User talk:Huon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sarah Archer[edit]

Hello My name is Anita I would Like to thank you for Editing Sarah Archers page I have new information but I seemed to have tried to site but I couldn't if you have time could you possible help as I put her Award for The Duke of Edinburgh's on her website http://www.saraharcher.info/awards/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anita cohen (talkcontribs) 12:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Anita cohen: I have never edited Sarah Archer (model), the page you probably refer to, before today. Anyway, Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For rather obvious reasons, Archer's website is not such a source. In fact, the entire article on Archer is only based on local coverage and is a borderline case regarding our notability guidelines. You should also take a look at Wikipedia's guideline on conflicts of interest and the recent changes to the Terms of Use which prohibit undisclosed paid editing, as yours would likely be considered to be when you edit on behalf of your client. Huon (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic Cleaners review notes[edit]

Thank you for answering me, I only have a couple of questions regarding your judgement. 1. Fantastic Cleaners was created first, then joined other services and became Fantastic Services but the Cleaners portion stays relevant. - Check the Scoot award or the Clensa approval. 2. I have read the "notable" and "independent" sections more than once.. how are official mass media sources not relevant? How are multi-national awards not relevant? Did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_Rug_Cleaning ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Rooter or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxi_Fresh_Carpet_Cleaning cite more relevant, more notable or more independent source to their companies? I should apologise here if I am coming in as a bit passive-aggressive... What makes a rather notable source less important and destructive for the article, and having no sources at all "OK"? 3. The information provided is informational.. the content has only one link to the site and that's it.. I have not used terms as "The Best", "The Most Lovable" ect. Please point out the promotional parts... Ethan Cresdee (talk)

Other problematic articles may exist, but that's not a valid reason to create more - each submission must stand on its own merits. Among the rather useless sources I'd include "about us" pages written by themselves like this or this (not independent coverage of either Fantastic Cleaners or the Clensa recognition) as well as praise by their partners such as this, hardly an "official mass media source" and the only source for the charity, which always sounds nice in a company article. Virgin doesn't say what you cite it for - Zappos is the "innovation leader", Fantastic Services is following its lead. Headlineawards.co.uk is not an independent source on the Headline Awards. Among the nice-sounding but unreferenced content I'd include everything about their international reach, the "dramatic growth", "has more than 40 partners internationally" and so on - in fact, the entire "Operations" section doesn't cite any sources, and for all I can tell none of the references provided in the draft support that content. The lone third-party source in the "History" section also doesn't say what it's cited for. Huon (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Piyush singh450/Jobsdhamaka.com[edit]

Apparently he didn't get the hint... (sigh) Reventtalk 09:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seymour Koblin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Relationship. 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) 08:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Easy tyre and autocentres may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • relaunches-following-100000-investment/</ref>, [[Stamford]], [[Stratford-upon-Avon]], [Telford]], [[Wellingborough]] and [[Worcester]]. It also has a mobile tyre fitting service in the Midlands.<

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alan Cavé may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * [http://https://twitter.com/AlanCaveMusic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Demographics of atheism[edit]

Sir.. In regards to my suggested edit of the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demographics_of_atheism&action=submit page, I did not fake the numbers.. I provided the resource link.. As I mentioned in the comments (which thank you for letting me know not to add comments that say "delete me").

The part which you accuse me of faking the numbers are a section that I did not make any suggested changes to.. I left that paragraph alone as I did not see any credible source that refuted those numbers. That paragraph does not even reference anything about percentages.

Here is the entirety of the paragraph:

"

According to a 2011 Gallup poll, more than 9 in 10 Americans say "yes" when asked the basic question "Do you believe in God?"; this is down only slightly from the 1940s, when Gallup first asked this question. However, when given the choice to express uncertainties, the percentage of belief in God drops into the 70% to 80% range. When Americans are given the option of saying they believe in a universal spirit or higher power instead of in "God," about 12% choose the former.[1]"

Again, I suggested no changes to that section.. Not one single change by me was suggested...

Please acknowledge that I did not "Worse, you faked numbers" when I never suggesting any edits to what was already written..

As for "If you want to comment about content or changes, the article has a dedicated talk page for that purpose. Editorial comments should never be included in the article itself." Clearly I have never once attempted to suggest an edit to a Wikipedia page. That should have been clearly obvious. I was like the girl who posted how "dumb it was for elevators to have a button for the floor you are on"....

