User talk:Huon/Archive26

• Reedko64 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:A. Daniel O'Neal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Just wondering what factual errors you are referring to because I don't see any.

Let's take the very first sentence: Arthur Daniel "Dan" O'Neal ( born May 15, 1938) is the former Chairman of both the Washington State Transportation Commission and the (U.S.) Interstate Commerce Commission, and has served in like capacity throughout his life. That is factually correct? He has served in like capacity at age 3? At age 18? Is he serving in like capacity right now? I don't think the answer to any of those questions is "yes", so he clearly has not served in like capacity throughout his life. Hyping up his importance got in the way of factual accuracy. Huon (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I've made some source adds, too. Thanks!

Hello, I'm 61.100.199.21. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to George W. Archibald have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. 61.100.199.21 (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--Kostas20142 (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry about not listening I am just learning how to use wikipedia so can you please unblock me I am sorry --SparkyHelper (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC) SparkyHelper (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments about the page creation I performed. Sorry, if I did something wrong! BigSugarDaddy 18:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting my edits. They were not vandalism or disruptive. —Ecstatic Electrical, 23:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ecstatic Electrical: They weren't vandalism, but they weren't helpful either.

• At Atlantic hurricane and Pacific hurricane you removed some hatnotes and replaced them with less helpful ones. Is it necessary to point out that an article entitled "Atlantic hurricanes" is not about hurricanes in general but ones in the Atlantic? Why should there be no link to the "Atlantic hurricane season" article, and why would the link to the current hurricane season need to be made in a way that requires yearly manual updates? Has the update to "Atlantic hurricane" for which there was a hatnote been made? And why do you think it's more likely that people might be confused between Atlantic and Pacific at than by whether they're looking at the northern or southern hemisphere?
• The original image at lightning didn't just show a single lightning bolt but four. It's far more impressive than the image you added. Also, it's not watermarked.
• At waterspout and firestorm I don't think there's a significant risk of confusion with the articles you added to hatnotes. In particular, waterspouts can't be "confused with" tornadoes because they are tornadoes. Why do you think people might confuse firestorms with wildfires?

If you prefer, we can discuss the specifics at each article's talk page; I still maintain that none of those edits were helpful and that they all should be reverted. Huon (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to reply to each of your posts one by one.

• Is it necessary to point out that an article entitled "Atlantic hurricanes" is not about hurricanes in general but ones in the Atlantic? — Yes. Some people may not be aware that Pacific Hurricanes even exist, as in the Pacific they are often called typhoons by the locals there. As such, someone who isn’t a local of the Pacific region may not make the connection between hurricanes and typhoons, and may think that hurricanes only exist in the Atlantic.
• Why should there be no link to the "Atlantic hurricane season" article, and why would the link to the current hurricane season need to be made in a way that requires yearly manual updates? — For the first point, I accidentally removed the link to the Atlantic Hurricane season article. For the second point, what you do mean? I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.
• Has the update to "Atlantic hurricane" for which there was a hatnote been made? — I didn’t notice a hatenote for an update to the article. What did that hatnote look like? Or even better, what was the name of the hatnote template?
• And why do you think it's more likely that people might be confused between Atlantic and Pacific at than by whether they're looking at the northern or southern hemisphere? — Same reason as my first point regarding hurricanes versus typhoons.
• The original image at lightning didn't just show a single lightning bolt but four. It's far more impressive than the image you added. — the second part of that statement is just simply not true. It is highly unusal to see four lightening bolts all striking the same location at the same time. You only see that in an extreme severe storm or other freak condition like that. Images in articles shouldn’t be based on what is considered “impressive” but rather be based on what is most commonly observed/seen.
• Why do you think people might confuse firestorms with wildfires? — the names are similar, and in fact, a firestorm for someone who doens’t know what one actually is could mean literally “a storm of fire”. A wildfire is also a storm of fire, because the flames burn across and destroy the land rather than the rain and wind blowing across and washing away the land. Additionally, any two similar phenomenons with similar names may be confused by someone who isn’t paying close attention. —Ecstatic Electrical, 18:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll take this to the various articles' talk pages so interested people there can comment, too; it's getting too detailed for my user talk page. Suffice it to say here that I disagree with most of your points. Huon (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Huon, here is the answer I already sent to your colleague: thanks for your answer. I understand the policy, and it makes sense. It is true that the name of this person has been written in various forms, and recently several publications tend to use the simplified form of his name, omitting the father initial (I.). The prime references we use, like the volume published in his (and his twin brother's honour) in 1936 names him Alexandru I. Lapedatu (reference Crăciun, I.: “Alex. I. Lapedatu. Note bio-bibliografice / Alex. I. Lapedatu. Bio-Bibliographical Notes). Likewise, the medal minted in 1936 in his honour is also writing his name "Alexandru I. Lapedatu" - we intend to add it as an illustration at some point. Furthermore, the article in his native language (Romanian) uses as title the form "Alexandru I. Lapedatu". Interestingly enough, his twin brother conserved the father's initial even in Wikipedia, and is named "Ion I. Lapedatu" even in recent publications, probably because his father was also Ioan Lapedatu - the initial helps keeping them apart. Our strong preference is obviously to write the names of the two twin brothers in a similar manner, and would appreciate if you would agree with us - but we understand that this is not the only possible viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioana Maior (talk • contribs) 21:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ioana Maior: I had checked three references at random, in addition to those that already had "Alexandru Lapedatu" in the title. None of them used the middle initial. Now I checked some additional ones - again they all, without exception, referred to him as "Alexandru Lapedatu". It's possible that sources refer to twin brothers in different ways, but I don't see that the middle initial is commonly used to refer to Alexandru. Thus people looking for him on Wikipedia will likely also expect his name to be written without a middle initial. Huon (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks--Ioana Maior (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huon. I have disclosed a COI with Forcepoint (an IT Security company), shared a draft that would bring it up to GA standards, and introduced myself here. I was wondering if you had a minute to contribute either by reviewing the proposed draft, or suggesting some other her process you feel is most appropriate. No one on has responded on the Talk page. Your help is much appreciated in advance if you take the time to chip-in. CorporateM (Talk) 12:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM: You may want to ask someone else. I'm not interested in the topic and am distracted by perrsonal issues; I can't guarantee any competent advice at this point. Maybe the people at WT:WikiProject Computer Security or the more general WT:WikiProject Computing can help you. Huon (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reedko64 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:A. Daniel O'Neal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Removed factual error. Reformatted, added sources.

@Reedko64: The draft is submitted for another review. I'll let someone else take another look at it. I would advise you to remove all the non-independent sources - press releases, his own companies' websites and so on - and to focus on what third-party sources have to say about O'Neal. Huon (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I am not quite sure how I crossed paths with you, it really is not important, but I sat down (actually was already sitting) and read through series of edits where you were explaining, or trying to explain to some new editor how he (or she, but it seemed like a guy) was messing up again and again and you just hung into there until he got himself blocked, though not, I think, through you. I was impressed so decided to make it public. You did good (well). Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welldon I am looking forward to give you a Nobel prize 😁😀 Sumitmpsd (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused and disappointed to see that you have unblocked User:P0404. I and others have spent many hours having to revert and correct his broken, incorrect, and at times outright malicious edits. His promises should mean nothing - he has repeatedly lied on talk pages about his abuse of multiple accounts, and I have no doubt that he said whatever he thought would get him unblocked without any intention of following through. His edits since being unblocked have been exactly the same type of disruptive edits as before. This includes creating a sourceless article with broken templates and poor writing, adding an unsourced, improperly capitalized, and somewhat incorrect claim to an article, and exactly zero edit summaries. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Pi.1415926535 I read it online and that is what it said I'm sorry for any inconveniences that I've caused you — Preceding unsigned comment added by P0404 (talk • contribs) 04:14, October 13, 2017 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Unfortunately I have to agree. I'm sorry to see it didn't work out, but they said they'd fix the problems with their editing (and not just in the general "I know what I did wrong, please unblock me" way), so I thought giving them some rope and watching their conduct would be appropriate. Huon (talk) 06:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the effort you put in here, and I'm sorry that it didn't work out. I really appreciate your patience and trust as an admin; as a cynical grump some of the time, I'm well aware that the encyclopedia needs friendlier faces than meas well. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this edit interesting... Yunshui ^雲_水 08:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for helping everyone in the en-help IRC chat. Bobherry Talk Edits 13:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input and for getting the template resolved :-) See WP:VPT#IPBE and autoblocks if you have any further comments. Nyttend (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anon-IP vandal 83.31.45.193 templated my user talk page and signed with your signature. I reverted it and didn't believe for a second that it was actually you. (I don't know why s/he/it chose either of us.) – Athaenara ✉ 14:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sir please approved my wikipedia page. I am singer voice of punjabi 7. So I request you please approved my page. Why my wikipedia page declined? I am a punjabi singer. I will be add more information. Name: Mirza Ali Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mirza_Ali — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.53.210.214 (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We talked about that page on IRC. It's nowhere near ready to become a live article. It's devoid of information about you, it doesn't cite any reliable sources (and beyond local newspapers such sources don't seem to exist; that raises concerns of notability), and the formatting is broken so that it's a mess of code, not an infobox. I could fix the formatting, but the lack of references is an insurmountable problem. Huon (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for deleting his sandbox that contained insulting references to various editors. I think that he is a clueless warrior for something. You probably noticed that he had posted a tedious list of questions to a large number of editors, as well as creating the insulting list of editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huon, Last week I got in trouble - deservedly so - for trying to create a Wikipedia page for the summer camp I run, Camp Quinebarge. I should have gone to Talk pages rather than created new pages after warnings. I am new to Wikipedia editing and apologized.

But I'd like to ask your help.

If you do a Google search of: New Hampshire Summer Camps you see a banner at the top with 13 camps, with logos and pictures all referencing the Wikipedia Category "New Hampshire Summer Camps". This seems to be blatant advertising by Wikipedia and is what caused us to decide we needed a Wikipedia page.

As you know, companies and organizations pay a lot of money and expend valuable time on Adwords and SEO. These camps are getting huge advertising benefits simply because Google is pulling the category from Wikipedia.

Can you please Google "New Hampshire Summer Camps" and see if this is alright?

If so, how does a camp get itself on there? When we tried, we used the exact same formatting as other camps that were not dinged in any way. We tried both the long version (Camp Mowglis) and short version (Camp Fatima). Both times were dinged. I get that we were dinged primarily because I was writing it for ourselves (I was not aware of COI rules but we were trying to not be promotional) and would not do that again but I hope you can understand that if those camps are allowed to remain at the to of our industries most important search term, other camps need to have a way to get on there, albeit with someone else writing the article.

Can you please take a look and help explain it all to me? I want to do this right. Thank you, Eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emcarlsondc (talk • contribs) 20:29, October 27, 2017 (UTC)

When I google "New Hampshire Summer Camps", with or without quote marks, I see zero ads and no reference to Wikipedia, so I can't comment on whatever you might see there. I blame individualized search results. If I add "Wikipedia" to the search, one of the results indeed is Category:Summer camps in New Hampshire, but that's not an ad and doesn't have any logos. If I google a specific summer camp, Google may show a sidebar with information about that camp, with some of that information possibly taken from Wikipedia. That's Google's so-called Knowledge Graph, something Google does on its own; if Wikipedia doesn't have an article it may still show that sidebar with information taken from other sources (I am shown a sidebar for my local fries shop, and yes, I made sure that Wikipedia does not have an article on that fries shop). If you have problems with the Knowledge Graph, you'll have to contact Google; Wikipedia has no control over it. Wikipedia itself does its best to make SEO less rewarding.

If that's any consolation to you, the Camp Fatima article is currently nominated for deletion; the article on Camp Mowglis is tagged for various problems and should be improved, but at least some of the references are of much higher quality than anything your deleted page had. Huon (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huon, Thank you for your quick reply. I didn't realize the 'banner' didn't show up everywhere. It took me a while but I was able to take a screen shot and put it on Wikipedia. It should be here:

Please let me know if you see it. Thank you again for your help, Eric

I can see the image here, of course, but I don't get that banner when I search for the same term. I blame personalized search results, but it might also be that you're using some obscure Google extension that I don't have. Anyway, that row of images is not something Wikipedia does or controls. Wikipedia's content is freely licensed; Google is entirely within its rights to draw on Wikipedia content if it so chooses and gives credit. The images themselves don't necessarily come from Wikipedia; I checked several camp articles that didn't have any image. Only Google's decision of which camps to list seems to be based on our category. If you're unhappy with your camp's being excluded from that banner, you should contact Google and challenge their selection criteria. Huon (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. They are clearly grabbing the Wikipedia Category: New Hampshire Summer Camps and then dropping in pictures they already have.

Seeing this and knowing a lot or people (in New England) are seeing it, my question then is how can we create a Wikipedia page for our camp, without crossing any lines and getting banned. In my escapade last week, I think they barred Camp Quinebarge from being able to be created. I understand I can't create it, but is there a way to ask someone to create it, with or without COI, have it reviewed and approved by Wikipedia, so it could be considered in good standing? Again, I really want to do this right but we also want to be listed in the New Hampshire Summer Camps Wikipedia Category along with our peers.

Put bluntly, trying to create a Wikipedia article for the sole purpose of better Google presence is unlikely to succeed. You can request volunteers to write about Camp Quinebarge at the relevant sub-page of WP:Requested articles; such a request will need to be accompanied by some reliable third-party sources such as newspapers or reputable magazines reporting about the camp in some detail to have any chance of being acted on. Huon (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Hawkeye75. James (^talk/_contribs) 09:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just confirming this is not about me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emcarlsondc (talk • contribs) 16:50, October 28, 2017 (UTC)

@Emcarlsondc: This is my talk page. Notifications left here are for me. If there were a discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard about you, you'd have been notified of it on your talk page at User talk:Emcarlsondc. On an unrelated note, when you comment on talk pages, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). That will be expanded into a signature containing your username, a link to your user talk page, and a timestamp, and it makes it easier for others to tell who said what. Huon (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Huon:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Dear User:Huon,

Could you please restore the "Middle Easterners & South Asians" section to its original form before "Ivar the Boneful" vandalized it without explanation or consensus (and then proceeded to revert to their change 10 times)? Ivar's edits were disruptive given that much Racism against Jews in the United States of America has stemmed from racism against Jews in Europe (although it has recently stemmed from Arab/Muslim racism against Jews in the Levant as well), and the term "Anti-Semitism" initially came from the description of European racism directed against Jews, whose Semitic origins were condemned, whether or not such Jews were religious. Jews are an Ethnocultural/Ethnoreligious group with ethnicity and culture/"religion" intertwined, and thus an attack against Jews as a "religion" serves as an attack against Jews as a People/Tribe/"Race." At the end of the day, we must not distance the label of racism directed against Jews from Jews' Middle Eastern origins/Tribal designation——otherwise we risk erasing Jews' heritage and experience in both origins and Diaspora.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Jeffgr9 (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. I protected the page to stop an edit war. As a rule, it's always the wrong version that gets protected, and I'm not going to protect another wrong version instead. That should be resolved via a discussion on the talk page. It's certainly not vandalism but a content dispute. Since I've used my tools and acted in an administrative capacity, I won't comment on the underlying dispute. If Ivar the Boneful and you cannot agree, you should pursue dispute resolution. Huon (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. So you protected the page to Ivar's edit to encourage debate/content dispute resolution? Jeffgr9 (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I protected the page to stop the edit war, and I did so at the version it had when I encountered the page. Discussion and/or dispute resolution would indeed be good next steps. Huon (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnstar of Diligence

Hi, Huon, I'd just like you to know that I really appreciate your having clarified those confusing issues for me on the article request page. With regard to my name, I nevertheless listed all the names by which I have been known in the past, so as to avoid any confusion. I really hope that I haven't caused you to waste any time and that my article request is successful! Once again, thanks a lot for your excellent advice! Regards, A.D. Dr8ator (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are dozens of references to her to choose from.

https://www.google.com/search?q=jody+gilbert+wiki&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Bil EoGuy (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EoGuy, you're welcome to write an article by summarizing what those sources say (maybe not specifically those sources; the first page of search results, at least for me, shows no reliable sources whatsoever; wikis generally are user-submitted content without editorial oversight and thus are not reliable). If you don't want to write the article yourself, try WP:RA. Huon (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Huon, You recently moved a page that I have created regarding the artist: Kent Tate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Tate) to a draft mode (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kent_Tate). Thank you for alerting me about the problems with this page. Is it possible to delete the page? I would like to reconstruct an improved page offline and then start a new draft at that time. Cheri Brown (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cheri Brown: It wasn't me who moved the page but Maproom; I merely deleted the redirect that the move had left behind. I see no benefit to deleting the draft; you can simply leave it at its present location and improve it there. Deleting it may be somewhat complicated since, while you have done most of the work on the page, you are not the only author, making it ineligible for speedy deletion by request of the sole author. You can try WP:MFD to nominate it for deletion. If you don't edit the draft, it will be deleted as stale in half a year. Huon (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

You deleted the article I published https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dmitry_Filatov&oldid=807325027. Then I asked what's the differences with some other articles. And you said that two of them (Ruslan Fazlyev, Deena Varshavskaya) are "well-referenced, with many high-quality sources".

Thanks for your help and quick replies, I appreciate you giving this feedback.

I have some questions and would be happy to learn from you.

Is it enough that an English article has Russian references only like Ruslan Fazlyev does? There are high-quality Russian sources, and Filatov's article has those too. As for international sources, are Forbes, TechCrunch, and Fast company high-quality? Filatov's article has them.

Is it about the number of references?

There was this reference about Filatov himself: Top-100 of Russian internet millionaires by the Russian magazine, The Firm’s Secret

Also, there are a few references I didn't put in.

• In 2010 Filatov became "Business Petersburg Top-100" prize laureate.
• In 2012 he became the laureate of the prize named "Top 50. The most famous people of Petersburg" by Sobaka.ru magazine, in Business category.

These two are city-level, but I'd be glad if it makes the picture clearer. Saint Petersburg is "the second capital" of Russia and it's the origin city for many international internet startups like VK and others.

And there are references about the products Filatov founded.

• Fast Company listed Topface as one of its ten Russian innovative companies of the year 2013.
• Filatov spoke as an expert for Forbes in its article about ICO.
• And ICORating is mentioned by TechCrunch, I understand why you can say it's a weak part.

The point about "other stuff exists" is taken, so let's talk about Dmitry Filatov's merits to stand on.

Founding an international dating service with 10 million users is a notable fact in internet business I suppose.

Thanks. Waiting for your feedback! Antonzaitsev (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I didn't delete the Filatov article, I turned it into a redirect.

Secondly, while the Ruslan Fazlyev article isn't based solely on Russian sources, the language of the sources is not relevant. What matters is whether the sources are reliable, whether they're independent of the subject and whether they cover the subject in some detail. There was a single source on Filatov that met all three criteria, and one good source is not enough. I don't think the additional sources you present here help at all (the Sobaka article was cited, but unless the automatic translation screws up badly, it's written in the first person - which raises serious questions about the independence). Wikipedia measures notability by the amount of coverage in reliable sources. If Filatov has founded an impressive business but isn't covered by reliable sources to any meaningful degree, his company may be notable while he isn't. Huon (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick update. The point about redirect is noted.

It'll be good if Russian speaking Wikipedia user could confirm your conclusion about the Sobaka article. Anyway, I can clarify this. The Sobaka magazine published top-50 of the most famous people of Petersburg, and every person on this list got coverage in the form of an interview. There are no interviewer's questions in the text, but you can check that the author of the text is Egor Yakovlev. I got your point about the difference between a company's notability and a person's notability. Is there a formal criterium of notability expressed in numbers? I mean what should be the number of sources present in the article? Antonzaitsev (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no fixed number of sources required; quality is as important as quantity. And whether or not the interviewer's questions are in the text, an interview is not independent coverage. Huon (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I'm not totally sure that I agree with your decision on this draft page. For instance, on a quick glance, I saw non-trivial coverage at the Jerusalem Post article. I would gladly agree that it's not the strongest case for notability that I've ever seen, but I think it squeaks across the line. Would you be open to either reconsidering or to further revising and extending your decline reason? Many thanks in advance. -Philippe (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spread about the Jerusalem Post article, the information about Bekleviç is:

• He was 33 at the time.
• He was "head of the young but rapidly growing Strong Turkey Party" (which, as far as I can tell, never even contested national elections and quickly ceased to exist again)
• He has never been to Israel.
• He met with a low-level politician from Israel.

Unless I miss something, that's all. Is that enough coverage to help write a meaningful encyclopedia article? For one of the best sources out there? I don't think so. None of the other sources provided any significant coverage of Bekleviç himself either. The content about Bekleviç himself, beyond a list of positions he held, largely in self-founded organizations, is unreferenced. Huon (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i would like to add a comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehiel_Bar is not low level politician from Israel. In addition these activities are really important for peace between two countries. They met in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv in 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.59.64 (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yehiel Bar is described in the Jerusalem Post article as a "Jerusalem City Councilman". That's a local political office, not a national one. I stand by my characterization of a city councillor as a low-level politician, even though Yehiel Bar subsequently attained a higher office. Huon (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Huon, i searched in independent sources to discuss Beklevic after your valuable comments. I would like to ask you; is the “Google Scholar” right source for your comments?

I found this article from Google Scholar: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14683849.2014.985425

Can this article other evidence about opinion leaders, Economists Platform and other positions i mentioned in my draft

Twitter and Politics: Identifying Turkish Opinion Leaders in New Social Media

Osman Zeki Gökçe Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Sabancı University, İstanbul, Turkey Correspondence, Emre Hatipoğlu, Gökhan Göktürk, Brooke Luetgert & Yücel Saygin Pages 671-688 | Published online: 18 Dec 2014

Opinion leaders on Twitter with high betweenness centrality rankings indeed seem to connect different social, cultural, and/or political clusters. An interesting example is Mr Tuna Beklevic ̧, who ranks 67th in betweenness centrality figures. He was one of the founders of Ekonomistler Platformu, one of the largest, most active email lists where lengthy debates about the Turkish economy took place among banking, finance, and policy professionals as well as academics and students in early 2000.36 Later, he became involved in active politics through the Justice and Devel- opment Party (AKP), the incumbent party in Turkey, and ran an unsuccessful bid for an MP position in Edirne. The reason Mr Beklevic ̧ ranks high in betweenness cen- trality relates to the fact that the two main clusters of users that follow him (i.e. the white-collar finance professionals and conservative sympathizers of the AKP) have otherwise weak ties between each other on Twitter. Therefore, through his posts, Mr Beklevic ̧ has the power to simultaneously disseminate ideas to two separate groups, and possibly broker information flow among these clusters of users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kutluxyz (talk • contribs) 08:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Huon,

I read your comment about Hilik Bar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehiel_Bar ; yes you are right Hilik was only councilmember but he is Member of Board of IFDP and he is deputy speaker of Israel National Parliament now.

In addition i would like to add some comment about low level positions.

1) Beklevic made a speech in British Parliament in 2013 a) http://www.hudutgazetesi.com/haber/10361/ingiliz-parlamentosunda-bir-edirneli.html b) http://m.turkiyegazetesi.com.tr/Genel/a562403.aspx

2) Bekleviç and famous British Politician David Miliband Meeting in London Mr. Miliband who was the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs http://www.edirneyenigun.com/haber/2123/beklevic-milibandi-edirneye-davet-etti.html

3) Bekleviç and Togo President in West African Summet http://www.edirnesonhaber.com/haber/9561/beklevic-togo-cumhurbaskani-ile-gorustu.html

4) Bekleviç and Kosova President of the National Assembly Mr. Krasniqi in Prishtina https://www.haberler.com/tuna-beklevic-kosova-meclis-baskani-krasniqi-ile-5604644-haberi/

5) Iraq Vice President is the IFDP Represantative of Iraq Bekleviç is the Chairman of the IFDP http://www.haber7.com/ortadogu/haber/1004563-tarik-hasimi-ifdp-irak-temsilcisi-oldu

http://www.hurhaber.com/hasimi-den-onemli-aciklamalar/haber-550641

I continue web search about Bekleviç. I understand and I respect you. There are much lower level names than Beklevic in the encyclopedia. I think that my draft does not contain any exaggeration comments about him. If you think it is such an exaggerated comment, I can remove that part as well. I only mentioned his positions without comments. I think these examples are suitable for an encyclopedia. Thank you for your patience and time. But for a politician who is fighting internet censorship in Turkey, we will continue to do Web search as much as we can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kutluxyz (talk • contribs) 09:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said below, I won't review the same draft twice in a row, so trying to argue with me is useless. I'd advise you to instead spend that effort on improving the draft. It may be possible to establish that Bekleviç is notable based on those sources; putting them on my talk page won't help, though. Huon (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Kutluxyz (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tuna Beklevic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Huon, my references include from Der Spiegel Online (Germany), ARD (Germany), The Jerusalem Post, Hareetz, Sputnik News, CNN Turk, Policy Options (Canada), http://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/april-2017/campaigning-for-no-in-turkeys-referendum/ There are no long evaluations in these sources. You are right. But I think there is evidence for all the tasks in my draft. After you review i tried to add a few more independent sources as references; can you please re-review if possible? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kutluxyz (talk • contribs) 05:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't review the same draft multiple times in a row. If I did, I'd still decline it for the same reason. I will, however, let someone else take a look so that I don't serve as the sole gatekeeper (though in this particular case I may nominate the page for a deletion discussion if someone else accepts the draft). Yes, there are many high-profile sources that mention Bekleviç. Many passing mentions do not combine into significant coverage, though. It's quite telling that the content about Bekleviç himself - his education, for example - is either unreferenced or based on primary sources such as his own website - no one else has bothered to write about him in enough detail to cover such rather basic aspects of his life. Huon (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are my favorite administrator keep it up thanks again Sumitmpsd (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Huon, In July 2013 you helped edit the page Alex Zhavoronkov, a scientist with two books published, one published by Macmillan Publishers, over 100 research papers (https://scholar.google.ru/citations?user=8Icccp0AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao) and presentations at the notable events transpiring every week all over the world (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RPxCf1MVrwDcI53bjJ8BuDCYIqaTcf6Vny5eIIfDU74/edit#gid=0 ). Yesterday the page was deleted at an editors request. The editor requesting the deletion by an editor with a likely competing interest. There is a chance that this editor also made an offensive review on the Amazon page (https://www.amazon.com/Ageless-Generation-Advances-Biomedicine-Transform/dp/0230342205/), which was just removed by the staff. Can you please take a look at the Alex Zhavoronkov page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.230.81 (talk) 08:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huon, thank you for organising the addition of this movie to the list. However, what I had written was a review in response to Wikipedia's statement that 'This article is a Stub, and that you can help by expanding it'[or words to that effect]. Which is what I had done earlier this month (see below)…

‘Lou’ is a 2010 Australian film starring John Hurt, Emily Barclay and Lily Bell Tindley. A bittersweet little movie, barely 80 minutes. It's about young mother Rhea (Barclay) without a partner, trying to raise her three girls in their ramshackle home while trying to survive on social security. Set in sugarcane country in northern NSW, their lives are upended when Doyle (Hurt); a former merchant seaman—now in the early stages of Alzheimer's, is thrust upon them with the promise of increased benefits.

Doyle's presence is an affront to the eldest girl Louise, convincingly portrayed by young Tindley. 'Lou', (described as 'precocious' by their social services worker), has to give up her own bedroom. The scatty, sixtyish man, so often irascible at the frustrations of trying to grapple with his mental decline, as common words start to elude him. Doyle's lucid moments—his vivid nostalgia of sailing through the islands of the south Pacific ('where the wind can be just a gentle caress')—strikes a chord with young Lou. As does his murmuring of the haunting Maori lament 'Pokarekare Ana'…

And in Doyle's scrambled head Lou is becoming transformed into the love of his life, Annie… Lou overcomes her initial revulsion and is bewitched by the woman's wedding ring, presented to her on bended knee by her 'grandfather'.

A bauble she soon flaunts, to the dismay of her young mum ('and I'm only twenty seven!') she sobs, and tells the social security woman that Doyle HAS to go. As Rhea sadly realises, the loss of their income supplement (Doyle), means that their only entertainment—a rented TV, is soon ripped from their home.

Their plight compounds as Rhea has a bust-up with her boyfriend—for reasons left unexplained; deaf to her pleas not to leave them…

Bleak scenarios. Yet brief moments of tenderness, as Lou recognises, with her 'precocious' maturity', that she now needs to comfort her unhappy mum. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Desmond (talk • contribs) 02:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Huon. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the past week, BLP violations have been added to this page. It appears that you sought to get things under control but that you may have overlooked the first section. Perhaps a revert back to the version before the recent vandalism would solve the problem. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.240.161.17 (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean these edits. Those reasonalby accurately summarize reliable published sources. Whether the content is appropriate is debatable, but it's not vandalism. The place for such a debate is the article's talk page. Huon (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What can a user write in their own essay? Have a Merry Christmas ---- ChocolateRabbit 17:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Essays. There are few conditions on what essays people can write as long as they're related to editing Wikipedia. Problems with "essays" that I have seen over the years were thinly-veiled attack pages disparaging other editors, either individually or in groups, or essays that flat-out contradicted established policy (not in a "I disagree with the policy and it should get changed, and here's why" way, which IMO would be acceptable, but in a "It's best practice to do X" when the policy actually says "not-X" way). Huon (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You answered my request for help. Thanks. So, if a source is not digital then how does wikipedia use it as second party verification? For instance, I have a trunk full of newspapers that spoke about me from earlier in my life. A recording artist in 2017 is doing no more than me but has several more citable resources. I think you misread my comment about first string engineers. It is industry slang for the main recording engineers at a record company. The link I sent had my name outlined as the engineer with Sean Combs as the producer at the label called Bad Boy. It's from a book about the music industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princhalex (talk • contribs) 20:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Princhalex: A sufficiently well-equipped library will have the newspapers archived. You'll need to provide enough bibliographical information to allow our readers to look up that archived copy: Name of the newspaper, exact publication date, page number, title of the article, author, ... Regarding the first string engineers, I may indeed have misread the statement, but it doesn't call you the "Main recording engineer" either and still doesn't mention the company it was supposed to serve as a source for. All it says is that you recorded and mixed one specific record at Hit Factory. The label isn't mentioned. On a more general note, it's probably best to keep discussions of the article, and of proposed chanegs to the article, at the article's talk page, all in one place. Huon (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A comment to your action: I really don't understand, why do you consider fixing the huge tracking URL mistakenly copied from google search results as a useless edit. Btw, MykhalBot is already operating on a different wiki as an approved robot with the same task (besides other, initially). —Mykhal (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to point me to a single edit that changed either the working of the page in question or the experiene of our readers. All those I looked at were either commented out anyway or ignored because they were mistaken attempts at displaying images in infoboxes. Changing one non-functional, invisible piece of code into another non-functional, invisible piece of code serves what purpose, exactly? Huon (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how it works. A credited feature is just as significant to the commercial performance as the lead artist. Your obvious dislike toward Beyonce is clouding your judgement, you'd be better off not stalking my edits about someone you clearly don't care for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaknowitall (talk • contribs) 08:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaknowitall, just because somebody disagrees with you on a matter relating to her, does not make them "anti-Beyoncé". You just can't add original research to articles. That means if her name isn't written somewhere, you can't invent that it is. Ss112 08:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaknowitall, the only reason for questioning your unsourced edits can be an "obvious dislike toward Beyonce"? Really? Why not a dislike towards you, or maybe a desire to be contrarian as a matter of principle, of for the fun of it, or, perish the thought, a desire for verifiable content that isn't based on original research but rather summarizes what reliable secondary sources have reported about the subject at hand? I have no opinion on Beyoncé one way or another. What I care for is not a specific subject but Wikipedia as a whole. I'll also note that while attacking me, you have not answered any of the questions I asked about your unsourced edits. I take that as confirmation that you don't know of independent verification for those edits.

