User talk:Huon

• /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
• /Archive11 December 2013 to March 2014

April 2014

Hello, I'm A930913. I have manually detected that your edit to List of Vice Presidents of the United States may have fixed the syntax. If you haven't, 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 talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, add {{NoAprilFools}} anywhere on your talk page. Thanks for all you do 930913(Congratulate) 08:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Review of New Article "Huss and Dalton"

Huon, thank you for helping me review this article. The guidelines for notability were very unclear, and you pointed out to me which sources were reliable and what should be excluded. I will notify the author before declining the request. Danielh32 (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

query

Hi Huon: I have a (minor) query on my talkpage. taa (Pronacampo9 (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC))

Angie Goff

There are a couple of issues here. Firstly, Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Facebook and Twitter clearly do not meet that standard, and since they apparently contradict each other regarding the birthdate, there's no reason to pick one and claim that one reports the truth. Secondly, I'd read "per request" as "per request of the subject". Thirdly, what you added in this edit is a copyright violation; Neutralhomer was right to remove it on sight. Even without the copyright issue it would be irrelevant trivia, and most of the "sources" for that content are anything but reliable. Finally, you were clearly edit-warring on this page to add inappropriate content. So a 3RR report was entirely appropriate. Huon (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. if the problem is the source, why not state that. neutralhomer never did. just repeatedly reverted. I even posted on discussion page which is the proper step and my post was reverted. If the request is per request of the subject, show the request. Why you put sources in quotes I dont get. twitter I understand but northern virginia magazine, parents magazine, alumni magazine are reliabale sources. 99.198.79.138 (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Neutralhomer pointed you towards our policies on verifiability and biographies of living persons, which clearly explain a need for high-quality independent sources. Yet you continued to add poorly-sourced content about a living person. Your sources were almost exclusively primary sources such as the subject's own blog or interviews with the subject (which also is the subject speaking about itself). Regarding the request, you'll have to ask Neutralhomer; the request wasn't made to me and I don't know the details. However, what was removed was irrelevant trivia that shouldn't have been added to the page in the first place; see WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE for details. Huon (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments on my article. SingerGal (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sock

Hi Huon. Just wanted to bring your attention to NintendoPosterAlt as another sockpuppet of a user you recently blocked as a sock of The Wiki Clicker. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks. Huon (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Question about edit requests

Thank you for your help regarding edit summaries that you left on my talk page. I was hoping you could help me with something else as well. I left an edit request on the talk page of my workplace on April 4th. I understand that we need consensus on the changes before I should put together an edit request template. However, there haven't yet been any comments in response to the changes. I was wondering if this is usual, or if the page needs to be pushed onto, say, a list of recent changes before it gets seen? Thanks for your help! Favellefavco (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Favellefavco: Wikipedia has about four and a half million articles, and those on less high-profile topics may be watched by few editors. Worse, a single edit to the talk page might slip through the cracks and not get noticed. Thus we have a template, {{Request edit}}, which you can use to highlight your request - it will add the talk page to a central category of pages with edit requests so that it can be easily be found by those editors dealing with edit requests. I have now acted on your request and added the page to my watchlist. Huon (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Huon, my apologies for the late reply - I had taken a short break over the last week and was away from work. Thank you very much for taking the time to act upon my request, it is greatly appreciated. I would like to ask another question regarding the use of the edit request template. Under 'Procedure' on the edit request instruction page, step 1 says to "[p]ropose a specific change on the talk page, and get consensus for it. Don't add an edit request template yet." However, as you've mentioned, the template must be used in order to push the talk page onto the central category where it can be easily found. For future reference, which is the correct first step to take? Thank you! Favellefavco (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Step 1 is meant for controversial edits likely to become the topic of a discussion. In such cases there should not be an open edit request while the discussion is ongoing (because the people acting on the requests can't implement it anyway before the discussion has reached a consensus). I'd suggest one of two procedures: If an edit is utterly uncontroversial, so that no one acting in good faith could possibly oppose it (say, updating 2012 revenues with 2013 revenues, based on a reliable source of similar quality), use the template right away. If the edit might be seen as controversial, propose the edit on the talk page without using the template, and if no one objects for a week or so, add the template to have it implemented. The less well-frequented an article talk page is, the more I'd suggest using the template right away. Huon (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

15 April - Just an observation

re, quote:

Review waiting. This may take more than 3 weeks. The Articles for creation process is very highly backlogged. Please be patient. There are 1755 submissions waiting for review.

