Thanks. I think I'll leave the unblocked ones unblocked and just keep an eye on them - unless they get out of hand. SPI should get them. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Huon, May this new year bring you a measure of tranquility and a good deal of happiness...yours is a challenging life and I think of you often and wish you well.Miramaribelle (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Taco Bell logo 2012.png
Thanks for uploading File:Taco Bell logo 2012.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
It's been a bit...but I am back at your doorstep. Would you be able to remove, or tell me how to removed an entry I made where my IP address is showing, I thought I had removed it, but it is still there. I need your guidance/expertise in this area. If you are not aware how...will you direct me possibly to someone who may know.
I feel this a threat to my security...PLEASE PLEASE HELP ME...Thank you so very much for your time once again.
Shortcuts:
WP:LOGGEDOUTWP:LOUT
Occasionally an established editor will edit while logged out. While not usually an egregious issue, there can be some concerns about attribution and privacy.
If you made an edit without logging in, you cannot go back and directly tie that edit to your account. If your desire to account for the edit overrides your desire for anonymity, you can log in, make a dummy edit, and add a note in the edit summary about the previous edit.
If you make a comment on a talk page without logging in, then your signature will include your IP address. You can log in and edit the comment by replacing the signature; be aware that the WikiScanner tool will retrieve these actions from the database and record them at the Poor Man's Checkuser,[dead link] thus connecting your username and IP address.
If you feel that the connection between the IP address and your username is an issue, then you can request that the edit be removed; see Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy and Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
In Firefox (with the Greasemonkey add-on) or in Chrome, you can install a simple script that prevents editing while logged out on all Wikimedia Foundation sites. Once the script is installed and you click on Edit while logged out, it pops up a notice that you are not logged in and does not proceed. Note that it does not yet prevent editing by clicking on red links or by direct links to edit pages. 7&6=thirteen (☎)19:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. I should have remembered that privacy concerns justify more severe measures; sorry. Revision deletion will hide the IP address from everybody but administrators; oversight is far more restrictive, only available to the most trusted members of the community (at most a few dozen people compared to roughly 1,300 admins), and will hide the address even from "regular" admins like me. I have asked Guerillero for help, and he has oversighted it. Huon (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't read that as criticism; thanks for reminding me. My comment was primarily directed at Poekneegurl whom I had given incorrect advice. But everything should be resolved now. Huon (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Percy Fletcher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drury Lane Theatre. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I am not a sockpuppet either. Your accusation was inappropriate. I don't want to assume motive, but it certainly *seems* petty and mean-spirited.Topdog76 (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish; should I ever again nominate an article you wrote for deletion I'll try to remember not to let you know. Huon (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good morninig, I'd read your delation adivise, I I just do not understand the reasons, I think I've met all the criteria?
If not, please help me understand where I went wrong, and if possible to help me to change it, thanks!
Usually I write and I contribute to improve wikipedia, and I have many items in, that have never had any problems. I waiting soon for a kind
replay
Thank a lot and best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessio Pasquinelli (talk • contribs) 11:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria I do not think the article meets are notability and a neutral point of view. Notability is easier to explain but probably harder to resolve: No reliable sources seem to have written about this company in any detail. Next to nothing of the article's content is based on independent coverage, and my attempts to find better sources failed utterly. I do not think that's salvageable right now; it seems it's too soon to have an article about them. That brings us to the other issue: The blatantly promotional tone. It "will become an important actor on the stage of African football and as a serious and reliable partner, and snatch a significant share of the local market, and on the global sportswear stage at the near future"? Really? Says who, except themselves? That is not a neutral statement, and it's not the only grandiose claim of imminent future success in that article. Let's wait until they have snatched a significant share on the global sportswear market. Huon (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to tell you that since you have protected the article. I would like to know why was mohitsingh allowed to edit the page. He gave a wrong information which is not even accepted by both sides (Pakistan and India). He also didn't give any reference of from where he got the info. So can you kindly remove the losses of 10 Pakistani soldiers which wrote in Pakistani casualities. Or revert the article to how it was before Zerefx (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any autoconfirmed editor can edit that article. Mohitsingh is autoconfirmed, and I believe you are now too (or will be within minutes). But be careful to discuss disagreements on the talk page of the article, rather than risking an edit war.
Although it's good that you are using edit summaries, I find edit summaries like the following to be concerning: "I included Pakistan victory. Since Indian invasion was halted so it was Pakistan's victory". This indicates that you are drawing your own conclusions as to the significance of the outcome, rather than relying on what independent reliable sources say about it. This is actually quite common for battle outcomes on Wikipedia, but it is not good because it is original research. It can be especially problematic in controversial articles. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Demiurge1000 Yes i did it, and it was wrong i just came to the conclusion i didn't write it out of my personal gurdge or wanted war or any thing like that. Still thanks for allowing me to edit on 2014 indo pak skrimishes. Zerefx (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you undelete the high res version you deleted earlier today. From the message on my talk page it would appear that the daughter inherited the copyright on the death of her mother, who took the image,and that {{pd-self}} is therefore applicable. if you'll restore the image I'll deal with the licencing and getting the explanation onto the talk page. Thanks. Nthep (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Huon. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Telenyem Renner Ikuru".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Telenyem Renner Ikuru}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
It sure has references, and the main one is a wiki on alternate history - as in, "this didn't really happen". It would have been news to the Ming that someone else was operating an empire from their own capital. Huon (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about if I removed the wikia? And please look another page on the wikia it is not absolutely hoax since anther topic is also appear at the wikia and considered facts.ADHZ07111989 (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the link wouldn't miraculously mean this made-up empire really existed. I have no idea what you're up to, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. Huon (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What if the another references outsite wikia use as references and sources? I have legal and authentic text at hand (computer) so did the online version.
Can the article be recreate? Please support this since I use many another autthentic text and legal books (more than one text or book), disregard wikia.
Take a look at the wikia that another article have some contra interest from hoax label or hoax minded. That will work? How the solution? I really want to create this article. ADHZ07111989 (talk) 09:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I may do some copyediting later, but right now every other sentence in that article has grammar that's somewhere between "bizarre" and "just plain wrong". And I'm sorry for being blunt, but if you write "I didn't found", maybe you should leave grammar cleanup to others. Huon (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank's for your current contributions and future plans contributions. I am hoping the best. We will corporate a lot in future. Since I was planed to made a lot of new articles. We can help each other. Best regards, friend. ADHZ07111989 (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huon, thank you for the information. However, I believed that all of the articles about the company (OC business journal, yahoo, etc.) would count as independent sources that say more than enough about the company. If these are not enough, I will look for more.
@AlexisGCA: That's a press release written by eGumball itself. It can't get much less independent than that. If there's an actual OC Business Journal article that discsses eGumball in some detail, it's not given in the Egumball Inc. article. Huon (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Huon. Boy, you're busier'n a bird dog. I admire your industry.
Naturally I was crestfallen to see the GS entry notice...appeal for more encyclopedic writing. I realize you've been trying to warn me about this all along.
I've tried to strip it of all feelings...
Now if your concern is that so many of the references are from GS herself and therefore not provable, then I'm stymied.
If so, I'll be curious to see what others can write that you'll approve of.
Do please have another look at the Bette Davis article. Am I wrong or isn't it laced with commentary that is not "encyclopedic?"
And for next time, it might be a good thing if you (I speak Wikiwise) would warn an editor such a posting is going up, give her/him and chance before shaming her/him publicly.
