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 Jaking01 (talk | contribs) at 15:41, 13 October 2018 (→‎Deletion of Ranorex GmbH Page: Replying to Huon). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk page archives

Can you help me update a wiki page.

I am new to wiki but I have added certain information on a talk page of an artist "Jennifer Winget". Can you help me apply those changes on the page please. Ra13a13 (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ra13a13: To add that information to the article we'll need reliable published sources such as articles written by newspapers or reputable magazines that confirm those awards. See WP:Referencing for beginners on how to easily create nicely-formatted footnotes to cite your sources. Personally I rather doubt all those awards (is a "most desirable" list even an award?) are significant enough to be listed; I'd focus on the more important awards, particularly ones we have articles about. Please also note that I'm currently quite busy in real life and may be slow to respond. If you need further help, you may want to ask at the Teahouse or maybe at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Huon (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy adminship anniversary

Wishing Huon a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock appeal for another user

Hi Huon,

Please accept my belated greetings on your adminship anniversary!

I must however admit that I am more proactive in discharging admin role on UrWiki than editing here, although I am active here as well, however less it might me comparatively.

I want to discuss an unblock appeal requested by User:BukhariSaeed.

I know very well that in the past he was accused of sockpuppetry and fiddling with multiple accounts and faces block since a long time.

The user is now an eliminator on UrWiki and has done tremendous amount of good work there. I request you to please examine the case of unblocking him by placing any condition or observation period.

Personally, I feel unblocking would give him access to the Wiki source code and help article on UrWiki where we don't have an army of contributors like EnWiki. Thank you for the time. --Muzammil (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hindustanilanguage: Let me point out several issues:
  1. Blocked users still have read access to the source code. If that's all that BukhariSaeed wants, an unblock is not necessary.
  2. We generally do not accept unblock requests for someone else. BukhariSaeed has access to their talk page on the English Wikipedia and is welcome to themselves request a review of their block via the {{unblock}} template.
  3. There was a community discussion about his latest unblock request (to which you contributed) where the community found that, in light of then-recent block evasion by BukhariSaeed, he was not eligible for an unblock. I do not expect any single administrator (certainly not one who isn't a CheckUser) would feel comfortable unblocking BukhariSaeed under these circumstances. They would likely again need to appeal to the community.
In light of these issues I unfortunately cannot act on your appeal. Huon (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's all right. But I hope you don't have any problem in accepting my greetings on your adminship anniversary. All the best for your future activities on Wikipedia!! --Muzammil (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Frank Trust UK

In what way had the Anne Frank Trust UK committed a G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement such that their page was removed? According to their website, "We are the only organisation in the UK licensed to use Anne Frank’s name" Johnalexwood (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this refers to the page The Anne Frank Trust UK that I deleted in 2014. The page was largely copy-pasted from http://www.annefrank.org.uk/who-we-are/our-mission (see here for an archived copy of that page). The page the content was taken from is copyrighted; there was no evidence that it had been released under a free license that would be compatible with Wikipedia's requirements. There was no indication that the editor who created the page was associated with the Anne Frank Trust; I thus don't know that the Anne Frank Trust committed anything. Putting the content on Wikipedia, however, violated the Anne Frank Trust's copyright. Even if the editor was a representative of the Anne Frank Trust, the content would still have been in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy without evidence of permission of re-use. Finally, their "our mission" page, for rather obvious reasons, was not suitable to become an encyclopedia article about them. So even if the organization had been willing to jump through the hoops necessary to correctly release the content under a free license, it would still have been unsuitable for Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Stefanowski

Hi,

Can you please undelete this article? Bob Stefanowski is now the Republican nominee for Governor of Connecticut and is the first candidate to ever earn the nomination after petitioning his way onto to the ticket via voter signatures and beating the Republican party sponsored candidate.

