User talk:Huon/Archive7

Andy Gray

Hi Huon. Thanks ever so much for your reply to my questions Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andy Gray (journalist). From what you say the photo I have is free from British Copyright and can be used freely as it has nothing to do with the USA. I have no conflict, only met Andy once decades ago as I live across the Atlantic from him. My father only knew him as a child as he was a half brother that returned to Scotland to be raised by the Grays when he was 13 years old and my father was 7, then they only kept in touch very little. Your link to the Google News Archive only brought up Andy Gray, the footballer, but if you add New Musical Express it actually brings up a lot more then I have found in the past. Google News archive Do you see any of the verifable references you are looking for there. I also have this link to music Professor Thompsons, Skidmore College listing of back issues of NME and if you select July 1957 and later you will find all sorts of articles written by Andy Gray, so I guess his writing is being referenced in college courses of rock history. NME Contents 1953-1969 JasMor (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The USA are relevant to the copyright discussion because the Wikimedia Foundation's servers (and the Foundation itself) are in the US; thus, US copyright law is relevant to all Wikipedia content. For example, Australian or Canadian Crown copyright has similar expiration rules, but to my knowledge the Wikimedia Commons don't accept those images before their copyright has also expired under US law. British Crown copyright is an exception because the British government has clarified it considers the copyright to expire worldwide, thereby effectively releasing the images into the public domain once the 50 years after publication expire. So if the image came under British Crown copyright and was published at about the time it was taken, we're fine.

What you link to is not the Google News archive but a general Google Web search. The News archive indeed seemed to focus on the footballer, and a refinement of the search terms there didn't show anything relevant. I also had a look at Google Books, and they apparently have catalogued the back issues of Billboard, quite a few of which mention Gray. Now many of those hits seem to be just mentions in passing, but some look promising. For example, this 1971 article reports that Gray lived in Canada for 10 years, and while it doesn't provide any details, we didn't have a secondary source for his stay in Canada before. I expect trying to find worthwhile sources that provide some details on Gray will be a lot of work, though - for example, this just looks like society gossip from which at best we can conclude that Gray played golf - while it may have some use, it's by far too little to support the draft's current coverage of Gray's Golf hobby.

As I said, texts written by Andy Gray aren't helpful; what we need are texts written about Gray. If his writings are discussed in a scientific paper, say, as part of a study on music journalism, that would be great, but just listing them among a bunch of other music-related articles doesn't tell us anything about Gray. Even using him as a source on rock history doesn't bestow notability on Gray - his articles' subjects may be notable, but having written about them doesn't make Gray notable. Otherwise every celebrity journalist on the planet would be notable, and most clearly aren't. Huon (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article review

Dear Huon! Thanks for your help and advice on how to improve my article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sergey_Shishkarev. I've sent it for review but it's taking ages. You said that you might take a look and approve (or suggest some other improvements i should make) it. Sorry for botherign you, but could you do look at it plz? Key157 (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Help desk

Dear Huon, Thanks very much for your help on Helpdesk (AfC Martha Harris). I followed your advice as far as possible (given the information I have been given about the topic). I then moved it to article space as the AfC page is so backlogged. Hopefully there should be no major problems though it is difficult at this distance in time to find newspaper references, especially since this particular area of mental health was relatively new at that period; however others may be able to add more documentation in the future. Merlinwan (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some copyediting and added categories. The article says Harris taught at a "Froebel Teacher Training College"; I expect that's not the Froebel College of Education we have an article on, is it? Huon (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I took a look at that article - it is about a specific Froebel college in Ireland. There are quite a lot of them, all based on the methods of Friedrich Froebel (or Fröbel). Harris went to one in London. Perhaps there could be a link to the Wikipedia article on Froebel himself - Friedrich Fröbel. Merlinwan (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a link to Froebel himself; I removed that because it didn't provide any information on the school Harris taught at. Froebel himself is no more relevant to Harris than, say, Thomas Guy, is he? Otherwise we should add something on Froebel's influence on Harris (and a source to that effect) and not just link because he was the namesake of an institution that hired Harris as a teacher. Huon (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of the link is to Froebel's educational principles and methods regarding the education of young children. It is a significant aspect of the background to the method of training of child psychotherapists that Harris was involved in. Certainly more could be added but at the expense of lengthening the article. I think the interested reader can work out the association for themselves. Froebel is well known in all fields connected with young children and 'Froebel College' designates a particular type of teacher-training institution, with particular aims and methods, not just an employer.Merlinwan (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: the Nora Newcombe page

Thank you very much Huon for your very fast response. I appreciate it greatly. Also, thank you for your kind comments about my draft.

All the Best, 165.124.164.60 (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Jennnu[reply]

You're welcome, I'm always happy to help. Huon (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for helping with the creation of the Agilence article Ajflash (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thank you for replying.This is a very new FPS game as you can see its release date.So if anybody can help to find out some good sources, I would consider that a great help to me.Thank you:)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/District 187: Sin Streets Arghya Roy (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many days I have to wait more?

My submission for creating article "District 187: Sin Streets" is not in the help desk list(:confused:??!!) and still waiting for reviewing.I need help.What's going on??Arghya Roy (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old questions on the AfC help desk are periodically archived; yours is now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 November 17#Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/District 187: Sin Streets. Please do not edit the archive; ask a new question instead if some new issues have arisen.

Your draft, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/District 187: Sin Streets, is awaiting review, but there's a massive backlog of over 1,000 unreviewed submissions. The oldest unreviewed submissions currently date from about November 1, so it may take some time until yours is reviewed. Please be patient.

However, I still don't think your draft has sufficiently many reliable sources to clearly establish the game's notability; if it were reviewed now, it would probably be declined for that reason. Unfortunately I have no idea where better sources might be found; maybe the game is just too new yet. There are other issues - for example, the "hacking" section is clearly not written in a neutral tone, and it reads more like an essay on the future of gaming than an encyclopedia article on District 187: Sin Streets. It doesn't cite any sources either. Huon (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edited, thank you.Arghya Roy (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the editor moved it to mainspace despite your review; I have nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/District 187: Sin Streets DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Sergey Shishkarev

Hello! Your submission of Sergey Shishkarev at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Schwede 66 09:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thanks for informing about User:TheWesternWorld. Is it possible that I can report the user for sending me an abusive personal message telling me to go kill myself for being a retarded piece of shit?--Mjs1991 (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that's possible via WP:EMAILABUSE; Bwilkins or King of Hearts would probably be the admins to contact in this case. But since Bwilkins already indef-blocked TheWesternWorld for email abuse (with email rights and editing of his own talk page removed) and TWW was also confirmed as a likely sock of indef-blocked user CollectorOfSouls, I don't think there's anything else that needs to be (or could be) done. We probably won't see him editing or writing emails via Wikipedia ever again. Huon (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need urgent help

plz help at [1]Arghya Roy (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article from scratch. It would be great if you could be a little more specific in your help requests - "plz help at X" doesn't really say what exactly you need help with. My advice would be to re-read WP:Identifying reliable sources; that seems to be one of the main difficulties right now. Huon (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rep- More specific? okay can you please give me the answer of my questions at District 187: Sin Streets article for deletion page [2]

