User talk:Huon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Talk page archives

Happy New Year Huon![edit]

Fireworks in Jaén (cropped).jpg
Happy New Year!
Hello Huon:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, JustBerry (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


Peace sign.svg


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Huon}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Requests for histmerge on Kygo, Flume and Matoma discographies[edit]

In case you didn't see it on TheMagnificentist's talk page, may I request that the original history of the redirect be merged into these pages? I do feel it's necessary to show that those redirects were created months before TheMagnificentist performed an unnecessary move to take credit. Ss112 04:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Ss112, I have merged the histories (rather messily), and you're now listed as the creator of those three redirects. Huon (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. In future, I'll request a histmerge instead of engaging in moving pages around like other users... Ss112 06:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for histmerge on Let's Hurt Tonight[edit]

Hey Huon, I reverted a bunch of IPs recreating content that failed WP:NSONGS at multiple times on Let's Hurt Tonight (OneRepublic song), also because it was being created at a namespace with unnecessary disambiguation. So I then added its peaks, fixed basic formatting, cut out unreferenced information, tagged it for its errors and created it at Let's Hurt Tonight. Would you be able to merge the histories (without merging the content that failed WP:NSONGS), maintaining that I created the redirect in September before Let's Hurt Tonight (OneRepublic song) was created in December? I get it has a more complex history than the above discographies, but hopefully it's still manageable. Thanks. Ss112 12:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This guy[edit]

Looked like Kingshowman even before that rant. Could you please extend the block and relieve him of TPA? Thanks! GABgab 04:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar for you![edit]

Compass Barnstar Hires.png The Guidance Barnstar
message Nerd1a4i (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


Awarded for your hard work and patience in the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help connect. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Nerd1a4i, thanks, it's my pleasure. Huon (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for merge of Don't Leave (Snakehips song) and Don't Leave (Snakehips and MØ song)[edit]

Hey Huon, can you please merge these two pages? I contested the move of Don't Leave (Snakehips and MØ song) out of a stubborn user's sandbox (as they have flatly refused to copypaste their content over a redirect and always request that their sandbox creation be part of a page's history), but it was ignored by another admin and the fact that I created the redirect was erased. However, Don't Leave (Snakehips song) already existed, and now we have two pages. Can my original creation of the former redirect be kept in place and the pages merged (and histmerged?) Thanks. Ss112 23:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay nevermind, the move was reverted, as I contested that the page that was moved was even notable yet at all. Ss112 23:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Would you mind explaining why those redirect creation credits are this important to you? Redirects don't have any meaningful content beyond the name of the target article; if an article is later created in place of a redirect, the article's content won't depend on the redirect's. Thus there's no need to maintain the redirect as part of the page history from a licensing point of view. In fact, such redirects are routinely deleted to make way for a move (see WP:CSD#G6); requiring others to copy-paste their content is not the way to go. Huon (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not that I "require" it of anybody, I just contest this type of thing because I don't understand why users have to erase redirects because they think they're not being credited, when it is recorded in the page history that they created the content where the redirect is. That's the argument they put forth—"I created the content, so my name should be first", but it's never anything major. It just appears several more users these days refuse to copypaste their content out of a sandbox, when it seems like that was more prevalent on Wikipedia in the past. In instances like this, they can type two sentences, deem it notable and request that it be moved. I don't think that's right or a very good practice. As you saw with what TheMagnificentist did, users mostly go about it the entirely wrong way and do it in an underhanded attempt to pretend like they were the first user to come up with the idea to generate content for something, when the maintaining of the redirect in the history acknowledges another user had already deemed it a good idea to target the page elsewhere before substantial content could be created for it. That may be an insignificant acknowledgement, and yes, I get the mere act of typing a page target on an uncreated page and clicking "save" is not necessarily worthy of credit all the time, but I don't get why it's necessary to erase either. It appears stubborn to me to want to erase the fact that another user created a page, even a redirect, before you. Ss112 23:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Let me just say that moving a page over a redirect is explicitly mentioned as a valid reason for deletion of the recirect per above. Copy-and-paste moves, on the other hand, are something to be fixed: WP:CUTPASTE. I don't think what you propose here is considered best practice. Huon (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I know what you're referring to and I know of WP:CSD#G6, but that just feels like a formal process for existing pages (as in, "this page is unnecessarily disambiguated", or "this established page should be moved there because [reason]") to me, not "I created a tiny article, here admins, move it out of my private sandbox!" A page history belonging entirely to one user doesn't seem like something that needs to be maintained. There seems to be some unspoken consensus among users to copypaste content out of a sandbox and over a redirect, rather than requesting that a page in their userspace (and any history that page may have, including if they worked on other unrelated pages on it, which would be confusing to any user looking at a page's history if its moved) be kept. In this case, it just appears here that WP:CSD#G6 supports users who request pages be moved because they want to say they created another page from scratch, even if that means erasing an "unimportant" redirect history. Ss112 01:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Dan Wagner - help request[edit]

