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 — 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: ; or 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. 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/[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)

Demographics of atheism[edit]

Sir.. In regards to my suggested edit of the 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)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).