I notice that there are about 100-150/day new AfC entries, without any perceptible 'movement' in the waiting queue of 'older' entries. Looks like gridlock to me, no? (Pronacampo9 (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC))

I don't think that's gridlock so much as the fact that at the moment drafts are added at a much higher rate than they're reviewed. We recently had a backlog drive that brought the total number of submissions down to 1,000, but that didn't last long. Older drafts are being reviewed at a steady rate, but at too low a rate, you could say. Huon (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• thanks for the clarification, Huon, i.o.w. steady as she goes. On a positive note, leaves me plenty of time to keep revising: wouldn't want to be kicked to the back of that queue (!) ciao (Pronacampo9 (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC))

Thanks - re. videos as reliable sources

Thanks for your response to my"help me" request today - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Omc#Help_-_Reliable_sources_-_video_clips.

In case you're curious, the issue deals with Tom Daley, the English Olympics diver and celebrity. There's a long discussion on the Talk page. Omc (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

suggestion

Ronn Torossian Maybe this can be helpful.

http://www.odwyerpr.com/blog/index.php?/archives/3389-Torossian-Tells-All-in-New-Book.html

 

“Torossian’s book is for anybody who wants “to get it” when it comes to how PR can advance their personal and professional lives. “5W Public Relations chief Ronn Torossian has written a book about PR that is unlike any other that I’ve read in my more than 20 years of covering the communications business at O’Dwyer’s. For Immediate Release” is brimming with spunk and attitude. It’s a street fighter’s guide to PR.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhimler/2012/04/17/the-reading-room/2/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemmaymail (talk • contribs) 20:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Jemmaymail (talk)

The second source reprints the book's sales blurb, hardly an independent source on the book. The first is somewhat better in that regard, but it's still a blog post, and the lines you want cited seem cherry-picked to laud Torossian. You may want to check WP:SOCK, maybe WP:Meatpuppetry in particular. I find it literally incredible that an unrelated brand-new user should stumble on that discussion, immediately know where to look for sources on that subject and provide them here. Huon (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I added TLC (group) to Perri Reid article]]

Huon Hello. I made edits to Perri Reid. I posted to the discuassion page. I know summerphd will revert. Please look over my edits. Thank You. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I have replied at Talk:Perri "Pebbles" Reid#adding TLC info to this article. To be honest, I am tempted to revert that myself; at the very least it will need to be shortened drastically. Huon (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Huon Hello. You are right about the link. Please read my response on the discussion page. Thank You. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Still learning.

Thank you for your kind advise on my article on Ann-Sophie Qvarnström. So it is back to some editing. It is tricky to get sources now since so very few write anything down in proper paper publications. I´ll just go back to all her old clippings from papers. But I will not abandon the article since it is directly linked to the one I really wanted to translate, one about artist Einar Jolin. I´m about halfway into the translation on my sandbox page if you want to take a peek. - W.carter (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Online sources are also acceptable, provided they are reliable and independent of the subject. If, for example, Aftonbladet had written an online article about Qvarnström, that would make a good source. Regarding your sandbox draft, Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source; we should never use Wikipedia as a reference. Huon (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok. No Wiki refs. Check. But about the links to the RPG-book containing her illustrations. They are links to the official page of the company now holding the copyrights to her works, I thought that was independent enough. At first glance the page looks just like a list of games with pictures of the boxes, but they are really links to pdf-versions of the games and in these pdf her name is clearly listed as one of illustrators. Should I link to the pdf instead of the link site? Would that be better?W.carter (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The company has a commercial interest in selling the books, which makes them anything but independent. Another problem is that such a listing doesn't cover Qvarnström in any detail - a review discussing her artwork would allow us to write a little more than "the illustrations exist". On an unrelated note, as my username suggests I have recognized quite a few of the cover artworks, and they seem rather unrelated to the content. Apparently the publisher wasn't all that picky about their artwork. Huon (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Startup Village, Yokneam

I see that you redirected this to the Yokneam page as a POV article in response to my request for assistance to improve the page (from Class C quality to Class B). I disagree that it is POV, but I am not an experienced editor. I have done my best to keep it as objective as possible and was asking for help to make it more objective. It is different from the Yokneam page even though there is a lot of content that I updated in both pages.

