User talk:Hut 8.5
Archive 1 (Aug 2006 - Feb 2007)
- 1 Restoration of Notable Article
- 2 Ultraman King page deletion
- 3 The Springs International School deletion
- 4 A beer for you!
- 5 A barnstar for you!
- 6 Serious matter
- 7 A barnstar for you!
- 8 Laurel Coppock deletion
- 9 Rape jihad
- 10 Orb Recording Studios Deletion Review
- 11 Aliens: Female War
- 12 Dariusz Zawislak
- 13 The second life of copyvio articles
- 14 Attribution of internal copy-paste
Restoration of Notable Article
Ultraman King page deletion
I responded to this:
I usually don't come on often, especially around Christmas / New Year time , so I am slow in responding .
If you Jedi council still want to keep it deleted , fine by me but it is just a shame if it is. I am just saying the reason for deletion is absurd (because of format??) . As I said, King can not be written about like any characters, he wasn't created that way and for that reason (no TV shows or movie , just making special appeearances here and there) . A true Ultraman fan will find it absurd not to have his page on Wiki when all other ultras are.It is also ridiculous when copies of the original Wiki page for this character are everywhere on the internet but not on Wiki.
Take a look at the original Wiki page for Ultraman King that I copied somewhere else on the internet, tell me which parts need to be re-written , may be I can find some spare time to rewrite it.
- I've responded here. You can reply here or there, I don't mind. Hut 8.5 19:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
"it consisted only of in-universe descriptions of fictional works. If you want the page to be restored then you need to find some way of addressing that. This is a good example of what we don't want. It starts with an in-universe description of the character and moves onto plot summaries of various fictional works. While all articles on fictional characters have content like this, they have to have something else as well. Common choices are:
Out of universe descriptions of the character (i.e. from the point of view of the writers, or other development of the series) Reception or critical analysis of the character Cultural influence of the character."
There is nothing else one can add or at least in the manner you want because as I said, the character wasn't created for that and in that way. You are using western standard for something asian and for most asian fans, they don't care about the points you mentioned.
"Reception or critical analysis of the character
Cultural influence of the character."
??? Seriously, you guys just graduated from some colleges majoring in journalism or English?? If you must, I can think of one cultural influence, Ultraman King is always used for promoting "respect the elderly" Day in Japan.
Out of universe descriptions?? He is not a Shakespearean character or some character in a novel. You people are making this place looking like some academia.
"Reception or critical analysis of the character"?? Who are you?? Roger Ebert??
I think people in charge of the Ultraman pages should be fans of the franchise for the very least if not knowledgeable in the subject. I say this for other subjects as well.
Anyway, I was just trying to preserve information for other fans. If the non-ultra fans Jedi council wants the page off , fine by me and not worth my time to contribute any effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- For your information I am not Roger Ebert, nor do I have an English degree. As was mentioned in the other discussion, take a look at the article on Darth Vader. It has a history of the development of the character, discussion of how the character was portrayed, and discussion of how the character has had an impact on various real life events. Our article on Superman has a history of the development of the character, influences from various other fictional works, copyright disputes, influences on other fictional works and on culture more generally. Darth Vader and Superman are hardly Shakespeare. I think it's rather bizarre to claim that it isn't possible to do this for characters originating in Asian culture, but in any case that's not true. Godzilla has a history of the development of the character, portrayals of the character, influences on the character and a discussion of the character's impact on culture. It isn't possible to do this for all fictional characters, no, but that's why we don't have articles on them. Hut 8.5 19:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The Springs International School deletion
This is a school which work in Tana, Nilambur,Kerala,India. I created an article on school is not for advertisement purpose. We consider as encyclopedia article. Akbarali2 (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
A beer for you!
|Have a good day Աշոտ1997 (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)|
A barnstar for you!
|The Special Barnstar|
|Thank you Աշոտ1997 (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)|
Hi there HUT, this is (formerly known as) Always Learning, asked that my account be vanished after a serious run-in with a troll, with the intention of leaving forever, but guess I cannot, I'm hooked...
Remember this run-in with a Colombian punk that kept harassing after a mild exchange of opinions in the Quique Flores article (one of his accounts was User:Xxxx693, another was User:Lombriz de Aguapuerca)? Well, he has returned (please check Mr. Flores article's last two anon contributions beside mine), continuing to go against WP consensus that was reached in 2012, and continuing to insult me (his summary contained an old familiar, "crybaby", and also "piss off from WP").
Is it possible to have my talkpage (userpage not a concern anymore) protected so that, let's say, only admins can reach me? I am sick and tired of this punk's abuse (so courageous, insulting from thousands of miles away instead of to my face), surely something can be done, no?
A barnstar for you!
|The Admin's Barnstar|
|For possibly the worlds fastest deletion - You deleted it 2 minutes after I nominated it,
Laurel Coppock deletion
The Laurel Coppock page was recently deleted, with G4 as the stated reason. I would like to respectfully dispute that. The page had been substantially updated from the version that was deleted in 2013, and does not satisfy the G4 criteria. Specifically:
- The article's size increased from ~4000 to ~5000 bytes.
- Two (2) more TV appearances were added to the list.
- Her co-writing experience was added.
- Her personal life info (husband + child) was added.
- Her being one of 500 possibilities for the Toyota spot was added.
All of the above include verifiable references. References in the 2013 version were checked and updated as appropriate.
One could make the argument that Coppock is not notable, however that is not the stated reason the article was deleted. I am unable to find the deletion discussion, other than the original discussion from 2013. Would you please tell me where that discussion may be found.
Considering notability (in addition to the items listed above) ...
- There are nine (9) Wikipedia articles that directly refer to Laurel Coppock, as evidenced by a Wikipedia Search.
- Coppock appearts in Toyota commercials numerous times each day, and has done so, for the past 2+ years. Millions of people have seen her and can identify with her.
- Laurel Coppock is very similar to Morgan Smith Goodwin, who is known for being the Wendy's girl, with little other acting experience listed in her Wikipedia article, definitely less than that listed in Coppock's article. If Goodwin's article is kept, then Coppock's should be kept as well.
- I appreciate your reply. Please note that I had no argument with the original AfD discussion in 2013. That's why I expanded the article and re-released it. Your reply doesn't address two key points in the discussion above.
- Where is the discussion of the latest delete? Shouldn't the article at least be given the courtesy of a recent AfD discussion? Where is the consensus (which Wikipedia lives by) for G4 deletion?
- There is no comment about the Morgan Smith Goodwin article. Does the Wikipedia community really want to tag that article as AfD, using the same reasoning as the original Coppock delete?
- Again, thanks for your reply, and I further request information and your re-assessment of the G4 deletion. Truthanado (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Re; your follow-up reply on my talk page. I am not confused. I am curious how you determined that the revised article satisfies the G4 requirements of "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" when it is 25% larger and contains additional information. Of course, text from the original article remains; virtually every article in Wikipedia contains text from its initial version. Since we, as two individuals, disagree on this, I suggest we have another Wikipedia admin review our discussion, and make a determination of whether G4 applies. Truthanado (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Please reconsider you G4 speedy deletion of Rape jihad. Aside from the title, the article had been entirely rewritten from the version originally submitted to AfD the last time. Pax 22:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Talk page archive:
This page should not be speedily deleted because... this article is cited very well, and it certainly isn't "too much of a neologism to pass notability guidelines." It's hardly a neologism at all - it's just a description of a phenomenon that's widely reported. Instead of deleting, if that's truly your reason, why don't we change it to a non neologism title? --DawnDusk (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- It is not hard to convince me that a systemic bias is in place regarding religious articles. For instance, "Rape jihad" despite having abundant RS and being entirely rewritten from the version which was previously AfDd, is speedied. Meanwhile, that insult to the intelligence known as Christian terrorism survives AfD despite being an utter travesty without any suitable RS supporting the tendentious claim implied by its title. Pax 21:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because...the article has been entirely rewritten. Literally not one sentence in it is the same as in the original version submitted to AfD. The only thing that remains is the name of the article, and abundant reliable sources establish both usage of the term in specific, and those activities it refers to in general. Simply put, the speedy nominator has not bothered to read the article, let alone perform WP:BEFORE-- Pax 21:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Deletion review for Rape jihad
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rape jihad. 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. Pax 00:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Orb Recording Studios Deletion Review
I am new to this Wikipedia editing and article creation. I would really want to be able to do more. Could you please help me learn how to be good at this. Take for example the Orb Recording Studios article I did, which got deleted, how would you recommend I had presented it. What I did was
- Picked a random article to edit which was C.B. Hudson.