Hi, apologies for dragging you back into this but can you take a look at the Dan Wagner page again. Another edit war has broken out. New editors are failing to engage on the talk page. Thanks in advance. 188.29.165.91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Huon, it appears you have been taken advantage of by the serial vandal on Dan Wagner - User:Ol King Col who also makes anonymous edits under User:185.145.156.53. He obviously mistakenly edited under his User:Ol King Col name by accident at 17:17 today before reverting to the anonymous editor. He has been a serial vandal on Dan Wagner since 2014 when he was fired from one of Wagner's businesses. It is clear that the intro is unrepresentative of the subject in that Dan Wagner has created two businesses that sold for over $1b and others but the intro presented gives the impression only of failure. You need to review the page before reversing the edits in the intro and those that were added by me today are representative and factual. Please revisit. User:Ol King Col is clearly more adept than others in the ways of Wikipedia but that doesn't and shouldn't allow him the ability to deface wiki pages.

If you look at the intro now, with the text 'and numerous other successful technology businesses' being replaced by 'its subsequent 95% share price drop in 2000 when the dot com bubble burst' is case in point. The dot com bubble bursting affected 99% of all public company tech stocks. All lost 90%+ of value that day so to represent the business in this way, when it was sold for $3.55 billion recently, is clearly misleading. Also the link to a National Portrait Gallery painting of the subject bears no relevance to the comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.78.117 (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I protected the page to stop an edit war. I won't comment on the content since I've acted in an administrative capacity on the page. If there's an issue with the content's neutrality, you are welcome to raise that issue at the noticeboard for biographies of living persons. Also, how do you know that User:Ol King Col was fired from one of Dan Wagner's businesses in 2014? You may want to take a look at WP:OUTING. I also expect you've seen my comments on the article's talk page regarding WP:SPI; continuing to accuse another editor of sockpuppetry and vandalism without evidence beyond that of a content dispute can be considered a personal attack and may see you blocked. Huon (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Huon's support has been more than helpful. He answered to all of my questions and he offered me a comprehensive walk-through on how to build my first Wiki article. FirewalkerSpirit (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

hi u deleted my page[edit]

hi u deleted my page . can u give me my typed material from the page krishna_prasanthi

please can u do it fast!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutansai (talkcontribs) 02:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

\come on man!! give reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutansai (talkcontribs) 04:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Nutansai, I have undeleted the page and moved it to User:Nutansai/Krishna prasanthi so you can get the text for your personal use. Please take from that page what you want and tell me when you're done so I can delete it again. The page is totally unsuitable for Wikipedia for a couple of reasons. Firstly, there are no reliable sources at all. Secondly, the tone is unsuitable for an encyclopedia - I understand you have a high opinion of your mother, but phrases like "she is a noble minded, kind and balanced person" have no place on Wikipedia. Thirdly, most of the rest is a CV, not an encyclopedia article. For these reasons, the page would need to be rewritten in its entirety to become a valid encyclopedia article - and the first two reasons are grounds for deletion. Please do not write a new article based on this content; it would only get deleted again, and it might even see your account blocked from editing. You may want to take a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest - writing about your relatives generally is not a good idea because it's difficult to do so from a neutral point of view. Huon (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

thanks HUON for your advices. I will ensure them next time. I have copied the document. you can delete it

Isis (journal) cover image[edit]

Dear Huon,

Thank you so much! I finally managed to replace the cover image on the Isis journal page.

Best, ManEdit — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManEdit (talkcontribs) 13:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Request on 10:50:02, 18 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Kaykris[edit]


Dear Huon,

Thank you very much for your comments.

The center for Evidence-based Anatomy, Sports & Orthopedic Research has been named such when it was created to look for evidence regarding musculoskeletal anatomy and disease. It started with small prospective clinical studies that took 2 and 3 years respectively to be published: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21856145 (in 2011) and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24499538 in 2012 (online first). Then its first orthopedic meta-analyses appeared on 2013: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23653955 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24162582. Since the work has been mainly focused on anatomic meta-analyses; the center has been recently named institute and its anatomy department has been labeled as a center.