?Arghya Roy (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to your latest round of questions is at Talk:District 187: Sin Streets because it seemed rather unrelated to the deletion issue. I think I've replied to everything else except the question about whether you should re-submit the article if it gets deleted. The answer to that is an empathic no. If the community decides the article is still insufficiently sourced and should be deleted, the recreation of the same content would be considered disruptive. Huon (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review

I've started an editor review on myself at Wikipedia:Editor review/Ritchie333. As I've mentioned you by name in the review, your feedback would be appreciated. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited District 187: Sin Streets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ATI (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Susan Branch

Thanks so much, Huon, for your help with my question about Articles for Creation/Susan Branch and for your edits. Great comments and they are much appreciated! Editwriter98 Editwriter98 (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, I'm happy to help. If I can do anything else, please ask. Huon (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aghada

Please revert the changes made on the Aghada page back to what it originaly was, thanks for your co-operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.243.169 (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What changes exactly do you mean? The article has been stable for months, and I haven't edited it myself for more than a year. I don't see any changes that need reverting, either. Huon (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert it to the way it was before you started editing it, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.243.169 (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean I should re-introduce the unsourced and unverifiable claims that I removed? Claims that saw the last editor who repeatedly added them blocked indefinitely for vandalism? Sorry, that's not going to happen. Huon (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can i ask you a question? Why does this meen so much to you? It matters a whole god damn lot to us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.255.188 (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia is important in itself. Inserting information I believe to be incorrect would be lying. It's also contrary to Wikipedia's policies such as WP:V. All of those seem pretty good reasons not to add those claims. Huon (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are correct and besides your not even from Ireland, what right do you have to interfere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.255.188 (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that information is both correct and significant it should have found its way into a reliable source. I haven't seen you present one. The burden of evidence is on the editor who wants something included, and dubious information without a source should be removed. My physical location is irrelevant. Huon (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question for me?

Hi Huon. I have a message that you have a message for me on this page, but I do not see it. What is it? Thanks, Steve {tigertwice] Tigertwice (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an old message dating back to June; it probably refers to this section of my talk page that I've recently archived. Huon (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tidying up

After all the discussions at the Jesus talk page, I think [3] will most likely be my last edit of substance regarding historicity. I think I have now added sources for almost all issues I can think of, or find. The 1 Thessalonians 2:14 item was the last missing piece I think. As you know, the Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus are pretty complete now, and pretty stable. Josephus, Tacitus and Mara Bar-Serapion on Jesus are also in good shape, and fully sourced.

I think one of the most fun items was explaining that a person born in 1380 could not have manufactured a document that was used in 1374!. That was fun. So, anyway, I think this will hopefully be the last page I have to build - but it was necessary for this, a page that may also need long term attention. But now, it is done. After Christmas I will really be slowing down. I know this has sounded like the "next good by forever concert" that many people sell tickets for, but in all cases, there is a last good by forever concert. Anyway, Merry Christmas in advance. History2007 (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your impressive work! I hope you'll keep an eye on the articles if strange things happen - you're much more of an expert than I'll ever be, and while I should be able to fend off the various drive-by pov pushers screaming "Bias!" on my own, it would be a great reassurance to have you around in the background if more complex issues arise. Thanks again, and merry Christmas to you too! Huon (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will still be "around" but not 23 hours a day as in the past 5 years. But, I can not live for ever, so... who knows. There was a user 5 years ago who was really familiar with the theological issues and I am almost certain that he knew one of the popes (I know none... sigh). I think he was so old that 4 years ago he just passed away after saying he was ill. But many of his articles still survive and I have looked after them. So we do not always live for ever... I am not ill, so I will still be around in a limited format. But I will build Q&A pages by Christmas anyway. History2007 (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I used the wrong link above. It is this.... I eventually managed to clean up most of the sources there. History2007 (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further on the "Bruce Mann (oncologist)" page

Hi Huon -- very grateful for your help on the title question, and I've put in proper citations for the article, per your comment. But I'm still completely confused about how to post a simple photo on this page. I just want to post one simple portrait shot of Prof Mann, partly to help distinguish him from the other Prof Mann at Harvard. I found a nice plain portrait photo of Mann (oncologist) posted on the Parkville Surgery website, which appears to be his private practice with another surgeon: http://www.parkvillesurgery.com.au/bruce_mann.html I also see this same photo reproduced elsewhere, for conference bulletins, etc.: e.g., www.abcs2012.org -- so it seems to be floating about anyway and I'm sure it would only be helpful if it appeared on his Wikipedia page. But I don't know what kind of license might be involved with a photo like this -- no license is posted anywhere -- whether "fair use" applies, or how to get it up on the page, whether as a draft aticle or an accepted one. I uploaded it to Wiki Commons in good faith, but got a message back about "licence" and "template" that was completely baffling, and the Wiki Commons help page to which I was directed was utterly overwhelming and even more baffling. I'm frustrated and ready to give up on posting this one lousy simple already-out-there photo - hope you can help! -- Tafkira2 (talk) 07:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that image does not come with a free license such as the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License - and there's no indication that it does, its widespread use nonwithstanding - it's not suitable for the Wikimedia Commons, which only takes free content. Wikipedia itself has somewhat different standards and does allow copyrighted, non-free images under some conditions; see WP:Non-free content. But one of those conditions is that the image must be used in at least one article - a draft is not enough. Another is that no free equivalent is available or could be created, and it's commonly assumed that for living persons who aren't notorious recluses a free photo could be taken; compare the first criterion for unacceptable use of images. For these reasons I don't think we can upload that image to either the Commons or Wikipedia. We can, however, add an external link to the website showing the image, and in fact the draft already does so.

On an unrelated note, I still don't think the draft's references are sufficient. The only ones that aren't the websites of organizations Mann is affiliated with (all of which are primary sources) are the University of Melbourne "Find an expert" page and possibly the Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology, but those are just listings, not the significant coverage required to establish Mann's notability. In fact the journal doesn't even write a single sentence about Mann, and the "Find an expert" page is just a directory entry (and on second thought I believe Mann is also affiliated with the University of Melbourne, so it may be just another primary source). Conversely, the draft's information on Mann's medical specialization seems to be unsourced. Has he been the subject of newspaper coverage, or are there independent articles in peer-reviewed journals that discuss Mann's work? Those would be the kinds of sources we're after. Huon (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Huon, I'll look around for the kinds of discussion of him you describe, although it's a little confusing here. I understand what you mean about third-party sources confirming the importance of someone and their standing to comprise a Wikipedia article -- especially looking at the proposed article names now cramming the backlog. But I think the citations I provide independently indicate Mann's stature as one of the most eminent medical professionals in Australia. The Royal Melbourne Hospital and the Royal Women's Hospitals, where he heads the cancer service, are massive public institutions and simply to hold such a job is a major testament to someone's importance. E.g., if someone were the mayor of a city, would I have to find articles talking about that mayor or isn't it sufficient to list the fact that s/he is mayor? All the other citations except Parkville Surgery are independent of Mann, including the University, so their having appointed him or citing him in these roles is substantial recognition in itself in these fields. For example, his serving for two years as president of COSA, Australia's leading national association of medical professionals on cancer, should in itself, I'd think, bear testament to his "notoriety". A CV like this stands on its own, no? I certainly sourced his position in all these roles. ??? Tafkira2 (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Effective Giving

