User talk:InShaneee/Archive/Feb/2013

Restore my page

You deleted my ProPakistani page. ProPakistani is the largest telecom and IT news website of Pakistan. I provide some information about it on Wikipedia to help people to know about it. It's official website is http://www.propakistani.pk. Newspaper Express Tribune also report news from ProPakistani. For Reference see Express Tribune PageL http://tribune.com.pk/story/470924/cyber-vandalism-hackers-deface-google-pakistan/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abuzarsajjad (talk • contribs) 11:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The ProPakistani page was deleted for two reasons. Firstly, it contained a large amount of copyrighted text. Wikipedia cannot use any text that is copyrighted and exists under a non-free license; see here for more information about that. Secondly, the page did not credibly assert its importance. What 'importance' means in relation to a company is detailed here, but in short, there needs to be detailed, specific coverage from reliable, third-party sources. Simply showing that another source has quoted it is not sufficient. I would recommend, should you believe the article can be rewritten to meet these policies, that you use our Articles for Creation system. This will give you all the time you need to edit the article to your liking, and when you're done, an experienced editor will review your article and notify you of any possible issues so you can attempt to correct them before the article is deleted again. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. InShaneee (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Article does not contain any copyright material it's all the general thing we know. ProPakistani is the largest telecom and IT news company of Pakistan. ProPakistani headquarter is in Islamabad. I provided some information about it. If this company exist in US you will personally create a page about it, but it is in Pakistan so you feel free to delete it.

You claim that it is the largest internet encyclopedia but in original it is the largest encyclopedia of United States of America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abuzarsajjad (talk • contribs) 11:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Calling me (and Wikipedia) racist isn't going to get anything done, I promise you that. And if you check my logs, you'll see I deleted articles on two American companies just in the past half hour. Neither I nor Wikipedia care about where a company comes from, just that the article complies with the polices I linked above. As I said, if you think that the article can be properly rewritten per the above, just submit it through Articles for Creation, and we can get the wheels turning to get it made into an article as soon as right now, if you'd like. InShaneee (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

How You can know that the content I wrote is copyright material. Does my English is like English People? I don't believe that my english is like English peoples.

I am not angry with you this is your work so you done it but if you feel free so help me how I create a article that should perfect at your policies. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abuzarsajjad (talk • contribs) 12:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

How I determine if an article is a copyright violation is pretty simple. I just punch a sentence or two from the article into google (like this), then see if anything familiar comes up. For example, with your article, I get this page and this page, which both say "© 2013 ProPakistani. All rights reserved" at the bottom. This means they are NOT released under a free license, and thus we can not use that text. See here for more information about that. Now, if you want to rewrite some of that to paraphrase it, in your own words, that's fine, so long as it's substantially different, but it can't be just a copy and paste. Another thing you're going to be told about is that the article requires some third party sources to establish notability (see here for more info). The Alexa link is a start, but you're going to need to find a large, reliable source that's talking about the site. This means perhaps a news article or something talking about the site itself, directly. If there's anything else I can help with, let me know. InShaneee (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This time i write some text but it is all in my own words. It's short but my own. This time I create it throw Article For Submission wizards. Please check does this time it will able to acceptation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ProPakistani --Muhammad Abuzar Sajjad (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That looks good! It could still use some external sources to back up its notability, though. I did some searching, and all I was able to find was this; it's tangential, but it might be worth noting. If you want to try searching for some non-english sources, I don't know if you'd have any more luck, but it might be worth a shot. You'd be looking for something like a report on how much the site has grown, or an interview with the site owner, or maybe something major the site was involved in, all covered by a major outlet. One other thing I saw is that the infobox has the content license listed as "Creative Commons 3.0", but the bottom of all the ProPakistani pages says "© 2013 ProPakistani", can you confirm which it is? Just so you know, I won't be the one doing the actual review of the article at AfC, but I will still try to answer any questions you have, if I can. InShaneee (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Userify

Can you Userify my recently deleted page "Can't Stop Won't Stop" so that I can get revise it. Thanks, EpicEditorPro — Preceding unsigned comment added by EpicEditorpro (talk • contribs) 23:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Can do. I've placed the content in your sandbox for now. Let me know if there's anything else you need. InShaneee (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravity-Falls