Indeed both articles that you have mentioned dealt with morphological anatomy; however, their authors looked for anatomical structures in very specific subpopulations such as athletes and schizophrenic patients. In fact, the aim of the center is to look for the normal anatomical structures and their variants in the whole human population. In other words, it is focused on normal anatomy and the variations observed in humans excluding confounders such as sport or disease or age... The goal is to generate weighted values (such as frequency, size...) that could serve as references of normality in morphological anatomy. It also serves to find correlation between anatomical variants and gender, side, ethnicity.. Such research in the field of normal anatomy is the missing pre-requisite needed when studying pathological anatomy or anatomy limited to a specific group. I have to add that these 2 MA were very partial; they used a single diagnostic tool which, in both cases, is not the reference when studying normal anatomy. Though the diagnostic tool was very appropriate to look for functional anatomy, the reference tool for morphological gross anatomy is dissection.

In case of such meta-analysis had been published earlier, I will happily remove the term first to be on the safe side.

Thank you again for all the effort you are taking for reviewing this draft. I wish to discuss all other comments and suggestions you may offer to make this paper publishable.

Cordially.

Kaykris


Kaykris (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

So you maintain that the center for Evidence-based Anatomy, Sports & Orthopedic Research was named "center for Evidence-based Anatomy" (and other stuff) several years before evidence-based anatomy was invented? It was named after something that wasn't invented at that time? Seriously?
You added a claim of Yammine's work having introduced meta-analyses to anatomy. You did not provide an independent source for that claim, and the claim turned out wrong. You apparently either were not aware of the work done by others in that field and simply assumed Yammine was first because you didn't know better, or you tried a kind of "no true Scotsman" fallacy to dismiss meta-analyses in anatomy that predate Yammine's as not having been meta-analytical or anatomical enough. Neither is appropriate. You should summarize what independent sources have reported about this field of study - no more, no less. Huon (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help![edit]

This UI is kind of awkward for a beginner!

Clyde — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clyde of Flux Research (talkcontribs) 04:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Lord Hereford[edit]

@Huon: this is descending into an unmitigated disaster - what do you think (although your edit already indicates that you agree)? L'honorable (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
PS. solutions, not problems - that's what I suggest.

My edit indicates I agree with what, precisely? All my edit indicates is that we shouldn't link to a title when there's an article about the person we mean (and that the article on one person is not a good place for content on someone else). If this is about a specific article, a link to that article would be nice, and a discussion on that article's talk page. I don't see any particular suggestion of a solution either, but maybe I'm missing something. Huon (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Well take a look at the Revision as of 06:00, 21 January 2017 before it was reverted & all the abuse started up again? Of course, as they say, I am now opening myself up to abuse. But why? This was pretty good - so why could that not be built upon rather than people constantly reverting anything I do? You see the problem, huh? L'honorable (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
PS. Reverted to revision 761123785 by The Banner (talk): Sorry, not up to standard. Really? What standard??

Of course, I totally realise that by being like this it must annoy some people. But something is rotten in the State of Denmark? Please advise - many thanks.

L'honorable, to answer the PS first: The Banner's standard, obviously. If you want to discuss the advantages of your version over the one they reverted back to, the article's talk page is the place to do so. Personally I agree with The Banner that the edition they reverted to is better than yours, so reverting improved the article. Reasons include excessive links, in part violating the Manual of Style, unhelpful references, and content that looks suitable for a work of genealogy, but not Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Appreciation[edit]

thank you for your assistance on my article. thank you

Sam simi (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

References language differs[edit]

Hi! Could you please tell me if the English article can be posted with the links to the references in Ukrainian and Russian? Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oksana Sukh (talkcontribs) 14:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Oksana Sukh, yes, but if all the references are in Russian or Ukrainian you may want to consider writing on the Russian or Ukrainian Wikipedia instead. The relevant guideline is WP:NONENGLISH. Huon (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Oksana Sukh (talk): Huon, I have already created the respective page in Ukrainian (https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%BF%D1%96%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82_%D0%95%D0%A2-1), but my diploma in Translation doesn't allow me to leave it in Ukrainian only.