Regarding your suggestions for improvement to Effective Giving, the original authors did not make any changes, so I took it upon myself to significantly rework this article. I think I have addressed a lot of your concerns. Would you be able to have a look and re-evaluate the article? Thanks. Ianlavoie (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was a truly impressive effort! I'll do some copyediting and may raise some other issues at the talk page, but it looks and reads much better. Huon (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Articles for creation/Iain McKell

Hello Huon, thanks for your help on the helpdesk yesterday, I've changed the sources and submitted! (Thanks also for clearing up submitting/review procedure)

Regards, Maxcatterall (talk) 11:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, good luck with the review! Huon (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Creation of Page for William Casey King

Hi Huon,

You were very helpful with my most recent attempts to get the page for William Casey King created. I added some secondary sources to demonstrate "notability" as per your suggestions, and omitted several portions of the article that alluded to book reviews chosen by the publisher. For one of his books, I included a citation to a review in the Washington Post, and the second book will likely be reviewed when it actually is published in 2013. I also included an NPR radio appearance in the sources indicating that King was a guest on a certain date. Do you have any idea how I can speed up the review process at this point? Your help is greatly appreciated!Kittythedog (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Kittythedog[reply]

Unfortunately there's not much you can do to speed up the review process. The draft looks good to me, though. I'd just wait a little; please be patient. Huon (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay--I can be patient. Thanks so much and have a nice holiday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittythedog (talk • contribs) 21:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huon, hello there. I made even more changes and added more links to more third party sources...I just cannot find the "submit for review" icon. Am I crazy?Kittythedog (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Kittythedog[reply]

I've re-submitted the draft for you. There is a subtle bug that sometimes makes the resubmission instructions vanish; you can submit drafts manually by adding {{subst:submit}} to the very top of the draft. Huon (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, proving yourself mighty helpful! thanks a bunch! 98.229.82.28 (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Kittythedog[reply]

...

Merry Christmas!
History2007 (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About redirect requests

Why IP adresses ask for redirections like this (Redirect request: [[ ]]). I think this kind of IP adresses should be banned from editing. What's your opinion?--Pratyya ^{(have a chat?)} 04:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems with that approach: Firstly, IP addresses usually aren't static, and by blocking IPs for such behaviour we'd be as likely to inconvenience the innocent editors who get assigned the same IP address next as the true perpetrator. Secondly I expect most of those empty requests are test edits, not malice, and very few IP editors add such empty requests repeatedly - thus by blocking them we wouldn't significantly reduce the number of empty requests anyway. Huon (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Pratyya ^{(have a chat?)} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Please Read This

Please give correct reference for Zardari sect. The link you have provided doesnot contain that information.

View these images Image1 and Image2. He is praying behind Sunni Imam in Sunni style.

Abdullah of Saudi Arabia belongs to Wahhabi sect but it is not a complete Religion it is a sect. Thats why we should not specify sect in its religion. If you are changing Zardari Religion to Shia then change Abdullah of Saudi Arabia Religion to Wahhabi also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpidErxD (talk • contribs) 04:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source's last paragraph says: "Zardari is reputed to be a follower the Shia tradition followed in Iran". We once had a book by Vali Nasr that made the same point a little more explicitly; I don't know why that was removed. There's no reason not to be as specific as the sources allow. For example, among other politicians we note that David Cameron is an Anglican, Angela Merkel is a Lutheran, and that George W. Bush was an Episcopalian before he became a United Methodist instead of just calling them all Christians. Regarding Abdullah, I see nothing wrong with giving his religion as Wahhabi Islam if we have a reliable source to that effect. From a quick search for sources that didn't come up with anything definitive either way I got the impression that Abdullah personally is less of a Wahhabi than his country in general. Huon (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Benazir Bhutto's book "Daughter of Destiny: An Autobiography"(January 1990).On page 31, She(Benazir Bhutto) stated that his husband(Asif Ali Zardari) and family members belongs to Sunni sect. And in Image1 and Image2 he is praying behind Sunni Imam in Sunni style. But many Sunnis hates him thats why they claimed that he didnot belong to their sect. I think its better not to mention Zardari's sect in Asif Ali Zardari's article. SpidErxD (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should make raise the issue at the article's talk page, not here. Both Bhutto's and Zardari's family background is Shia, but I remember reading that Bhutto embraced Sunni Islam for political expediency. I'm not surprised to see her claim that Zardari is a Sunni as well, but I doubt she's a reliable source for Zardari's personal beliefs. Funny how you think it's better not to mention Zardari's denomination - unless it says what you want it to say. Huon (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One well deserved barnstar!

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		During the last 2.5 hours on #wikipedia-en-help channel i noticed that every single editor with a question was assisted by you. Moreover, reading it all back it is clearly high quality assistance as well. Keep up the great work! Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help

i am looking out reference links for better citation, i will try to improve article with better grammar.

Happy New Year, Huon

Pratyya ^{(Happy New Year)} — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2024. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2024 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

Pending changes

Now that you have seen what the IP 79.230.105.7 and the one before him are doing, I think PC is a good idea. I am not sure where/how one gets it? Any ideas? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree and have requested pending changes via WP:RFPP. Let's see what happens. Huon (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue Me (Cheers)

Merger of this episode article is proposed. --George Ho (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented at Talk:Cheers (season 3)‎. Huon (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Huon. You have new messages at Pol430's talk page.
Message added 18:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Just to keep you in the loop :) Pol430 talk to me 18:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It might be better for me to disengage; I'd be grateful if you could keep an eye out for Nditon at the AfC help desk. Huon (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will do Pol430 talk to me 22:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience & edits on my AfC 12-14-12 "UC Software"

Dear Huon, Thank you very much for spending so much time and effort reviewing my draft article (UrbanCode Software re-directed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MEMarraMA/draft_article_UC; and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/UrbanCode_Software)

which was previously declined for publication. I did not understand the specific grounds for rejection (primary sources; non-notable references; non-neutral pov; use of "peacock" terms) but not because I'm clueless. I did read all the WP Help Articles before I started researching and writing. I saw all those terms defined. And I was certain I was not committing any of those writing crimes.

Ha! I was also quite proud of my summary re-writes of certain trend events in the computer software development industry ... because I summarized and cited primary sources and I wrote it in plain old English. I thought I did a much better job than the trend / concept definitions I found on Wikipedia.

Quelle hubris.

After reading your point-by-point review, I now get it. "Yep, that IS original synthesis." Duh.

I know I'm "on to something" along the lines of what fiction writer William Gibson (who published the term cyberspace in his 1982 novella Neuromancer) called Steam Engine Time. Interview William Gibson in Wired

Steam-driven gizmos popped up in ancient Greece and China, and in half a dozen different cultures and regions before the early 1800s. But one guy (Fulton) demo'd first in France and then in the U.S. using a steam engine to push boats around on water. In 1803. So, is Fulton really the inventor?

Gibson knew he wasn't the only one imagining cyberspace in the early 1980s; he just got to the gate first, with a fully imagined Internet-like linked fictional world. And he had wider distribution -- science fiction buffs -- than other computer geeks who wrote.

Similarly, both the concept and the means to continuously and automatically integrate changes in software program codes hit a tipping point in the early 2000s. Only a couple developers got to the gate first; two of them were photo finishers (within a nose) and both those "horses" released their big idea for FREE (open source), a business model Robert Fulton never used. (Fulton got a navigation monopoly on the Hudson River in 1808. So much for open source.)

THAT is where I made my "not encyclopedia-ready" errors: I established the history and trends from original sources and then slid right into highlighting the developers/companies who did it first.

Original synthesis, indeed. That statement on WP Help Pages -- You are not establishing notability in a Wikipedia article; you only summarize and cite those conclusions from notable secondary sources (paraphrase) -- should probably be boldfaced. WP's editorial dislike of boldfacing notwithstanding.

Thank you, again, Huon for your time, patience and for being specific on what went wrong with my draft article. I bet it's only the 10,000th time it has come up at the Help Desk.

LAST -- I'm going to attack this again. Obviously my current draft is not "edit-able" or "tweakable." Should I (1) Set up another page in my name space with the same title? I'm not sure what that does to re-directs and history of the first draft. (2) Should I use the code I saw somewhere on "Creating Wikipedia Articles" -- a code in braces that basically says: I'm working on this so don't speedy delete it, please? MEMarraMA (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome; I'm glad to have been of help. Regarding your questions, I'd suggest modifying the existing draft (if necessary, gut it and rewrite it from scratch - but keep it at its current location, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/UrbanCode Software); don't start a new one in your sandbox. Otherwise unnecessary problems might arise; I've seen newer versions of drafts declined because the reviewers confused them with the older pages. Besides, sooner or later the new draft should be put in the old one's place anyway, so it's just as well to write it there directly.

Speedy deletion is not a problem; drafts may linger indefinitely unless they're copyright violations or blatant advertisements, and yours has neither of those problems. So you can improve the draft at your leisure and re-submit it once you're ready, with no need to use special "work in progress" messages. Huon (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NLP

Just a heads up Houn. Please be aware of who you are working with [4]. Also be careful who you might end up being associated with. You might want to back off the NLP article for now. There have been some fairly ridiculous block related activities there recently[5]. On reflection its understandable why you exhibit such ignorance about NLP. Its a complex subject. Best leave it up to the experts. With respect. LTMem (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not the opinion of self-declared experts. How about commenting on the issues instead? Huon (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion Houn. I have just done that on the NLP talk page. Thanks! LTMem (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What happens if I added a coat of arms in the religous symbols section

Why you said that's it in the talk page. What's that mean. And if I added coat of arms with no religious symbols.Am I gonna get blocked? 99.229.41.79 (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That meant that I ran out of patience with you not providing sources for your edits and began to remove entries I found dubious. If you deliberately added coats of arms without religious symbols to an article on religion in national symbols, that would be considered vandalism and indeed might see you blocked. If you want to add a coat of arms, please provide a reliable source that explicitly says it's religious, or better yet, one that puts this coat of arms in the wider context of religion in national symbols. Huon (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Thank you for cleaning up my references and formatting. Computerblue1984 (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

For yet again answering all of the questions on the AFC Help Desk that I don't feel like answering myself. Many thanks. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was about to say the same about you. We're a good team. Huon (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In all seriousness though, with the AfC backlog dropping substantially due to an influx of new reviewers in the backlog drive, we could do with some more people looking at the help desk once in a while. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the new answer on the Help Desk

Dear Huon, you helped me very much with my page. I just want you to notice the new comment to my question. Here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2012_December_28#Review_of_Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FEXNESS Happy New Year to you! Julia.tretyakova (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Julia[reply]

Thanks

thanks. Who are you please? Would you like to participate in the lovely discussion on the medical uses of silver?Ryanspir (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just a random editor who had tried to contact MastCell for reasons entirely unrelated to silver. I had hoped contacting you on your own talk page would allow you to retract your comments without much drama, but it may be a little late for that. Huon (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

good idea

well, thanks. That is the reason i have invited you to join the discussion about silver.. :) Ryanspir (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments & advice is appreciated, thank you!

Thanks Huon! I'm trying the best I can to negotiate lots of slippery slopes on this page. Original Synth vs Copy n Paste from websites, just to mention one. Now I've made a little cluster, with multiple AfC pages on the same proposed subject, and as you noted my Sandbox is indeed now empty and there appears to be redirects in all directions! Of course, now advised edits & source additions are on different pages. :(

I just moved all the edits to the proper page... any chance you can remove or mothball the duplicate page?

If you were able to link to your comments in the Help Desk, that is acceptable to me... I am trying to address accordingly.... but it is similar to having a discussion of Steve Jobs and Apple, they are almost inseparable, and the same is true within my topic; Founder, technology, company. Thank you! Borealdreams (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing there is a "Project" page, whereas all the above is on the "Talk" page. Is there a way to make the topic information in the Project... allowing discussion in the Talk? I'm concerned the AfC page disappears over time, etc. I think I should be basing future edits here correct? Thx Borealdreams (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin and thus cannot delete the duplicate draft; if you want to have it removed, you can nominate it for speedy deletion by adding {{db-author}} to the very top.

The preferred location for drafts is indeed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Whatever, which technically is the talk page of a project page. IP editors can create talk pages, but not project pages, and to allow them to create drafts as well, the drafts have to be talk pages. Usually there's not much need to discuss drafts before they're ready for the mainspace; if you want to leave comments for the reviewers, you can add them immediately below the latest review message; for example, the reviewer himself left a comment there.

Those draft pages will not be deleted unless they're copyright violations or blatant advertisements (or unless the author explicitly requests deletion); so there's nothing to worry about. You can improve it at your leisure or follow the reviewer's suggestion and cannibalize parts of the draft to improve various other lighning- and lightning prevention-related articles. Once you feel the draft clearly establishes the company's notability, you can re-submit it via the instructions in the "declined" message: "When you are ready to resubmit, click here."

Regarding the interconnectedness of founder, company and product, I agree that the founder probably is not independently notable enough for a stand-alone, and there's nothing wrong with mentioning the founder as the draft currently does. The technology, though, apparently can be discussed separately, and for all I can tell most of the sources for the technology do just that without mentioning the company itself. All that should probably be removed from the company article.

The best sources for the company itself seem to be the Boulder County Business Report and the Denver Business Journal; those are clearly reputable news sources with editorial oversight, and their coverage focuses on the company. Most other sources that mention it are more dubious, mostly primary sources written by the company itself or its associates, such as press releases or the founder's book. We should base our coverage on what the good sources have to say and use the others only as filler for uncontroversial details, if at all. Huon (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, best advice offered yet! I will work on it.

I can see the viability of separating out the Company and can locate more news worthy articles to establish "notability", without a problem, and get rid of the pesky PRs. Are trade publications acceptable? To establish further notability I could easily find many "scientific journals" or standards committees, but their clear separation from bias is very murky in this field.

There are many sections that are also synonymous with the company that are difficult to separate out.... but I could work on that.

And lastly, "cannibalizing" to other areas within "lightning" or "lightning protection systems" is probably a 'no-go'... there are so many disambiguation issues, it is not funny. Calling something a 'Lightning Rod' issue didn't come by this name randomly! And unfortunately, the pages & associated editors, reflect this inability to work with each other to clarify that which is ambiguous. Hence why I've gone to such lengths to remain technical, neutral & specific about word selection in the main body of my current page.

Onward & upward... off we go! Borealdreams (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding sources, anything that's independent of the company and has editorial oversight should be okay, so trade publications should be fine (unless it's just advertisement by another name - I once saw a very dubious "trade publication" in a completely different field, so I'm a little cautious about blanket statements).

Unfortunately I'm no expert on lightning and can't remember ever editing the related Wikipedia articles; if you ran into problems with your additions it may be best to just propose changes on the relevant article's talk page, with the relevant sources, and wait for other editors to object - if no one replies to such a proposal for a few days, it should be fine; otherwise you can discuss the proposal's merits on the talk page without edit warring on the article itself. If you want to summon more community input, WikiProject Severe weather or WikiProject Architecture, depending on the specific article, may be helpful - the former seems to be stale, though. Huon (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Huon! I've done a lot of revising. If you wouldn't mind taking a look, it would be appreciated. I may track down a few more sources, just to demonstrate the notability. I know I can find tons directly referencing the company & owner, but they are dismissive to the technology... which usually leads to instant claims of "fringe" or "psuedo science" rejections, regardless of notability, so a fine line to walk. :\ AfC:Lightning_Eliminators_&_Consultants,_Inc. Thank you! Borealdreams (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say there's still too much off-topic content not supported by reliable, independent sources, and in some parts it has even gotten worse. For example, I don't think any secondary sources discuss the influence of Carpenter's NASA career on his lightning company, and the sources for that section (at least as far as I checked them) were either written by Carpenter and his company, or they mention neither. The same is true of the "Science behind dissipation array system" section's sources (patents are not reliable sources!) with the exception of Zipse's tract, and that isn't cited for what it actually says about Carpenter. Huon (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'm really trying to understand this... are wiki pages cut & paste from written sources, no inferences are ever made taking 1 & 1 = 2? I can't believe this.... how many sources am I going to have to use? This is a technical subject, using proven & demonstrable phenomenon [which I link to other wiki pages] in a different fashion to get the results desired. A pen is for writing, but if someone was choking it could be used for an emergency tracheotomy... but what "independent" sources are you going to find writing that? I can't use papers he's written and were distributed about how this works because he didn't publish a book? Yet,Martin_A._Uman, his nemesis you could say in the field of lightning protection... has an approved wiki with only 1 source, and that's a stretch at that. Looking at edit history, it was one person writing it all, and it received no objections. There is nothing proven definitively regarding lightning, except "common beliefs though not always right, often die hard." <-- I can get you the source of that easily within published works on lightning, it's republished in Uman's book even. I really don't get this but I appreciate your input nonetheless. Borealdreams (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is really frustrating tbh. If I knew where you live (for example) I could point you to where one of these devices are, you would see it from a distance, and before you knew it, you would be seeing them all over. Multinational companies don't buy these for decorations, as to be honest they are ugly, but they work and they are known by those in the industrial, commercial, global logistics world, which go off trade publications or internal documents, not editorial boards or journals.... so not notable is difficult for me to swallow. Borealdreams (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, other problematic articles exist, and the one on Martin A. Uman is hardly a shining example of what a Wikipedia article should be. For now I've tagged it as unreferenced; If we cannot find reliable, independent sources confirming that article's content, we may have to delete it.

Regarding Lightning Eliminators & Consultants, I'd say there are two somewhat related problems: Firstly, some content is simply off-topic for an article on the company. There's no need to discuss the science behind point discharge in that article; it should suffice to state that LEC's products are based on point discharge and provide a link to a more relevant article that deals with the science and engineering behind that concept. After all, the best understanding of the science behind point discharge won't really improve our understanding of the company itself. Much more helpful would be (sourced) information on, say, the company's revenues and profits, or their Similarly, there's hardly a need to mention Ben Franklin in the company article, and who bought LEA is irrelevant to LEC, isn't it?

The other issue is original synthesis: For example, Carpenter's NASA career may well be relevant to the company he founded, but to make that inference, we need a secondary source. We cannot just use a secondary source for his NASA career and one for his founding of the company and draw the inference ourselves. The draft explicitly claims "This planted a seed in Carpenter's head" - says who? Judging by his NASA-era papers, his work for them wasn't lightning-related at all. Luckily the Boulder County Business Report explicitly draws a connection between Carpenter's NASA work and the founding of the company, so we can use that as a source. I'm not sure I understand your pen tracheotomy example, but without a secondary source mentioning the fact, we shouldn't mention pens in the tracheotomy article nor vice versa. I'd say that's simply not a significant fact about either pens or tracheotomies. Similarly, if no secondary source mentioned Carpenter's NASA career in connection to LEC, we would have to conclude that it probably wasn't that important an influence on the company.

Now we shouldn't simply copy and paste what sources say about the company either, but the sources - not our inferences - should form the basis of our content. For example, one of the sources discussed in debth a LEC project in Chad and another the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant - those might serve to add a section on "notable projects" or something like that. Or we could cite the Boulder County Business Report for the price of a LEC installation. We do have sources that provide many relevant details, but we don't make the best use of them. Huon (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again... I'm taking this all into account and appreciating your advice. It's going to be a difficult task, but I'm working on it. So it is sounding as thought the best course is to separate the company & Carpenter into one article, and CTS & DAS into another. It's hard for me to bridge the gap between original synth & sourced when it comes to the technical nature of the two, even though they are just modifications of natural Corona discharge, and I was thinking that by using existing wiki pages that describe the processes & there existence it would be OK to draw those inferences. I know this info is out there... often it is referred to by different names. Difficult concept for me to understand, I want to debate the technical merits, but it ends up being procedural here. :(

I have engaged the group as you suggested above... Meteorology#Lightning, Lightning Related... Clean up & conflicting issues resolution. There's a project in itself! :D

Based on your earlier remarks on patents use, I believe this page has no business in the wikisphere...List of lightning rod patents Can you tag accordingly please? Thanks again, Borealdreams (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very strange article you found there. It might have a place on Wikipedia if we had a secondary source discussing the history of lightning rod patents or some such - but as it stands, I agree that it's definitely not useful. I'll propose it for deletion.

Good luck to you, and let's hope the WikiProject is helpful. Huon (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that's the type of stuff that gets "slipped" in to prove credibility. Sadly that's the state of affairs within the field of lightning & lightning protection. The gist is, if Franklin said it 250 years ago, it is absolute truth.... like the 2nd Amendment debate to be honest. Anywho... making progress on the lightning page! :) About to get below 10k on the plane, gotta get b4 wifi kicks off! Borealdreams (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... editing Wiki appears to be addictive!!! Can you look at this page for electrostatic discharge & my note Talk:Electrostatic discharge#A Spark Just Happens? please? I don't think it needs to be "delisted", but it definitely needs to be flagged a needing work based on my points. As it stands, a spark just happens, out of thin air. A spark is a discharge that is equalizing different charges between two objects, yet there is no mention of potential (charge differences) or charges??? Thanks! Borealdreams (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello once again!

I've been working on some big things & getting somewhere :) Lightning page revisions. Feel free to stop by and have a look. Borealdreams (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bradly Manning navtemplate

Hello Huron: Last month you commented on the Bradley Manning navigation template. {{Bradley Manning}}. I have posted it for deletion at: WP:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_9#Template:Bradley_Manning. Please comment. Thanks.--S. Rich (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original research issue back again

Hi Huon, I was just poodling around the various articles which have been created/deleted/reincarnated in the New Testament origins area and came across this from January 2012. January 2013 and the same editors are looking at the deleted-recreated Hebrew (Aramaic) Gospel. The actual talk is on Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews. I hadn't informed you because I'd forgotten about the link above. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Ayling

Hi Huon,

I see you've added a verification failed notice to the article I submitted on my father Dennis Ayling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Ayling). As a new contributor, could you please offer me some guidance as to what I should do to correct this?