All best, and thanks,
SylviaMiramaribelle (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look in a couple of days, but I'm rather busy in real life and I won't immediately have the time to give the Gloria Stuart article the attention it deserves. Huon (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see your recent edits to Rooster Teeth but have to ask, where do you expect to find sources for this kind of article. The only possibly sources are there own websites and YouTube. Look at other YouTube wikis: Game Grumps and the like. Very few "reliable" sources. Thats something Wikipedia just has to deal with EoRdE6 (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has to deal with that by removing large chunks of content for wich no reliable, independent sources exist. If no reliable source has bothered to write about that, neither should Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but in the absense of a CheckUser there was nothing to do about it but blocking it, I'd say. Thanks for taking care of the other two. Huon (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Huon: long time! I am writing an article on CHAT (Cultural Historical Activity Theory – you will find the (exploratory) draft in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pronacampo9_/Main-subpages/Entry1 . Problem: I wanted to upload an illustrative graph on 1st Generation CHAT (which I would have included in this message if only I were able to upload anything at all. . ) My first attempt (in PDF) uploaded fine, but I aborted the upload process as I needed some more information. Since then, I have not been able to upload anything at all, even after the graph was converted into jpg and png: nothing works. I am completely at a loss about it. I tried a different computer, but that does not work either. I left a ‘Feedback’ message on the Main Upload wizard but I do not know who/where it will be attended to. Q: would you know of a Commons expert to whom I could address my question directly? and/or, who knows, you yourself may have a clue about what is wrong or what I am doing wrong while attempting to upload? Many, many thanks again! (Pronacampo9 (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
I don't worry about removing the commentary of Chouchi. But, it is actually original text of references witch use for references. Since it is legal and authentic but really rare and I put it for security, then if we remove those things and any problem occur about the references, please help me indeed. Thank's. Visit ctext.org for more chinese text.ADHZ07111989 (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say those kinds of "references" are completely useless. How would I, or any other of our readers, go about finding those sources? What are they? Ancient historical writings? Modern textbooks on Chinese history? In either case I'd expect that at the very least the authors' names have a standardized English transliteration, very likely the titles of the works as well. For example, "漾水" is unknown to Google Books or WorldCat, with the closest this book of Malaysian-Chinese short stories. I rather doubt that's what you want to use as a reference for a historical article. And whatever it ultimately is, a page number is given - is there but a single edition? Are all editions' page numbers identical? If not, which editition does this reference refer to?
Given your past attemts to present made-up empires as real, I'm very reluctant to trust something you add based on references I can't even identify. Huon (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nakhi people may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
houses are made by Bai craftsmen today. Absorbing architectural styles of the [[Han Chinese|Han]] (those same Nanjing traders brought their house building skills with them, and these are used up to
Illustrative graph of First Generation CHAT (Cultural Historical Activity Theory)
Thanks, Huon, and Yup! I/we “did” it. (see below – I am preparing two more graphs – in PP converted to png which I will upload & insert later). I am only describing the detail of ‘what happened’ for the sake of future wikipedistas who might run into a similar roadblock. In retrospect, I think that the ‘root’ of the problem was the upload of the original PDF which I aborted because the Wizard was asking for ‘categories’, which I needed to check up on, first. At the first attempt the Wizard had pre-uploaded and stamped the picture with “Pronacampo9” already. When I reentered the Wizard it would stubbornly ‘get stuck’ at the #2 Upload stage: it would advertise the title all right, but it seemed not be able to ‘grab’ the image itself: (re: the ‘timer’ icon would keep going round and round forever). I then converted the PDF into jpg and png but even so, the wizard remained ‘stuck’ at the upload stage. I tried several other computers, but ‘no go’. That’s when I got on your talkpage (I see you are as busy as ever!!). After reading your reply this morning, I tried again, this time on a small laptop, and, as you see, everything went smoothly. My hunch is that, in the intervening 48 hours the Wizard ‘sorted itself out’ automatically. The only other ‘variable’ is the small laptop I used this morning (in the previous attempts I had been using Library computers in the same computer cluster) but I really doubt it. It still looks like the Wizard got its knickers in a knot when I suddenly cut short an uploading process. Now, as I said these (rather boring) details are strictly for future reference in case others experience similar problems. Have a nice weekend, Huon, and thanks again! (Pronacampo9 (talk) 09:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
OK, good to see this has been resolved. If I may offer some advice on the image itself, I'd suggest not making the caption a part of the image. This goes particularly for the references - what would happen if Engeström 1999a were ever removed from the article, or if the image were added to a different article that currently doesn't cite Engeström at all? If you want me to, I can modify the image to that effect and add the sources on the file page itself instead. Huon (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, aye, yes, please do so Huon - that would be both excellent & a useful template for the next two illustrative diagrams which I still have to insert. All good! (Pronacampo9 (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Re: "Modify the image": I was just wondering about the technical implications of 'modifying' a jpg/png image? Would you not need the original - which is in Powerpoint - for this? If so, I would need to know an avenue by which to transmit (the pp). But perhaps I misunderstood? Regards. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Ah, I see. My technical knowledge of Paint is rather rudimentary, I am afraid, so not too sure how to go about this. Also, if the “Engeström/Nygård" caption is cut out, it would imbalance the overall outlay of the illustration, i.e. I would rather prefer to go back to the original template, and do the whole job all over again. . . on condition that I, also, can remove the picture which at present is on Wikimedia Commons. Is this possible? The only tab (left hand side column) I can see on WikiMedia Commons images says: “Nominate for deletion” – but that is not what we are looking for, is it? (Pronacampo9 (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
I have just created this version, simply by cutting off part of the description and some white space. I've uploaded it under a different name (as File:Vygotsky Basic Mediated Action.jpg), but in principle it would also be possible to update the ([[:commons:File:First Generation CHAT.jpg|existing file (disabled here); there's an "Upload a new version of this file" link in the "File history" section. My approach in general would be to keep information that could just as well be part of the caption out of the image itself; then the users on specific articles can decide on the appropriate style for a caption and for references, as I've done here.
Thanks, Huon. I found your redrafted version in Wikimedia Commons: this version is certainly more 'tidy' and fit for (wiki) purpose. When I click https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Huon#mediaviewer/File:Vygotsky_Basic_Mediated_Action.jpg I get a Huon ‘User talk’ url, which does not seem to ‘convert’ into an image elsewhere? The [[commons:File:Vygotsky Basic Mediated Action.jpg|File:Vygotsky Basic Mediated Action.jpg link you give above does not seem to be ‘active’ (looks like a square bracket or two is missing?). Anyhow, I need a link that is ‘universally’ uploadable, starting with the Pronacampo9 userpage. I see, in Wikimedia Commons , the "Upload a new version of this file" link under "File history". Shall I ‘re-do’ the graph following your (new) template and re-upload it there? Thanks again for your time.{Pronacampo9 (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
PS: Ah! found it now! Listed under "Use this file on a wiki" - Vygotsky Basic Mediated Action. After: [1]; [2] - "Perseverantia vincit"
PPSS I 'lost' the triangle (Individual - Culture)-bit of "your" Graph (supra). This is important as the Second Generation Graph will have, among others the words, (Collective - Division of Labor). Taa. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
You're right, some brackets were missing in my attempted link above; I've fixed that. I had left out the "triangle (Individual - Culture)" bit on purpose and instead made it a part of the image caption. One advantage is that the caption's font size is not scaled along with the image, and it can be read just as well for a small(er) version of the image as for the somewhat enlarged version I added above. I found that part of the original image rather difficult to read. Huon (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, found your to-day's updated image description. What does not cease to amaze me is your inside knowledge of Wikimedia Commons. You are right: one wants a graph like this to be crisp and neat, without any superfluous rococo clutter. Want to know more? Go and read the description! I have at least still two more graphs to go, and you have pushed me nicely up the wikicommons learning curve. Thanks again for that!