https://ballotpedia.org/Bob_Stefanowski

Stagophile (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it would be easier to start from scratch and to write an all-new article that focuses on what he's (now) notable for than to try and salvage the mess that was deleted. The only part of the deleted page that might be useful is the lone reliable source that mentions Stefanowski:
  • "Money Shop Parent Lures V&A Trustee As Boss". skynews.com. SkyNews. Retrieved July 13, 2016.
If you disagree you're welcome to try WP:DRV. Huon (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Huon. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthony Bradbury: I have replied via Wikipedia's email feature. I tried to reply directly but that apparently wasn't delivered because it was considered spam. I hope this works. Huon (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. ----Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Cultural Marxism

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cultural Marxism. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reaching a User

Hi, Huon. I'm trying to contact user Minesweeper regarding a page they created in 2004. I left a message on Minesweeper's UserTalk page and also noticed that someone else had attempted to reach MSweeper. I went to ask them for help contacting MSweeper but then noticed they had been blocked. I saw you respond to their appeal to be unblocked and figured you may be able to help. Please let me know if that will be possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A&ApProf (talk • contribs) 14:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A&ApProf, Minesweeper isn't all that active but made a few edits at the end of August; they may respond to the message you left at their talk page when they see it (which, obviously, may take some time). My advice would be to point out the article and ask the questions right now so Minesweeper can immediately answer them when they see them; if another back-and-forth is necessary just to get the questions asked, that might well take an extra few weeks, given Minesweeper's level of activity. I don't think other editors will have better means of contacting Minesweeper than leaving a message on the user talk page, and that's certainly true for someone who was blocked in 2016 and (hopefully) wasn't active since then. Huon (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:23:57, 20 September 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Globeupfront


Hi Houn,

As per your suggestions, I have used inline citations with relevant references. Hope you re-review it soon!

Take care

Globeupfront (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Globeupfront: I generally don't review the same draft multiple times in a row. That said, now that there are inline citations, it's rather obvious which parts of the draft aren't based on the given sources. That needs to be fixed. I'd also say the tone is unduly promotional, and a significant number of sources are Qazi's own writings instead of third-party coverage of him. Huon (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I see. As per your suggestions, I have removed the sentences in the draft, that don't end with inline citations. That was also lessened the promotional tone of the article. Please suggest me more for improvements, if any, so that article has a high chance of getting into the article space.

Take care


Draft:Jacqui Larsen

I noticed that you moved Jacqui Larsen to Draft:Jacqui Larsen to avoid speedy delete, it has now been re-created at Jacqui larsen. Theroadislong (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: I had spoken to User:Lizdonakey via the IRC help channel and advised them to have the page draftified and to go through the review process. Maybe I was misunderstood. The article seems far better than the previous revision, so there clearly was some progress. Personally I'd suggest histmerging it to the draft (in draftspace), but if Lizdonakey does not want to go through the review process and wants the article to be live in its current form, and you disagree with that, the usual means apply (ie, either speedy deletion, which I'm not sure applies any more, or WP:AFD). Huon (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template Message left on User:Sparklerae by me

Hi Huon! I was recently pinged by User:Sparklerae because they left a message on my talk page. Although, I cannot read it because it has been revdeled. I looked at their talk page and saw a lengthy discussion about BLP issues. One of the comments left by you stated: "The message Kadane left you is a standard templated message. Arguably it wasn't the most fitting for this situation, but it's clearly not an invitation to engage in further attacks against a living person.". I am writing to find out what the appropriate message/template would have been in a situation like that. Thanks for taking the time to review. I look forward to your reply! Kadane (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kadane: The main issue with Sparklerae's edit was not the lack of neutrality but the WP:BLP violation. That saw Sparklerae blocked and the edit revision-deleted. So in my opinion a BLP warning template like {{uw-blp2}} would have been more helpful. Or you could have left a custom message, of course. On the other hand, Sparklerae continued to violate BLP repeatedly after the problem had been explained in quite some detail, so I rather doubt a more relevant message would have helped, either. Huon (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing my block

Thanks for reviewing my block. I did follow the flowchart though. There were two separate events of following the chart, one next to other. Plus, after I got a warning, I did not do any edits. Still got blocked though.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see about five reverts over the past few days. That's quite a lot for two editors on one article. Huon (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Input Needed

Reaching out to you, as you deleted everything I wrote on National Aviation Academy's page, plus most of what was originally there (and had been for a significant period of time). Why was the campus info deleted? If you Google Map it, you will see that all information was valid. Additionally, you removed the Military Friendly link that directed people to the NAA page on their website. Per their website: "Military Friendly® is owned and operated by VIQTORY, a veteran-owned business." It is not affiliated with NAA - so what was the issue with citing this source? Lastly, there are a couple typos in what you wrote… which is all that remains on the page.