The Startup Village, Yokneam page describes the high-tech ecosystem for a group of many small communities that could not exist if it was only part of Yokneam. There is much more information on Yokneam than the other communities because that information was more readily available. But it will never be added to a page on Yokneam because it would not be relevant. For example, the econmies of the Megiddo Regional Council and the Druze Villages of Daliat al Carmel and Isifiya are barely relevant to Yokneam as a City, but are very relevant to the high-tech ecosystem (the Mevo Carmel Park is outside of Yokneam's municipal boundaries, but is part of the high-tech ecosystem). I think that the ecosystem in that page is a large enough topic to justify its own page, just as the Boston Red Sox are enough of its own topic to be separate from Boston (even though Fenway Park is in Boston).

The Yokneam page refers to a small city, where the high-tech companies are part of its economy, but not it main or only focus.

How do I get the page reinstated? Or have it reviewed and improved so that it can develop into its own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclefeet (talk • contribs) 21:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the note I left at Talk:Startup Village, Yokneam? That page's reliable sources largely did not mention Startup Village (in fact, none of the sources I checked did!). If there is something called "Startup Village" in that area, you should provide reliable third-party sources that actually discuss Startup Village. Also, you seem to misunderstand what an ecosystem is. The article was even included in Category:Ecosystems, where it obviously does not belong. Finally, let me quote the article I turned into a redirect: There is an article about Yokneam from a different perspective. The other article is Yokneam. That's an open admission that your version is a fork that covers the same topic from another POV. Huon (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I read the Yokneam Talk page, but it is not the same topic

Yokneam discusses the city, of which the startup ecosystem is a part of its economy. The Startup Village, Yokneam page is about a startup ecosystem based in a village-like area that consists of many small communities.

The city of Yokneam is the largest community in the startup ecosystem, but still small (22,000 residents). Much of what is relevant to the startup ecosystem does not belong on the Yokneam page or should not receive detailed attention there. For example: Megiddo Regional Council, Daliyat al Carmel and Isifiya are all partners in the Mevo Carmel project. The relationship between the surrounding communities with the high-tech companies is very relevant to this page, but of questionable reference to the Yokneam page.

Regarding the citations, they all referred to the specific items listed in the sentences before.

If you have a problem with the title, then suggest a better one that identifies the startup ecosystem located in a village like environment. Don't redirect the topic out of existence. The reason I added ", Yokneam" to the title was to differentiate it from the Startup Village page that refers to something different that is located in India.

The page is not intended to reflect only the information that I added to it when creating it and the few experienced editors that reviewed and commented before it was made public. My understanding of Wikipedia is that it is community project where the general public can add and edit information. I don't think 24 hours is enough time to expect the general public to add to the information that gathered to start the page. I am sure that there are many people who know more about the history of the high-tech companies' in the area and their relationship with Technion or the social and political factors that led to its success in a rural area, but they will never have a chance to add their information or point to the documentation of it that I personally don't know of.

If you have a problem with one of the categories, then correct that. I requested assistance to improve the page because I took the comments that the reviewers made seriously. If the page was not appropriate, I don't think that it would have been approved in the first place. Unclefeet (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This should be discussed at the article talk page. I'll reply over there. Huon (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Karna Article

ThanksMaglorbd (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Route Map Creation Question

So I can create any route map using the template? If so, do I need to cite a source that goes with it?Jchen1999 (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes and yes, though a primary source will probably suffice for this rather uncontroversial information. Huon (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Huon. You have new messages at Paquito490's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Paquito490 (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

SRAF deletion

Just questioning this deletion at Social Revolutionary Anarchist Federation https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Revolutionary_Anarchist_Federation&diff=606545092&oldid=580092258 I think this material is valuable for two reasons - it shows how anarchists creatively dealt with a controversial situation - instead of censoring material they offered two versions of their bulletin! And it shows the type of issues that were being discussed. There are not going to be many reliable sources discussing these types of historically interesting but tiny groups. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC) I can verify that this information is true, based on archived back issues of this discussion bulletin. Do you have reason to believe it is not? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