Sharon Pincott page[edit]

Thank you for all of your help and input to this Huon. At times it was frustrating, but in the end it certainly contributed a lot to making this a more easily understandable page. Thank you! Arnie1000 (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


Neuroscience Article[edit]

For your interest: http://neurosciencenews.com/personality-brain-structure-6005/

Note that emotional intelligence is not mentioned, presumably because it's not science. They mention the Big5 personality traits of which I discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsheer (talkcontribs) 19:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

That article doesn't mention many other things either. Am I to presume that everything not mentioned by that single study is not science? Hardly. Huon (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey give me back my user page[edit]

You deleted my user page. There was no signs of attack. I put my life events on itIlovehorrorstories (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)User:Ilovehorrorstories

There was negative unsourced content about living people on that page, quite a bit of it - large parts of it accused others of various kinds of wrongdoing and criminal conduct. Wikipedia is not the place for such content. Huon (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't get it. Ilovehorrorstories (User talk:Ilovehorrorstories) 1:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
"Large parts of what you wrote accused other living persons of wrongdoing and crimes. Wikipedia is not the place for that." - What is unclear about that? Huon (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
It was about me, not anybody on Wikipedia, and even if it was on Wikipedia people, it shouldn't matter because there are articules about all the time. User:Ilovehorrorstories (talk) 13:11 PM, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
"John Doe bullied me" isn't just about you, it's also about John Doe. And we don't care whether John Doe is on Wikipedia or not. Even if it were about you, we only have your word that you are who you claim to be, and for that kind of content, we'd need more than that. Articles cite reliable sources, particularly if they involve living persons; your page didn't. Huon (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Citation Barnstar Hires.png The Citation Barnstar
Thank you a ton for helping me get the citations and resources necessary to get my article approved for creation. You really helped! Bel-Shamharoth (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

Nuvola apps knewsticker.png Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Edits about Puttur, Karnataka[edit]

Hi there! I recently visited the Wikipedia page of Puttur, Karnataka. I noticed that a lot of information was removed and as to my knowledge, the information removed were actually true and helpful information. As I'm from the same place I got to know that the information was not false. Please add the removed information back. Thank You!

- Rakesh PS Rakesh PS (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I could claim to also be from that place, and could claim the information was false. How could our readers tell I'm wrong and you are right? That's what we need references for. Huon (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Reply, concerning Polysiphonia ceramiaeformis[edit]

Thanks. Have found "|" - at next to "caps" - Thanks very much. Osborne 15:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Huon (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Culturalresearch/ Trevisi[edit]

Wikipedia is a large organisation with many resources and procedures to stop disruptive editing. If editors have so many problems with a person's edits, it seems to me that it would be kinder to block a person from editing altogether rather than to let them continue, but then have other editors following them around and deleting all their contributions. Not only is this cruel, it is a massive waste of resources - both on the part of the contributor and the patrollers. And, what saddens me the most is that there are so many articles (especially in marketing and advertising) that are in desperate need of attention - but here we are wasting time on patrolling a suspect editor and deleting all his work. Culturalresearch contacted me for advice - not the other way around. I do not know how he came across my name or why he thought I could help. I simply listed some the strategies that have worked for me when I have come up against deletionists and reversionists - many of whom fail to provide appropriate explanations for their wholesale deletes. As I have said, I took Culturalresearch and his request at face value. I assumed good faith and only did a few basic checks. I was unable to detect any real problems with his contributions. Clearly, I was naive and in error. This exercise has been very instructive. In future, I will be no longer be assuming good faith and will be a lot more cautious about offering help to anyone. BronHiggs (talk) 06:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

nfcc discussion cont'd[edit]

Huon, side note, you have to leave a user-talkpage note for anons, they cannot be 'mention-pinged' with User:47.222.whatever (although that does work for redlinked usernames). But you did leave a note on article-talk, thanks, so I saw your pointer to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2017_February_5

  • NFCC#7 == "One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article."

Please be positive you want to advocate the elimination of rough draft fair-use-quotes in all of draftspace, and usertalk, and article-talk (draftspace-article-talk as well as mainspace-article-talk). The only way to make NFCC#7 apply to quotation-excerpts in draftspace is by a literal reading of "used in...one article" methinks (emphasis added). As you are no doubt aware, <grin>, people often discuss fair-use-quotes from mainspace articles, on the talkpage of said articles! This is a violation of the letter of NFCC#7, sure, but nobody goes around revdel'ing the discussions of NYT-ref#321 which doublequote what the journalist actually said in talkspace "because there is no permission to have a fair-use quotation from that newspaper on talkpages but only in mainspace"

