User talk:Huon/Archive4

Air force acquisition

I've declined speedy, because this is not a copyvio. Before tagging articles for deletion for copyvio, you might want to check that it actually is a copyvio. U.S. military websites, like the one you referenced, are in the public domain, and state so. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for making an edit to my creation,that article on Kosuke Koyama. I am hoping that an article on a distinguished Japanese-American thinker will soon be up from stub class. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

paypoint.net

Huon, thanks for your help in this, if I was to change the casino source to the following url :http://www.crime-research.org/news/18.07.2008/3463/, would that be better? (Dina Jones (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC))

thanks for your reply. The reason why I feel paypoint.net should have a separate page from paypoint plc is because their service offering is completely different. I have added a new source again, please let me know your thoughts. (Dina Jones (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC))

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

QRZ11.COM

Ich habe Deine Nachricht an Sandstein gesehen. Das Problem bei QRZ11.com ist, daß jegliche unabhängige Quellen fehlen und der Artikel so wohl entweder als Spam oder wegen fehlenden Nachweises der "notability" (sprich: wegen Unwichtigkeit) gelöscht werden wird. Der "Modern tools"-Artikel hat ebenfalls keine Quellen, und der Eindruck entsteht, daß der hauptsächliche Sinn ist, auf QRZ11 etc. hinzuweisen. Selbst wenn dem nicht so wäre, wären Quellen nötig, sonst gibt es wieder Probleme mit notability und "original research". Wenn also eine Zeitung oder Zeitschrift über QRZ11 berichtet hat, solltest Du unbedingt eine Quellenangabe hinzufügen. Gruß, Huon (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hallo Huon,

Danke für Deine Antwort. Ja das ist gar nicht so einfach mit wiki :-). Aber ich bin schon mal happy dass Du da bist. Ich blicke bei Wiki noch nicht so ganz durch. Naja, vielleicht kommt das ja noch.

Ich will auf keinen Fall Werbung machen. Das geht bei QRZ11 schon von ganz alleine. Nur weiß ich nicht was ich noch machen soll. Wie soll ich den Text verfassen das keiner ihn als Spam od. Werbung sieht. QRZ11.com ist eins der meist gebrauchten Hilfsmittel im 11merter band. Quellen gibt es duzende. Gehe mal auf Google. Wie würdest Du denn so einen Text verfassen? Es brauch ja nicht ne eigene Seite zu sein. Man kann auch den Text zu einem Anderen hinzufügen der auch mit funk zu tun hat.

LG aus dem 38C heißen Namibia Michael QRZ11 (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Syren

Why did you said that the Syren (book) page I've created doesn't have a good source? The source, as I mentioned there, is Amazon.de. Everybody knows what Amazon is...

Belated thank you

Hi Huon,
Thank you indeed for setting things straight here. It was both an education in the subject matter, and a salutary (add User:Shirt58 to this page?) wake-up call. And both are sincerely appreciated!
--Shirt58 (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You're a vandal, apparently.

Khamosh has undone your revision to the Anthony Flew article, accusing you and Michael Johnson of "vandalism". (Please note that there is nothing new in him throwing around accusations of bad faith, as he does it all the time to me and Jeff5102.)

Regards,

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 19:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Huon, it seems that you are quite new to the debate on Antony Flew's article. So, I strongly suggest you go to the talk page, and read my old comments and discussions with Hyper Death, rather than accusing me of not getting involved in the discussions. Yours, Khamosh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khamosh (talk • contribs) 21:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Repositioned post

Hi, in Talk:Antony_Flew I've repositioned your post slightly, in order to make the debate format slightly clearer. I've also added "Prefer A" above your post (If you feel this is too strong a description of your position, feel free to remove it.)

Thanks — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 23:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Septimus Heap

Hi, a new article on the Septimus Heap (character) has been created with proper references, character criticism and real world scenarios. Please review it and leave your comments at the discussion page. "Legolas" (talk) 06:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your inputs Huon. I'll update the page and move it to Septimus Heap (character). Take care! :) "Legolas" (talk) 12:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, i have found similar real-world criticisms for principal characters like Jenna Heap, Marcia Overstrand and quite a few small characters on the web. Do you think it will be fruitful to create the separate pages on these principal characters and a separate page with the list of all the characters? "Legolas" (talk) 12:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you didnot respond to my last querry. Hence i have created the articles on Jenna Heap and Marcia Overstrand. Please can you go through it, and leave your ratings and comments in the talk page about what more can be developed to make the articles better? Waiting for your comments "Legolas" (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Judkin-Fitzgerald Baronets

...and the article continues its incomprehensible stream of consciousness. Check out the edit history - almost 150 edits by the same user right back to creation, save about half a dozen others who have tried in vain to clean up the disaster. I'm reluctant to revert the lot, as I've had previous heated discussions with this editor on another page he frequents. But what to do? It's definitely over the line regarding WP:NOTDIR.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC) ... does it not take two to make something heated Yeti Hunter? I seem to recall indiscriminant cryptic undo-ing without much discussion nothing on the Marble Hill discussion page at the time to a point where an alternative Editor finally arbitrated, you apologised and the Marble Hill Protection Bill was finally given an entryMifren (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

New Anthony Flew poll

Hi,

I have started another poll on the Anthony Flew article, at Talk:Antony Flew#Poll on inclusion versus removal of Flew's criticism of Richard Dawkins.

