff, but where that sits on the notability chart I'm not sure, given the size of India. Personally, I doubt that it complies with BIO, but I'm not sure enough to delete it again now. Possibly AfD is best, which gives a chance for better-informed opinions. Cheers. Peridon (talk) 10:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Galvano

I'm would like to create a page that previously has been deleted by you...what can I do? The page in question is: "Galvano" ‎ (A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) Tommyhanning (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I could put it into your userspace for you - but I would advise you that as it stood it would be speedied again on sight if it went into mainspace. I'd advise looking at WP:BAND, because I can't see any sign that Galvano meets with the criteria - there weren't even any references apart from the band's website which doesn't count as a reliable source WP:RS. Read those policies and have a think, then get back to me. Peridon (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Moto GP

I never found out, the problem seems to have gone away, the author says he doesn't want the template in the article anyway. All I have learned is that I don't understand infoboxes. JohnCD (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Chzz reckoned that it was down to being a copied template (which I did wonder), but I couldn't see why it would keep the copied info when the text had all been changed. I don't understand infoboxes either. Peridon (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy nomination of Russell Coutts (sailor)

Just wondering why you declined the speedy then put it back up for listing? I first considered just fixing the redirect to the correct page but then felt there is no use having a redirect that will never be used hence my speedy tag. Why not just delete the page? I only ask to help me better understand speedys and the like as I dont have much experience with them. Cheers ZooPro 16:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I took the speedy off as being wrong category of CSD - should have been R3 - fixed the redirect, and went to leave you a message. On the way, I discovered that there were more of the things. As I had to go out suddenly, I put that back, not having time to go through all of them. Speedies can be complicated. A lot misunderstand the categories. Nonsense, for example, isn't stuff like Lear's verse. It's fhgfghf kjoui7ythjio;i; and such. If it reads coherently (even if not understandable), it's not that category. Unless it's very obvious (like my example), a good trick is to copy a sample into Google without quotes and see what happens. If it comes up all there first line, you've got a copyvio. If the words come up in different combinations, it's in Foreign. Look at the site addresses to see what sort of Foreign. And then you can put a translate tag on it with the right language and look clever. (Like I do... Actually I can identify a lot of languages and read basically in quite a few, and there are sometimes clues in the text.) Anyway, the redirect wasn't harmful, but it wasn't necessary or likely to be used. Redirects from easy to make typing mistakes are more useful. Any queries about speedies, do ask. And don't be put off if someone tells you off for a wrong tag. Do give people a bit of leeway before tagging. If something is obviously not complete, leave it a bit - unless it's equally obviously total spam, vandalism or attack. Keep up the good work. Peridon (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer its very much appreciated. Cheers ZooPro 22:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lambda olive oil

Doesn't a mistaken AfD nomination qualify as G6? —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It counts as a c***-up - category BF1. 8( Peridon (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
There is technically speaking no such thing as a mistaken AfD nomination, as it is a matter of opinion - initially on the part of the nominator, then on the part of the community. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 09:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Lambda olive oil

Hi there; this article, which I deleted as spam and then restored at the author's request to allow him to improve it, still reads as spam, as you suggest. I do not feel that I should remove it again, as that verges on harassment; but if you chose to re-instate the AfD we could assess the community view. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 09:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Paste has been at work on it. Looks quite a lot better. S/he's removed a pic twice, so must be watching it. See what you think now. There was a mistake with that AfD - I mistook the date of the CSD tag for the date of restoration, and was delivering a not very subtle hint. When I realised you'd only just restored it (complete with CSD tag, which was how I found it), I closed quickly to give them a chance to actually do something without the big stick waving... Peridon (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of R. v. Cinous

The article R. v. Cinous has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Even in translation, there is too little context to see what type of case this involves, and where it was decided; it also appears to be non-notable

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Can you rescue this one? If you improve it, I will remove the prod myself. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm no legal expert. I can see a nice point but not explain this sorry case. I think there might be notability in it, but you need someone from the Legal Project or whoever they are. Give 'em that link and see what they make of it. Cheers. Peridon (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

?

