- /Archive1 December 2005 to September 2006
- /Archive2 Non-local numbers: A discussion. September 2006
- /Archive3 September 2006 to November 2008
- /Archive4 November 2008 to January 2011
- /Archive5 February 2011 to May 2012
- /Archive6 June 2012 to October 2012
- /Archive7 November 2012 to February 2013
- /Archive8 March 2013 to May 2013
- /Archive9 June 2013 to August 2013
- /Archive10 September 2013 to November 2013
AFC article: 'HabitRPG' declined
You just declined my articles for creation article, HabitRPG. You said,
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources.
I do not understand why you said this. To me, it seems as though my submission is neutral and has a formal tone. Can you please explain further?
P.S. If I:
- find a different reference than the Wikia one
- describe the criticism of the mobile application
do you think the article would be Wikipedia-quality?
- There are several issues. Firstly, the draft is very short on reliable third-party sources to establish that the program is notable in the first place. Secondly, it's almost exclusively a how-to guide explaining the program in great detail while ignoring most of the real-world significance - it doesn't even tell how old the program is. And thirdly, your best source is a highly critical review whose criticism is ignored entirely. That's a WP:NPOV violation.
- My suggestion would be to find another two or three independent sources, preferably in more mainstream publications, and to rewrite the draft to reflect what those sources have to say. Huon (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
|The Really Nice View for Really Nice Work Award|
|Hello Huon, I saw that you have been doing some really nice work on Wikipedia, including helping me a lot, particularly on BLP, but also in admin-y areas in general; so I thought that you deserved to be the fifth recipient of the 'Really Nice View' award. Congratulations! Matty.007 17:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)|
- Wow, thanks! I certainly appreciate the view; much nicer than what's outside my own windows... Huon (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
could you help
I am not understanding what you was trying to say to me this is 100pct new to me so please just bare with me.my website looks all messed up since i started and could use some help. My website is paid for for 10 yrs so this is like a project. could use advice and help http://murphysmaddness.us/ there is a wiki tab at the top of the website. STRESSEDOUT... thanks again.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmurphy812 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Huon, It will be 2 weeks this coming Saturday. Still no replies from summerphd to the questions I proposed on the talk page.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Perri_%22Pebbles%22_Reid#section_2:_how_about_a_separate_section_for_Pebbles_managing_TLC.3F So I am going to go ahead and edit the article. I did some updatingon 23 November, and they surprisingly werent reverted. My fear is that as soon as I do that it will rear its head again and revert all my edits and censor everything citing 'blp'; and then it will call an admin and get the page locked. Thanks. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I do intend to remove any unsourced husbands, children and such and unsourced contentious claims about living people from the talk page, citing our policy on the matter. If this leads to repeated re-adding of the unsourced material as it did previously, I will request page protection. If you have reliable sources for the contested material, add the sources when you add the material and there is no problem. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Aquí está – Here it is
- Re 5 December: Buen trabajo, aquí lo tienes: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratorio_Organizacional. --Shalbat (discusión) 23:50 5 dic 2013 (UTC).
- Comment: and I who used to think that the boys (and girls) @ <en:wiki> were tough cookies. . . .(thanks for the support & merry xmas!). (Pronacampo9 (talk) 12:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC))
• : Thanks Huon. “They” put the thumbscrews on me for months on end and here’s why (I think): Por regla general, se mira con más detalle y rigor un artículo que ya fue borrado y en el cual se insiste (transl: As a general rule one wants to look in fine detail and with great rigor at an article that was deleted and where [the author] insists.) (from an exchange between two bibliotecarios/editor). Had it not been for your hint where and how to start a subpage, the phenix might never have risen from the ashes (read: being deleted almost the minute I opened my Spanish AfC page). Thanks again. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC))
- That sounds... counterproductive. "A new editor made a mistake but is willing to solve the problem. Let's make it as difficult as possible!" I don't want to know how many good-faith editors they scare away with that approach. Huon (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, moved to bottom because it was showing up oddly on Facebook. Agree that users should not read through whole article to find info about previous org as new org launched recently. What if its at bottom and in bold? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeteranUSA1 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)