PS: One more – and I hope last – problem: this morning I happenstanced on the commons image subcolumn which said “Use this file on a wiki”. However much I search this time, I - to my surprise - cannot find the url which would allow to upload the (latest) image on a Wikipedia page. Rather elementary. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "uploading the (latest) image on a Wikipedia page". The term "upload" usually referst to putting the image onto the Commons - that's when it's uploaded from your computer to the Wikimedia Foundation's servers. The basic code to display the image on Wikipedia is [[File:Vygotsky Basic Mediated Action.jpg|thumb|Image caption]] - that would display it as a "thumbnail" (a copy of a standardized size) with a caption of "Image caption" (see Help:Picture tutorial for more details on how to display images). That will always display the latest version of a file, if several versions have been uploaded under the same name - for example, if I had used the "Upload a new version of this file" link on your image and uploaded my modification as File:First Generation CHAT.jpg instead of File:Vygotsky Basic Mediated Action.jpg, I would have replaced your version, and all links to that file name would have displayed my modification. If there are several versions of an image with different file names - here File:First Generation CHAT.jpg and File:Vygotsky Basic Mediated Action.jpg - you'll have to specify the correct name to get the relevant image. One hint: Given the rather small font on the image itself, you may want to resize it and display it a little larger than the standard thumbnail. The following code is an example: [[File:Vygotsky Basic Mediated Action.jpg|thumb|350px|Image caption]] That will set the width to 350 pixels whereas the standard thumbnail has a width of only 220 pixels. That's what I did to create the slightly larger picture above at the top of the first "References" section. Huon (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry for the technically incorrect wording, Huon – what I meant, of course, was ‘replicate’: of all the urls, it is only the ‘dedicated’ “thumb” url which will replicate the image on a Wikipedia page. . .and I had forgotten that, to obtain it, you had to click one of the tiny blue “Use this file”-tabs on top of the Wikimedia page (I kept clicking the bottom of the page – oops). And I am happy that you took the opportunity to tell me about the pixels. From previous experience I knew that one can resize a picture by fiddling with the px, but, - again to my surprise -, there were no px parameters included this time. I see that now 1) I can do this, as you showed me, by including the px parameter in the thumb File:Vygotsky Basic Mediated Action.jpg|thumb|350px|Image caption (disabled here), and, 2) I see that with the “Image caption” subject line, the visual is even less cluttered than all the preceding versions. Well, I could never have foreseen it would take so many tutorials before I “got there”, but it looks like we did, and it was certainly worth (my and your) effort and time, specially as there are still a couple more visuals to come. Looks like my next destination will be another visit to the wiki barnstar store! (Pronacampo9 (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
PS: Oh, by the way, (viz future work), thanks for the picture tutorial reminder. I am an aficionado of the manual-bypassing "learning by doing" school. Also known as "to learn how to ride a bike, you need a bike to ride on". re: Correa. . . .until I (repeatedly) fall off that bike - or, as in this particular case, dont even manage to mount it - so, thanks for the reminder :-). (Pronacampo9 (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
I've semi-protected it for a year. I'd prefer not to semi-protect it indefinitely, but if the issue still persists after a year, we may have to go that route. Huon (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, it seems that you have deleted my user subpages for vandalism (the ones labeled math hurricanes and "User:Pilover819/AmazingDiscovery") a couple of months ago. I understand why it was deleted. I wasn't aware about what I can and can't do on Wikipedia. But can I at least get the data back? I haven't saved it on any of my PCs. Thanks in advance, Weatherlover819 (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent you the sub-pages /AmazingDiscovery, /M1HS, /M2HS, /Math Hurricane Bobby/2, /Math Major Dylan and /Math Hurricane Carly. I think that should have been all; if I missed something, say so. Huon (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have a question. You removed some comments my friend Bill Jones made on the biography of Alexander Borovsky, a Russian pianist. I think you removed them because he cited no references. He can add his sources, but it is a bit of a Catch-22 because Bill is a student of Borovsky who has inherited many of the pianist's memoirs and letters. There are really no books he can reference, as he is working on writing the book- there is a lack of published references. Can he cite references for things that have never been published? Thanks. Vince — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.247.34 (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The good news is that once Bill finishes writing the book, if it is published by a reputable publishing house, then Vince or someone else (but preferably not Bill) would be able to cite the book as a source on Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Huon. My name is Tokarev Limbo.can you help me Block MilboreOne beacause he Disruptive editing To Block me.The malaysian air force resent to say that RMAF Are actcualy using combat aircraft is Su-30MKM,Boeing F/A-18 Hornet,F-104 Starfighter,McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II,F-111 Aardvark,B-52 Stratofortress,AH-1 SuperCobra,AC-130 Spectre,A-10 Thunderbolt II,F-102 Delta Dagger,AV-8B Harrier II,Eurocopter EC 725 Caracal2552.jpg,CH-53K King Stallion,Mi-26,UH-1Y Venom,Sikorsky S-70 Black Hawk,Kamov Ka-50,AH-64 Apache,Mil Mi-24,Northrop F-5,F-14 Tomcat,Airbus A400M,MilMi-28.can you fix this.And another story of malaysian army infantry weapons.The malaysian army resent to say Malaysian army are actcualy using Equipment malaysian army is MAC-10,Colt M1911A1,SIG P226,MP5,Steyr AUG,FN SCAR H,M16,M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle,AK-47,AKM,AK-74,Barrett M82,Accuracy International AS50,SR-25,TRG-22,M249 SAW,MK 48,PK machine gun,M240,Mk 47,PT-91M Pendekar,M1 Abrams,M72 LAW,FIM-92 Stniger,Atchisson Assault Shotgun,HK33[note:the other wear wrong the HK43 Not use but HK33 in use],MP-443 Grach,DShK,Type 56 assault rifle,NHM 91,RPK,Type 56 LMG,Type 64,IMI Galil,L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle,M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle,IMI Negev.so please edit back. and please block milboreOne.Thank you.Tokarev Limbo (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, misspelling the names of the users you want to be blocked is not helpful. Secondly, the claim that Malaysia is using B52s is pretty ridiculous. Thirdly, you're engaged in sockpuppetry, for which I have blocked this account. You can request your original account to be unblocked, but you should read the WP:Guide to appealing blocks first, and to be blunt, given your past conduct, I don't see how unblocking you would benefit the encyclopedia. Huon (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Huon, thank you so much for the superfast turnaround and feedback on my draft on Rusty Anderson afternoon. I really appreciate your intervention and advice, I will work on these issues! I hope I'm leaving this in the right place for you. The talk interface still confuses me. Your suggestions are very helpful :)Jena fuller (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jena fuller: You're welcome, and this is indeed the right place to leave a message for me, though it's preferred to do so in a new section if the message doesn't refer to any of the previous topics; there's a "new section" link at the top of the page for that purpose. Good luck improving the draft; please don't hesitate to ask if there are any issues I can help you with. Huon (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My entire professional career has shown me that if you've got a systemic problem, you challenge it, and I find it appalling that the attitude of "you can do bad things as long as you talk like a lawyer and cite policy a lot" seems to be popular on Wikipedia these days.
Wikimedia Australia did an incredibly successful recruitment event, which got a bunch of articles on topics we needed, that were pretty much all cited to very solid sources, and potentially bringing a bunch of new editors on board. Nearly every single one was jumped on on spurious notability grounds, even though zero of those articles would pass AfD, ensuring that all of those editors' first experience with Wikipedia was a bad one. This is a terrible outcome, and it's a key reason why Wikipedia has such shocking problems with editorial attrition: when this is how we treat newbies, we stand no chance of bringing on enough good new editors to replace the people we lose over time.
Equally, I said what I had to say, and moved on, and now Chess is continuing to try to bait me into a fight and making threats on my talk page, because the culture says that that kind of bullying (and it is bullying) is fine if someone has criticised you harshly as long you do it in a lawyerly tone. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Technically that's possible, but it's not done lightly, depending on how "hidden" you want it to be. If it's your own comment, nobody has replied to it, and you just want it off the page, you can simply remove it from the page, but it will remain in the page history. If it's someone else's comment, or if someone else already replied to it, it should probably stay unless there's a very good reason for removal; see WP:TPO and WP:REDACT. If you want it excised from the page history as well so that only administrators can see it, revision deletion would be the procedure, but that is only performed in very specific cases. Finally there's Oversight, which would hide any indication that ever an edit was made, even from regular admins such as myself, but use of that tool is even more strictly regulated. Huon (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Huon. An editor came to me on #wikipedia-en-help asking me for help with Draft:Rantic. It looks like you rejected it a few months ago but they have since improved it with multple sources. I told them I'd ask you to take another look. Thanks. --Seahorseruler(Talk Page)(Contribs)05:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Huon, I came across this website called "Rantic.com" on the news and I decided to create a Wikipedia article. I saw that someone had already made one and it was rejected a few months ago. I went ahead and removed all the content in the former article and replaced with news articles that mention the subject in detail and neutralized the article. I was wondering if it met the guidelines for Wikipedia. 98.249.241.179 (talk) 05:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have high hopes for a draft where the very first sentence turns out not to be true. This company does not exist and never has. And there are still quite a few sources that do not mention the subject. SocialVEVO might be notable; I rather doubt Rantic is. And given the falsehoods propagated by 98.249.241.179 in the past, I would not trust a single half-sentence without a reliable third-party source that backs it up. This will require some very careful checking before it can ever become an article. Huon (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that some of the text that you removed was indeed "commentary" - however, this edit did not improve the style of the whole piece. I would have preferred a more careful approach to the piece, with a welcome critical warning as to give some source for specific paragraphs that you feel did lack them. After this undetailed and general "clearance" that unnecessarily removed a lot of "underbrush" from a text which had been written with a lot of care (maybe not in all respects) I do not know how to procede. There certainly won't be any "edit war" because I am not going to waste my time on it - rather leave the piece unattended to your "creativity" or "wiki-purism" (whichever you like better! Khnassmacher (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Khnassmacher: The "commentary" part was not the only problem; the lack of sources part was also of concern. The only content I removed that cited a source was the party membership, which was just used to lead to some questions about the finances. An encyclopedia article should answer questions, not ask them. Other paragraphs, such as that about the effect of good-intentioned policy changes without proper enforcement, amounted to pure speculation. See the diff for my edit; if you think any of the content I removed was of value, please explain why and provide a reliable source that supports those claims in the context of New Zealand political funding. I have to note that you're adding even more personal opinions to the article. Who says 1996 is "only quite recently"? You? Huon (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Khnassmacher: I did not intend to drive you away, if that's what you mean. Writing an encyclopedia article takes some getting used to, and the preferred style on Wikipedia is quite different from that used to write an essay or even a research paper. You're obviously much more of an expert on the topic of political funding than me, but even the experts still need to base the content they write on reliable published sources, not on their personal expertise. See for example WP:No original research. Huon (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re edit warring in Passbook: Mr Cellular keeps undoing my edits and still hasn't posted to the talk page to justify. Is there a way to lock it or block him from this? gujamin (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've left comments on both the article talk page and MrCellular's talk page. If he continues to revert without engaging in a more thorough discussion than can be had via edit summaries, WP:ANEW is the place to contact. That said, edit-warring is not, in itself, vandalism, and you should not accuse people of vandalism who are acting in good faith, even if you disagree with them and they violate Wikipedia's policies. Huon (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hi Huon, i so sorry to edit back. hey if you help me. i nead a favor.this time.im a not a Sock puppetry,please,i'm seriusly.about the BTR-80.Did Malasyian army uses the BTR-80. Sometimes,the people arange it.can you help he.but you don't understand about malalysinan army infantry weapons.They DID NOT USING FN FAL BUT THEY USING L1A1,HK33,AR70.DO you got it.thanks. Kovax TRO (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I get is that you're still evading your block. Given your ridiculous claims about the equipment of the Malaysian Air Force, I don't think I need to waste time checking out the equipment of the Malaysian Army. Huon (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I even have a lower opinion for people who accuses me of faking sources;such as your self. .. I can explain why i cited those pages.It was a honest mistake,i have pasted the wrong reference!!!!.Beleive it !!! it happens!! 15:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Raaedasfour
@Raaedasfour: Sure, you by accident copy-pasted the wrong reference, and when you corrected the page numbers, they just happened to be one off those of the reference you copied. Well, page 96 and 97 of which source did you mean to cite, then? Huon (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Huon, it's your nemesis again, darn. In researching stuff, I realized my great-grandfather's name is misspelled all over the place: "William Deidrick" and his name in "Fresno Scraper" should be: WILLIAM HENRY DIEDRICK.