I want to connect with you directly, rather than simply undo your changes, to ensure I am able to update the page in the proper manner. Can you please let me know of a college/trade school page I can review that is done 100% correctly? I am still new to Wikipedia editing and would like to have an example to review so I can fix NAA's page the right way. Thank you. Updates-for-you 2018 (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Updates-for-you 2018: As I said in my edit summaries, I removed the "references" that didn't actually say anything about the National Aviation Academy, as well as what I called "lots of spam": Promotional content not based on reliable secondary sources. There still is information on both campuses - exactly as much as the remaining sources (which are anything but great) allowed me to write. I rather doubt Google Maps will show me that their Florida campus "has an aviation lab that is fully equipped with Snap-On tools". The New England campus, according to the source, is actually in Bedford, not Concord. And whoever owns Military Friendly, I don't see that it qualifies as a reliable source. It also isn't independent: "NAA is an excellent choice for military service members and veterans because our institution is committed to helping each individual harness their skills ..." - "our institution" means that the text was written by the NAA itself. I have fixed two typos (of which I made only one); if there are others you are welcome to correct them, of course.
I'm not particularly familiar with articles on colleges or trade schools; you may want to check out Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society#Education. That lists several college articles that have been reviewed and found to meet the criteria for a "good article" (which still doesn't necessarily mean they're done "100% correctly").
Are you associated with the NAA in some way? Huon (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Huon: I see, thank you for taking time to explain it in a bit more detail. I've come up with a revised version and citations to go with it. I tried to go in and add it, but it seems I am not able to. Any idea why?
No, it's a school local to me that I thought really needed their page updated. I am new to coding and Wikipedia editing, but I would like to add value to Wikipedia.
@Updates-for-you 2018: I can't tell why you wouldn't be able to edit the National Aviation Academy page when you can edit this one. Is there some sort of error message? At what step of the editing process do things go wrong? Huon (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OnlyLoveIsReal777

I never said the two accounts were "technically indistinguishable" or even confirmed. If that were the case, I could just have blocked and tagged them with the appropriate findings. Based on the technical data, they could be one person, but they are more likely two different people who know each other and are promoting Menkes. Regardless of their relationship, I see no benefit to the project in their edits, e.g.: "It is important to remember that straight men do not make eye contact while in the act. Doing so will question their sexuality. This term became contentious in the Brett Kavanaugh hearing for SCOTUS on November 27, 2018." I mean really.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the clarification. Huon (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You removed sourced content

Hi there, I noticed you have removed sourced content from Tanushree Dutta. I have reinstated it. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sharkslayer87: I have explained my reasoning on the talk page (and removed the content again). Maybe my edit summary was a little too concise and I should have been more explicit the first time, sorry. Huon (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Ranorex GmbH Page

Hello Huon,

It looks like the page for Ranorex GmbH has been deleted and turned into a re-direct. The comments for this change refer to the talk page, but as it's gone, I can't see the talk page. Could you please let me know the reason that the page was removed? Best regards! Jaking01 (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaking01: The page hasn't been deleted (though I did replace the content with the redirect). The talk page also still exists at Talk:Ranorex GmbH. I have explained my reasoning there. Huon (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Huon: Hi Huon, and thanks for the fast reply! I've responded to your concerns on the talk page. Jaking01 (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Huon: Hi Huon, and thank you for submitting the Ranorex GmbH article for deletion review. Could you please restore the content for this page so that it is available to all editors interested in determining notability? Unless I missed it, all that is available is your description of your concerns with the article, not the text itself or the links under consideration. Jaking01 (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huon&oldid=863863497"