User talk:Huon

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

AFD review[edit]

Could you look at User_talk:MBisanz#Bhavna_Limbachia? MBisanz talk 19:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Heracleum spondylium[edit]

Thank you for you reply to my "heplme" concerning this plant. I have a book which shows the petals, but does not mention the divide or fork in the petal. Regards.Osborne 15:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Amicus brief as a reference[edit]

An amicus brief is not subject to peer review or editorial oversight. It's a piece of advocacy, and also a primary source. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY, we should not rely on such primary sources (and "trial transcripts and other court records" are explicitly mentioned; amicus briefs should be treated the same) in the biography of a living person. I'll thus again remove the two paragraphs based on that brief. Huon (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Blanket recommendations about primary sources are to be used with sensitivity and discretion. To jump on anything that falls outside the recommendation and claim tearing it down isn't vandalism is a specious argument -- first you have to look at the information and how it was used. It was not used "to support assertions about a living person", as the Wikipedia guidelines urge editors to avoid. The Amicus brief information in this entry shows how the Authors Guild saw this trial as a free-speech issue, which is completely pertinent to the subject of the trial. I urge you to undo your damaging deletion ASAP.NVG13DAO (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the article's talk page. Huon (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Iwachiw2001, block evasion, unblock requests[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Please unblock User:Iwachiw2001g[edit]

Hello Huon. User:Iwachiw2001g is my student at LaGuardia, as it should be obvious from the content of his sandbox and the fact that he is enrolled in's_Bloodchild_and_Other_Stories,_Part_II_(Fall_2016)/students. I have only know him for a few weeks, but he seems a pretty amenable and decent guy, unlike the infamous Iwachiw2001. I would appreciate if you would unblock his sandbox, as he has homework due this Friday. Thank you. DrX (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

DrX, are you saying that the Walter Iwachiw running User:Iwachiw2001g is not the Walter Iwachiw who ran User:Iwachiw2001, and it's entirely a coincidence that both logged into their accounts from the same IP address within 24 hours, or that in the three years since his previous block for edit-warring and sockpuppetry, which saw him accusing fellow editors of all being "partisan" if they disagreed with him, he has mellowed? His new account has been unblocked in the only instance I'm aware of that saw a sockpuppeteer reinstated without ever himself addressing the issues that led to the original block. We'll see how it goes. I'll just note that I'm dedicated to Wikipedia's editing environment, not to peoples' ability to do homework. Huon (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello again, Huon. I would not know if User:Iwachiw2001g is not the Walter Iwachiw who ran User:Iwachiw2001. If he is, then I completely understand why you would like to stop him. But if he's not, then I am sure you understand why I would request he can use his sandbox again. As you say, we shall probably know better in the following weeks. Thank you for the work you do for the community, and if I can be of help in this matter, please let me know. DrX (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

On your assesment and edits on Barrackpore Mutiny[edit]

On Assessment comments

Dear Editor Huon , I highly appreciate for the pain that you have undertaken to improve this article. Also I would like to thank you for your assessments and feedbacks. Having said that I would like to quickly touch upon couple of quick points - You felt that the tone is rather one sided which is an interesting observation considering that I grew up in Barrackpore. Still I would like defend my position on two of your stated examples.

° The British officers had to flee because they were "unable to face the ire of the soldiers under Bindee’s command", whereas later the Sepoys "fought valiantly but they were outnumbered". You felt this narrative to be one-sided. 47th Regiment BNI was fighting against 1st (Royal) Regiment, British 47th Regiment, One squadron of horse artillery, Governor General's body guards, 62nd Regiment of BNI, 26th Regiment of BNI. When one regiment was fighting against six regiments, is it so much of an assumption to call the fight lopsided and 47th BNI was "outnumbered"?

° "Bindee especially was subjected to brutal torture." You observe: "he wasn't, at least not according to the source. He was hanged, and then his dead body was displayed in chains as a deterrence." - Here the key word in my defense will "at least not according to the source". There is a problem in writing this wikipedia article only from the viewpoint of colonial officers of British East India Company. Captain Pogson especially some could say, was prejudiced and racist. ("It is not then to be supposed that a shrewd and cunning race like Burmans" --{Pogson|1833|p=8}, "If an apprehension bordering panic was excited in the minds of our ignorant and superstitious sepoys"-- {Pogson|1833|p=8}). It is not hard to assume why did Pogson played down the entire incident. I am quoting Encyclopedia Britannica that writes "the incident nearly led to the recall of the British governor-general, Lord Amherst, and the military authorities were criticized for their rigidity and vindictive harshness." However Pogson conveniently misses to mention any of these. For Bindee's torture I completely based on Outlook, India. Also there are multiple oral accounts of Bindee's torture widespread in the area. Some could argue that it is unfair to say there was no torture as Captain Pogson, who ordered executions in a Kangaroo court, did not mention that. I would try to bring more concrete evidences from other Indian archives to support my position.

° Native Sepoys were not provided with Bullocks to pull their carriage cart. This was the primary reason for the mutiny. Pogson and Richie both described in details on the importance of Bullocks on this mutiny. Astonishingly after last edit there is no mention of Bullocks in Barrackpore Mutiny, which is somewhat astonishing.

° I guess some inaccuracies have been introduced in the spree of edit and correction of tone. One example would be "Other historians, including Rudrangshu Mukherjee, argue that Pandey's incident was an individual act of defiance and do not accord much significance for the later rebellion to the 1824 events." - Mangal Pandey is associated with 1857 incident and he is not involved in 1824 incident. And stating Pandey's incident "and do not accord much significance for the later rebellion", is highly controversial and to the extent of laughable. Mangal Pandey is well regarded to start the Indian Rebellion of 1857 which ended company rule of India. In the last paragraph I was trying to compare the degree and scale of these two mutinies where I observed that Bindee's 1824 rebellion was greater in scale where as Mangal's 1857 incident was an act of personal defiance. However 1824 incident failed to inspire others to start rebellion but 1857 incident did influence others to start rebellions. I would request more caution in making such frivolous change just under pretext of making the tone neutral. Thanks again for all your hard work. I would like to mention that I don't question your intention however there could be contention between Indian account of the incident and Colonial account of the incident, I am sure you understand my concern. Sincerely, Avskbhatta (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

On Contradictory Source Comments

Their will be contradiction considering the nature of the subject. There will be a colonial government's account and an Indian account. As mentioned before there are problems in basing the article on the narratives of colonial officers of East India company, as they were later criticized for their role by even British government. These officers would always trivialize the scale of mutiny and would try to justify their conduct. It is important to remember that they they were fired after 1857 mutinies, and India was brought under direct rule of Queen Victoria. I quoted Outlook which comes from a respectable publishing house of The Hindu, to accommodate the Indian narrative. I would assume they have done research before publishing their article. If only narratives of the East India Company are taken, the Wikipedia article would lose its neutrality. Thanks, Avskbhatta (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I have replied on the article's talk page so that other editors interested in the topic can more easily find the relevant discussion. Huon (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello Huon, I just found a fantastic account in The Oriental Herald that might appeal you to rethink on the neutrality of Captain Pogson's account. If you are interested, request your quick reading. URL: The Oriental Herald Vol 5 1825 [1].

P.S. I like the way you spell labour. Thank you. Avskbhatta (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion on the article's talk page at Talk:Barrackpore Mutiny of 1824. Thanks. Huon (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


Thank you for the ping, as the removal was procedural, I did reverse my removal and noted on their talk page. It is feasible this editor uses multiple computers and addresses and their IP block only applies on other ones. — xaosflux Talk 16:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)