I gave the ancestry source. But I don't know how to correct the head on what is now "William Deidrick." I made the link from the Fresno Scraper article, but of course it went nowhere. Thanks for your help.
As for the Gloria Stuart article, I spent a month on it and earnestly want it to be of value. I believe I took out all the personal opinions. Yes, most of the source that remains is the subject herself. No good? Kindly advise.
All best and thanks,
STPMiramaribelle (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be blunt, Ancestry got it wrong. This is his patent, signed by himself, and he clearly writes "Deidrick". I'm not going to argue with the man himself how his name should be spelled.
Regarding Gloria Stuart, I haven't looked at the article (and I'm rather busy tonight, so I won't find the time to do so in any detail), but yes, when most of the sources that remain are Stuart herself, that's a problem. Wikipedia content should be based on independent sources, and while primary sources such as Stuart's autobiography can be used to add uncontroversial details to the article, they shouldn't be the only sources for significant amounts of content. Huon (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if you can do a review of the draft that I wrote about this viral marketing website. I see that the subject had issues in the past with you regarding false information and conflict of interest. I have added all information according to the news coverage. I saw the marketing "website" (not company) on the news recently on RT, Reuters, BBC, CNN, TIME, MTV...etc. talking about the marketing site. I have also dug up 3 in-depth articles that were recently written by credible news outlets that discusses all the information I added. Every sentence in the article is backed by a credible news source. And I wanted to know if you can do a deep check of all the sources and the information I have written, and see if it qualifies. I read all of the inquires that you posted for the subject in the past, Although sources like BBC, Mashable, CNN, TIME, Rolling Stone, Fox, CBC, MTV..etc. describe the marketing group as a "social media marketing company", It is not a registered company, and it is just a website offering shady services as well as a group of notorious pranksters that have been seen on news for years now.
Upon reading the recent news coverage, Rantic.com is reported as a re-brand of Socialvevo/Swenzy. They are the same marketers and site, just moved to new domain site. According to The Daily Dot, Epoch Times, News Corp AU, Mashable and Reuters, the social media marketing "WEBSITE" rose to prominence over their recent Emma Watson hoax that was supposed to be a letter to Barack Obama to try and bring attention to a recent internet scandal involving celebrities. Because of the false representation,
I had changed article from "company or business" to "website" style of article. Tried to keep the article plain, simple and short.
"Every sentence in the article is backed by a credible news source"? Not so. I have nominated it for deletion after finding yet more falsehoods promoted in that draft. Huon (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Huon, i'm requesting achieving for article talk page: Talk:Book of Isaiah. It would be better if you gave me a code for archiving, so I won't bother you in the future as there are much needed article talk pages to be archived. --Thnx & Cheers-- JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Big Stone Gap (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big Stone Gap. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Dear Huon,
I didn't get the DEIDRICK spelling from Ancestry--I got it from two original census pages ostensibly with the man sitting in the room himself. Lordy. But I'm grateful to have seen the original page on the US Patent web site with his signature. A puzzlement. Anyway, of course it should be left as is.
As for the Stuart article, I am so mortified by the banner over the piece that I will happily take out EVERYTHING you recommend.
Except that I just again looked at the Bette Davis entry (which gets a star for excellence) and much of the opening has very few references. And than the biographer Spada is the principle authority. Why is it that a biographer has more credibility than the subject herself or the subject's closest relative who set down nothing she did not witness? A researcher can look up things in GS's autobiography the way you can look things up in Spada. Yes?
I also read somewhere--can't find it now--a notice in Wikipedia hinting that it would liven up the place if an entry broke a few rules--was a tad creative. Say, what if the piece went to arbitration?
Anyway, I thought I'd taken out all personal comments...I just would appreciate that banner coming off!
Thanks, Huon. Miramaribelle (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lead sections of articles are meant to summarize the rest. If the rest is well-referenced, there's no need to duplicate the references in the lead, which is why some of our best articles have lead sections with few or no references. The body of those articles will expand on what the lead says, with references.
The reason we prefer secondary sources such as biographies to first-party sources such as autobiographies is twofold. Firstly, writing an autobiography is something everybody can do (and it this day and age it's easier than ever), while biographers only write about people who have some legitimate claim to notability (and not just inflated egos). That's obviously not of primary concern for Stuart, who clearly meets our criteria of notability. The second issue is that primary sources are much more likely to be biased or non-neutral. For example, Stuart might downplay or omit less successful films, or might portray her own role in a more positive light than a more neutral observer would do. For that reason we need third-party sources for anything beyond uncontroversial biographical details such as a birthdate.
I wouldn't be all that eager to remove content, though. I still have some other pages on my to-do list but will give that article a look soon; I'll try to resolve the "personal reflection" issue then. It sounds more a problem of tone than of content, though some parts may need to be shortened. Huon (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input on my edit to the entry for Evan_Blass. I believe my edit meets the requirements of verifiability for a biography of a living person. Please point me to any rules that require a secondary source for something that is as easily verifiable as confirming a Twitter account has been suspended.
While I have yet to see any coverage on Twitter's suspension of @evleaks' account, this alone may call the entire article into question. If @evleaks can disappear without notice, he may not meet the minimum bar required for notability on Wikipedia.
00:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
See WP:BLPPRIMARY. Especially in the context of the libel Blass has been subjected to, we can wait until third-party coverage exists to provide context. Also, while the Twitter account may be suspended, you'll find that BBC reports don't vanish quite as easily. Huon (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're referring to with respect to libel. I'm talking about facts: the account has been suspended. That suspension is intrinsically verifiable by clicking the link, and can therefore be added to the entry as a clear and present fact. Wikigeek2 (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything that's verifiable is significant enough to be part of a Wikipedia article, particularly for biographies of living persons, where use of primary sources is explicitly cautioned against. If the suspension really is as significant as you claim, third-party coverage will emerge. And by "libel" I mean the false claims of an FBI investigation against Blass, claims that had found their way into the Wikipedia article. Huon (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your logic that the suspension of the @evleaks account does not have an obvious, significant, and intrinsic impact on the @evleaks section in the article--the topic being discussed no longer exists. However, as User:Lixxx235 appears to agree with you, I will refrain from making the change again until there is third-party coverage. Thank you for engaging in discussion on the matter. I will add a note on this discussion to the article's Talk page. Wikigeek2 (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Huon. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.
The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.
If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)
If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.
Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.