What I found particularly problematic was the "as well as anti-semitic content" line. That was not supported by any reliable sources: A violation of WP:BLP. I'd be very reluctant to say someone is an anti-semitist based to back-issues of an anarchist bulletin, particularly when the subject vehemently denies the allegation of anti-semitism (as opposed to an anti-Israel stance). Worse, that content had crept into the Joffre Stewart article: "According to the Wikipedia entry on SRAF, Stewart has been accused of anti-semitism". Wikipedia is anything but a reliable source for such claims, and when the SRAF article did not provide reliable third-party sources to back up that claim (or the entire controversy), I removed it in both places. There was a source that discussed the "Bob Black vs. Processed World" controversy, but mentioned the SRAF Bulletin only in passing as one of several venues for Black's writings; it did not connect the Bulletin to any escalation to violence.

The entire SRAF article is extremely short on third-party sources, raising issues of notability. In fact I was on the verge of nominating the entire article for deletion. There may be some merit in keeping parts of the article, but not at the cost of BLP violations. Huon (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Huon. You have new messages at Paquito490's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Huon. You have new messages at Paquito490's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edmund Ingalls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native Americans (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) 08:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Arthur Schnitzler 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:

• on the play. More recently, in Fernando Meirelles' film ''[[360 (2011 film)|360]]'', Schnitzler]s play was provided with a new version, as has been the case with many other TV and film

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Huon. You have new messages at Paquito490's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Huon. You have new messages at Paquito490's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Huon. You have new messages at Paquito490's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reference Errors on 6 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of awards and nominations received by Eminem page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Anatol (play)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Jim Parsley article

Hi Huon, I am new to Wikipedia so if I am not following proper protocol, please forgive me. I believe you are the one who moved my submitted article to Created Articles - thank you! There is a Bare URL warning at the beginning and using the liknref tool. I believe I have fixed the issue. I was wondering if you could take a look and make sure and if so, would you have the ability to remove the warning? Thanks so much in advance. Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobBOrlando (talk • contribs) 17:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done You can remove such tags yourself when you have fixed the issue. Huon (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Large Group Capacitation

Hello Huon: I submitted Large Group Capacitation for review sometime (back) in March and over that time have seen the AfC backlog swell and swell, to a (n almost insurmountable??) 3,000. Luckily, the AfC has just been accepted by “The Herald”. . . who now tells me that I perhaps might have dispensed with all this waiting altogether?. . .re Quote: Large Group Capacitation, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. (Unquote)

. . . which comes a bit as a surprise to me.

also, the article, for some reason, is now prefaced with an Orphan stamp. Which also comes a bit as a surprise because the article definitely has some very close <wiki:en> and <wiki:es> relatives, if not, indeed, ‘parents’?

Kind regards (Pronacampo9 (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC))

Hello Pronacampo9, you can indeed create new articles directly: Search for the proposed title, and if no page with that title exists already, you'll find an "You may create the page..." link that allows you to create a new article. However, that's only suited for articles that are short enough to be written in one go. For longer articles that you want to create in multiple sessions, I'd suggest you write the draft in a sub-page of your userspace just as you did with the last one, and when it's good to go, instead of submitting it for a review you can move it into the main articlespace (or if you prefer, you can ask me to move it for you). There is one disadvantage of this method I should mention, the main reason why we try to guide new editors towards the submission process: If you submit a problematic draft, the reviewer will at worst decline it and provide some feedback so you can continue improving it. Live articles that are problematic would instead likely be nominated for deletion. Since your last two drafts were ready for the mainspace on the first review, that shouldn't be much of an issue for you. The "orphan" tag means that while there may be closely related articles, they don't actually link to the Large Group Capacitation one. You can resolve that by adding links to the new article to old articles such as, say, the Organization Workshop one which prominently discusses Large Group Capacitation. Once you have done so, you can remove the {{orphan}} template that creates the tag. Huon (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thursday 08 May: You have done it again, Huon!: led my perplexed and inquiring mind to the peaceful valeys of understanding - thanks again!

(PS: The Spanish version is almost ready and I will know now how to avoid endless Backlog queues) (Pronacampo9 (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC))