Jump to content

User talk:Huon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sir Mycroft Holmes (talk | contribs) at 18:28, 14 June 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

query

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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))[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Karna Article

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

DYK for Anatol (play)

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

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)[reply]

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

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))[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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))[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Huon. You have new messages at Dudel250's talk page.
Message added 23:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dudel250 (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

helping to "help yourself"
Thank you for contributions to quality articles based on German language background, such as Anatol, for gnomish work, fighting vandalism, moving pages for creation, for welcoming and helping new users, helping to "help yourself" and leading a "perplexed and inquiring mind to the peaceful valeys of understanding", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP-hopping user

A day or two ago, I found an IP user by the address of 137.90.136.111, who had had a history of vandalizing wikipedia. I looked for their talk page, but found that there was a large amount of IP addresses by the same name, and reported them to Matty.007. She redirected me to Crisco 1492 and you, and I went to Crisco first. He further redirected me to the Administrator intervention against vandalism page, and I posted it, but it is obviously not accustomed to multiple addresses, as a bot swept through and cleared my report, assuming it 'resolved'. Finally, I came to you. I may not be able to access the internet for several hours or a day, so put in your input and I'll try to contact again as soon as possible. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Exoplanetaryscience: Apparently that's the Wyoming Higher Education Computer Network, so it's probably lots of school and/or university computers. There's no guarantee that all those edits are made by the same user. I don't think there's a solution short of range-blocking all public high schools in Wyoming, which seems overkill even though very few of those contributions are beneficial.
Another two notes: Firstly, the bot archived your report not because you listed multiple users, but because it mistook your edit for a comment on the preceding report. AIV reports should follow a rather specific format, beginning with the {{vandal}} template, and the bot apparently considers everything afterwards, up to the next comment beginning with that template, as related to the same request. Secondly, the links you added to your report (thanks for the effort!) were malformed: The syntax for external links is [http://www.example.com/ Displayed text] with a space instead of the pipe. You could also have used wikilinks: [[Special:Contributions/137.90.136.110|137.90.136.110]] will give: 137.90.136.110. Huon (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that explains their only making edits during the regular school time. exoplanetaryscience (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Exposito-Ulla

Thank you for fixing my references!

TheCockroach (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Petrelis

Thanks for your quick response to my "help me" request concerning the ToC structure/placement for my start on a Michael Petrelis article. I also appreciate your feedback on the level of detail I was providing, and I take your advice to pare detail very seriously. Please do not misconstrue what follows as a dismissal of that fair, and invited criticism. Nonetheless, as a new contributor with a special interest in writing biographies of living persons, I'm eager to discuss your concerns further, and would respectfully request that you review your feedback in light of the following:

Sources

Following your comments, I studied once more the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, specifically, "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves." These guidelines do seem to reassure me that the use of a well-respected oral history project, conducted by a well-respected scholar who is published in the field of AIDS activism history and frequently cited in wikipedia articles about other AIDS activists, is an appropriate source for the material I so cited, and my use of the source seems to meet all five of the criteria listed in the guidelines (although I acknowledge that because the early, more private biographical details do rely more heavily on the interviews, the article in the unfinished state you found it might appear to rely too heavily on that one source; the unwritten sections which constitute the bulk of the article are otherwise sourced to unambiguously reliable third parties like published histories, major daily newspapers, etc., so that I don't believe the article, taken on the whole, will seem too heavily weighted on the interviews.) I'm not trying to argue; no doubt I am missing something. Can you help me understand why I'm wrong?

Contextualizing vs. Excessive Detail/Straying from Topic

Michael Petrelis played a crucial role in the emergence of AIDS activism prior to ACT UP, and represents a link in an historical progression from the tactics of post-Stonewall activists and the tactics of ACT UP (Not my analysis or original research, but the conclusion of several published authors.) Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't presently do a very good job of telling the story of AIDS activism prior to ACT UP. Marty Robinson, credited with developing the zap, and the Lavender Hill Mob, a forerunner to ACT UP, are just two examples of topics that I might have submitted to Articles for Creation, but given the apparent backlog there, I thought I would do better to contribute those articles myself. In the meantime, my attempt to contextualize Petrelis historically, as per the Wikipedia guidelines, in the absence of internal links to such articles, admittedly, went off the rails.