Regards,

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 16:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted post

User Khamosh has deleted your post to the Anthony Flew talk page:

(Difference shown here)

Regards,

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 11:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Committee Quote

Thanks for that remark related to help finding the "verified" quote. I truly have searched and have had no luck. Please post it if you can find it at wikisource or elsewhere. Thanks again Capitalismojo (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your useful edits to Rawzor. As per your tag, I have added more references to the page, is it enough or do we need more or different references? Schngrg (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Asif Ali Zardari

Hi there, it's a fact that Asif Ali Zardari belongs to the Baloch people ethnic group and all Baloch are Sunni Muslims. Please do not follow the unreliable sources that mentions him being a Shia without them providing references. I mean Vali Nasr is for a fact a Shia nationalist living in America who knows little about Pakistan and its politicians, he knows as much as regular Americans do. See online about his shia sect, which is not indicated at his Wiki article. That's done for a cause, to not show his shia nationalism. Hint: 95% Iranians are shias and he is Iranian. Nasr only believes that Zardari is Shia but he provides no evidence. The Shias believe that anyone with the name Ali must be supporter of Shia cause because Shias are followers of Ali. They failed to realize that all Sunnis strongly believe in and love Ali because he was son inlaw and cousin of the prophet, Mohammad. When it comes to Wikipedia,,,not any source can be treated as a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Asif Ali Zardari is a Sindhi

President Asif Ali Zardari is a Sindhi, Zardari is a Sindhi tribe, its head is Hakim Ali Zardari, BBC has also published this, and I've given almost 40,50 sources, WHY it's being reverted again and again?

Please protect that page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiyebhutto (talk • contribs) 16:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Business Plot

We have a possible consensus on the lede, please take a gander when you have a moment.

Also look at the bottom of the talk page. I have determined that a key quote from the committee's findings has apparently been massaged (altered) to make it appear that the committee was alleging people were attempting to create a fascist government when, in fact, the committee asserted there were possible attempts to create a fascist organization.Capitalismojo (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Septimus Heap again

Its been long that we have acquainted. I have seen you reverting fancruft and unsourced addition from the Septimus Heap page, hence I thought of notifying you also. A particluar user Shauki Alg is adding book covers to the article. The image fais WP:NFCC#1 itself and is devoid of any rationale thus not justifying WP:NFCC#3a also. The user then started using sockpuppetry to add unsourced information about the Septimus Heap movie in the article. I'm keeping an eye but will you please do the same? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Forest Theater Image

Your third party opinion was appreciated. Its reassuring to have an uninvolved party step in and help. Unfortunately, AMadScientist has acted without consensus (or any support for that matter) and reverted the image again at the Forest Theater page. Are you able to take any action here? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I actualy came by just to drop this note; When you said on the Carmel talk page "The WPA image doesn't really add much information over what is already written; I couldn't recognize the construction site for a theater if the caption didn't say so." That was a good argument and makes sense.

But I should also say that I do not recall making any image reverts on the Forest Theater page.[1]--Amadscientist (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please!

See Here ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 19:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fatima Jinnah

Hi, Will you please tell me why you have removed the Shia sect of Fatima Jinnah. As she her self file a case in Pakistan declaring herself and Muhammad Ali Jinnah a shia and want the property distribution under shia law. Do you have any reason removing this tag.

Stop untag of Shia Personalities

I have been following you for your false edits on certain articles relating to Shia personalities like Muhammed Ali Jinnah and Fatima Jinnah, its a fact that both of them were Shia Muslims. Which i guess you are not able to digest by showing you prejudice acts against them by false editing and removing the information supporting the claim of them being Shia. Please Stop it. I have been repeatedly restoring the actual facts which you distort repeatedly on no ethical grounds or reference. Paki90 (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

freikorps march thank you

response from what you wrote on my talk page:

thanks for pointing this out. I have the book I cited here with me, and it does in fact say twelve thousand miles, sometimes at 40 miles a day. but i have to agree with you that it is hard to understand how its possible. I changed it from '12000 miles march' to read 'very long march' instead, which is not inaccurate, as it is in fact a long way from berlin to latvia. perhaps someone can dig into other sources later on and give some more details. Decora (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, thanks for reverting the unsourced additions to Asif Ali Zardari. I had meant to remove the comment about his schooling; somehow I messed up with the undo button. Thanks again. Evil saltine (talk) 09:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You deleter, you.

I was inspired![2] ~YellowFives 14:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Joe McElderry

The AfD for Joe McElderry which you participared in closed as Redirect to List_of_The_X_Factor_finalists_(UK_series_6). There is a proposal now at Talk:List_of_The_X_Factor_finalists_(UK_series_6)#Joe_McElderry_2 to restore an independent article and your opinion would be welcome there. I42 (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks

Thank you for putting me in the right spot, and especially for telling me about it. --Neptunerover (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Inverted World

An image of The Inverted World may be seen at http://www.amazon.com/Inverted-World-Novel-Christopher-Priest/dp/0060134216 Fred Talk 16:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

An image of Inverted World may be seen at http://www.amazon.com/Inverted-World-Review-Books-Classics/dp/1590172698/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265468324&sr=1-4 - the book was published under both titles. The Hugo Awards use Inverted World as primary title and note the "The" variant as alternative: Hugo. I'd suggest using the Hugo title version for the Hugo article; I didn't change the author's article where both versions are used. If further discussion is desired, we should probably choose either the author's talk page or the Hugo Award for best novel talk page. Huon (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

1200s BC

Short answer: There are no secondary sources? Then this stuff would be unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, per WP:NOR. Besides, claiming that places like Tarentum or Heraclea Minoa weren't Greek colonies seems far-fetched.

I wrote my answer on talk page of that article... but I'm talking about 1200s BC in Italy, the period of Aeneas. He was a Trojan hero & the Romans knew that the Anatolian people came to Italy in the past... It is not just a myth! For example, do we know the history of Sicily in 1200s BC very well? The history of that time is different from the history of Greek Sicily in 400s BC...There are 800 years between these periods! So we can't call the people of Sicily as Greeks in 1200s BC! Böri (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

sources: You can see the list of the books of Bilge Umar ... Ancient Greeks and the Romans didn't know anything about the Luwians... but today we know that the Luwians were living in Anatolia & in Greece before the Greeks came. Böri (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Greek" place names?

Not only Taras (Tarentum) but also these place names were not Greek names: Athens(Athenai), Crete, Lemnos, Lesbos, Chios, Samos, Kos, Corinth(Korinthos), Sparta, Smyrna(İzmir), etc. The Achaeans(= Greeks) invaded Greece & the western parts of Anatolia and changed the names like that: Lazpa to Lesbos, etc. (adding -os suffix to some of them...) These place names don't mean anything in Greek! See also Pre-Greek substrate article... Böri (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Before we delve deeper into the details of ancient history and/or etymology, could you please state your purpose? What's this all about?

At the beginning, these place names were not Greek names... & some gods and goddesses like Apollo and Artemis were not Greek gods... They were Anatolian gods!(but Zeus & Poseidon were "the real" Greek gods, I also wrote the list of them.) Today, most of the people in the world don't know these things! That's the purpose! There are 800 years between 1200s BC and 400s BC...(like that there are 800 years between 2000 BC and 1200 BC!) We call all of them Greeks but they were different! If you look at Mycenaean Greece article, it says: Mycenaean Greece (c. 1600 BC – c. 1100 BC). These place names were older than 1600 BC! (For example, Parma was an Etruscan place name, but the Romans and the Italians of today, didn't change this name, they use it as Parma! So Achaeans also used Pre-Greek place names! Regards Böri (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Two comments:

1. We should not continue this discussion on my talk page. Other people may be interested in the topic, and this is the last place anybody but you and me would look for the discussion. Talk:Luwian language may be a better venue.
2. I still don't see what you intend. Take, for example, the list of place names of "Luwian" origin - do you intend to add that information to some article? To what article? Are there secondary sources for the claims you make (for example, that the Spartan settlers in Tarentum made up a story about what they named their city after, or that Padua and Patala share a common etymology)? Right now I could see, for example, a small subsection in the History of Italy article giving the theory of the Anatolian origin of the Etruscans (which is already covered in more detail in the Etruscan articles), but I can't judge whether this is the historians' mainstream position, whether it's one of several equally valid theories or whether it represents an exotic fringe.

Given that by now you've linked your theories to both the Minoans (virtually extinct by 1400 BC, replaced by the Mycenaeans) and to the Trojan war in about 1200 BC, I get the impression that you adhere to a grand Anatolian theory and grasp at every straw that might support it, even if it contradicts other such straws. That's probably much too harsh, but I don't see any proposed changes to articles on your part, and I can't even see what articles you see as insufficient. For example, the Greek god articles I looked at already contain something concerning the etymology and origin (sometimes agreeing with your claims, sometimes contradicting them), so there doesn't seem to be a significant gap in Wikipedia's coverage. Huon (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There is also the Anatolian hypothesis... The Minoans were Luwians! There are similar names: Mount Ida (Crete) and Mount Ida (Turkey) (so it is not just a theory!) and Knossos = a -ss name like Halicarnassus (Halikarnassos)... Böri (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is getting bizarre. There's also Mount Ida, Arkansas, the fictional Plain of Ida of Norse mythology and the Barony of Ida in Ireland. Should I thus advance the theory that the Norse gods, the Britons and, for good measure, the settlers of Arkansas also were Luwians? I'm pretty sure I can find "-ss" names in those contexts, too... (By the way, Knossos seems to be spelled with just one sigma, unlike Halikarnassos, which once again was founded and probably named by Doric Greeks). And I can't see how the Anatolian hypothesis, which concerns migrations between 6500 BC and 3000 BC, is supposed to fit into all this. Actually it seems to contradict the theory that the Minoans were Luwians because the Anatolian languages are supposed to have been split off from the rest of the Indo-European languages before all of Europe but Anatolia was settled by Indo-Europeans, with the settlers speaking the non-Anatolian branch.

But you still didn't answer the most important question: If we could find reliable sources for whatever theory you actually propose, what changes to articles do you suggest? Why do we even discuss all this? Huon (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

1) Halikarnassos, which once again was founded and probably named by Doric Greeks This is not so true! It became a Doric Greek city after the Greek invasion! You can see arna- and -ss part of it. The name was something like Alikarnassa, the Greeks changed it into Halikarnassos Before the Greeks came, no one was living there! :) Of course, that's not true! The assimilation of the Western Anatolian people made them Greeks! 2) for Mount Ida, Arkansas; the Americans knew the Greek mythology and they gave that name... That's a new name! Mount Ida of Anatolia and Mount Ida of Crete were Pre-Greek names... There are also Larissa, Turkey and Larissa of Greece and you can see there are many Olympus (Olympos) mountains... They were all Pre-Greek names. I wrote them on talk page, I want everyone to think about them... Böri (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but a) I don't think you got Greek colonization right, and b) "wanting everyone to think about something" is not the purpose of Wikipedia - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I don't think your recent additions to talk pages are helpful to Wikipedia, and they also sound like original research. Huon (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

1) If it (Halicarnassus) was a Greek City, what does it mean in Greek? Why didn't they give it a Greek name? 2)It is not an original research, the historians knew these things since 1890s! Böri (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

1. I don't speak Greek, much less classical Greek, and am no etymologist. But I can easily provide names of American cities which don't mean anything in English without being of Native American origin - the "Ida" part of Mount Ida, Arkansas may be an example. Thus, I don't think that "it doesn't mean anything in Greek" necessarily implies that the Greek colonists, who indeed built their new city from scratch, re-used a local name.
2. If it is not original research, can you provide references to those historians and their work? But honestly I'm neither knowledgeable enough nor interested enough to see any profit to either of us in continuing this discussion about iron age migrations for fun. Huon (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

When people think about The Ancient Greece, they think about the age of Pericles and the age of Alexander the Great; but Greece between 2000s BC-1600 BC was different from those periods... That's all I wanted to say! The Pre-Greek people had their own culture, own language, own gods, etc. Even Athens and Sparta were enemies...(today, we call both of them Greeks but their languages were also different from each other) This was not a bad discussion. At least, we talked about these things... Regards Böri (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Baronies at leads of Irish towns

Hi. I'm at a bit of a loss to understand why you removed the newly created Eliogarty link at Thurles 'See also' in anticipation of its removal at lead. The only other ed. who has contributed on this seems to have taken up my proposal to have the barony article linked here. Is every village in the country now to have a ref. at lead to these redundant admin. districts? It should be noted that the Baronies of Ireland have been rated as of low importance to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:ALSO "see also" sections are for links that ideally should be mentioned in the article, but aren't. As long as the lead links to Eliogarty and to Baronies of Ireland, there's no need to add the same links to a "see also" section. I'm not sure whether the lead is the best place for that information; a "history" section might be better, but for most of those villages we probably don't have enough content to fill it. In those cases I actually prefer the lead to the "see also" crutch. But if you and Laurel Lodged agree that at the moment a "see also" section is the best place for that information and that it should be removed from the lead, I won't mind. Huon (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. I see your point. Its a bit of a 'chicken and egg situation' and I agree that ideally the link should be made in the text body in a historical context. I'll hold my peace so long as they don't start popping up in multiple leads. RashersTierney (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent AfD closure

You closed the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Anisul Hussain as "delete". I had tried to simultaneously nominate the almost identical article Syed Anisul Husnain, but either you missed it when performing the actual deletions, or I didn't make my intent clear enough. In the first case, please delete it as well; in the second, should I just initiate a separate AfD? Huon (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I just missed it and have deleted it now; in future, you should just tag the page as {{db-afd}}. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Danger Along the Ohio

Thanks for clearing up References for Danger Along the Ohio! :] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Be a see (talk • contribs) 18:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism

I noticed this when doing my relists on the AFD log for the 24th. You closed this as "nomination withdrawn" which technically isn't allowed if there is an outstanding delete !vote. However, in this case, it was obviously snowing so it's likely not going to be a problem. However, in the future be more careful about this sort of thing.

Further note, I've actually done this myself a few times when the nom has withdrawn but there was an outstanding "drive by" "per nom" delete !vote. However, I made it clear in my closing statement that I knew about the rule and was closing per WP:IAR. I was also prepared to live with any "stickassery" that might have been thrown in my direction because of it.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I was aware of that rule, but things were a little more complicated. The delete !vote didn't include Islamic terrorism itself, and as I mentioned in my closing comment, I expected the other two articles to be re-nominated individually. Huon (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD of Allama Anees-ul-Hasnain

When you propose an article for AfD, please inform the primary authors of the article. I placed the appropriate template on User_talk:SyedNaqvi90's page for you. Thanks! Jess ^talk _cs 20:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the first incarnation of the article by the same author I've proposed for deletion. The last time the author de-prodded it, and we had a full AfD. I might have tagged it for speedy deletion as a repost, but if memory serves this version is sufficiently different from the previous one to make WP:PROD more appropriate. Still, the author knows that the last time around the article was deemed unsuitable for Wikipedia and that in order to avoid a repetition he should have provided better sources. It's not as if he weren't aware of the article's weaknesses and its probable fate. Huon (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well i have found few reliable sources would you kindly pay a look at them. Help me improve this article rather then repeatedly nominating for AfD. I have recently been compiling all the facts together regarding Allama Anees, and soon I'll paste it here. Would you please stop this nuisance, I'll vindicate for my right and please would help me in this regard? Stop this childish behavior of yours, don't you have anything better to deal with? As per reliable sources the sources i have mentioned are reliable and since this article is a stub, i am currently working over it by providing further reliable sources. Even Before you couldn't stand this article and nominated it for speedy deletion yet again you are showing your true personal grudge against Shia. SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Diaspora Movement of Kenya

Request for Review / Request to Relist with Changes.

I tried discussing the above with relevant editors and was referred to the Review Team.

I find the deletion of all the article "Diaspora Movement of Kenya" as presented to Wikipedia for publishing, quite unfair. I understand and agree that some editing needed to be redone, but deletion is simply uncalled for. I assert so for the following reasons:

First, on notability, the degree of scrutiny with which I prepared the material was like any other I have done in the past for other organizations. The article contained significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and these were not of trivial nature. My goal was not to present a promotional article, but a factual read for readers everywhere who would like to get the facts about the subject. All I did was present the facts as they were as a contributor. I am continuously seeking additional data and updating, but apparently that made the article too long and seemingly promotional. I would also like to remove any promotional connotation.

Second, I think Wikipedia editors should at least give the article a reasonable and fair second look, with an element of providing insight on an ongoing basis without jumping to delete this noteworthy information. A thorough re-write is obviously needed and continuous sourcing acceptable. I was and still willing to correct areas of weakness and to work with other editors to generate a good entry for readers and the Wikipedia community at large without an editor rushing to delete.

Third, I used and applied as reasonable standard of notability, per your reliable source guideline and looked at various independent sources to provide an objective view. The organization may not have hit the big headliners but the references are there and though significant to some and not to others, to the international community worldwide, this organization is unconventional, notable and deserves mention. Without this balanced approach, I would find anything contrary to be quite brutal, punitive, unfair and discriminatory.

Fourth, I sought out as many reliable sources to ensure authenticity and to help other editors see where my information was coming from, presented it and referenced it.

Lastly, there is NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I am not affiliated or employed by the article subject or in any way associated with it. I simply have an interest in the African Diaspora and their activities and in any Diaspora Organizations from Africa fighting corruption and poor governance.

I urge that Wikipedia take a second look at this article and also provide me with the opportunity to re-write the article. Again, I urge the Wikipedia team to review and re-list the article and provide ample time for improvement without a discriminatory and hostile approach. Thank you for your consideration and time.

Jack Monroe. Kenyaverification (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed deletion review is the way to go if you want to overturn the deletion of these articles. Here Scientizzle posted your review for Robinson Gichuhi, and I noticed he posted a link to instructions for deletion review on your talk page.

Concerning the issues you raise: There was not a single reliable source mentioning the Diaspora Movement of Kenya. No newspaper article, nothing. You write, "the references are there", but I can't remember seeing any. Could you please point me to what you consider the best sources on the DMK? The article had reliable sources for some corruption cases in Kenya and the like, but those didn't mention the DMK. Only its own website did so, and that's a primary source which cannot establish notability. Likewise, reliable sources not mentioning the DMK obviously cannot establish the DMK's notability. If I remember correctly, you even wrote on the (now deleted) talk page that the DMK had kept a very low profile and would probably launch a big PR campaign soon. If it does so and is then noticed by reliable sources, fine, we can easily recreate the article, but until then Wikipedia is not a crystal ball looking into the future.

You also write that "the degree of scrutiny with which I prepared the material was like any other I have done in the past for other organizations". I've had a look at your contributions to Wikipedia, and I couldn't find any unrelated to the DMK. What other organizations are you speaking of?

Finally, have a look at this image you created for the DMK article. It claims a total membership of 26 million. I just checked that Kenya's entire population is just about 40 million, of which more than 16 million are 14 years old or younger. Does the DMK include children, or is every single Kenyan older than 14 a member? This is literally incredible, and I'm not inclined to believe any other grandiose claims the article made. Huon (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits regarding Jinnah's Criticism

Hello, brother you slightly edited the Criticism section and reverted that Shia part, though i understand that before i didn't mention any source supporting that claim, but now i finally found few, now would please revert that to its last version? Here is the link, read it and you'll realize Jinnah was a Secular Shia, and that Jamat-e-Islami was hostile against Shia in the beginning, until it went on supporting the Islamic revolution of (Shia) Iran, it is an article by Husain Haqqani. Regards! SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. An interesting source, but I don't see how it supports that Jamaat-e-Islami opposed Shias before the Iranian revolution. The relevant part seems to be:

The Jamaat-e-Islami initially shied away from being identified as Sunni because, for them, the central issue was the political struggle between “Islam and un-Islam.” Maududi reinterpreted Shi’a doctrines in an attempt to bring the Shi’a within the broader discourse of Islamist politics, and Jamaat-e-Islami welcomed Iran’s Islamic revolution despite its Shi’a foundations. In 1995 Jamaat-e-Islami played a leading role in unifying Pakistan’s Islamist political parties under the umbrella of the Milli Yikjahati Council (Council of National Unity)—the MYC—in an effort to end Shi’a-Sunni sectarian violence.

Apparently Jamaat-e-Islami, including Maududi, didn't really care whether someone's a Shia as long as he's not secular - Maududi himself is here said to have tried to add the Shi'a to his side. I don't see their reaction to the Iranian revolution as a change of policy, but rather as a continuance. Furthermore, the article explicitly says that "the Pakistani nation accepted in stride the nominal Shiism of Jinnah": While he's called a "nominal Shia", that doesn't seem to have been a problem.

By the way, I privately tend to agree with this assessment: "Nominally", Jinnah probably was a Shia - he certainly didn't formally "de-convert". But he obviously didn't promote a sectarian stance, and since there are sufficiently good sources (such as Liaquat H. Merchant's quotes in the Indian Express article) which state that he wasn't a Shia, but "simply a Muslim", the article should reflect those, too. As an even more irrelevant aside, I don't think Jinnah would have been happy to be tagged with a sectarian label. Huon (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Grammar

Thanks for catching this error. I meant to type "although none". --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Not Faking any Numbers

Hello, well seems like you are stalking me! All my edits now are positive and are assumed of WP:GOODFAITH. Past was past i did some stupidity and i accepted it, but now what ever i did was cited or referenced. Pakistanis in Oslo and Norway via Shias in India All of my edits regrading these particular articles are justified, Infact i was the one who corrected figures at Shias in India, before it stated Shias in India were the second largest population after the Shia of Iran, you later further re-edited it, so thank you i appreciate it. Regarding population of Pakistani around Oslo is concerned, please need to understanding it, before it stated 31,000 Pakistani live around Oslo, while all sources state that overwhelming Majority of Pakistani live in and around Oslo, out of 40,000 Pakistanis in Norway, hence i thought of correcting it to the figure that is actual makes sense and is a figure around 37-38,000 Pakistanis in and around Oslo,Norway. While the edits regarding Kashmiri people in Pakistan is concerned guess you must be aware of the total population of Kashmiri People in Azad Kashmir, Kashmiri of Mirpur, Pakistan. And those having Kashmiri ancestry. Hence Kashmiri Population is far more then the mentioned source, 104,000 was quiet shocking and unbelievable figure, and every Pakistani will consider it biased. Check this source for your satisfaction, Kahmiri population in Pakistan. Edits regarding Persian people in Pakistan has nothing to do with alteration of any removal of sourced text or figure, i rather added a suggestive estimate like the other countries having deep cultural and religious attachment towards Persia. Hence these edits are justified, and guess i have not violated any law in particular, guess all of these were minor edits really don't need any particular reasoning when they are referenced and ethical. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear Doctrine of Pakistan

So you moved Nuclear_Doctrine_of_Pakistan to Nuclea_doctrine_of_Pakistan.

What the heck? Is there an illogical fear of the letter R today? In which case I should point out that it should be Nuclea_doctine_of_Pakistan. Otherwise... yeah, I think you may have made a small error there. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.177.64.60 (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Stupid typo on my part. I intended to get rid of the capital "D". Thanks for notifying me! Huon (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Huon. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Message added 01:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Many thanks for responding to my concern on AN/I. It seems I over-reacted and I've apologised to SyedNaqvi90 at his talk page (see User talk:SyedNaqvi90#Again). I asked at Bwilkins for some advice about what might be the best way to deal with any similar issue in future (see User talk:Bwilkins#SyedNaqvi90 again again). If you were to have any advice for me on that, I would be very grateful.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't offer much advice; I've asked Bwilkins for his opinion, too. But in general I'd suggest looking for a source or asking the other editor for a source. If both doesn't help and someone persists in adding unsourced and dubious stuff, AN/I might actually be the best place - or a RfC, and you seem to have more experience with that than I do. Huon (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Your comment supports my impression that unless I want to insist on the issue and unless the other editor also persists, it's probably best just to move on. I'm actually amazed how few editors persist on any particular dubious issue if you revert them once on it.

As for an RfC/U, I've sworn off raising another one until the next decade at the earliest.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer rights

Hello there Huon! Given that you have around 4k edits, I recommend that you request reviewer rights here. No big deal, just a right that most people should have, as a result of the Pending Changes testing. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Carl Freer

Hello... apologies for the belated reply, as I am extremely busy off-site and haven't been able to check in for the past few weeks. I've addressed the issues with Truthmaker1 for now, having blocked his sockpuppets, temporarily blocked his account, and protected the page. Hope this helps; please let me know how it goes. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Luwian language = Pre-Greek language

map(1295 BC): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hittite_Kingdom.png 100 years before the Trojan War(1184 BC)! Where were the Greeks? Were there Greeks in Anatolia at that time? (Maybe only in Millawanda /Milawanda > Miletos) Ahhiyawa = "The Land of The Achaeans" = Greece! At that time, Smyrna, Apasa > Ephesos, etc. were not Greek cities...The Luwian people and The Hittites were living in Anatolia and they didn't know the Greek language! (so their names were not Greek!) map (431 BC): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_athenian_empire_431_BC-en.svg (860 years after that, only the sea shores were under the Greek rule...)The Western Anatolia of 1200s BC was different from The Western Anatolia of 400s BC Böri (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Not everything pre-Greek is automatically Luwian. For example, according to von Kamptz the names of Homer's Trojans, if they're not actually Greek (which wouldn't mean much besides that Homer assigned them Greek names), belong to three different languages: Thracian for Aeneas, Phrygian and what he calls "Illyrian" for Priam and his sons. One or the other of those might be Luwian, but hardly all three. Let me point you to File:Luwian_Language_de.svg: That shows an extreme dearth of Luwian in western Turkey, especially around Troy. Did you consider the possibility that the Trojans spoke neither Luwian nor Greek? Huon (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Not everything pre-Greek is automatically Luwian. : Of course, in Ancient Greek language there are words that came from the Ancient Egyptian language or from the Semitic languages, etc.... but here I mean, the Western Anatolian people (before the Greeks came)were the Luwians...(and before the Greeks came to Greece, who were the people of Greece? & who were the Minoans? Were they Greeks? No!)And what about -ss & -nd /-nth names? Knossos, Larissa, Assos, Aspendos, Korinthos, Sagalassos, Milawanda > Miletos, Parnassos, Telmessos, Termessos, Zakynthos, etc. There are hundreds of names like that. These were Pre-Greek names but the Greeks changed them with Greek "-os" suffixes... For example, Corinth = Korinthos (the Greeks changed it like that! It came from < Korintha* /Korinda*)Regards Böri (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

also, on this map it says in German: wenige Inschriften funde = schwache Verbreitung = "few inscriptions findings = weak distribution"; but it shows Troia! / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_language#Luwian_theory There was not enough evidence fruitfully to speculate upon the language of Troy until 1995, when a late Hittite seal was found in the excavations at Troy, probably dating from about 1275 BC. Not considered a locally-made object, this item from the Trojan "state chancellery" was inscribed in Luwian and to date provides the only archaeological evidence for any language at Troy at this period. It indicates that Luwian was known at Troy, which is not surprising since it was a lingua franca of the Hittite empire, of which Troy was probably in some form of dependency. / It says: Not considered a locally-made object but this doesn't show that the Trojan were not the Luwians! Böri (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You're grasping at straws. Again, just because someone isn't Greek he doesn't automatically become Luwian. Not in Greece, not even in Anatolia. Considering Troy, are you really trying to argue that they were Luwians because a single object with a Luwian inscription was found in Troy, which is considered not to be of local manufacture? Sorry, that's ridiculous, and I also have to note that the paragraph of the Trojan language article detailing this find is unsourced. I have read what von Kamptz has to say about "pre-Greek Asia Minor", and the paragraph sourced to his book seems to twist his words quite a bit. I suppose reading what the other sources cited in that section actually say might be worthwhile. Huon (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