Hey there! I wanted to draw your attention to the recent AFD you submitted. Is doesn't appear as though you have notified the editor of the status of the article and nomination for deletion. Please keep in mind that the specific editor creating these articles is ten years old. For future reference, note that the general first step for deleting written materials or films, i.e., books, fiction, nonfiction, films is through the PROD. It saves quite a bit of time and is less stressing for new editors. Only after (or if) an editor removes the PROD, would we then submit it to AFD. If you have questions or need help, please feel free to contact me. Cindy(talk to me) 10:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Please Justify

Hi, An article Maamadurai Potruvom which i created was deleted within an hour of nomiantion. Its about an important event participated by the Governor of the state to celebrate the heritage of a city. I have already challenged the deletion but still the article was deleted without giving time for others to put their view. Why is it was deleted in a hurr? Wasif (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. First of all, the article was deleted under the criteria for speedy deletion, meaning that there is no need for a debate, nor is there any certain type of time required between the time the notice is posted and the time the article is deleted. Specifically, the article was deleted under criteria A7, which is for articles about organizations that do not credibly indicate the subject's importance. The article you wrote stated that it is an 'important' event, but contained no cited sources to support that (the only source in the article was about a series of statues appearing at the event, not the event itself). I'd suggest you take a look at our policies as far as establishing notability for organizations before attempting to recreate the article, and if you want some assistance, you may want to use our Articles for Creation process, where an experienced editor can review your article and let you know of any potential problems. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. InShaneee (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much for your reply. My plan was first to create a skeleton article and then to fill up the article with all the details of the events and the images.Wasif (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Another way to do what you're describing would be to first create the article in your sandbox first. This is your own personal page, so you can use it to work on an article for as long as you like, and then simply copy and paste it to the correct article name once you're satisfied with it. That way, you don't have to worry about anyone judging the article before you're done working on it. InShaneee (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate redirects

I'm creating a list of all wikipedia pages that point to a US government, and taking as a starting point the US Census Bureau's census of governments. They were kind enough to give me a preliminary copy of the 2012 results. This is part of an off wiki project called Citizen Intelligence http://www.citizenintelligence.org. I'm finding that some school district pages with multiple schools are being redirected to an existing page for one of the member schools in the district. I think that's a reasonable kludge for now when there's a district with only one school in it but for multiple ones, this misleads. I read the guidelines and am willing to paste in some template content from the information I already have to replace these mistaken redirects. How much information needs to be on there to satisfy the objection that I'm leaving behind a blank page. I have the name, title of the governing authority, official mailing address, FIPS code, and county. Sometimes there's a web addresses, sometimes not. TMLutas (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Restore my page (Synergium)

You have just deleted page "Synergium". At the same time while I was typing explanation "why not to delete" you did it so I was not even able to save that page. So the discusion did not even started prior deletion. The main reason to keep the page was that the prior deletion was based on false statment. What can be done now? In version I found suffienct amount of references(PPPPX (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC))

As was mentioned on your talk page, the article was deleted under criteria G4, as an article with few to no differences from an article that was deleted by way of AfD (specifically, this discussion). I verified this before performing the deletion, and the article as you posted it was essentially word-for-word the same as the old one. Unless there's something significantly new that can be added to the page (specifically to address the notability issue, it's going to have to stay deleted. InShaneee (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

By discussion I understood that article itself is well written, but it lacks sources and acountable notability. So that's why i added proper references by the guidelines of Wikipedia, but in this case I think sources weren't investigated(this time). And by the descusion made in AfD forum Black Kite stated that company did not get the award which it claimed but by this source it states otherwise 2011 ranked in Deloitte Fast 500 and „Technology 50 Central Europe EMEA“, http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-Global/Local%20Assets/Documents/Central%20Europe/FAST50CE/2011_CE_Technology_Fast_50.pdf. So in my opinion the sources should be cheked again, because Black kite opinion was to delete and he stated wrong proof. (PPPPX (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC))