Also important, in fairness to my controversial subject and in the name of neutral tone, are the personal details that contextualize the subject's confrontational style and controversial actions. I appreciate that I may have gone too far in this regard, but I remain unsure how far to pull back. To detail the long inventory of his more extreme actions without detailing the personal realities (often only documented in interviews, c.f. previous subsection) that led him to those actions seems as far from neutral as if I were to detail only those actions for which he has been unanimously praised, or only those for which he has been roundly criticized -- both pitfalls I'm trying vigilantly to avoid.

I would be very grateful if you could take another look. Since you responded to my request for help, I moved what will eventually be the lead section to the mainspace (where it has since been tagged as needing sections) but the draft-in-progress you read can still be found in my sandbox. With my thanks and respect, Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote our policy on verifiability: "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic." Those interviews may be appropriate to clarify details of what third-party sources discuss, but as you acknowledged, major parts of your draft version seemed almost exclusively based on such sources. Others of the long version's sources, such as this one, don't mention Petrelis at all. Several others are just passing mentions filling out some detail between the content based on primary sources. It should be the other way around. Huon (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know this article needs work, but your advice isn't helpful. I have read the policy on verifiability again and again. Even with heavy-handed use of the interviews to source uncontested biographical content, in accordance with the guidelines, the completed article will be based "largely on reliable secondary sources," as the citations in the lead section reflect. (I wonder if you would have had the same impression if I had not specified page-by-page citations of the interview, but instead cited the interview only once at the end of each paragraph.) Your reference to the Bailey House article as an example of citations that "don't mention Petrelis at all" is confusing: that citation is meant to source the claim that Bailey House was the first residence for homeless people with AIDS in the U.S., as its placement should make clear. Why should it mention Petrelis? Also, after going through the entire ref list, I have no idea what "several others" you think are just "filling out some detail." Finally, in your eagerness to find fault with my sources, you have not even tried to answer my more nuanced questions about what details I should be including. I have been studying the guidelines and "Featured Articles" for guidance on this point, but I was hoping for some specific suggestions. Thanks for your attempts to help thus far; I think I will now complete the draft to the best of my ability, and then seek help from volunteers at the Teahouse to find the appropriate level of detail. Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take for example this source. It's about Carl Goodman, not Petrelis, who is only given a cursory introduction as a source about Goodman. Or take this source: It mentions Petrelis in a single short paragraph that's actually less detailed than what you cite that source for. Or take this NYT article (the draft version of your sandbox has a typo in the URL, by far not the only one - I believe even in the live article which has very few links to external sources I had to repair three) - it's cited for the statement that Petrelis was present at the Stonewall Inn during the infamous raid and was a featured speaker at the subsequent rally in Sheridan Square, attended by two thousand people - it mentions the rally, but not that Petrelis was either there or at the Stonewall Inn. In fact, it doesn't mention Petrelis at all. You'll probably say that it's only meant as a source for the size of the rally - but in that case, where's the source for the content that's actually relevant to Petrelis? What you're doing here is original research, more specifically original synthesis: Combining sources to make a point that none of the sources actually make. You actually have some good sources that discuss Petrelis in detail, for example the Esquire article. Those in-depth sources should determine the focus of the Wikipedia article. Instead they're swamped in content that's based on passing mentions, primary sources, and sources that don't actually say what you cite them for. Huon (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jade trade in Burma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canton (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, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

  • 10 May: Hello again Huon!
1. I (only just) visited Talk, which, because I had been travelling, I had not noticed (yet). As you can see, there is a request for an Infobox. The only infobox which, in my opinion, would conceivably, and genuinely, apply to this article is the Activity Theory "main" article (to which Large Group Capacitation would presumably be a “sub-article”). Thus far, the only way of providing an infobox for "Large Group Capacitation" would be to create one myself. from scratch, although that would not solve the problem of the "main" Activity Theory article itself lacking an Infobox.

Q: What course of action you think I should take in this matter?