[1] why? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

oh, I see... but s/he could go to sq: right away... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Like me, probably not sure how to get it there. And, before I find out, I want the author to know where it's gone. Peridon (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

disputing rm hang on the Kasenna page

I reverted your removal of the "hang on" tag in the Kasenna page. I don't think it's Wikipedia policy to do so. "hang on" tag means someone wants to dispute the possible deletion. And the wikipedia text that gets displayed by this tag says: "This template should not be removed from a page still marked with a speedy deletion template." --Georgesdev — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgesdev (talk • contribs) 09:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, ok, thanks for clarification on my talk page. It seems I was seeing an older version of the page, and was still seeing the version with db-a7. Anyway, happy the speedy deletion is a bit further. Georgesdev

Nik_Kolidas Deleted Reply

I used SambaGaz by accident... it's not me. I copy and pasted the passage below to dup the code and I forgot to change the user-name. This is my only account. Also, it was a mistake to include the artist's website, but disagree overall as he's rapidly growing in popularity and is on the same label as George Michael (Aegean Records).


User:Studiomagic. —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC).

Ian Zachary Whittingham's page

I was wondering why you decided this page was unfit for Wikipedia when it has been on display for a while and had been categorised as British Actors Ilovemanicmedia (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I decided when I found it flagged with a request for speedy deletion. I looked at it myself and could see nothing of particular note. Being a member of a non-notable boyband, small parts in soaps, managing a pool/bar venue - not a lot there. I could only access one reference - the Angel magazine one. This appears to be a magazine of importance if you live in the Islington, London area. The refs from the Daily Star I would have looked at if I could, but without much hope. The Star and the Sun are not widely regarded here as very good sources. The wording is in places spammy: "Due to his unique looks" and so on. All in all, I didn't consider it fitted our requirements. I then discovered it had been deleted in February - without the refs then, but the contents looking the same. Have a look at WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:RS. The first is general notability, and the last is reliable sources. If you can improve it, put it in your userspace on a subpage, and then ask for an opinion. Most admins and regular editors will do this for you. The length of time it was up is no criterion, by the way. We get articles up for deletion that have been here for five years or more. With over 3 million articles, some will slip through. Peridon (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

I appreciate your help on the Rebecca Javeleau Birthday Party page. I was not quite sure how to phrase the reason for the deletion request, but I appreciate you opening the matter for discussion. 152.131.9.132 (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

Marjan Philhour Deleted

I accidentally saved (I meant to preview) while writing the article. I have more information to post about this person, in addition to multiple references. Please reconsider the deletion and let me continue working on this article. Thank you. User:Mphilhour. —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC).

You can carry on with it - it's got seven days with the prod notice on it. (The speedy notice has been changed.) Leave the notice on - if you take it off too soon, the article will go to Articles for Deletion (which usually takes another week). You will need to show more that fits the policy on notability, though. As it stands, I don't think it does. Don't rely on just me - ask people like User:Boing! said Zebedee or User:MelanieN - both are fair-minded and knowledgeable and I've recommended them before (they don't seem to mind...). If you get to near the end of the seven days and haven't finished, take the prod off and put 'not yet finished' in the edit summary. BTW - please sign talk page posts with ~~~~. It keeps things tidy and we know who said what and when. Over to you... Peridon (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Centre for Intelligent Design

Would you mind offering an opinion on whether or not this organisation (Please note my British spelling!!) is notable? Thanks! Yopienso (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is. (My opinion on their ideas is totally another matter.) I've addressed the meeting on the talk page, and expect to have a raging mob at the door very soon. Peridon (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Admin help

{{adminhelp}}

Hello. When I typed in the search box for Crystal Mangum, it was redirected to Duke lacrosse case. Shouldn't it redirect to Crystal Gail Mangum? I tried to do this, but the page is protected or some such. On second thought ... better, yet ... the main article about that woman should be entitled Crystal Mangum (without her middle name) ... and Crystal Gail Mangum should actually redirect to that. No? In other words, people know her as Crystal Magnum, and not by her middle name. Can someone fix all this? Or explain to me why it's set up the way that it is currently set up (if, indeed, its current set-up is correct). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC))

Looks like someone's done it. (Wasn't me - beat me to it...) Peridon (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that it was "fully" done. Specifically, this part: On second thought ... better, yet ... the main article about that woman should be entitled Crystal Mangum (without her middle name) ... and Crystal Gail Mangum should actually redirect to that. No? In other words, people know her as Crystal Magnum, and not by her middle name. Can someone fix all this? Or explain to me why it's set up the way that it is currently set up (if, indeed, its current set-up is correct). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC))
Looks like you're right, so I have moved the article to the short name. Favonian (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC))

Ng Zhi Fei

I notice you've just speedily deleted Ng Zhi Fei under crtierion WP:CSD#A7. However I declined the speedy deletion of this article under this criterion earlier as it made a credible assertion of importance - being one of the leading badminton players [presumably for the age group] in Malaysia. I also notice you deleted it for being a vanity article, but this is not a valid CSD criterion. The article was unreferenced, which is why I tagged it with BLP prod.