- I looked up C.B. Hudson on Google.
- Updated the info on the article C.B. Hudson and found that the article/page on Orb Recording Studios was not there.
- So I created one by referencing the Official Website of Orb Recording Studios.
PS: I have no affiliations to the Organisation/Company Orb Recording Studios
So the one I created had copy writing issues. How would you suggest I go about creating any such articles in future.
Aliens: Female War
Hi, was wondering if you could pop back to my talk page and continue the discussion with the problem with the Female War novel summary. Thanks for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispy385 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no reason to delete article aboout Mr. Zawislak, Page on Polish Wikipedia is exist and even more informations you can find after 6 years from last discussion, I would like to suggest recreate this article and open new discussion about deleting. And then made a decision. All the best. OKD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okejdokej (talk • contribs) 13:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt response. If you recreate I will find and link necessary evidence to counter this concern and then we can open new discussion about deleting. Ok? Best OKD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okejdokej (talk • contribs) 08:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I dont have an acces to this data. Did you suggest me to write new article? Look like you block this topic... Best OKD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okejdokej (talk • contribs) 19:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The second life of copyvio articles
Hey, Hut. Hope you're doing well. I thought you might be interested to know that Theresa Andrews, an Olympic swimmer article that had to be blanked for cut-and-paste copyright violation problems in 2010, now has a second life as a Good Article. Your work in fighting copyvios, in part, made that possible. Thank you for your efforts. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, you've done a very good job with that one. Hut 8.5 06:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Attribution of internal copy-paste
Hut, how familiar are you with the policies and guidelines that govern the cut-and-paste or copy-and-paste of text and other content from one Wikipedia article to another? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Reasonably, why? Hut 8.5 16:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Could you take a look at this situation and let me know what you think? Over 100 new articles were created by copy-paste of existing content from Navy Midshipmen football results on July 11 and 12 (see, e.g., 1897 Navy Midshipmen football team). No attribution to the original content creator(s) was provided. Complicating this situation is the fact that the original article (linked above) is now subject to deletion at AfD, and if deleted, will break any connection/attribution to the original content and content creators. In your opinion, is this a serious problem under either our content attribution or copyvio policies? Dirtlawyer1 (talk)
- I think you'd actually be OK deleting the source article there. At least in the US you can't claim copyright on lists of purely factual data, unless you have some non-obvious way of formatting or organising it (see Wikipedia:Copyright in lists). If the content here consists of the date, score, opponent and possibly the location with wins coloured green and losses red then I don't think that rises to the level of creativity where it would be copyrightable and hence we don't need attribution to use it somewhere else. The only thing which leaves me slightly concerned is some of the longer or more elaborate comments in the notes section, if those were copied then they might need attribution. Hut 8.5 16:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- So, the need for attribution for internal copy-paste from one Wikipedia article to another turns on whether the copy-pasted content is subject to external copyright law? If I understand your analysis correctly, that means copy-pasted (or cut-and-pasted) text should always be properly attributed to the source article and content creator, but lists may or may not require attribution depending on the extent of the particular list's original, creative content -- right? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Anything which qualifies for copyright protection needs attribution when you copy it. Anything which doesn't qualify isn't copyrighted and can be used anywhere. (The guideline does actually discuss this - WP:NOATT.) Lists of statistics (particularly sports results) usually don't qualify, text usually does. Hut 8.5 18:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- "Lists of statistics . . . usually don't qualify, text usually does." Hence your cautionary caveat regarding the "notes" section of the copy-pasted season schedules? Got it. Thank you for your input. If you don't mind, I may return for advice related to this issue in other particular circumstances in the future. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. I suspect that the more complex chunks of text haven't actually been copied here, they tend to appear on the more recent seasons which have better developed spinoff articles, you can't claim copyright on something like "Homecoming" or "First meeting between the two teams". If you do want input from someone else you could try Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup, but I don't mind you asking me. Hut 8.5 18:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)