2. As you can see, there is also a request for the inclusion of a photograph to improve the article’s quality.

However, this is a predominantly theory article -- (there are pictures in the related 'Organization Workshop' and 'Clodomir' articles) -- and, as far as I am aware, Wikipedia ‘theory’ articles – including Activity Theory do, as a rule, not carry photographs?

Perhaps I might include an image - (such as for example, one of the slides contained in Kwanda) - but I doubt very much whether this would genuinely “improve” the article?

Q: Your opinion in these matters would be very much appreciated. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think this article really needs an infobox. I just checked a couple of other articles no more or less closely related topics and scientific theories, and not one of them carried an infobox. Writing a new infobox just to give one to this article doesn't strike me as a good solution; if anything, we'd need something a little more general, such as Template:Infobox scientific theory or something like that - but I can't quite imagine what kind of information such an infobox would summarize. I'll remove the infobox request from the talk page.
An image, however, may be helpful. For example, we could re-use the top image from the Organization Workshop article to illustrate just how large a group "large group capacitation" refers to. Images of the chief proponents of Large Group Capacitation may also be appropriate - for comparison, the gravitation article has an image of Isaac Newton. Huon (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A: re Infobox: Indeed, the overall impression I, too, am getting, is that Infoboxes are rather the exception than the rule. This, moreover, is an “Activity” applied theory article, so, logically, it would be up to the more ‘generalist’ 'Activity Theory' article to equip itself with an Infobox, first. From which I then could take my cue. So, thank you very much for removing, for the moment, this requirement from the talk page.
re: illustration: Again, my general impression for articles of this type is that they generally do not have any illustrations, either. The HOW IT WORKS slide in the Kwanda Powerpoints rather illustrates the inner workings of the Organization Workshop, while this article is about the coinage and meaning of ‘Capacitation’. So, I agree with your suggestion that the ‘Matzinho’ photo – (which, as you can see, I have already inserted) would indeed enhance the latter.
Remains, I presume, the request of a quality "stamp". Based on the "nemo iudex in propria causa"-principle, this cannot possibly be a task for the author him/herself. Thanks again for the prompt reply. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • C
wow - that is in all honesty the mark I would have given myself - right on target, Huon. And barnstars galore! (Pronacampo9 (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Undeletion

Hi Huon, this is going to sound a bit stupid of me, but please can you restore User:Matty.007/sandbox/Things to do? Thanks, Matty.007 11:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Huon (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Best, Matty.007 18:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Huon, I wasn't sure about the best way to contact you. I'm reaching out on behalf of Sean Guerrier De Bey, whose Wikipedia article you deleted on claims of self-promotion. Considering his high level standing at Universal Music Group, Disney, and SONY I feel it's detrimental to his career for his page to be deleted.

Instead I propose that you contact me when you can so I can personally edit his page to whatever standards you feel need to be met so his page can be re-posted. If I have to submit a new article I'm more than willing, but I would prefer you give me specific guidelines helping me to avoid whatever happened last time around, so I can meet the sites requirements.

- Cary Miller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carymiller (talk • contribs) 03:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carymiller: Let me be blunt: Wikipedia's purpose is not to further Mr. De Bey's career. If you think De Bey satisfies Wikipedia's standards of notability, I'd suggest you use the Article Wizard to write a new draft from scratch. I just re-checked the deleted article, and it's unsalvageable; providing you with the deleted content would not save any work whatsoever. Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as articles in newspapers or reputable music magazines, and it should neutrally summarize what such sources have to say about the subject. For comparison, the deleted article's sources consisted of a press release and an interview with "the easy to use solution for your promotional distribution needs" - not that those "sources" actually backed up the deleted article's content. Instead we had heavy doses of highly dubious, promotional content. As an example, let me just quote the claimed list of occupations from the deleted article: "Record producer, Music executive Media buying Publicist Attorney Inventor". Funny that the article mentioned his primary and middle school, but not the law school... And that wasn't even the worst example. Personally I don't expect Mr. De Bey to meet our notability standards, but if he does, a new, neutral, well-sourced article would be the way to go. Huon (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


@Huon I'll be blunt too. I agree the article needs to be rewritten, but Mr. De'Bey did run Island Def Jam's A&R and Marketing departments for 5 years as a VP, and was instrumental to the success of a great number of artists careers at no less than three major labels in the last ten years. It's not a matter of furthering his career, it's a matter of making sure he's not overlooked for past achievements when it comes to his references on a public level. I'm not some intern doing the mans bidding, I'm an executive agent at a management company co-owned by Mr. De'Bey and I've decided to take this on because the man deserves my help at the very least if I can give it.


Now aside from the completely (not to mention reportable) rude response you've given me here, I have no problems with writing a new article from a strictly journalistic standpoint, since we both agree that's what's required. However, when I looked into publishing a new article Wikipedia advised me to contact you directly first in order to make sure that my new article wouldn't be deleted due to some sort of redundancy policy that wasn't fully explained.


So which is it? Should I just create a new article? Or will it result in frustration after I put several hours into the endeavor due to your unwillingness to help? I intend to source articles spanning the man's decade long career, since he is after all 26 times verified platinum, and like it or not, people in entertainment at his level rely upon Wikipedia as an information resource.


If you would save me the trouble and reinstate the article, I wouldn't mind gutting the majority of it while reworking it until it meets your standards. But I would sooner do all of that without any unnecessary rudeness.


Finally, when I first tried to contact you earlier this month I wasn't trying to be rude or snide with you, I was earnestly asking for help. I'm going to hope that your reply was more about the heat of the moment concerning the tedium of your occupation, and not really meant to be so callus and thoughtless. I have no problem with contacting your superiors to discuss the tone of your response if you are otherwise refusing to be helpful in a mutually respectful tone.


Please feel free to contact me directly here, I will be able to respond immediately from here on out during our exchanges, but make no mistake, I do expect some form of respectful communication from this moment on.


- Cary Miller

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carymiller (talk • contribs) 02:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Cary. There seem to be a few misunderstandings here. In particular, your comments above imply that you believe Huon is paid to edit Wikipedia or to undertake administrative actions on Wikipedia. This is not correct - he is an unpaid volunteer, as am I.
This also means that he doesn't have any "superiors" here. (I am willing to pretend to be his supervisor for entertainment purposes only.) While there are Wikipedia processes for dealing with editors or administrators whose actions (or tone) are grievously problematic, I'm not seeing anything of that nature from Huon here. The worst he manages is a slight hint of sarcasm when he notes it's "funny that" the law school is not mentioned. If you are finding something genuinely "disrespectful" elsewhere in Huon's response above, it may be because you and he learned English in very different settings. Or perhaps the issue is that it is his opinion that you have issues with, not his tone.
Either way, your insinuations about things being "reportable" are not the best way to encourage volunteers to donate their spare time to assist you in your use of Wikipedia as part of your paid employment.
I'm not an expert on the music industry, but it's my understanding that it is recordings that are certified platinum, not individuals.
To answer another of your questions, yes it may very well end up being the case that you might spend hours working on an article or draft about De'Bey only for it never to be accepted by Wikipedia. It is your choice whether to proceed or not.
Wikipedia has a notability guideline about musical topics at WP:NMUSIC, though it's not clear to me whether De'Bey would fall under this guideline or the ones that Huon linked for you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Carymiller: I intended no rudeness and even in retrospect don't quite see what part of my reply could be perceived as rude. If you think my comment is worth reporting, WP:AN/I would probably be the best place to do so.
You had claimed that "it's detrimental to his career for his page to be deleted". I rather doubt the career of a successful music executive like Mr De Bey would in the least be affected by the deletion of his Wikipedia article, but even if it was, from Wikipedia's point of view that's not really relevant to the question of whether the page should have been deleted. As I said, the page was unambiguously promotional, and that's covered by our speedy deletion criteria.
I already pointed you towards the Article Wizard and pointed out in some detail what would be required to write about Mr De Bey on Wikipedia. Since you work for a company co-owned by Mr De Bey and thus have a conflict of interest when writing about him, I'd strongly suggest you write a draft, not a live article, and submit it for a review by an experienced editor. Please also note that on Wikipedia we should not engage in a synthesis of published sources to make a point the sources don't make: For example, taking one source that says Mr De Bey produced a specific album and taking a second source that says the album was certified platinum does not allow us to conclude that Mr De Bey was certified platinum. The sources for an article on Mr De Bey should discuss Mr De Bey himself in some detail, and the article content should be a summary of what the sources say about Mr De Bey. If you write a draft about Mr De Bey I'll gladly help with the wiki markup, but I'm not in a good position to find reliable sources for such a draft. If you need further assistance, please do not hesitate to ask, either here or at the Teahouse, a help desk specifically geared towards assisting new editors. Huon (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Thank you for your instructions. I think I fixed it.Jestmoon(talk) 19:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Sheffield and Thomas Drury (1551-1603) difficulty

Dear Huon, I bring this to your attention as a disambiguation difficulty. - and also a difficulty with an article title

  • In my recent edit of Douglas Sheffield, I gave a cross reference to Thomas Drury. This is to this article: Thomas Drury (1551-1603)
  • The difficulty is that Wikipedia insists that the page Thomas Drury (1551-1603) does not exist and renders it in red, as you see.
  • Yet if you search under that title, the page appears FIRST on the Search results, even below the assertion that it doesn't exist.
  • Wha' ?? <moment of puzzlement>
  • So the article clearly does exist, but cannot be pointed to.
  • This needs to be fixed.

I have now put Thomas Drury into the Douglas Sheffield#Second marriage and Star Chamber trial section as the cross-reference. This is clearly unsatisfactory, as it points to the disambiguation page for Thomas Drury only, but I cannot fix it.

Can you please sort this out? Thanks. FClef (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FClef: The article title has a dash instead of a hyphen. Buchraeumer has fixed the link, and I have created a redirect from the hyphenated title to the title with a dash. Copy-pasting the exact article title is the easiest solution if a link to an article that clearly exists doesn't seem to work. Huon (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Huon:Thanks! (I have just been looking up Huon of Bordeaux and the French origins of Oberon, the elf-king - fascinating stuff.)
File:Duchess jean tea room cakes.jpg
Please accept these cakes, in token of my appreciation

Good advice on copy-pasting in future. Curious: where is the "dash" on a QWERTY keyboard? It is not the same as "underscore", I take it, but where is it? why would they have used a dash in the title? Thanks to you and Buchraeumer. FClef (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to revert to you in due course with a Wikimedia Commons question . . . FClef (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, the QWERTY keyboard doesn't have a dash. Wikipedia offers a selection of special characters to be copy-pasted below the edit window; those also include both the en-dash and the em-dash. See WP:MOSDASH on why a dash was used there - however, such article titles should always come with an accompanying redirect from the hyphenated title. Huon (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P. E. S. Institute of Technology

I am curious to know the reason for the deletion of the article on this institute. I saw your user name at the title page which has probably been deleted. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 06:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Arunbandana: That was a mistake on my part, thank you for pointing it out. I had deleted a short, spammy article at PES University that did not indicate that the organization is notable and also deleted the redirects pointing thereto withour realizing that one of those redirects had a non-trivial history with content that was far better than the "article" I had deleted - the author had tried a copy&paste move and left out everything that justified having the article in the first place.
I have restored the P.E.S. Institute of Technology page, removed a copyright violation and some spam, and properly moved it to PES University. It still needs better sources, though - it's heavily based on the university's own website, not third-party references. Huon (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the clarification. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 08:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of Parthajeet Sarma

Hi Huon,

You had deleted the page Parthajeet Sarma citing that it was the recreation of a previously deleted page. I had recreated the page after ensuring that the Article had better sourcing and had more credible citations. I request you to go through it once and tell me if their are any further edits that can be made to ensure that the page can be online. Kartik.lalit1 (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those of your additional sources that were reliable and independent did not mention Sarma in any detail, with one of them not mentioning him at all. Those sources did not establish Sarma's notability. Furthermore, entire sections of the second version still had no sources at all - that's not acceptable for an article on a living person - and the tone was still unduly promotional. If significant coverage in third-party sources exists, it would be easier to rewrite the article from scratch based on what those sources say than to try and modify the now-deleted version. I suggest you follow the advice given by Amatulić at the undeletion request and use the Article Wizard to write a draft if you can find better sources. Huon (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huon, I have submitted a draft for review via the Article Wizard titled Draft:Parthajeet Sarma. Please check and comment on the draft. Kartik.lalit1 (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's yet another copy of the article you repeatedly re-created over the past few days, and the only reason you created a draft instead of re-creating a live article yet again is that Kelapstick by now salted the page. You have not in the least addressed the issues raised in the deletion discussion, you have ignored my advice above, you just persist in pushing this content. That will not succeed. Huon (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of Tricia Campbell

Hi Huon,

You deleted the page Tricia Campbell that i recreated, violating the Copywrite. This person allowed me to publish this content, as i've writen in the article, and you can confirm it just by sending an e-mail. If that not how it works, instead of just deleting it, it would help telling me what i could do in order to validate this copywrite issue. I apreciate if you could review on this matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedrosalves93 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

""Thanks for the answer, wasn't that dificult i guess. Please, when you delete a page, try to leave the exact reason behind it, it helps the person developing it.

@Pedrosalves93: You mean "Unambiguous copyright infringement: from http://www.iamtriciacampbell.com/about.html", the note I left in the deletion log, was somehow unclear? Or "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", the note left by FreeRangeFrog when the article was deleted the first time? Or this note I left on your talk page which spells out the reasons in detail, after which you re-created the article yet another time without meaningful changes? I don't think Campbell is notable enough for an article at all, and even if she is, it's rather obvious that you should not be the one writing it since you cannot maintain a neutral point of view when writing about her. Huon (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
A very helpful administrator, mentor, and friend. JustBerry (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undid revision

I just happened to look at 0.999... and see that my edit to it was undone. Next time you undo someone's edit, it's probably better to do so by clicking the undo link rather than to manually undo it because if you do it by clicking the undo link, the person who made the edit will get notified of their edit being undone and will be more likely to learn for next time whether or not an edit they were thinking of making is supposed to be made. Blackbombchu (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackbombchu: That only works when reverting a single edit. I reverted two subsequent edits in one go - in such cases the "undo" link does exactly what you saw at 0.999... Huon (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then howcome I got notified when somebody undid 2 of my edits on Pythagorean theorem? Blackbombchu (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert on notifications, but possibly because that edit summary contained your user name and a link to your user page? Also note that those edits were reverted with the help of Twinkle, not the "undo" link.Huon (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfC Article

@Huon: I would like to invite you to review an AfC article. If you would like to do so, please read [1]. The conversation, as well as the article link, is given there. Thanks. --JustBerry (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC) (@Timtrent: I am pinging you as well to keep you updated on the reviewing of the AfC article.)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I am recusing myself from further reviews of this article. Fiddle Faddle 14:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite see why I should review a declined submission. I believe we all agree that it's not ready for the mainspace yet and would need better references. (For example, the inline citation Fiddle Faddle added here to demonstrate the procedure is just a passing mention and doesn't actually say what it's cited for.) So there's nothing to be done here. Huon (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfC Reviewing/Adoption

Hello Huon,

As you may or may not already know, I have been reviewing a significant amount of AfC articles lately. It appears to me that I'm not completely familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies, especially copyrights (considering the amount of reverts I have received in the past few hours). I was wondering if you were willing to take me for adoption to clarify some of Wikipedia's policies in the process. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare/Adopt/JustBerry Two reasons for switching mentors:

  1. GW appears to be inactive/busy lately.
  2. I have been working with you closely lately.

Let me know what you think; I'm not sure where to go as a Wikipedia editor right now. --JustBerry (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JustBerry seems to think that there are insufficient inline citations in an AfC submission despite 9 inline citations being present. At least six of the sources are third party. At least two arn't interviews. WP:GNG and WP:BIO is met. This article needs to be copyedited and pushed to the mainpage. If JustBerry is declining legitimate articles without knowing what policy actually says, then there is no telling what kind of damage he is doing. AFC, like NPP, isn't a game of whack a mole. Folks are coming on IRC not understanding why their articles are being declined and all we can tell them is that JustBerry is wrong. To make matters worse, he is reverting his decline back in and submitted this article for MfD twice after two admins, myself and another, have told him that it's disruptive. I'm going to ask ANI for a topic ban from AfC if you can't talk him out of it.--v/r - TP 08:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I tend to the view that we can all make mistakes. Even bad mistakes can be remedied with our willingness to admit to them and learn. JB seems to me to be willing to learn, as shown by the original post above. I view this as a good thing, one to be encouraged, not one to open the route to censure and limitation of editing areas. I think, TP, you are a few steps ahead in your willingness to propose limitations. JB is ready and willing, and, mostly, able. Let's make use of that and encourage and guide their hand. I say this despite their having disagreed with me substantially. We have kissed and made up, so to speak. Fiddle Faddle 09:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JB threw policy out the window last night and went on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT spree with our AFC despite 3 admins telling him to stop. When confronted, he repeated the exact same behaviors. He needs to spend some time writing content and not doing AFC-patrolling under he has a better grasp of our content guidelines. Simple as that. Eagerness is appreciated, but competence is required.--v/r - TP 18:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that a short acting preventative block would have fired a substantial warning shot. Perhaps that happened, perhaps it failed. Of course CIR. I just take a different path from you to seek to instil it. Fiddle Faddle 23:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Review

Hello Huon,

Mind doing an editor review of me? Here's the link: Wikipedia:Editor_review/JustBerry. Thanks! --JustBerry (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Huon. You have new messages at JustBerry's talk page.
Message added 16:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

JustBerry (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Council's Concern

"Being an admin confers no special rights regarding content disputes such as this one." How should I have gone about addressing this issue? --JustBerry (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you mean. When you asked for my opinion you had emphasized that I am an admin, and I wanted to make sure J.R. Council didn't believe he'd have to accept my opinion merely due to my rank if he disagreed with my arguments. This is not an issue that requires the use of admin tools; thus I'm just another editor here. Huon (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox on Userpage

Aw... okay, if you insist. --JustBerry (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chris Batista, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gary Cohn (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) 08:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Biggar

Several years ago you reviewed my submission on Robert Biggar and I appreciated all your efforts. Since then, I have received additional information that I hope can be incorporated in the submission. In The Centennial of Bath, New York the judge, Hon.A. J. McCall on page 123 notes that in the first minutes for Bath, N.Y. in 1797 Robert Biggar was duly elected as an assessor. This was the same year that his eldest son Charles (my ancestor) was born and whose gravestone records the fact that his birthplace was Bath, N.Y. Further, on page 114 there is a reference to people closely associated with Captain Williamson and his founding of Bath in 1793. Included is a "Robert Biggers". I submit that this is a spelling error and that the reference should be to Robert Biggar. This Robert Biggers was a tanner as was the Robert Biggar who went to Upper Canada in 1806. I do not think it is reasonable to assume that these are two separate individuals.

Reference: The Centennial of Bath, New York Windmill Publications Inc. 1992 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Biggar (talk • contribs) 18:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-read the old discussion on your talk page, and we have been through all of this before. We were aware of the Bath Centennial which says that a Robert Biggar was elected assessor, and he may well have had a son named Charles (though I have not seen any reference connecting the Charles Biggar from Bath to the Robert Biggar in the centennial). However, there is no evidence that connects the Robert Biggar of Bath to the Robert Biggar of Brantford. Rather, our source for the Brantford Biggar says: [...] about the year 1806, the Biggar family arrived in Canada. They came from a place named Biggar, in Scotland, and first sojourned in Lincoln County, Niagara District [...] - to me that's rather unambiguous: They came to Canada directly from Scotland. The source also explicitly mentions that one of the Brantfort Robert Biggar's sons, James Biggar, was born in Scotland, in 1803, and came with his father to Canada in 1806. So the Bath Robert Biggar would have to leave Bath, where he was well-respected enough to be elected to a public office, for Scotland with his family only to move to Canada again three years later. That seems very unlikely. We even had sources explicitly giving the places in Scotland where the two Robert Biggars came from, and they disagreed, giving Lanark for Charles' father and Dumfries for the Brantford Biggar.
So if both Robert Biggars were tanners, that's indeed a remarkable coincidence, but there's still far, far too much information on the two that doesn't fit to conclude they are one and the same. To make that conlcusion I'd like to see a source that either says the Bath Biggar left the country for Scotland or Canada, or that says that the Brantford Biggar had previously resided in the US. Huon (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation for all of your help