So yeah, 'arguably' you are correct that NFCC#7 is being violated, when fair-use quotes are utilized ANYWHERE in draftspace (draft: or draft_talk: both), or even anywhere *but* in article-mainspace (i.e. article-talk and teahouse and usertalk and so on... since those are not "one article" but ancillary areas). But as you can probably guess, if turned into firm wiki-policy, that is gonna screw up not just my particular efforts to train newbies about how to properly format {{cite}} params and how to properly utilize fair use in the process. If that becomes the norm, it will screw up quite a lot of enWiki, through unintended consequences. We already have such a rule for draftspace-use of imagefiles... but my understanding is that nobody is attempting to say 'you must not quote TEXT from what the sources say in draftspace' because that would hamper actually writing draft-articles (as distinct from decorating them). If I am wrong, and using |quote= parameters is verboten in draftspace, then this is the first I've heard of it... but pragmatic concerns would suggest I'm not wrong. Imagefiles are one thing, textual-quotations are entirely another.

Placeholders for imagefiles are one thing ("once mainspaced put the low-rez-fair-use corporate logo here"). There is no replacement for discussion of the exact words used by a WP:SOURCE when you are having Socratic dialogues with newbies about whether it is WP:SYNTH to say in WP:WIKIVOICE something like "...and jokes (some of which were sexually suggestive)..." as opposed to something with very different connotations such as "...and sexual jokes...". In such cases, only the doublequoted and properly attributed fair-use portion of exactly what the original journalist specifically said will suffice. And in training newbies that have never heard of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP and WP:PUFFERY and WP:OR, pretty much every source and every sentence needs that sort of exacting analysis. More prosaically I would be shocked to learn that {{[[Template:|]]}} is not permitted in draftspace! But under the overly-strict interpretation of NFCC#7 since it is not :one article [in mainspace]" yet such things could theoretically be argued, I suppose.

  • NFCC#3_b == "Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice."

As we discussed at length on IRC, either you just don't understand minimal extent (my position), or perhaps I just don't understand minimal extent  :-)

But you are wrong, methinks, when you say [my paraphrase not your actual words]: 'an amalgamation of 100 actual-fair-use snippets onto a talkpage, which each take 1% of 100 different sources, adds up to copyvio of "100%" of some amalgamation-of-the-100-copyrights.' This is exactly what I'm doing and it is not copyvio, it is correct application of fair use.

By contrast, failure to adhere to 'minimal extent' of excerpts from a single source is most definitely a copyvio: "an amalgamation of 100 purportedly-fair-use snippets onto a talkpage, which each take a different 1% of one single source, adds up to copyvio of 100% of the source." This is not what I'm doing (and it would be copyvio no matter how many snippet-chunks were utilized and regardless of whether the final total was all-100% ... minimal extent means the smallest percentage of the original that will reasonably satisfy the specific fair use exception being put into application).

  • NFCC#3_a == "Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information."

There are probably some unintentional violations of this portion of the wiki-policies. For instance, there are at least six sources which talk about the details of the August 29th counter-protest event: some mention the Coulter placard, some mention the flags, some mention the Che costume, some mention the shouting in Spanish accents. But pretty much all of them are partial duplications of each other on the basic date/place/context/purpose type of factoids. Prior to mainspacing it will be ideal, if we can elide some of the less-needed sources, and instead rely on just the sourced needed to write the body-prose sentences. This is mostly per WP:OVERCITE rather than as a copyvio problem, however.

But since NFCC#3 has both part_A and also part_B, and we only talked about part_B (whether amalgamation from dozens of sources is the same as multi-dipping from a single source), it is worth asking whether you even see any problems with the part_A. Is there concern about NFCC#3_a, or are you just concerned about NFCC#3_b specifically?

As for the procedural issues of your complaint, I am happy to let some copyvio specialist look things over for themselves, and assess whether I'm somehow Doing It Wrong. (No matter how much copyright I may know, or think I know, there is *always* some way to do it wrong! How else would copyright lawyers make the big bucks off-wiki, after all  :-)    The only serious quibble I have with the way you phrased your noticeboard-report, Huon, is that you wrote "Multiple quotes with attribution, amounting to tens of KB in total" which is copyvio when pulling from a single source (e.g. a big book). And your phrasing implies that situation is occurring. But that is not what is happening; what I'm actually doing is sourcing a few sentences, each, from MANY different sources, which in aggregate adds up to (aka amalgamates unto) lots of kilobytes, sure... but in each case, the excerpted snippets are a 'minimal number of sentences' from THAT source and also 'minimal extent / percentage' of the total size of THAT source.