Yes, that's Addinqaisara. He was blocked for repeatedly added ridiculously wrong information to articles on the Malaysian military, for example the claim that the Malaysian Air Force uses B-52s, and for harassing other users. Socks include Tokarev Limbo, Kovax TRO and Col Imran Regaz, probably the "Fonte de Regaz" mentioned on your talk page. I see no reason to unblock any of them, and I rather doubt we're really dealing with an Air Force officer here. You may want to explain again why they're blocked, but I don't expect much of a benefit from that, either. Huon (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Huon. You have new messages at Talk:Eritrea. Message added 21:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Why have you reverted my edit about Mr Hutch request for censorship?
(Yes, I have read his talk page and the relevant discussion.)
FYI, smilar biography articles do mention this "right to be forgotten" censorship in the articles themselves, e.g. this one: Dejan Lazic.
Zezen (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Provide a reliable source that connects Hutch himself with the removal of the link from Google. The latest rumor I heard said that not Hutch, but someone else was behind the removal, which would make that episode irrelevant to our article on Hutch. The source you provided was explicit in noting that Hutch may not be the one to request removal. See also WP:SUBJECT. Huon (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, at the time of writing, the Wikipedia article Gerry Hutch still shows up as the first result in a Google search on his name on google.ie and google.co.uk. This makes it unlikely that Hutch is behind the removal request. Unfortunately, we don't know who made the request or why. It would have WP:TOPIC issues to mention this in his BLP without clear evidence that he was behind the takedown request. The talk page consensus at the moment is not to mention this, per WP:SUBJECT.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)17:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The latest rumor I heard " Well that clearly meets WP:RS!
I never claimed the rumor was a RS, and I wouldn't add anything based on such rumors to the article. I'll reply at the article talk page regarding inclusion in general. Huon (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the "latest rumor" is the theory that a retired Irish police officer mentioned in the article is the person who made the request, this is far from clear either. His name does produce the "some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe" message, but many names produce this for no obvious reason.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)18:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done, though I would have appreciated an indication why the deletion of that article might be controversial. I was seriously considering to not bother with PROD and to simply delete it via A7 because there isn't even an indication why Chen might be notable. Huon (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article for this one is not advertising, we are currently editing the article to make it more informative with the help of 115ash also the ikoala is synonymous to Australia since Koala is native animal in Australia and the company ikoala is helping those wildlife and the koalas. You can also check ABN number which it is included in the article. If you have advice or can help us to improve my the page it much highly appreciated. :)
OK, please provide a reliable source that is independent of ikOala and confirms that ikOala is synonymous with Australia. A newspaper article, say in the Sydney Morning Herald, on how ikOala has become the new synonym for Australia would do nicely (not a press release, though; those are not independent coverage of the company). Huon (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ikoala is one of the biggest sponsor of hunter koala reservation society (www.hunterkoala.com/sponsers-and-supporters.html) and helping www.savethekoala.com/ they also adapt koalas from Koala Hospital Port Macquarie (www.ikoala.com.au/crescentheadjimmykoala) I included koala is synonymous with Australia coz that animal is a native in Australia and that company promotes that by helping the wildlife charities.
As you can see the page is currently on the editing mode since I am asking from help with 115ash in making the page more informative. I can appreciate if you could help me with that too. :)
You will need to provide reliable sources that are independent of ikOala - not themselves, not the organizations they sponsor. The more extravagant a claim (and "is synonymous with Australia" sounds very extravagant to me), the more reputable and reliable the sources should be. Without any such sources we cannot have an article. See also WP:ORG. Huon (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the news? We can remove that since I assumed that Koala is a synonymous with Australia since it is native animal. They are reliable company who are helping Australian wildlife and Koalas. You can check it here http://abr.business.gov.au/SearchByAbn.aspx?abn=67148937277. Just like I said the page is not yet finish editing I am asking help to 115ash to correct other stuffs like punctuations, highlights, references and many more. If you can help me with that then that would be fine. Thanks
talibong (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An ABM number is not an indication of notability. Coverage in newspapers or reputable trade magazines that discusses the company in some detail - not their own website or press releases, not blogs or social media, not just passing mentions - would be required to write an article on Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia article should summarize what those sources report. Huon (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whats the matter with the article? I already edited that to make it informative and wikipedia also approve. the speedy deletion has been removed after I added distribution date since I forgot to add that. Why you deleted the page without informing first on the talk page.
Please restore the page so that I can correct the article. Also there is no advertising there as you marked on the deletion.
Those references are pretty much useless. In fact one of them claims Bani Maran is abandoned. Neither confirms significant parts of our article's content. Huon (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am one of the people that was working very hard on the draft of Alcohol Abuse in Ireland.
Can you please state why the page was deleted? And if it was due to copyright infringement, can you please say which part of the article was in question?
After first deletion of the page, we started all over again with revised referencing and it got deleted again.
What is the procedure now of creating the page one more time?
@Arman.pinjo: I deleted the page (again) because it was chock-full of copyright violations and copy-pasted content. Your colleague had stated, quote, "We will not try to put the content of this page on Wikipedia again." Several others told him in no uncertain terms that copyright violations were entirely unacceptable. You didn't start all over again, you copy-pasted from the sources again, re-creating exactly the same problems that saw the draft deleted once before. One of the sources you copy-pasted from is this. As I said: You can submit a new draft on the same topic, but you should make sure that you summarize in your own words what the sources report; don't just copy-paste them. If we have to delete another copyright violation from your group, personally I'd advocate for blocks to put an end to this behaviour. Huon (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Huon, as there has been a complete restart of the page (now it should be all good), I was wondering if we could use the same photos as before?
Dear Huon: Since you do not want the matter discussed constructively and only have negative input over and over, might you please consider to just stay out of it? You know very well what I want discussed. Why not either face the fact that WP has some serious credibitily problems - this an excellent example - or just abstain from being doggedly negative about trying to fix them? Is that too much too ask? You repetitous negativity is hogging the discussion and preventing anything constructive from being said and done. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to disagree with the provisions of WP:COMMONNAME, which says we should use "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)". That would be Hedwig, for all I can tell. Now arguing that we should ignore that policy and name the article after what she's commonly called in Swedish sources instead may be a viable position (not necessarily one I agree with), but it would have helped if you had from the outset clarified that that's what you're after. You may also want to consider whether the policy talk page wouldn't be a better venue if you want to change the policy from "prevalence in reliable English-language sources" to "prevalence in reliable sources in the language most relevant to the subject" - I assume Hedwig of Holstein isn't the only subject where there's a marked difference. Huon (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, three questions:
do you think Hedvig and Helvig are the same name, and thus that Hedvig is a legitimate English exonym for Helvig? If so, what makes you think that?
do you think it's OK if WP names a biography with a name that the subject person never has had in real life, just because consensus wants to do that?
are you aware of the fact that Queen Helvig of Sweden (i.e. the woman in question whatever you want to call her) is virtually unkown to English literature?
Yes, if that's what the subject is most commonly known as in English. Compare Emperor Meiji, who never had that name while alive, Harald Bluetooth, who isn't found under either "Haraldr blátǫnn Gormsson" or "Harald Blåtand Gormsen" on the English Wikipedia, or Henry the Fowler, Frederick the Great and any of the other Germans whose names in English are commonly anglicised. Now you'll say the latter are "legitimate" exonyms while "Hedwig" isn't; this is not a distinction I'd be willing to make without a reliable source supporting it with reference to this queen.
There is some English-language scholarly literature about her, and it tends to use "Hedwig" even when aware she's named "Helvig" in Swedish. It's not much, but enough to not call her "virtually unknown". Huon (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You examples under '2' are irrelevant here as those are extremely well known people and their name discrepancies are well documented including how they happened. I doubt if you'd agree that Harald Bluetooth should be called Howard Bluetooth (?) under any circumstances. Your attempt to use epithets against me, when what we are discussing is something as vital as a persons first name of address, is a bit scary, and quite alienating. Your reply under '3' may convince you, but I'll stick with virtually unknown and add unnamed in English by one single reliable English scholar. Your cavalier attitude toward the vital point '1' is the most shocking of all, to me. How can you even discuss this seriously with such a nonchalant attitude? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Please understand what your impact your changes have making before editing. You changed Bettada Wodeyar to Chamaraja Wodeyar V. Then as you went on with these changes, propagating it to the various "Chamaraja Wodeyars" in the dynasty and you ended up with Chamaraja Wodeyar X, when in reality, there is no Chamaraja Wodeyar X in that dynasty. Just as an example, let me cut and paste one sentence in the history section of the article to you and you will see how you distorted the content by tampering with the template:
"After the demise of Maharaja Chamaraja IX, Krishnaraja IV, still a boy of eleven, ascended the throne in 1895. His mother Maharani Kemparajammanniyavaru ruled as regent until Krishnaraja took over the reins on 8 February 1902".