I ask therefore that you restore the article, as it does not meet the speedy deletion criteria. While it will probably be deleted after the prod expires, it is very important that CSD process and policy is followed to the letter. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I deleted as A7 as it didn't make an assertion that was credible to me - especially after a quick Google check gave 8 hits - one here, one completely irrelevant, and the remainder social sites, including one directory. It was previously deleted as A7 and/or G3 - not by me. I don't think he has ever played Lin Dan, especially if "he is currently pursuing his dream to be the best badminton player in Disted College" - if he was good enough to beat (or even play) Lin Dan he would already be the best in the college (and it would be up there on Google). If you still feel it wants restoring, I will do, but will AfD it for consensus. A bit more digging: "The official badminton smash record is 332 km/h", while there is an unofficial of 421 km/h. 1000km/h? Even if unofficial it would be recorded somewhere and spread all around. Over to you... Peridon (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Salvio has now deleted it again as a hoax and salted it. Peridon (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Help with Politics of Virtual Realities

Thanks for the help. I didn't know there was a way to move the page history as well. Our class and instructor thank you Wwestlin (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for speedy

Hi Peridon! Thank you for your speedy deletion today of The Goldstone Scale as a blatant hoax. I also loathe televison; people keep trying to give me one, too. Bah! ;-) Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A Raisin in the Sun

Someone added (incorrectly, but appropriately) a tag that assuming the 1961 film was not nominated for any academy awards "presumably to avoid racial tensions" needed a citation. I found a citation, all right--turns out the whole article was lifted verbatim from another site. Or vice versa. Is that a problem? Or is this outside your bailiwick? Cheers! Qp/JG Yopienso (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

( talk page stalker ) Hi, Yopienso; I'm not Peridon, of course, but I noticed this here, and because I also care about copyright matters, I posted to the article talk page about the concern you've helpfully expressed here. As you'll see from that talk page section, I've also asked one of our resident copyright experts, Moonriddengirl, to weigh in there about how we should proceed, since it's not clear at this point whether they copied from us without attribution or, as you say, vice versa. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Yopienso (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
One of those tricky ones. There's no copyright marking on the site, but also no acknowledgement or date or free licence. It is laid out in a rather WP style - would take a dig into the history to see how our article has evolved. It's much clearer when things arrive in a lump. Peridon (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Peridon. You have new messages at Zakhalesh's talk page.
Message added 04:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

Anthony Lolli Speedy Deleted

Hi Peridon,

I see you've speedy deleted the page for Anthony Lolli in accordance with CSD#A7. I understand your reason for this decision. I should have spent more time digging up sources in order to support a claim of importance before posting the article to the mainspace. I have done more research and found additional articles and videos that I believe would allow me to overcome an A7 objection. Is it possible to get the Anthony Lolli page reinstated so that I can make the necessary changes, or should I try again from scratch?

Thank you, 

Blplatt (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of the "JobsDB" article

Hi Peridon,

I notice that you have recently deleted the JobsDB article under the reason of "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". JobsDB is one of the most favourable and notable recruitment websites in Asia-Pacific, and it is holding leading marketing positions in several Asian countries that have millions of working population, and I think it deserves to have a Wikipedia article for it. Btw, another administrator, Stephen, indeed advised me to extend the JobsDB article instead of creating another one for JobsDB.com.

Please do consider restoring the JobsDB article so that more people can elaborate and contribute more on the subject matter.

Thanks in advance.