I understand you must get so many suggested changes by biased people. (I read about the recent discovery of that guy working at Wikipedia who was also an employee of Deepak Chopra. I would expect your staff to be especially sensitive right now about suggested changes..

I started off trying to make delineated comments that acknowledged I am a partisan atheist, but that my only purpose was to update the demographics to the latest respectable polls (which I broke down at the top of my suggested changes (only the Pew Reasearch, Gallop Poll, etc). That my only intent was to update the numerical numbers to the latest respectable polls.

Please reconsider my suggested edits.. They are ONLY from respected websites that are more recent than the ones listed on this webpage and are cited. And again, the part where you believe where I "faked numbers" was a section I did not even suggest any changes to...

You made the article say, quote:
According to a 2011 Pew Research poll, 68% of Americans say "yes" when asked the basic question "Do you believe in God?"; this is down from the 1940s, when Gallup first asked this question. However, when given the choice to express uncertainties, the percentage of belief in God drops into the 80% range.
That's not just inconsistent ("dropping" into the 80% range from 68%?), it's just plain wrong. The source you provided for that change in your comment cites a 2013 Harris poll, not a 2011 Pew Research poll, it doesn't say 68% answered yes when asked that basic question, and since it was an online poll with no given margin of error, I have severe doubts it's as reliable as the Gallup poll mention of which you removed. I also seriously doubt religious demographics shifted by more than 20% in just two years; that alone should have given you pause. And that was not the only problematic change. For example, you conflated the "non-religious/unaffiliated" in the Pew poll when Pew points out that two thirds of those explicitly consider themselves believers in God - a fact that would seem relevant when discussing the group in a "demographics of atheism" article, don't you think? Huon (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
References
  1. ^ "More Than 9 in 10 Americans Continue to Believe in God". Gallup.com. Retrieved 2014-01-06. 

Template:Noticeboard links/sandbox[edit]

Hi there. You were the last one here, so I thought I'd let you decide what to do: I just started Template:Noticeboard links/Draft per Template talk:Noticeboard links#Template revamp not realizing the sandbox existed. Perhaps just pasting the entire Template:Noticeboard links/Draft to Template:Noticeboard links/sandbox, replacing what is there, would be the best plan. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I only edited that page as part of a rollback spree, but I've histmerged /Draft into /sandbox. I'll leave a note at the talk page. Huon (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Dear Huon,

Thank you for replying to my query re: Jorn Weisbrodt's article (sent by Timtrent). Yes, the permissions emails were sent to the right email address with the attached photos, and using the wording given by Wikipedia re: licensing. I'll wait 2-3 days and see if I get a reply.

Kind Regards,

Lulu

Lulu 21:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@SongsforLulu: Okay. On an entirely unrelated note, your signature doesn't include a link to your user page (which hasn't been created yet anyway), your talk page or your contributions. According to WP:SIGLINK, signatures should contain at least one such link. You can sign your messages by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end. The default signature will look like mine, but maybe you customized your signature in your preferences? If so, please make sure that the customized signature contains a link. Huon (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
For all your hard work on #wikipedia-en-help, on behalf of the hundreds of editors you've helped, thanks! Thanks, Lixxx235Got a complaint? 16:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

BDBIsrael[edit]

You know, you're right. I wasn't entirely considering that there is no real difference between requesting on Talk:Banc de Binary and User talk:BDBIsrael. Thank you for putting it that simply. I wonder if they'll ever come back. Origamiteis out right now 00:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Katvcb[edit]

Hi Huon,

Thank you for editing my citations and fixing the article up. You said that because the articles I've used all look like variations of the same press release, it might not be sufficiently notable. Should I attempt to publish the information, or keep looking for additional sources?

I really appreciate all of your help!