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I wanted to find a way to thank you for all of your help in guiding me in the right direction despite my obvious COI and my persistence to not find anything better to do with myself. Despite some very selfish questions on my part, you've been fair helpful in your responses. Thank you for all your help (and sorry that i'll most likely be coming to ask for more selfish help in the future)

BDBJack (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


SeeYa

Hi Huon, We spoke briefly before in the help chat area. I edited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeeYa_(website) by writing new material, adding a few new references and taking away any words used that could be seen as advertising. Would you please take a look and give me feedback on any other changes it may need? Thank you very much for your help! Lanaelle007 (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help on "How to comment on talk pages?"

New comments are usually added to the bottom of a section (or in a new section at the bottom of the page), not in the middle of another editor's comment. Replies also are indented (by beginning a paragraph with one or more colons, just as I did here). That makes it much easier for others to follow talk page discussions and to tell who said what. For general advice regarding talk pages, see Help:Talk. Huon (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that you should sign talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~). That will by default create not just the timestamp, but also links to your user page and talk page. If you have customized your signature in the preferences, you should work on it: A signature should contain at least one link to the user page, the talk page or the contributions. Yours currently does not contain any links. Huon (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Huon! I've fixed my sig. I'll go back to the article and move my comment to the bottom of the section as you've instructed.

-- Mahnut 05:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD in progress

An AfC that you reviewed is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micro job. I commented, and I suspect you might want to also. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Sir Mycroft Holmes

Sorry if I rubbed off as impatient to you. So, you said we both share enthusiasm for Japan? Yes, but I think you should dig a little deeper. There is a difference between what I hold towards the Japanese - a proper respect for cuisine, culture, ancient traditions, etc. - and what Internet vandal/hooligans like G.J.F. do, erasing Japan's history. No nation is immune from war crimes, not even Great Britain. And anyway, I was initially a little baffled by G.J.F.'s appreciation of Sherlock but I guess the fandom is big enough that two people who both like the Japanese might also like it. With regards to my IP address, I notice it's been hopping around a bit; a few days ago it was the same as G.J.F.'s (which led me to create this account to avoid being confused with him) but a few days before that it was different and now I think it's different than it was when I set up this account. If you can give me a rational explanation of this (as you seem to have been on Wikipedia for a while and maybe are an administrator?) I'd really appreciate that. Also, the reason I know what sock puppetry is is because I read many of the Wikipedia policy articles (e.g. sock puppetry, no angry mastodons, stay cool when the editing gets hot, those guideline pages). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Mycroft Holmes (talk • contribs) 13:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're aware that there are edits by the IP connecting "Glorious Japan Forever" to the name "Mycroft Holmes" before your account was even created? This is not some malicious editor trying to smear your good name. The most likely explanation right now is that Glorious Japan Forever and you are one and the same editor, engaging in a kind of good hand/bad hand editing. Huon (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm aware, Huon. After you levelled your accusations at me last night, I dug a little deeper into G.J.F.'s edit history and saw how he vandalised Benjamin Jiperus's talk page. If you're being falsely accused of sock puppetry, don't you think you should look at all the evidence against you? I think you're automatically assuming bad faith on my part. This is very unwelcome to me and I am deeply offended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Mycroft Holmes (talk • contribs) 17:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the verdict at the sockpuppet investigation is in: Confirmation that Glorious Japan Forever, you and User:Admiral Yamamoto (formerly User:Hound of Baskerville) are one and the same. I can understand that your past transgressions catching up with you is very unwelcome to you. Huon (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My continued position is that I did nothing wrong. If you read my first message to you this morning, you'll know. I guess it's a pretty big coincidence, but a coincidence nonetheless. Now, if you're getting me blocked for a "transgression" I did not commit, then I shall be very angry at you. I am the most powerful man in Great Britain, y'know. I can sic the Army, the Royal Navy, and the Royal Air Force on you with a snap of my fingers. Since I'm a nice person, I'm not going to. Now, listen close. You are tearing an innocent man and constructive Wikipedia contributor down. Think about that, Huon.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huon&oldid=612918759"