well, we have sufficient evidence to say that the general opinion seems to be that the "language of Troy" was Luwian. But then Alaksandus is widely accepted as a Greek name. It is very well possible that in Troy around 1200 BCE, a Greek or Greek-descended elite ruled over a Luwian-speaking population, just like the Hittites ruled over a Hurrian-speaking population, there is no contradiction in that. So Alaksandus could have been the scion of a first wave of "Sea peoples" who conquered Troy and displaced Kukkunni around 1350 BC. By 1280 BC they were probably "Luwianized" but may still have carried Greek names, and perhaps been on speaking terms with their Mycenaean cousins. Or perhaps not so much on speaking terms as on bride-robbing terms :) --dab (𒁳) 14:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"They" say: Alexander: Latinized form of the Greek name Αλεξανδρος (Alexandros), which meant "defending men" from Greek αλεξω (alexo) "to defend, help" and ανηρ (aner) "man" (genitive ανδρος). from:http://www.behindthename.com/name/alexander /but is it true? Maybe, it was a Luwian name... and the Greeks took this name from the Luwians! Paris = Alexandros (other name of the Trojan Prince Paris)with Greek "-os" suffix. Alaksandu > Alexandros(the same name?) My opinion: Yes! but earliest form of this name was Alaksandu! So maybe this was a Luwian name and the Greeks changed it as "Alexandros"... How do you know that it was a real Greek name? Böri (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Joachim Latacz explicitly says that Alaksandu is a Luwianized form of a (probably) Greek name, not the other way around. Latacz also says that Wilusa and Ilion, the Hittite and Greek names for the region where Troy was located, are both derived from a pre-Greek, pre-Luwian form. I'm no expert in philology, but I can read what the experts have to say.

Unless you actually have sources supporting your point of view and, better yet, actual suggestions on how to improve articles, this debate will lead nowhere. Huon (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

What about Cassandra? Was it a Greek name? Saying "this debate will lead nowhere." = Demagogy! Böri (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about Cassandra, and to be honest I don't really care. I could look up what von Kamptz has to say about that name, but if he said it's a Greek name, you'd either change the subject or just disbelieve von Kamptz. Since you don't suggest improvements to articles, Wikipedia is not the place to ride your hobbyhorse. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a philology conference. Huon (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Cassandra /Kassandra & Aleksandros /Aleksandros Can't you see that? & if you say "I don't know about Cassandra, and to be honest I don't really care.", "the real historians" will laugh at you! You can't say that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, after that! Böri (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If I pretended to be a historian, the real historians would be right to laugh at me. I see no reason for me to seek out reliable sources to answer your queries; you can do so yourself. Huon (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't talk about the history then! Böri (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm no historian, but I am able to read and understand Wikipedia's policies, especially WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NOT. Huon (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Salyersville image

whyd you remove the reenactment picture from the battle of salyersville. the battle of richmond has a reenactment puctire so why not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bj howard (talk • contribs) 00:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion at Talk:Battle of Salyersville. Huon (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

here is a list of battles with reenatcment pictures.76.8.177.233 (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Battle of Saltville I Battle of Corydon Battle of Saltville II even has powerlines in background

The Saltville I and Saltville II battles have the same reenactment image. I'm not impressed. Were both battles reenacted in one go? If not, what battle was reenacted?

The power lines image seems not to depict a reenactment, but rather a modern-day view of the actual battlefield. I can see a purpose for that - for example the steep hills would surely have influenced battle tactics.

In general, "other stuff exists" is not a good reason to keep stuff - I've asked for a general opinion on the appropriateness of reenactment images at WT:WikiProject Military history and hope that we'll get some additional opinions. Huon (talk) 04:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ortho projection

Hello Huon - I got your message regarding my reversion at File:Pakistan (orthographic projection).svg; just to make things clear, my intent was to revert to the version as of 05:35, 24 November 2009 and I disagree with the current version too, namely for the following reason: the projection angle is a bit awkward, plus Pakistan is in the Indian subcontinent/South Asia and the current map is giving a geographically inaccurate impression by showing it from the Middle East perspective. I believe the previous South Asia-centric view was better. For some reason, after I reverted, the changes didn't come into effect (maybe it takes time?) and after even refreshing the Pakistan page, the same ortho kept coming up. I'm not sure if i'm reverting properly so I reverted my own edit and it just landed up where it was. If you know how to properly revert images on Commons, I would request you to do so on this file. Thanks - Mar4d (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

EAST AND WEST PAKISTAN

This is such a waste of space on the article. East and West Pakistan are already mentioned on the "Pakistan (disambiguation)" article. Also, East and West Pakistan are also mentioned in the article itself. This incident occurred 40 years ago and it's not like current affairs for the region. --- (NapoleonARS (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC))

I fail to see how a single line is such a waste of space. That line may add a little redundancy, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It may be convenient for some readers, and those interested in either East Pakistan or West Pakistan should not need to read through half the article to find the relevant link. This is not a matter of current affairs in south Asia, but of article organization on Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't even make any sense. With that logic, it is alright to post a reference to Palestine on the Israel article or a link to the R&B singer India Arie on the India article. (NapoleonARS (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC))

I see no relevance for the Palestine/Israel example, and India Arie seems both distinct enough from India and too little known to necessitate a mention on the India article; that's what disambiguation is for. East and West Pakistan, on the other hand, might be assumed to be parts of Pakistan (as they indeed were), and some additional clarification beyond the disambiguation page may be helpful. Is there a specific reason to oppose their mention beyond the fact that it's a single line in the Pakistan article? Huon (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)