Repeated fair-use-extracts from one source, can easily add up to copyvio (nfcc#3_b). Repeated fair-use-extracts of nigh-identical info, from multiple sources that say basically the same thing or illustrate basically the same point, CAN in rare cases add up to fair use misapplication (nfcc#3_a). But it is my understanding that minimal fair use excerpts from dozens of sources... or hundreds/thousands/millions of sources even... with each such excerpt being the 'minimal extent' needed... CANNOT add up to copyvio. Otherwise how would |quote= param ever be used on-wiki, even in mainspace? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Two comments. Firstly, this is not a draft. It's a draft's talk page, never meant to become an article. I'll also note that non-free images are not permitted in drafts. Secondly, I would argue "minimal extent of use" is "no use at all" when you can instead link to the source, which seems possible for many instances. As I said on IRC, I'll leave it to the experts. Huon (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Yup, the draft-talk will eventually become talk. But are you really thinking that it is an NFCC#7 violation, to discuss this...
  • {{cite...|title=...|url=...|quote=...SomeFairUseSentences...}}
at a place like Talk:fake news website, but it is fine to discuss
  • {{cite...|title=...|url=......}}
on that talkpage, and only when mainspacing to the Fake news website#References section, it is then permissible to add |quote= with SomeFairUseSentences? Because that is how your position is coming across.
Fully agree with you that *is* the enWiki policy and consensus and longstanding practice, that NFCC imagefiles are verboten, whether in Draft:Oleg_Atbashian or in Draft_talk:Oleg_Atbashian. And I can see the same sort of logic being applicable to having fair use audiofiles (song samples) or fair use video content (movie clips) or other kinds of multimedia, in draftspace. But for textual quotations, no way... I will be utterly shocked out of my gourd if some of the enWiki copyright specialists comes out and says "nobody is allowed to use |quote= in draft_talk because nfcc#7" which would effectively defeat the purpose of draftspace, as a training ground for how to properly utilize fair use.
Most of the newbies I'm working with are COI-encumbered, so I'm specifically training them to leave Draft:Oleg Atbashian alone and to make proposed ref-additions on the draft_talk, since once mainspaced it is best practices for them to continue to make such proposals on Talk:Oleg Atbashian. As for your contention that linking to the URL is enough, and that |quote= must only be used in cases of offline-only sources -- we have one of those, The Point (magazine) where hardcopy differs from their online version -- again, I would be shocked if that is the Only Officially Permitted Usage. E.g. particularly in the case of German-language and Russian-language sources, which we have half a dozen of, quoting the relevant snippet of the foreign language in |quote= and then providing an English translation thereof, is critical for achieving WP:GOLDENRULE in this particular case. And in general, nice to have when one can get it!
There are also around a dozen paywalls, and at least a dozen 'pagecount-limited access' URLs to books.google.com previews for instance. Plus as I mentioned on IRC, using |quote= is a good way of pre-emptive deadlink-proofing one's refs. I will await the comments of others, as you suggest, because I am now growing very curious to hear what they say 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Prime Ministers[edit]

Hi Huon, thank you for your help in getting my English version article approved for Prime Ministers. I also really appreciate you sending me the link to the Wiki guidelines for affiliation, it was eye-opening. I'm a little overwhelmed by the ins and outs of the Wiki editing, and after all the time i've put into this project, definitely want to make sure i abide by the rules. I'm not a member of the band, i am helping out the friend of a friend, who helps them out in the US. I'm not totally clear if this constitutes Connected Contributor Paid status, but am happy to make what additional changes i need to make to the page our my status in order to keep the English page up. I respect the rigorous standards are clearly important at Wikipedia and i feel honored that you've enabled me to be a part of the contributing process, in sharing the accomplishments of Prime Minsters with to Wiki's english-speaking readers. Thanks again for your help.

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Piped link - thanks Osborne 19:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Henry Jackson Society[edit]

Hi,

Can you restore the content. The user will make changes to it and we will discuss his/her changes. Thanks.Ferakp (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:SockmasterProven[edit]

Saw your name there and was wondering if this template will ever be fixed. I just CU blocked a sockmaster. Tried to use Twinkle to block the sockmaster but the template for sockmaster is the same as the sockpuppet one, so that wasn't suitable. I'm also only blocking the master, a new editor, for a week, and showing that isn't exactly easy. Plus, if you look at Sonvito's talk page, it gives " for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Checkuser" and of course I want 'by Checkuser' or something similar. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