In the template, you conveniently changed Chamaraja Wodeyar IX to X, but this threw the content of a well written FA into disarray.
"The years that followed saw Krishnaraja Wodeyar I tread cautiously on the matter while keeping the Kodagu chiefs and the Marathas at bay. He was followed by Chamaraja Wodeyar VI during whose reign power fell into the hands of prime minister (Dalwai or Dalavoy) Nanjarajiah (or Nanjaraja) and chief minister (Sarvadhikari) Devarajiah (or Devaraja), the influential brothers from Kalale town near Nanjangud who would rule for the next three decades with the Wodeyars relegated to being the titular heads."
In the template, you changed Chamaraja Wodeya VI to VII. But the contents of the FA says a different story of succession.
I get the feeling different sources may see this nomenclature slightly differently. Be aware that this is an extremely well referenced FA and this issue of IX or X, VI or VII may well be a mute and insignificant issue. The choice we have is to either leave the template as is and be consistent with the content, or make necessary naming alterations through out the FA to match as revised template (you version). The second option is not good because the content will be out of wack with the referred sources. Better to keep it as is. Just my thoughts.Mayasandra (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mayasandra: Did you check where the link for Chamaraja Wodeyar IX in that template points to? It will bring you, via a redirect, to Chamarajendra Wadiyar X. For someone who doesn't exist, we seem to have quite a detailed article about him. If you check out the other articles on people named Chamaraja Wodeyar linked from that template, it will bring you to rulers with the same numbers, but with the wrong dates of their reigns (for example Chamaraja Wodeyar VI says he reigned from 1617 to 1637 - the dates given in the template for Chamaraja Wodeyar V) because the numbering of our articles actually agrees with the sources I provided, and I made the template link to the correct articles. If you prefer to have the template pointing to the wrong ones, I'm almost about to wash my hands of this mess and let you have the broken template in an FA. Huon (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern. Please be aware that this article not only is a FA, it also went through a thorough FA review back in 2009 when the original FA author was deeply involved with other editors in an exhaustive clean up and improvement process that went on for months. The problem you are having is with the sub-articles which no one has taken the effort to research and write with citations. You are right, the sub-articles are out of wack with the main article, but it is the main article that went through the FAR process. So the sub-articles need to be up dated accordingly if someone so chooses. At the same time, I understand that different authors have differing view on names, exact time period of rule and such, but we can have only one view here. I was recently visiting what is now the main museum run by the Wodeyar dynasty in Mysore (the Jaganmohan Palace) and the entire chronology of the Wodeyar dynasty is provided right at the entrance. I wasn't surprised to see a royal family name on the list that I had not seen in history books. This is often a problem with dynasties that have 400-500 years of rule and 20-30 rulers. Also keep in mind, this whole concept of III, IV, V is western and this also causes conflicting views among modern historians who are more western minded and less western minded when they give names of rulers. BTW, while practically every book calls them Wodeyar (from the native Kannada word odeya meaning lord), the remaining members of the clan today call themselves Wadiyar, which is an English/British corruption of that word. You will find similar differences in the board outside the Bangalore Palace where the remnants of the family live (also a palace I have visited). Hope this helps.Mayasandra (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mayasandra: I've opened a discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Mysore. The one source cited in that article for the numbering of the Chamaraja Wodeyars I could easily check is actually mis-cited and supports not what the article says and what it's cited for, but what I'd like to make the template say. Unless you have, personally, checked the other references and found them to support the article, I'm not inclined to put too much stock in the thoroughness of the FAR process. Huon (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help on the YoYo Games page - I'm just a low level employee there and it saddens me to see stuff like that - thank you so much - I wondered if you could do the same for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameMaker:_Studio Studio page and the weird page that is Yoyo Games with a lower case Y - you do incredible work here and this site wouldn't be as amazing if not for people like yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.213.226 (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@195.99.213.226: I've just removed the "controversies" without reliable sources from GameMaker: Studio. Yoyo Games is a "redirect", a page that's intended to lead readers who get the capitalization wrong to the correct target. Right now it points to GameMaker: Studio; I'll change the target to YoYo Games.
That said, some remarks about your efforts here. While I appreciate that the YoYo Games article was something of a mess and desperately needed cleanup, you should be sure not to overdo it and should not remove the good (that is, the reliably sourced) with the bad. You may also want to think about creating an account (for yourself, not for the company - Wikipedia does not allow "group" or company accounts, and only one person may ever have acces to an account!); if you want your Wikipedia username to be associated with the company, a username such as "John at YoYo" would be fine (though not "YoYo Games" since that would look like a group account).
Thank you again - I have written a talk section on GameMaker: Studio. I'm very confused and I just want to get this sorted. Thank you SO much for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.244.79 (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rmanthorp:Writing about a company is not the same as working for a company. To me BlitzGreg looks like an editor without a conflict of interest who is genuinely interested in game engines of all stripes. Other articles he has written include, for example, ANGLE (software), Voxel Space, Godot (game engine) and Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye (book). That doesn't quite scream "DS Game Maker employee" to me. I'd strongly advise you to work with him, not against him. Your chosen approach of initiating talk page discussions is what Wikipedia recommends for editors with a strong conflict of interest such as yourself; the more specific your requests are ("change A into B and and add C, based on third-party sources X, Y and Z"), the more likely is it that they'll be quickly acted upon.
The section on the "2009 logo controversy" wasn't re-added by him, but by JudgeSpear, whoever that is. I have removed it again. The remaining "controversies", the over-eager DRM tool and the prematurely launched April Fools joke, have received third-party coverage in reliable sources and should stay, though not necessarily with exactly the current wording (I haven't looked into that in any detail). Huon (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there- thanks - still getting used to all this and we've had a meeting about it in work - as you can see from the Studio talk page myself and RGibble (another employee at YYG) have been discussing edits with BlitzGreg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GameMaker:_Studio - However, Richard more structured edits have been ignored for my minor - The only thing that still confuses me about BlitzGreg is that we have a banned user on our GMC forums with the same username who was banned for causing trouble in the past - information I can't fully look up or disclose :( - anyway... I'm really grateful for your help - I wondered if you could take a look at this for me and advise what we all need to do to clear this up?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jaymd_123 as it now has a mark on my own talk page for this - is this something I can clear up?? Rmanthorp (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there's evidence of a conflict of interest that you cannot publicly disclose, you may want to contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly (see WP:Contact us/Subjects). In general, if there's a dispute, a good way ahead is almost always to invite wider community scrutiny. For example, if you feel the article needs work and the editors aren't helpful, you could add a note to the talk page of WikiProject Video games, a central discussion board for editors interested in that topic.
The sockpuppetry investigation is something you should keep an eye on in case further questions emerge, but where I personally don't expect any further input from you or your colleagues is required. I'd expect the people dealing with the request will see your explanation and accept it without any further ado, closing the investigation. The message on your talk page is merely a notification for your convenience; it's nothing to worry about. If you want to, you can simply remove it (that counts as evidence you've seen it). Huon (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A few people have read the entry and agree that all the "personal" stuff has been removed. No opinions. No sighs. No alarms and excursions.
Could you perhaps ask a colleague who has no history with our mutual travail to read it?
Did I ever mention that somewhere--can't find it, darn--in Wiki's advice to the newbie is encouragement to break out of the Wiki mold a little--make the pages lively. I had hoped that by giving a first-hand witness to her life that might have had such an effect.
At any rate, if it's still not a good piece, is there any way the banner can be modulated? I really do find it rude.
Hello Miramaribelle, I've asked for 7&6=thirteen's advice since they have heavily edited the article over the last few days. They pointed out one specific example of "schmaltz", and I agree that's not the appropriate tone for an encyclopedia article. I may take a closer look at the article myself over the next few days to resolve that issue. Huon (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Write it like you didn't know her, and you were writing a dispassionate ENCYCLOPEDIC article about her for the ages. I gently suggest you take a look at the Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th edition and read some of their biographies to see how it's done. They are available on line. That she was a good person and you liked each other isn't a fit subject for such an endeavor, and it shouldn't color how you say it. I would say that her oeuvre speaks for itself. Putting garlands and frosting on the cake obscures the central truth. Not trying to be pedantic or critical here, but there is a time and place for a personal story or tome (e.g., a eulogy) but an encyclopedia article just isn't one of them. Hope that helps. Be strong. You can do this. 7&6=thirteen (☎)22:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I pulled the tag with a note in the summary that the problems are being addressed. See what I did—a small tidbit that was peripheral I put in a note. Hope that helps. And I hope I didn't p.o. somebody important. 7&6=thirteen (☎)23:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Huon and 7&6=thirteen (☎):
Whoa.