Many thanks,

Tim Ayling (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this website, the Royal Air Force records publicly available only include surname, forename, rank, service number, regiment/corps, place of birth, age, date of birth, date of death where this occurred in service, the date an individual joined the service, the date of leaving, good conduct medals, and any orders of chivalry and gallantry medals. They will not include information on specific units, occupations or places where your father was stationed, much less on what he did there. So unless he was awarded a gallantry medal for "covering the Japanese surrender", his Royal Air Force service record will not confirm that he did so. The way I understand it, they won't provide information on what the medals were awarded for, so even if covering a surrender was considered particularly gallant, we wouldn't learn it from the service records. In short, the given source does not serve to verify the statement it's cited for. To support the claim that Ayling served in Burma and "covered many important events" (by photographing them from the air?) we need a reliable, published source that actually says so. If we cannot find a source that confirms these statements, we'll have to remove them. Huon (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huon. If you look again at the statement on the government site that you sent me you'll see that it's referring to requests for records from people who do not have the permission of the deceased service person's next of kin. In my case, as I am my father's next of kin, they sent me a copy, on request, of his full service record which details every RAF and RCAF squadron he was with from 1940-1946, with dates, names of RAF bases etc. His RAF occupation is listed as photographer, and in addition to photographic reconnaissance work he has citations for press photography (so no, not covering events from the air). One of your editors suggest I site this service record as the source of my statement. I also have the photographs that he took of the Japanese surrender next to me on my desk as I write. However, I will not be able to provide a source that you can use to verify this statement in the way that you want. All I was trying to do with this article was round out the information you already have on Wikipedia where Dad is referred to by name, so I decided to write the most basic biography. I have seen many biographies of his peers that seem to have no citations at all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Thomson_%28cinematographer%29), so I didn't realise my submission would be so problematic. I also find it hard dealing with so many editors all at once who have such differing opinions on submissions. One told me that IMDb isn't a reliable source, and then another added a filmography to this article based on Dad's IMDb page. If we were going to be really strict all we can actually verify is that someone called Dennis Ayling (and even that is problematic as his name was misspelled in the credits for 'Alien' as Denys Ayling) won an academy award for best visual effects - nothing else is verifiable in the way that you want and then the whole article comes down, which would seem to me to be somewhat excessive. I have no need to make any of this up, and I am not making any great claims on his behalf, like he took out a whole batallion single-handedly - just that he took some press photos of an important formal surrender (http://media.iwm.org.uk/iwm/mediaLib/51/media-51244/mid.jpg).I understand that you are being thorough, so I respect any decision you take on what you feel needs to be removed.

Tim Ayling (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. An editor, who is now on sabbatical, has made a further change to my article as he takes issue with me saying that Dad won an academy award and asserts that the movie won it. Would you be prepared to comment on this. I think it's a ludicrous assertion to make.

Tim Ayling (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the website in sufficient detail to realize that you could receive more information than the general public; unfortunately the general public cannot verify that additional information, and we cannot expect all our readers to ask you as next of kin for permission if they want to confirm what the given source says. Similarly, the photos on your desk are not a published source and cannot be verified by our readers. The photo you linked to is entirely devoid of context - I cannot even confirm independently that Ayling took it, I'd have to guess that it's the Japanese who surrender, and there's no indication whatsoever that it's an important formal surrender - it could just as well be the last few hundred survivors of a battalion as an entire army. In any case I seriously doubt it's the event described in our surrender of Japan article.

Other insufficiently sourced articles exist, but that's no reason to create more; each submission must stand on its own merits. For example, while the Thomson article is indeed not a shining example of what a Wikipedia article should be, according to the German Wikipedia Thomson has an entry in Das große Personenlexikon des Films and an article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica - we should use those sources to improve the English article on Thomson, not use it as a pretext to lower our standards.

Regarding the Oscar, for all I can tell Ayling was but one of the persons responsible for the visual effects, and the Oscar credits page explicitly names the movie as the winner (unlike the "acting" awards where the individual is named first). So it seems more appropriate to say the film won, not Ayling personally. Huon (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I guess you'd better take that sentence out and it looks as if perhaps the whole paragraph should go as I have no sources to verify what I say about his career either. One of your editors added the filmography which they have clearly taken from IMDb, so should that come out as well, as I am told it's an unreliable source? Also, I have just added in his birth and death dates, but they're not verifiable other than in official birth and death certificates. Should they come out too? There's so little left now, it hardly seems worth having the page, so maybe you'd better delete it? Tim Ayling (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, unless we can find some truly independent, reliable sources such as news coverage or maybe books on Alien that explicitly discuss Ayling's contribution, I don't think he satisfies Wikipedia's standards for notability - they require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The service record and IMDb hardly provide significant coverage - the IMDb is just a directory entry (and it may actually be reliable for Ayling's film credits, but if it had biographical information, that would be another matter entirely), and every servicemember has a service record which provides very little detail. The Oscar website doesn't even devote a single sentence to Ayling; that's hardly significant coverage either. Furthermore, both the service record and the Oscar website are primary sources, one written effectively by Ayling's employer, the other by the organization bestowing the award. It would be much better if some truly independent, third-party sources covered Ayling. Huon (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest with you Huon, I couldn't care less at this point and you can all do whatever you like with the article. I've got better things to do with my time than get tied up with all of the insane pedantry that exists behind this site.

Tim Ayling (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help desk talk page template

Hi. I've had a feeling for a while that users aren't necessarily catching our replies on the AFC Help Desk. This might partly be because the pre-formatted link for the help desk doesn't necessarily give an easy indication where the question goes, or when it gets replied. To see if I can fix that, I've created a template {{AFCHD/u}}, which is designed to go on a user's talk page. You have to substitute it, and put an extra parameter on the end, which is the name of the article you're answering questions about. Have a look at the documentation here to see how it's used, and here for a real-world use. Any feedback would be appreciated. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, though maybe a little too inflexible. I've sometimes used {{talkback}} for the same purpose, which allows links back to arbitrarily-named sections. Similarly, {{AFCHD/u}} should probably take the section name as a parameter instead of trying to link to the "default" section name based on the draft name. Huon (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The idea behind the template was kind of a halfway house between {{welcome}} and {{talkback}} - basically something friendly and non-threatening. Adding extra parameters for the actual help desk section is a good idea, as although the default is frequently used, it isn't always. This is only a first draft, so feel free to suggest improvements. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions to AFC article

Huon - Regarding "Dayton Performing Arts Alliance" AFC: Could you help me figure out the current status of this article and what I need to do to get it published? I'm new here. :)

Katherine M. Harris (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is currently not submitted for review; the "submission declined" message has instructions for resubmission: "When you are ready to resubmit, click here."