DougWeller, I'm sorry, but apparently I couldn't fix that template three years ago, and I doubt I'd be doing much better now. My advice at that time was to use {{SockBlock|masterblock=yes}} instead. For CheckUser evidence you can try {{sockpuppeteer|timeblocked|checked=yes|time=1 week}}. I've just modified that template since it didn't accept a "checked=yes" parameter for CheckUser evidence in combination with "timeblocked", just with indef-blocked accounts. Until January there was also Template:Uw-sockblock which JamesBWatson redirected to Template:SockBlock, though I don't think that would have done all you want, either. Huon (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Shame it's so difficult. I see there's a problem with SPI templates notifying the user, something we don't always want to do, for good reason. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I have long thought that these sock-related templates could do with a major overhaul, for various reasons, including the ones that Doug Weller has mentioned, but I really don't have enough knowledge of how these templates work to do it myself. As for redirecting {{Uw-sockblock}} to {{SockBlock}}, I see no reason why you shouldn't re-create {{Uw-sockblock}} under a new title if you think it would help. My reason for restoring the old redirection, as I tried to make clear in my edit summary, was simply that replacing a redirect to a template with a radically different template is a bad idea, as people who still expect it to be the old one will be fooled into posting a different message than they intend to, as happened to me. Of course, restoring the redirect after it has existed for quite a while runs the danger of creating the same problem in the other direction, but my judgement, rightly or wrongly, was that in this case the time scales were such that on balance restoring the redirect was the less bad option. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Good Faith Wrongful Blocking & Misleading Info[edit]

I did NOT threaten legal action against Wikipedia or one its editors...MISLEADING and WRONGFUL text has been put my (Kenneth Del Vecchio) Wikipedia article/page by a PRIVATE, ANONYMOUS person who is unaffiliated with Wikipedia. When correcting the misleading and wrongful text, a box appears asking how/why a correction has been made. In this box, I noted that this misleading and wrongful text has been ongoing for nearly a year (where the private, anonymous hacker has been continuously taking down the FACTUAL information and replacing it with the misleading information) - and I further noted that we are investigating the identity of this hacker and planning to take civil legal action against him if he doesn't stop his wrongful activity. This, of course, has NOTHING to do with Wikipedia and its editors. My IP address is 148.74.87.237. Respectfully, I am asking you to read the below facts about this matter and unblock me - and restore my Wikipedia article/page to the factual information (and delete the two words of misleading information). Wikepedia has made a good faith, but crucial, mistake. Wikepedia mistakenly blocked the editing of the article (page) about me with the MISLEADING, WRONGFUL information in it. I had asked for the editing to be blocked because of the vandalism occurring to article/page, but of course wanted the true information in it! (: (: Please see below all the necessary information regarding this problem. As discussed in our initial correspondences, the hackers are continually changing the first line of my (Kenneth Del Vecchio's) Wikepedia article/page by deleting a factually correct statement (where we provide several credible sources below) - and replacing it with a misleading, editorialized statement. The correct first line (which, as of this moment, is NOT on the article/page) is as follows: "Kenneth Del Vecchio is a filmmaker who has written, produced, directed and acted in over 30 movies that star several Academy Award and Emmy winners and nominees." The above is 100% FACT, and there are hundreds of sources for it. Here are just a few: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0216016/ http://www.empirestatenews.net/2016/06/30/middletown-may-lose-film-fest-as-renaissance-man-ken-del-vecchio-turns-narrow-campaign-defeat-into-big-win-with-tv-show-festival/ http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2010/07/exclusive-new-jersey-judge-and-filmmaker-resigns-over-films/ http://www.justiceforallproductions.com/

A person keeps changing the correct and accurate information, by editorializing it with the following misleading language: "Kenneth Del Vecchio is a filmmaker who has written, produced, directed and acted in 30 "B-movies." Given the above, we are respectfully that the correct information (as detailed above) be put back onto the article/page about me (Kenneth Del Vecchio). And then, I am asking that this hacker person be stopped from making any more inaccurate, unfair, and illicit edits to my (Kenneth Del Vecchoio's) Wikepdia article/page, as my reputation is being damaged by it. At minimum, it would be justice if the article/page could be blocked for some time to deter future illicit changes by the hacker. The person who is acting wrongfully makes the edits from the following IP addresses: 74.89.81.132 95.210.104.208 71.167.167.85 As well as the apperance of the following usernames: Pieintheskye Oncuponatime Also, I have personally been mistakenly blocked from editing the article/page about me. I am asking to be unblocked, of course. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Best, Ken D.