I am most grateful for your trouble in this. My thanks.
I hate schmaltz--had no idea there was any in the piece. Glad it's gone.
I love the extracted A B C notes--very deft, lovely editing.
You could delete the four grandchildren etc under Legacy. Not interesting--I was genuinely thinking that part of her legacy was what her inheritors got from her, but maybe that's too sappy. Is that the schmaltz?
Had no idea--truly--there's any whipped cream on the piece...I was striving for straight information. Had no idea any affection showed through. Surprising.
As for revising it, I'm afraid the month of September or was it October that I spent on the article is all I can do for now. I will keep dipping in and out, hoping nobody adds misinformation. But I don't expect to have any more to say.
I found an errant {{efn=ua| after Finch in the second graf. It was in red when I opened it. I tried adding the source (high school yearbook, page 45), but that didn't affect those darn little letters. Can you fix that, please? It's an annoying typo.
Darn, I was aiming for a gold star. I'm lucky to get out of this with an above-failing grade.
Your faithful servant,
Miramaribelle (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Huon, 7&6=thirteen (☎) and Barrel Proof: Wow again. That was fast! Thanks for the clean-up--and no, not a bit of p.o. I've just printed the article up, will compare with my earlier copy to find the editing and learn from it. I do accept your gracious challenge of reading the 11th edition of the E.B.--weren't those the days! I wish I still had our multi-volume set--and going back and being more scholarly. I hope to do so, but first I must finish my book. At least the article is factual, yes? And now I wish to say that it has been a GREAT ride. I've learned worlds...and had a glimpse into your fascinating Wikisphere. When I skim down the notes to you, the subjects take my breath away. What fun you must have in your daily rounds. Hugs and happy holidays and I look forward to the next encounter in a year or so. Miramaribelle (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huon, please state the name of one country that follows Cagan´s definition of hyperinflation today?
Please do not remove Citation Requests without supplying a citation as requested for the sentences requested. You can get banned per WP policies. As you did on Hyperinflation. Odereiugif (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huon, you do understand English. You are not a baby. I did not ask you about economists´ use of the definition of hyperinflation. I asked you about the use by any country of Cagan´s definition. Please supply the name of one country that uses Cagan´s definition today. When you do not know the name of one country that uses Cagan´s definition since it is impossible to know that name since no country uses Cagan´s definition today, then any reasonable person would simply admit that no country uses Cagan´s definition today since that is a fact and the status quo. Everybody except you know that. I thus ask you again, Huon, please tell me the name of one country that uses Cagan´s definition of hyperinflation. Huon, I am not asking you about what economists use: I am asking you to tell me the name of one country that uses Cagan´s definition.
Huon, again I ask you very formally here on Wikipedia: please name one country that uses Cagan´s definition of hyperinflation today. Thank you for taking part in this discussion. Odereiugif (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this is a deposition of Wikipedia editors. Not an appropriate argument and the questioning is "out of order." Objection SUSTAINED. 7&6=thirteen (☎)22:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, does that mean my block of Odereiugif as a sockpuppet of PennySeven is holding him in contempt? :) Seriously, user blocked as an apparent sockpuppet of an earlier account that present the same arguments. —C.Fred (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't think an ACLU press release about their own activities is considered a reliable third-party source." Come on, you do know better than that. An ACLU award page is a perfectly good secondary independent reliable source for the coverage of David Cole. It would, of course, only count as a primary and non-independent source for a page about ACLU itself. Nsk92 (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying the ACLU is a secondary source on the ACLU bestowing an award on Cole? Sorry, I don't see that. WP:PRIMARY says: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." Who could be more involved in that award than the ACLU, the organization bestowing it? The only coverage is by the ACLU itself and by Georgetown University, Cole's employer. No one else seems to have cared about Cole winning that award. There is no independent coverage of Cole, not a single secondary source in the entire article. Huon (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute "event" by "person" in your quote of WP:PRIMARY and you'll see why you are dead wrong in this case. For a WP article about Cole and as a source of information about him, ACLU is a perfectly good secondary and independent (from Cole!) source. For an article about ACLU itself, ACLU would, of course, be a primary source. Nsk92 (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So if I named Cole the "Worst Lawyer of the Year" and published a press release to that effect, that would be an independent, secondary source about Cole? If not, what makes the ACLU bestowing an award on Cole more independent than myself bestowing an "award" on Cole? If you cited the ACLU for anything but their own award, you might have a point. But policy explicitly confirms my stance here: It's original material close to the event they write about, written by people directly involved.
I have re-added the old "submission declined" message boxes which not only should remain on the page as a historical record until it's accepted, but which also contain a "resubmit" button. However, resubmitting the draft in its current state is pointless since it doesn't show that Watson has been the subject of significant third-party coverage in reliable sources such as newspapers or reputable music magazines; it will not be accepted. Huon (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Huan, I nominated Open Source Judaism: [1] for deletion. Everything was good until the assumption was made against me: [2] by User:Stalwart111, then this was sent to me on my talk page: [3] by the editor. I deleted it, but then this was posted publicly in the discussion of the the deletion page: [4]. This editor is utterly rude and disrespectful, trying to contradict the topic away towards me by placing accusations/assumptions against me. I wish to pull off my deletion request as I feel that my credibility as an editor was publicly damage in the discussion, which will lead to doubts of deletion. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To me Stalwart111's comments look like well-meaning, though at times somewhat strongly worded, advice, not like accusations (of what?). I don't see how they could be considered rude. In particular, I'd say putting that advice on your talk page was an attempt not to derail the deletion discussion.
JudeccaXIII, there wasn't any attempt to be rude - you misinterpreted my advice and got angry. Your broken English makes it very difficult to give you general advice or guidance without you taking it the wrong way. Huon is right - I tried to raise my concerns away from the discussion and you insisted I do otherwise. Withdrawing your nomination is sensible and Huon's willingness to facilitate that quietly should be welcomed enthusiastically. St★lwart11100:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was just in the middle of handling that mess, and you come along and do it better than I would have. You really are the best at neutralizing articles. Many cheers — MusikAnimaltalk04:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and I very much approve. More or less what I was trying for. It's funny how this time I didn't need to even ask you for help. You just come out of nowhere and did it for me. Keep it up! :) — MusikAnimaltalk05:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Q:
Why did you not just take out the unambiguous copyright infringement?
Q:
Could you provide the article without the specific copyright infringements?
Thank you --18:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.130.82 (talk)
I checked the page history; the copyright violations had been added with the very first edit, and they were far-reaching. Cleaning up that article would have been a major effort, akin to re-writing it from scratch. Huon (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, User:Huon. I am confused why the article was removed. I had made many of the recent edits, alongside User:Ricky81682. Times of Israel was used twice as a source in the article. If there was, in fact, a legitimate infringement concern, the majority of the article was constructed from multiple sources and would not have suffered greatly in quality or content if the Times of Israel source had been removed. Looking at the history, it appears that only the last paragraph was sourced from Times of Israel. If you can kindly restore the article, I would be more than happy to remove Times of Israel as a source. If you feel otherwise, please let me know that I can rewrite the article without using Times of Israel as a source. Thank you for your assistance. Rustandbone (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Significant amounts of that article were copy-pasted from multiple sources, with the Times of Israel the most egregious, but not the only example. I will not restore copyright violations. The sources used in that article were:
You're welcome to write a new article by summarizing in your own words what those sources report about Ziad Abu Eid. Copy-pasting, however, is not acceptable, unless you're specifically quoting someone (and that's not what happened here). Huon (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will attempt to do that in good faith. If you feel that I am not doing so sufficiently, please let me know so that I can address the issue. Rustandbone (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've begun the new article, taking great pains to not write directly from any of the source material. Can you please check and confirm that I am doing a satisfactory job of this? Rustandbone (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have tidied up the new page's references. The text at times still semed to closely paraphrase the sources, particularly the "Biography" section. I have reworded that a little, but more work could be necessary. Huon (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel dumb for totally missing that. Yeah the first edits were entirely copyright violations. Good cal. Do you think someone should speak with User:Olegwiki about it? His talk page shows that this isn't the first time the problem has come up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing the Wikipedia: Public domain to my attention.
I have read it thoroughly and have visited the applicable links.
I would like to bring your attention to the guidelines on Wikipedia: Public domain. Where it states that Wikipedia is primarily subject to U.S. Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain
I will also suggest you see Wikipedia: Copyright situations by country.