I have added links to all of the sources I found online. I'm not sure the current selection, which is still largely based on local news coverage, is sufficient to establish that the organization is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Furthermore, the claim that "management structures and business operations of the three original organizations were consolidated" cites a source that does not actually say so - the source only quotes a press release that they intended to consolidate management structures, with no indication that they actually did so. I haven't checked the other sources in detail, but we should make sure that we actually report what the sources say, and not our personal interpretation of what that might imply. Huon (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your help. I really appreciate the detail in your reply. I'm editing it now to widen the selection of national sources and will resubmit it soon. Notability is a bit of a beast for this article since the merged organization is still in its infancy, so to speak. Still struggling a bit with the article format and website structure itself, but I imagine those are problems all new editors face.

Katherine M. Harris (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think the notability stands currently on this contribution? I have altered the sentence regarding the management consolidation per your suggestion. Katherine M. Harris (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pelco (copied from Category:Revisions for Pelco Article)

Thanks for the feedback on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Pelco - your right "An article about massive layoffs and a transfer of manufacturing to China is turned into a source for claims about "a comprehensive collection of innovative high-tech security and surveillance products" - it doesn't say that at all. And sourcing claims about Pelco's greatness to Pelco itself is hardly convincing."

Sources are hard to find that aren't directly tied to Pelco. If I were to limit the content and remove statements such as "a comprehensive collection of innovative high-tech security and surveillance products" is it possible to approved with the Fresno Bee sources I have provided?

My biggest issue has been trying to produce an article that is well written and of decent length supported by proper sources. So lets say hypothetically there are no more sources on Pelco, if I eliminated some of the statements could my article be approved with the sources I have? I like Wikipedia, I'm new to trying to contribute, and I just want some direction. The feedback, although helpful in pointing out what I've done wrong, doesn't help solve my problem unless the solution is to decrease the length of the article I'm trying to post. I just want the basic history of the company until it was bought by Schneider, the brand will eventually die, and Pelco played a major role in the development of security equipment in america...I think its history is important. I looked through Google sources, everything worthwhile that turns up is the Fresno Bee and requires a subscription to view..not to mention the abstracts generally aren't related to the important details I want to cover. Thank you for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aruegger (talk • contribs) 17:01, January 25, 2013‎ (UTC)

From what I gather, the draft's reliable sources mention Pelco in precisely two contexts: Because it was bought by Schneider Electric, and because it engaged in some layofss and a transfer of production to China. Wikipedia content should be based on what independent, reliable sources have to say about the topic, so if we wanted to write an article based on the current sources, those events are what we should focus on. I don't think that's a worthwhile edeavour, especially since two of the sources are just the local newspaper. If no additional sources existed, the company simply might not be notable enough for an article in the first place. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that a few local newspaper articles should be all that's available on a billion-dollar company. Google Books turned up a few promising hits, for example this one that gives a nice overview of the company. Huon (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dams in Amaravati District

Dear Huan, Thanks for your reply .It appears that the image of Dams in Amravati is out and can not be used. I will wait for the reply and may raise the doubt again.Will you please have a look at the article in the making and give some advice if it is not coming out right. Thanks once againPmvelankar (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at the help desk, I don't see any sources that focus on dams in Amaravati District. We need such sources to establish that "dams in Amaravati District" is a notable topic that should be covered by an encyclopedia article in the first place. Thus it seems better to me to improve our state-level dam articles than to break those down by district. Huon (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Thank you very much for the prompt reply. As said I had done some homework and I do remember reading about

This is an example of a template. For help with templates, see Help:Template.

</nowiki>' some where in the tutorial . But then there are so many, so many cross references in the tutorial, more than 2-5 in almost every line that in following those links one looses complete track of the original lesson.Can some thing be done about it so that a tutorial teaches and does not try to give you a Masters on all of the contents and policies of wikipedia . I will now submit and if declined will present my point of view as to why it should be included . Thanks once again.Pmvelankar (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions to Idan (moshav)

Hi Huon, I saw you reverted to a previous version, in part because it broke the arabic (fair enough, and quite unintentional), but also because you say it is a common spelling. Sadly, it is a common MISSPELLING, the official name of עידן in English, is Iddan...I'd suggest redirecting Idan to Iddan. This is backed not only by the official name, but THE PIC IN THE ARTICLE ITSELF :P Plus, I grew up there xD. Cheers - Elad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.232.67 (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for advice at WT:WikiProject Israel#Idan or Iddan?, and two knowledgeable editors agreed that "Idan" is the correct transliteration. It also seems the more common transliteration, used by both Haaretz and Google Maps. A simple Google search shows that "Idan" generates roughly 50 times as many relevant hits as "Iddan". Based on the sources and the editors' opinions, I felt that we should go with "Idan". If you disagree, I suggest you reply at the WikiProject's talk page. Huon (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your help on publishing my article, with more questions...

Hello Huon,

Thanks for getting back to me with regard to my attempts to publish an article on the company Thrifty Computer. First of all, I appreciate your patience and assistance with resubmitting the article. This is the first piece I have tried to publish here, and I am still making my way around the interface, which I find quite a challenge!

With regard to your point on the content of the piece: The significance of the health status of the company's owner, Elchonon Hellinger, is that the sum of the press (and thus the sources of notability for the company) focuses on two notable facts: the first being that the founder, despite having a debilitating lifelong illness, has succeeded in creating a successful business, and the second being that even though the company went completely under at one point, rather than declare bankruptcy and throw in the towel, he made the unusual choice of paying back all creditors to slowly regain his reputation and foothold in the industry. While I may have my personal opinions about this (and while having no prior or personal connections with the owner, have written about this company from that perspective in a separate context), from a purely factual standpoint, I found the information worth sharing and documenting here on Wikipedia.

That being said, I have been trying to strike a balance between sticking to the facts of the company and not creating something that looks like a promotional piece. Thus I have edited out certain aspects of the business (details on shipping policies, etc.) that made it seem like I was selling their services. And I have attempted to convey the series of events that have led to the current state of the company without offering my opinion in any way, and just referring to the numerous business, medical and religious oriented publications that have featured articles about this business and its founder, Hellinger.

Again, I find this whole process of publishing on Wikipedia fascinating and quite challenging, and now I feel committed to bringing this task to completion! As a writer, I know I'm capable of conforming to editorial standards and restrictions. I am just not clear where in the article I am straying from the requirements. Any further insight you can share would be much appreciated, as I am interested in publishing more articles in the future, once I get the hang of it...

Thanks so much!! Deborah Oster Pannell (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much

Nirajrm Δ | [sign plz] 00:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Frommhagen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Create_a_Article

Sorry, I don't know how to fix it.Valleyspring (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Frommhagen, not 'de.wikipedia.org/Erich..." I hope you will reconsider.Valleyspring (talk) 07:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what you want. While pl:Erich Frommhagen exists, we don't have an English article on Erich Frommhagen. We don't create redirects to or from foreign language Wikipedias, so there's no redirect to create. If we had both articles we could add interwiki links to have them link to each other, but that's not the case. So what exactly is there to fix, and how can I help in fixing it? I don't speak Polish, so I won't be much of a help in translating the Polish article; you might ask one of the users listed at WP:Translators available#Polish-to-English for help if that's what you want. Huon (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know they had a policy of no redirects to foreign language sites. Unfortunately, it is too time consuming to have this material translated. I just use the google trans. site and a German dictionary.Valleyspring (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just trans. from German a biography of "Hans Eisele_Doctor." It is a trans direct from German wikipedia page. Let me know if that is acceptable.!Valleyspring (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that too was a Google translation - it shows. Have you looked up the sources given in the German article and checked what they say about Eisele? Two of those I checked didn't cover Eisele in significant detail, and it's unclear which of the sources supports which of the article's statements. We should use footnotes to clarify that, like the ones I used for the Independent article. Huon (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stay off my articles

My article is about my mother. All claims are true and I wanted to try to get her some recogniton. I don't know how to work Wikipedia and have no intent on trying but stay off my page. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porterlarsen (talk • contribs) 07:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you do not "own" articles and you cannot tell other editors to stay off articles.

Unfortunately Wikipedia is not the place to "get someone some recognition" - it is an encyclopedia that should only cover people that are already notable. Furthermore, Wikipedia content must not just be true, but verifiable from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as news coverage or maybe articles in sports magazines. Biographies of living persons in particular must cite reliable sources, or they will be deleted. I have explicitly asked you not to remove the deletion template unless the article cites a reliable source - it still doesn't have one. Thus I re-added the template. Huon (talk) 08:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marking Afc submissions for deletion

Hello, Huon. You have new messages at Anne Delong's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination of Brigitte Larsen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brigitte Larsen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brigitte Larsen until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. I noticed that you are one of the few principal editors of this article. - ʈucoxn\^talk 00:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Articles for creation/America Unearthed

Hi Huon,

I saw the message about the rejection of my submission of a page about the History Channel series, America Unearthed. The rejection cited the lack of references noting the subject as being significant. As a fan of this show, I would contend that surely the link to the article about how the show has become H2's highest rated show ever in the history of the network is evidence that the subject IS significant. What would you look for to evidence greater referencing? It is my first article but unlike many other shows such as MonsterQuest and Ancient Aliens, America Unearthed lacks a Wikipedia page, so I appreciate your help.

Thanks.

(71.195.22.181 (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

As I said at the AfC help desk, that source is a press release, not an independent, reliable source. It cannot establish the show's notability by Wikipedia's standards. As I also said at the help desk, I'd look for news reports on the show, or maybe reviews in reputable TV magazines - independent sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, sources that are subject to editorial oversight. Huon (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Huon.

Hope that you are well. I've added a heap more references for the article about the H2 series, America Unearthed. The page is at this address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/America_Unearthed Might you be able to re-assess the content and, hopefully, approve it for publication?

Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.22.181 (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have much better sources now, especially the Ad Age Media News report and the various other news articles. Those are the kinds of sources the draft should be based on. Unfortunately you also still have a lot of highly dubious sources, ranging from primary sources such as the press release or the presenter's personal website to a random person's blog with an agenda. Furthermore, you don't make the best use of the sources you have. For example, you cite the Ad age piece for "rating success" but don't give the exact numbers that the source reports. The "Production" section focuses almost exclusively on “Holy Grail in America”, with two sources that don't even mention America Unearthed. I'd also get rid of the lengthy narrator's quote in the lead; it's just a repetition of what you say immediately before that quote. So in short, by now you have enough reliable independent sources to establish notability and to write a nice article about the show, but much of the current draft needs to be rewritten in order to summarize what those good sources actually say about the subject. Huon (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Huon. While I was editing the page - and implementing some of your suggestions - someone else did a page (annoying!!), but it had errors and far less well researched references. At another user's suggestion I have merged my updated article with the other America Unearthed page. Hope this help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.22.181 (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply at your talk page to keep the discussion in one place. Huon (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankincense

This page[[6]] cites a difference in Frankincense vs its common name Olibanum that would be of some interest for expanding on the specificity of available information on incense and incense history--possibly something that could be transwikied if it becomes too specialized for encyclopedic content. Is it too Commercial to cite? It does provide excellent detail. AcheronSS (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too impressed by that source. Firstly, it's a commercial website primarily interested in selling stuff, not in providing accurate information. Secondly, it seems awfully vague. For example, "some biblical scholars try to seperate Frankincense from Olibanum ..." - which ones? Can we cite those scholars directly? They would make much better sources than this website. Huon (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar awarded

		The Redirect Barnstar
		Huon, you do good work as an Wikipedia editor, and this award is given to you in recognition of your work at Redirects for creation. On behalf of your fellow editors, and on behalf of our millions of readers, I say "THANK YOU!" Senator2029 ➔leave me a message 03:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks! Huon (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Huon, Thanks for your input for my Help request. As I wrote on my talk page, one of the disconcerting aspects of my first experience here is that I've had work deleted without any prior notice that anything was wrong. It has prevented me from learning from early mistakes, and now I find a deluge of criticism I feel could have been avoided.

Also, editors have placed labels on articles without adding any detail whatsoever as to the offending wording. As a result, I don't know what to change. The editors gave me no detail or texture as to what the real problem was. As a result, I don't even know where to start in making changes. I feel very much like I am caught between a rock and a hard place.

I will try to learn the nuances of Wikipedia, but the application of some things aren't consistent with my experience in writing articles for academia. The 10% rule is what we lived by. That is, you can use no more than 10% of any article, so long as it is referenced, which I did (I never came close to 10%). The way things are in Wikipedia, the uses of a sentence might be seen by an editor as being copyright infringement. That is not the case. I apologize for the missteps I have made. Please do give me the benefit of the doubt. I am a serious writer and researcher, with a passion for certain subjects. I feel blessed that I was still working with personal computers came out. I was 48 when I got my first pc in 1992. But Wikipedia is a highly unique community, and there is a disparity of opinions as to the applications of the rules. I will try to adhere as best I know how to these rules. Please do, however, give me the benefit of understanding more precisely what errors I make so that I can learn from them. I need more than just the tags put on articles. I need an explanation at a more granular level what about an edit or article is in error. IbankingMM (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert on copyright, and I expect neither are most Wikipedia editors, but we do tend to err on the side of caution. Unless you explicitly quote a source ("In his landmark book Capital for Dummies, economist John Doe said: 'Intellectual capital is divided into human, structural and relational capital.'"), it's almost always better to summarize the source's content in your own words than to copy and paste it wholesale - and I wouldn't use quotes for something like that, but rather for statements of opinion that should be attributed to the person voicing it ("Harvard professor of economics Jane Roe said, 'The Chicago School doesn't know what it's talking about.'").

If you want an editor to provide additional explanation of tags they added or of edits you disagree with, the place to ask is either at the relevant article's talk page or, if it's not about a specific article, at the user's talk page. The user may also have left an edit summary that explains why he made a certain edit; you can check the page history for edit summaries. Huon (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Sergio Franchi article

Huon, I can relate to the sentiments expressed by IbankingMM above. Trying to learn! Please reply to my comment on your comments on the bio article on the Sergio franki article talk page just posted. Thanks Cathlec (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Huon. You have new messages at Talk:Sergio Franchi.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Life! Camera Action...

Thank you very much Huon for your amazing assistance. It has been very helpful. Kudos to you. lcarg2012 Bbry2 02:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcarg2012 (talk • contribs)

You're welcome, I'm happy to help. Huon (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ali İsmet Öztürk

My article "Ali İsmet Öztürk" has been created. Thank you so much for your kind support and assistance! Mach22591 (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, it's a pleasure to help the creator of a new article. Huon (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]