Kenneth Del Vecchio Filmmaker, Author, Attorney (former Judge) Chairman, Hoboken International Film Festival www.justiceforallproductions.com www.hobokeninternationalfilmfestival.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFAProductions (talkcontribs) 21:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Two comments. Firstly, if "The identity of this person is currently being investigated by attorneys, wherein the appropriate civil legal action will be taken." is not a threat of legal action, I really would like to know what you meant by that. (You can reply on your user talk page to avoid block evasion.) Secondly, The New York Times says about you: "Kenneth Del Vecchio is no Martin Scorsese; he produces, writes, directs and acts in low-budget films you probably have not seen." Such "low-budget films you probably have not seen" (well, you have, of course) are commonly referred to as "b-movies", making the content you object to an accurate summary of how a reliable source describes your works. Huon (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


I read your responses on the varied talk pages – thank you. Please understand that I am not wholly literate with regard to the technical functions of Wikipedia. That said, however, I will address each of your remarks:
1) I know that you are not the person who has continually been changing the text on my Wikipedia article/page over the last several months. And it’s my belief that you and I probably have the same moral desire that Wikipedia reports factual information—and not editorialized, misleading statements. The longstanding opening sentence on my Wikipedia page details a fact (not an opinion): that my movies “star several Academy Award and Emmy winners and nominees.” There’s no opinion, editorial, or gray area here. It’s simple fact. This fact can be found in hundreds, if not thousands of credible sources. Once can even simply look at the casts of my movies to ascertain this fact. An individual who obviously has a personal dislike for me is the one who has continually replaced this factual statement with the editorialized/misleading comment of “b-movies.” This individual’s conduct clearly can cause damage to me, given that the very first link that appears in a Google search of my is my Wikipedia article/page. While it is accurate the New York Times article you referenced characterized my movies in a certain manner (and other negative critiques have been made about some of my films), there are numerous major media, credible media reports glorifying my movies. The praising reviews are also opinion. Just as I am not asking for the highly favorable/editorial commentary to describe my films on my Wikipedia article/page, I am respectfully requesting that the negative opinion/editorial commentary not persist on the article/page, especially since it is replacing a longstanding factual statement.
2) I did not issue a legal threat to Wikipedia, nor any of its editors or its administrators. I did, however, threaten to file a civil legal complaint (i.e., a legal threat) against the private, anonymous individual who is continually removing the factual statement and replacing it with the editorialized opinion statement. It was and is my understanding that this person is not affiliated with Wikipedia. Unless you advise me otherwise, I will continue to believe that this person has not affiliation with Wikipedia and is just a private person who has been seeking to damage me because of personal animosity. To be crystal clear: I am not (and never have) threatening any legal action against Wikipedia or any of its editors and administrators.
3) I am simply asking for fundamental fairness: a) to restore the longstanding factual statement and delete the negative opinion/editorial statement; and b) unblock me.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.


Best, Ken D.

Kenneth Del Vecchio Filmmaker, Author, Attorney (former Judge) Chairman, Hoboken International Film Festival www.justiceforallproductions.com www.hobokeninternationalfilmfestival.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.65.63 (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Another two comments. Firstly, as I said above, "You can reply on your user talk page to avoid block evasion". When you are blocked, using ever-changing IP addresses to evade that block will be seen as an unwillingness to work within Wikipedia's policies and will be held against you. Instead, when you're logged into your account you are still able to edit User talk:JFAProductions, and you should not edit any other pages at this time.
Secondly, that "private, anonymous individual" also is a Wikipedia editor (in fact, until you created your account you, too were such a "private, anonymous individual"). We don't just care about the Wikimedia Foundation or admins being threatened with "civil legal action", but threatening any editor in this way is cause for a block (see WP:No legal threats). It has a chilling effect and is incompatible with a collaborative editing environment. Of course you are welcome to sue if you want to, but you are not welcome to threaten a lawsuit and edit Wikipedia at the same time. You will not be unblocked unless you agree not to engage in legal action against other people editing Wikipedia.
Regarding the content at the basis of your complaint, that could be discussed on the article's talk page if the blocks are resolved, but I rather doubt your stance that "b-movie" is either an incorrect description of your work or less relevant to you, personally, than the awards won in unrelated ventures by your colleagues will achieve a consensus. It's hardly a badge of shame either. Huon (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Reba-McEntire Sing-It-Now-Album-Cover-1481844683.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Reba-McEntire Sing-It-Now-Album-Cover-1481844683.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.[edit]

I really appreciate the helpful response. JTEntzminger (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)