To all of you who deleted files with reference to Ambassador John Banks Elliott “Your apologies are accepted” now, please replace them so that I can edit them accordingly.Dorothyelliott (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I'm sorry, I still don't believe you understand. We can't use the files because they might have been subject to US copyright, so they had to be deleted. If they were kept and some Russians who had the copyright sued, they could shut down Wikipedia. The files are not yet in the public domain, as even if the people who took the photos died that day not enough time has passed. Origamiteⓣⓒ22:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dorothyelliott:If the Moscow images are in the public domain, we'd need some evidence to that effect. Merely having been produced outside the US does not suffice since the US does recognize foreign copyrights via the Berne Convention and the URAA (though the details of copyright law are complicated). This is a table of what's in the public domain in the US, and I don't see what specific criterion they're supposed to fall under that would make them PD in the US.
The images you took yourself via your BlackBerry, such as this one, are an entirely different issue since for those you unquestionably own the copyright. It's easy to prevent that image's deletion if you're willing to release that image under a free license that allows everybody to re-use and modify it for any purpose, including commercial purposes. To do so, please take the following steps:
Remove the line of code that says {{di-no source no license|date=6 December 2014}} and replace it with {{Self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} (including the curly brackets).
Save the page.
That will add a note to the file page stating that you have released it under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and will prevent deletion. Please note, however, that this method only works for images whose copyright you own - not for the ones taken by Soviet photographers in Moscow in the 1960s or 1970s. Huon (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Huon! Thank you for checking in on the Jeff Smisek page. There were many other links to sources like Motley Fool and other newspaper articles. But a previous editor (MusiAnimal) consolidated them into the one HuffPo article. That article has been reposted and quoted by many other news sources. It is not a blog. But if you wish to challenge the Fagen article, I think the best thing to do would be to establish consensus on the article's talk page. Thanks for your consideration. Lauraface32 (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get too much more involved, but Lauraface32 I think it may be the other way around, where consensus is needed to add the disputed content rather than remove it. Remember this a biography on a living person. Per this policy, any contentious material that is deemed poorly sourced should be removed without prior discussion. If we work together I believe we can accurately state what we want without being so disparaging. I also think I can speak for Huon and I that we don't have a particular interest in Smisek, rather we just want ensure content is within the confines of policy. — MusikAnimaltalk16:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lauraface32: I would take your comments about discussing the issue on the talk page a little more seriously if I hadn't already explained my edit there in detail, or if you had bothered to explain your own rationale there when reverting me. Huon (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate you answering my WP:EASTER questions. Just goes to show there's some things I can still learn about properly editing Wikis. Live and learn and do better the next article. But again, appreciate the tips and advice. SanAnMan (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good day Huon... hope you are well. I have a question. I've done some work on the Rufus article. I noticed today someone edited it inserting information about another artist CONTINUE I ON to artist..but who is not a member of the group. THIS artist has his own wiki article where the same information is...as well as his name and credit is on the song "Once you get started..once again with the same information...that is repeated ver betim on EACH PAGE. Shouldn't there just be a reference to the song writer on the Rufus page and not all the repeated info. And whoever edited it..the pushed off the credit for the song Sweet Thing which was written by Khan and Maiden...group members...so it looks insignificant to the success of the group... the contribution is by unknown party and I do not wish to get into any battle..but it looks like someone just trying to get credit everywhere and even looks like an attempt to make that person as much a part of the group and like THEY WERE THE ONE that made Khan and Rufus famous...and kinda down playing the group who made the artist lyricists work hit the charts.. please read give me feed back on my assessment. Thank you.hole ur well.
This is why Wikipedia requires citations to reliable sources. You wrote that Rufus' greatest hit on that album was Sweet Thing, the other editor says it's Once You Get Started. Neither of you provided a reference. How are our readers supposed to tell which claim is correct?
Luckily for you, AllMusic agrees that Sweet Thing is the "biggest track" on that album. Thus I'll revert that edit and provide AllMusic as a reference to prove that the version I re-establish is the correct one. Huon (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Huon, On 5 December 2014, you deleted the article "Royal African Corps" on the grounds of copyright violation. Is there any way to see what you deleted? Comparing my notes on this article with the website you referenced as the source of copyright violation do not indicate a problem. Before I recreate the article I would like to make sure that I am not setting it up for deletion. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huon sahib, you have deleted this article objecting to the wording of one particular citation as infringing copyright.
In order to overcome copyright infringement I have revised that objectionable passage as follows:
The terms Anvaya and Vyatireka are used to establish the meaningfulness of components, and also to ascribe individual meanings to components. This is done by observing the concurrent occurrence (anvaya) of a certain meaning vis-a-vis a certain linguistic unit and identifying the absence of a certain meaning vis-a-vis a unit, which effort results in the understanding of a certain meaning depending upon the presence of a given 'root' or 'stem' or 'suffix' but when any one of these three are taken away or replaced then the original meaning is no longer understood or some other meaning arises in the mind of the hearer. This is so because a relationship holds between the evidence and the property to be confirmed.R.P.Hayes. Dignaga on the Interpretation of Signs. Springer. pp. 118, 119.
Huon Saheb, Thanks a lot. I have understood my mistake. I have re-phrased the relevant passages, and resubmitted this article for its creation. Regards.Aditya soni (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resorting to False Allegations when you Don't Get your Way
Sockpuppetry!?!?!?! Really, Huon?!?!?!?! You have not challenged a single aspect of Fagin's argument. Simply because two people disagreed with you, you have accused them of being the same person? I have bent over backwards, making several of the very good changes that you suggested. I have also thanked you for inserting the Crains paragraph. But we have a fundamental disagreement over the relevancy of articles and the definition of synthesis. I have been, and will continue to be, happy to work with you on these things. But you must prove your position first. You must build consensus. Falsely alleging sockpuppetry is not a good way to do it. Grow up. This is cowardly and low.Lauraface32 (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite a coincidence that an all-new editor popped up to "disagree with me" immediately after I pointed out that so far, the head count was two-to-one in favor of my position. Not that the head count really matters, mind, because we don't merely count numbers but weigh how much the respective positions are grounded in policy. To me the claim that using a source that does not mention Smisek in the article about Smisek can be anything but synthesis is outright bizarre. And I don't have to convince you in order to build consensus - getting more community input will do. I dearly hope that article soon receives some additional scrutiny from experienced editors. Huon (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a coincidence, and I did not pop up suddenly. I have been in the airline industry for years. I was following the previous attempts to delete a balanced view from the Jeff Smisek page for several weeks -- long before you ever started editing it. It is true I never tried to edit anything before, but I hope to help out with other airline pages in the future. I had refrained from jumping in earlier because of the animosity, which I hate. As for the synthesis, it is you that are creating the synthesis by implying there was some universal resolution by late 2014. Topdog76 (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Huon, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing, (t) Josve05a (c)17:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nut (fruit) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Hello Huon, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing, Mhannigan (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notification. I am a little less active over the holidays, but Anna Frodesiak seems to have taken care of it. You may want to check out WP:RFPP for future protection requests; that page will receive attention from several admins, while nobody but me is likely to see your comments over here. Huon (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huon you have been very disrespectful to me and the men of this Task Force. We had a brigade from the British 1st Armoured division assigned to us at the Battle of Norfolk. You also make claims of these friendly fire incidents with incorrect numbers. You also are off ten years on the date of this battle. You are presenting incorrect facts yourself without any knowledge of the conflict or the units involved in the Task Force. Instead you single out a very small part of the Task Force's experience while overlooking the fact the Task force was awarded a Valorous Unit award. Maybe you should read two of the books I provided as references. Road to Safwan dedicates a entire chapter to the TF. Don Brunett (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Don BrunettDon Brunett (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the really weird parts by now have been removed by others. I believe the user means well but doesn't quite understand all the details of what he's doing. Huon (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Huon. I wanted to ask if you might be interested in mentoring one or more editors during our pilot of the mentorship space called the Co-op. We plan to run the pilot in late January for about one month. The idea is that mentors will be doing one-on-one teaching based on how an editor wants to contribute, and it's not some huge commitment to teach/learn comprehensively about Wikipedia. We also want to make to easier for new editors to find mentors as well. Your experience as an admin and fielding questions at #wikipedia-en-helpconnect will certainly be helpful. If you're interested, please sign up here and feel free to peruse, make suggestions, or ask questions about how the Co-op will work. Thanks a bunch (and Happy New Year!), I, JethroBTdrop me a line04:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
Done You cannot remove that; doing so requires revision deletion, available only to admins. See WP:Revision deletion#How to request Revision Deletion. Huon (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Done 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nakhi people may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Huon (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Origamiteⓣⓒ 15:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nut (fruit) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