Amanda.da.da (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Carly Foulkes

I was interested in finding out about model/actress Carly Foulkes, saw no article, went to start a stub ... and saw the CSD notice. Is there a protocol for resurrecting and then properly sourcing the article? Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As it only consisted of one sentence "Carly Foulkes is a model/actress that is most commonly known as the T-Mobile girl." it's not worth restoring and moving. If you want to start again on a subpage of your userpage (ask me if not sure how), and get it up to scratch there, you're welcome to do so. You'll need to look at WP:BIO, and WP:RS (reliable sources). Peridon (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that - just got in from a long day and thought I was talking to the original author. You probably know about the policies etc already.... Anyway, that is what there was. Peridon (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, no offense taken. Didn't want to reinvent wheel, didn't it was so sparse. Gerardw (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Mahmoud ghadel

Hi, since the talk is all signed I think you can just copy and paste it into the current talk page User talk:Mahmoud thalji along with a suitable edit summary. Anther alternative is to move it back to a talk archive page User:Mahmoud thalji/archive 1 and link it from User talk:Mahmoud thalji. Option 1 could be combined with a history merge, but that seems like overdoing it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Basstoneslap Deleted

Hi - I see that the Basstoneslap page has been speedy deleted, but can confirm the information was correct - in fact I was going to add to it. Is there anything I can do to get this reinstated, or were there some errors by the original contributor that can be fixed? Thanks in advance! Gaz User:SambaGaz. Hi

I am not sure why the page I created for Pure Gold Jewellers was deleted. There was nothing promotional about it. Its about the history of the company and the products they provide. Everything in the article had references to newspaper/media reports on the company.

Please let me know

Thanks

Lisa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisapr (talk • contribs) 10:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Help

I have not edited on Wikipedia yet but my question being if i make an edit with reliable sources and someone disagrees by reverting it back to articles original form and possibly reporting me and it.(Duceober (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC))

To me this doesn’t seem fair if content contained reliable sources and I do not think I should be reported. As I would have only been trying to contribute to article. Also wandered why it is when certain other people get to make edits and it stays on article. (Duceober (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC))

Yet if i was to make edit it seems to be a completely different matter and it is got rid of. I sometimes think it is a waste of my time trying to contribute toWikipedia yet i should be able to like any of other people who contents stays on articles. (Duceober (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC))

Excessive assumption of good faith by User:Shirt58 (was: Unusual WP:USERFY request)

Hi Peridon! As an WP:ADMIN you can see that I tried my best to keep The Separation of Godhead from being deleted. Could you possibly WP:USERFY the last substantial revision? I would really appreciate this, but completely understand if you decline this request.

To be honest, I think there is a lot more going on here than meets the eye. A not yet 21 year old University of Oxford PhD candidate? (Conflict of interest: to my great regret, you can't get a Doctorate in General Knowledge, and so I have LLB after my name, etc, etc.} A post-doc at NYU? Hmmm... While we always assume good faith, me thinks we're not chasing a WP:HOAXer, but quite possibly a real-life scam artist.
Your thoughts about this? --Shirt58 (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Declining, sorry. We've been through AfD with this chap and his usually semi-coherent quasi-theology. Or whatever it is - possibly copyvio of someone else. One bit of it has a 'book' of his with varying numbers of pages (somewhere around 7) selling at lulu for £221 for a download (or not selling as the case may be - sales of 1067 were claimed). His credentials were thoroughly demolished in the discussion. I wish there were an easy way of digging it up from my contribs list. No, there is. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Dear Sweet Heart Worth looking at. Quite fun digging into it. (I don't think I'm the only one who enjoys a good AfD...). I'm just going to dig up the SPI and get this version of him blocked. (The accurate figures were added after I'd rediscovered the AfD... Memory's not that good.) Peridon (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Peridon, and thanks for your reply. Oops. It would appear I have again assumed a surfeit of good faith - see here. Hmmm... I'm currently suffering from WP:AFDFATIGUE, but will have a look. <lie> Just for educational purposes, of course. Along with most of my fellow WikiGnomes I have no interest whatsoever in WP:DRAMA</lie>. Thanks again! --Shirt58 (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ivaylo Vasilev page

Hello, the page for the football goalkepper Ivaylo Vasilev was deleted from you recently.And his page is deleted for second time.I understand why it was deleted the first time, but now he is playing in every game in bulgarian first football division, so his page fits wikipedia rules now.