You're correct about the article being more or less well written, the sources are the issue. I did look through the sources before deleting it, and they're the same ones that were there when it was voted to be deleted before. You are right, the company IS listed as #25 on the Deloitte Fast 500, but that in and of itself doesn't make a company notable; if you look at the Fast 500 page, you'll notice most of the companies in the top 5 don't even have pages. I'd advise you to read through our guidelines for notability of corporations. That outlines the kind of sources we're looking for, but in short, we're looking for significant coverage by a secondary source. This typically means some sort of news outlet writing about the company. The closest I'm seeing to that on your page is the VZ.LT article, but that's just a press release, meaning the newspaper didn't actually write the article. If you'd like, I can copy the article into your sandbox so you can work on it more, but I can tell you, without something substantively different from what was there in the AfD debate, it isn't going to make it back. InShaneee (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This article VZ is well known Business magazine and it oficialy states in front of article when its presss release and when it's not, when it is it takes no responsibility for it Press realease, before the headline in small font it states that this is an press realease. and in this one Oficial article, third point of view as you may,(it is possible to acssess archive base there) it also mentions arthor: JOLANTA MALINAUSKIENĖ . Each source could be justefied the same way. It is not my concern to question why other people, places, events, companies do not have their wikipedia pages. My concern is how information is mistreated.. You agreed with the fact that company is listed and black kite did his research and he said that it is not listed. Thank you for furthur notice about on going process. (PPPPX (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC))

Hi, will it be possible to get feedback on my previous post, kinregars (PPPPX (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC))

It looks like you're right about this link; as far as I can tell, that is a third party source talking about the company specifically, which is exactly what we're looking for. But that still just makes one source that fits that criteria, and I'm not sure that's going to be enough for the article to stand on its own. What I'd suggest is that you try remaking the article through the Articles for Creation process. Through here, you can have all the time you need to edit the article, and once you're happy with it, an experienced, impartial editor will review it and let you know if there's any potential issues. InShaneee (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi well that's the thing that while I was editing the article, I've put just all the notable sourecs by Wikipedia's regulations. In the above discusion I mentioned just the contraarguments to your statements, but if nesseary i can put one by one sources, that you could see thėir notability. It was your own words that the article itself is more or less well written and it does not interfier advertising issues as most comapny wiikipedia pages do. What you said is that it needs sources to proove natabilty and those sources must be realiable, so I'll give them to you "Veidas" comes in hard copy and onlin Short extract about what comapany does link ELIA, Membership list Gala member list other publications — Preceding unsigned comment added by PPPPX (talk • contribs) 10:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I've looked through this new batch of links, and only one of them might qualify as a reliable source, this one, as it's solely about the company, and by an independent source. The others all have issues. Some are about the company CEO, and not the company itself. Some just show the company on a list; if you read the guidelines for corporate notability, "inclusion in lists of similar organizations" is explicitly listed as a criteria that is NOT acceptable. The articles in the last link ("other publications") show some promise, but that's a news aggregator; none of those articles are originals, they're just rewrites (or outright copies) from somewhere else. Yes, the article was relatively well written, and no, it didn't have major advertising issues. The only problem was with the sources, and this wasn't just my issue, this was something that no less that five experienced editors had a problem with. InShaneee (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well the lists are reference to which asoociations belongs what about this Am I allowed to put this article for submission and which steps should I pick? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PPPPX (talk • contribs) 13:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome to use the links with the lists, and you should if they're to show that the company belongs to that organization, I'm just saying that they don't show notability by themselves. If you want to re-post the article with the new links, go ahead, but know that it may have to go through another deletion discussion to see if the community thinks it's notable now, and at that point, it's out of my hands. InShaneee (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

need some help

Hi I am looking for an expert in the science of subtle energy fields, photon and organized frequencies as a concept. It can be with magnetic energy or thru metaphysics. Is this you? It would be for credibility and substantiation of a new cutting edge technology for the science behind it. CLGoldstein (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a hobbyist as far as science is concerned, but nothing more. If you have a specific scientific question, the best place to ask would be at the Science Reference Desk. InShaneee (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Restoring Information regarding Ipswich City Council

Hi

I added Events section with a link to Events search on Ipswich City Council's Wikipedia page, which you have removed. Its not a promotion, its helping users (local and visitors) to find the events happening in Ipswich City. I dont need to promote it on Wikipedia, as Council website easily comes top on Google but I just thought to provide information in Wikipedia where people of Ipswich find at more than one place.

By putting this information, I had no intention of promoting Ipswich City Council website, but that's where people of IPswich get and put information about (their) Events.