Katpss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katpss (talkcontribs) 13:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Katpss: Unfortunately I would expect that the eXMeritus HardwareWall Software draft will not be accepted based on the current sources. In my opinion, the breach detection draft was much closer to becoming an article. If you want me to, I can separate the two drafts and put them in separate sub-pages of your user page, while maintaining their respective page histories. (A copy&paste move would also work, but would not carry over the page history). Huon (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Dear Huon, Thank you so much for your assistance on how to format the infobox parameters on my wiki draft. I really appreciate it! -Allison — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allisonellis (talkcontribs) 22:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Heads-up: Manameans (blocked user)[edit]

I'm a relatively new editor interested in articles about companies. I found a request this morning on the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies for an article about Sause Bros. from User:Ed manameans. I tracked back to the Draft:Sause Bros. article posted by User:Manameans, whom you blocked. I will be working on a draft article for the company, but wanted to let you know there is a very persistent PR company that seems to be in violation of Wikipedia:Username policy#Promotional names. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Usernames of the "Joe at Company X" type are allowed; the problem with "corporate" names (such as the now-blocked User:Manameans) is more that they imply shared use (and the blocked account indeed was used by several people). So I don't think this choice of username is problematic, and the company seems to have switched from trying to write the article themselves to requesting an article, which is also an improvement. I see no need to do anything here. Huon (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Happy adminship anniversary!!![edit]

Wikipe-tan mopping.svg
Wishing Huon a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Anastasia (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Global Decency Index (sic)[edit]

Hello — A couple of days ago you proposed Global Decency Index for deletion on the grounds that the article and all its sources were brief mentions of a single minor event. An IP editor has since disputed the PROD (or, more correctly, bulk-deleted all the templates at the start of the page), but I've noticed another problem that may be grounds for deletion: the entire text is copied from an external Web site which explicitly claims copyright. I've voiced my concerns on the article talk page Talk:Global Decency Index. Since you've previously expressed interest in this article, might you have a moment to peek at those points? If I'm reading the criteria correctly, this may be a candidate for {{db-copyvio}}. Thanks!  Unician   02:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. Copyright violation indeed is a speedy deletion criterion; I have deleted the page accordingly. Huon (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Palm Pistol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medicare. 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) 08:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

AWB[edit]

Sorry I had to leave the channel. I'll add my request here.

I would like to request AWB rights to do the following: Add and remove categories, Add persondata, Create list articles easier, Fix disambiguation pages easier, and Add different stubs. I appreciate your consideration. Thanks! A2 16:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Akifumii: The correct place to request AWB is Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage and not here. Jianhui67 TC 16:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@Jianhui67: I know that. The user and I were discussing in IRC and I wanted to finish up the conversation here. I am not going to request this for another month or so until I have 500 mainspace edits just to be safe. A2 16:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Page[edit]

Dear Huon,

Earlier this July you have deleted my draft that I submitted as <National Bring a Kiwi To Work Day!>

I looked on the deletion log, which it was not on. Would you please be able to tell me why it was deleted?

Thank you!

LH
In short, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. This was a pretty obvious hoax, not a national holiday in the United States. It's covered by speedy deletion criterion G3. Huon (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hans Unger gallery[edit]

Dear Huon,

Thank you for helping me out with the gallery in the Hans Unger article! This is indeed how I would like it to be. On the block around the footnotes/references section, I could not find any examples in the English Wikipedia but there is one in the Nederlands Wikipedia (my native language), the article on Dolf Unger (which I wrote). Is this not common on English Wikipedia? I have two more questions: 1) in the infobox (on Hans Unger), I did fill in several names in the "Influenced by"-field but they do not show up in the Read-version of the article. Why? and 2) I noticed that somebody translated my article and pasted it on the Russian Wikipedia without adding a language link to the original article and without crediting the source. What can I do about that? I already put a message on his Talk page, in English, but since he seems to be Russian I do not know if he understands it. --Hansung02 (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia had a copy of the template that Dutch article uses, nl:Template:Appendix, but it was deleted in 2009. That style is not used on the English Wikipedia.
The infobox used on the Hans Unger article simply does not have "influenced" and "influenced by" parameters. See the full list of parameters; the closest are probably "style" and "movement".
The very first version of the Russian article already had links to the Swedish and English versions of the article. Check out the last lines here. Those lines have by now been removed by a bot because the articles are linked via Wikidata, a behind-the-scenes tool used to provide machine-readable information and to, like here, link articles on the same subject in different-language Wikipedias together, so it's still linked to the English article. Personally I do not think that link suffices to satisfy the requirements of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License the English article (and in fact the Russian article too) is published under, but I can't offer much help here: I do not speak Russian and do not know the Russian Wikipedia's policies in this regard. The best advice I can give is to find a Russian administrator that speaks English and to lay out the case to them. Huon (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)