In the version I deleted, there was no evidence given of any notability. If you re-create the article, look at WP:RS to know what are reliable sources for referencing your information, Watch out with the title, too as there is an article Ivaylo Vasilev (midfielder) about someone else. Make sure your info is about the one born in 1991 not the one born in 1987. Peridon (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I was going to put Fine Art Connoisseur on afd actually

The article Peter Trippi is a shameless autobiography, but the creator does have a rather impressive resume and I the worry that maybe -- just maybe -- that though the stub didn't shout its notability that it has artistic or literary impact of some sort (the community should judge this of course). Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 16:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

OK - go ahead. I've restored it for you. I still think it's spam (and rather like ReallyHick's comment on the talk page...). Peridon (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

g7

Hi there, I see on Robert P. Imbelli to removed a g7 tag and replaced it with an a7 tag with the comment "no, he hasn't". I have added back the g7 tag because it was placed on the article by the only significant contributor to the article (all other contribs were by people nominating it for deletion and one bot edit), which I think makes it pretty clear that the only author is requesting deletion of the article. Also, the a7 tag was probably inappropriate anyway, as the article is currently at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert P. Imbelli) and being a professor of theology could probably be perceived as an assertion of significance (that's why I didn't db-bio it a week ago). Anyway, just letting you know and if I have horribly misread the situation, please feel free to revert me. Jenks24 (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I misread who had tagged it G7 - I thought it was Eekster and it wasn't... I've apologised to them. Peridon (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, thought it must have been a misunderstanding. Thanks for your response, Jenks24 (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas Yennaris

Hello. Wasn't this an AfD, then? An abbreviated one, perhaps, but still a discussion. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

Hello, Peridon/Archives/2011. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Bm gub2 performing VANDALISM, ERASING within Cosmology and Cold Big Bang

Bm gub2 is erasing valuable information within the key words Cosmology and Cold Big Bang - Vandalism undid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.24.75.132 (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Peridon, Help me against vandalism, censorship, from Bm gub2, within Cosmology and Cold Big Bang

Please, mantain the page I contributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolingfield (talk • contribs) 18:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Legl683

Hi Peridon,

I have to respectfully disagree with part of the advice you have to a new user on User_talk:Legl6836#Help re. Emotion - viz. "You don't need references for everything" - I think that gives the wrong impression to a new user; as I've explained on their page; yes, technically it is true - but at core, yes, you do need refs for almost every fact (except common knowledge), if you don't want someone else to remove it. "Scatter odd refs through your greatly abridged text and you'll keep most of the howling mob away" is poor advice (IMHO). If a new user does not understand the clear, core value of verifiability then they are very likely to experience huge problems - especially as, in this case, they're mistakenly introducing original research.

Hoping that you don't mind this criticism, which I want to be constructive. I also hate to contradict another 'helper' but in this case, felt I had to, and tried to do so as diplomatically as possible (as you'll see on eir talk). Best,  Chzz  ►  00:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Eduland Kindergarten

Hi Peridon: 'Am still new to Wiki as a contributor and I understand that my (incomplete) write-up on Eduland Kindergarten was deleted by you. I would like to continue the write up, of course with references and citations. Please let me know how we can take this forward.

Thanks. LNJ.

LNJois (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LNJois (talk • contribs) 12:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Why article MMM-2011 is deleted?

What was the reason for deletion of |this article? What was wrong with it, how I can fix it? Konard (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added some citations, to the MMM article. But I think your reaction was too aggressive, you even didn`t explain what is wrong before deletion. So I've been forced to wait your answer and do nothing. And you just deleted it. Google have enough information about this person, his organization (МММ) and the last project MMM-2011. Konard (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I've fixed link to time.com. Check it out. Konard (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Peridon. You have new messages at This lousy T-shirt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—This lousy T-shirt (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Användare:Puggan

I guess Användare is Swedish for "User" then? You learn something every day... Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

[truthalwaystriumphs]

Pls have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushwaha, this is being redirecetd to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kachwaha and I restored the original content with great difficulty. Pls understand that Kushwaha and Kachwaha are two different groups. It is also noted that this is being vandalised at times. Pls dont merge the two as they peratin to two very different groups in India. Thanx.

Truthalwaystriumphs 18:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Salamiyyah

I guess they were buried in the Google search, since most of the results were talking about a city. Guess I was mistaken - sorry about the inconvenience. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

G2 deletion of Strongest country

Hi, I was just wondering about your G2 CSD of Strongest country. While I agree the page needs to be deleted, are you sure that it really qualifies as a test page? I was trying to figure out a CSD criteria to apply, but none really seemed appropriate except maybe A10, but that would be a stretch. Not a loss, and certainly not asking for an undo, just wondering. Thanks, Monty845 18:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peridon/Archives/2011/April&oldid=1138920117"