Please undo your action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iupdate (talk • contribs) 01:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It is spam, under our policies. City of Ipswich is an encyclopedia article about the town. It's not meant to be a replacement for the Ipswich City Council website. For one thing, the events page is already part of the City Council page, which is linked, making that link entirely redundant. Secondly, you keep trying to add a link where you explicitly encourage people to go there and post; that is absolutely WP:SPAM as we don't allow users to solicit anything here. By your own reasoning, if it's so high on a Google search, users shouldn't have any trouble finding it, anyway. At the very root of it, the fact is that you are explicitly a single purpose account with a clear and definite conflict of interest, which means you need to tread extra carefully. As per our policies, if you continue to post disruptive content that serves only to promote your organization and does nothing to help build the site, you may be blocked from editing. InShaneee (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willow Creek SA

Hello InShaneee, I nominated Willow Creek SA for AfD before noticing all the copyvio and CSDing it. The AfD page is still standing so would you be able to close/delete it. I was going to speedy it under G6 or G8 but wasn't sure if that was appropriate. Cheers, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for letting me know! InShaneee (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem, cheers for taking care of it. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please help me understand why my article was deleted

Hi,

I noticed that you have marked my article for speedy deletion stating A7 as the reason and it has been deleted. I feel that the condition of notability has been randomly applied as there are many other similar articles which have nothing notable (do not want to list them here, but if you send me an e-mail ID, I can send you a list). I request admins to either apply this rule consistently or not apply at all. My article has only facts about a product and does not advertise in any way. I feel the topic is notable because it is one of the few products on internet which have successfully used NLP on a large scale and provide the results free of costs to consumers to help them make purchase decisions. Does it only matter if there are writeups about the product on other sites which may not even be authentic? I feel the argument given is very weak. If you still feel the article does not deserve to have a page, please atleast userify it so that someday I can hope to get it published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritz7286 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Notability isn't 'randomly applied'; rather, the site isn't perfect, and sometimes pages that aren't quite up to standards slip past us. If you've seen such pages, you are more than welcome to tag them for cleanup or deletion to help out the wiki. You're correct, your page wasn't overtly advertising, but that's not why it was deleted; specifically, it was deleted due to an inherent lack of notability. For what kinds of things it takes for a service to be considered notable, I direct you to our notability guideline for web content. The short version is that the subject must have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works independent to the site itself. This includes things such as articles in major news outlets concerning the site. The article as you wrote it had zero sources from third parties. For the time being, I will userfy the page to your sandbox, but know that if the article cannot be made to meet the guideline I linked before you attempt to post it again, it will simply be deleted once more. InShaneee (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks InShanee for the clarification. Please look at TechRadar. The only reference which they have is the Alexa page. Do references like those suffice? If yes, I could add links to Alexa and others. If these are one off instances, I would agree. But there are a huge number of such pages. I still feel the criterion used is unfair and dependent on the admin reviewing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritz7286 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but the criteria seem pretty concrete and easy to apply to me; of course, if you disagree, you're welcome to propose changes to the policy here. It wouldn't surprise me if there are a relatively large number of those pages, but Wikipedia is a volunteer project; the best way to fix a problem is to start in on it yourself. Back to your article, Alexa is a nice reference to have, but it doesn't typically establish notability by itself. Per the guideline, Alexa isn't really a 'published work', since it's a machine compiled database. If you've got any other third party sources, feel free to leave a link here, and I can look them over if you'd like. InShaneee (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Folly Wildlife Rescue Trust deletion

Did you even look at the page before you took action? I am protesting your work in disappearing the article.refrence:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folly_Wildlife_Rescue_Trust Please do not hold my personal indignation about the article deletion against the editor who created the page. I have nothing to do with the editor other than trying to help add more notability to the article. Which is what i was doing when I saw it is now GONE! The article was even changed from "stub" to article and all objections and suggestions that were made to the creator were done. As a researcher myself, I learned quite a bit of information that was previously unknown to myself by reading the article and learning about the Folly Wildlife Rescue Trust. I'm personally astounded that admin on Wikipedia would work so hard at putting obstacles to this information being published in the way. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like most recently it was moved out of the article space due to a deletion discussion, one which I did not take part in, nor was I even aware of, so I'm not really the guy to talk to here. I don't think there's really much I can say here that wasn't already well said on that deletion discussion, so I'll just point you to our notability guidelines for organizations, which is what the users at that discussion were finding at issue. InShaneee (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)