As to "stalking your edits", I reviewed your edits when I reviewed your unblock request. That's all, and it's a routine part of reviewing unblock requests. I haven't looked at your edits again since then, until you brought yourself to my attention again today. For some added fun see here - with one exception, your edits to articles we have both edited always follow mine. Difficult to stalk your edits years before you make them, but maybe I'm just that good. Huon (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for helping me with my 1st Help request over English Wikipedia. It'll take some getting used to how the editing process goes on and became familiar with. Naeem2017 (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 22:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, Huon for this holiday season. May your heart be filled with happiness during this special time. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brighton–Crystal Palace rivalry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hi, Thank you for your recent comments on Wikipedia's content policy as it relates to The Conversation Project article.

I will absolutely make sure to mention that I was previously employed by the parent organization, though at this point I have no ties to either organization.

I guess I'm a bit confused as to what would constitute reliable sources independent of the organization. The vast majority of the sources included were external links to news and media mentions, and do explicitly mention The Conversation project. I understand that these links should not directly reiterate what the text of the article should include, but I also know that all claims need to be verified, so I guess I'm at a bit of a loss.

I tried to remove any statements that I thought could be read as what the organization states about itself, but would be curious to hear what remains that you think could be read this way.

This is not a topic that would have primary sources in the same way as a historical event or scientific topic, but I do think that the organization is high profile enough that it would warrant a Wikipedia page without being construed as promotional. To this end I would be happy to remove any external links back to the organization's site or resources if this is problematic.

The intention of this page is not to further the organization's cause, but to provide information- I'd originally included The Conversation Project in the conversation disambiguation page as during my previous employment, we would get a lot of informational requests for the conversation (newspaper) or by people who though the program was related to sexual education.

I know this is a fine line before the article is construed as promotional, and that my prior relationship with the organization could be seen to be contrary to the community fed aim of Wikipedia, but it is not my intention to promote the organization, and I do have to imagine that other organizations have been able to create neutral, informational articles without primary sources or scientific literature, and would be curious what that might look like.Ckcovell (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers or magazines reporting on the organization would make good references. Unfortunately that's not what the article content was based on. As a particularly obvious example, take the Conversation Ready section. It cited three sources. One was the organization's own website, clearly not independent coverage of any kind (reference 21 in the current revision of the draft). The other two are H&HN and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. I'm not familiar with either publication and have severe doubts IHI meets Wikipedia's standards of reliability (particularly because the URL of the page in question contains terms like "community" and "blog", indicating that the page may not be under the IHI's editorial control but some kind of guest blog post), but let's ignore that for the moment. The "White Paper" subsection, based on H&HN, does not say anything whatsoever about The Conversation Project. In fact, neither the subsection nor the source even mention The Conversation Project. So that's off-topic for an article about The Conversation Project. The second subsection does mention The Conversation Project, but the IHI source (which, at a closer reading, turns out not to be independent of what it's cited for either) does not. So the source says nothing about The Conversation Project, leaving us with an entire section of content where everything that's actually about The Conversation Project comes straight from their website. For another example, take this source, used in the "NHDD" section. The Chicago Tribune clearly is reliable (though the page in question is an opinion piece, not a news report, and thus may reflect the author's personal opinion, not just the facts), and it's clearly independent of The Conversation Project. What does it say about The Conversation Project? "If you need help on starting, visit The Conversation Project (www.theconversationproject.org)." That's it. That's useless for writing an encyclopedia article about The Conversation Project. It doesn't even confirm the specific sentence which the Chicago Tribune article is cited for. The other source for that same sentence is somewhat problematic because it's WGN reporting on their own reporter's activities, and it also doesn't say what you cite it for. These specific examples may serve to highlight the shortcomings the draft in general suffers.

On an unrelated note, there's no need to use the {{help me}} template if you are asking for a reply specifically from me, on my own talk page. Huon (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Arindammitra06 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Arnab Dutta (Singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Huon, I am requesting a re-review because I have added more references to Arnab's work. Though there is no one to one interview of Arnab, every newspaper has praised his work and Indian television and Radio plays his song and speaks his name every day. He is my friend and has requested me to help him create a page for him. He is already an Indian singing star and still doesn't have a wiki page. You should have been in India for understanding his popularity here. The information I have provided in his page, has been provided to me by him and can be verified. If opening a wiki page requires a detailed one to one interview of a person, I am afraid wiki wouldn't have many rising stars. Please let me know whats needed to get his article approved on the Wikipedia.

Discussed on IRC. I see no indication that Dutta meets the notability criteria, and Wikipedia content must be based on independent sources, not on what the subject says about themselves. I don't see how our readers can verify his parentage, or whether his classmates liked his singing. Huon (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You recently deleted File:BrandiLove.jpg. Can you please send me a link to the original photo? Pretty please. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Huon (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oh
But it was a pretty please. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you'd be able to find just as interesting (if not moreso) images if you do a google search for "Brandi Love". Primefac (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a link to the original and didn't bother with a reverse image search when I saw the "permission" statement. I'm sorry, but unless there's a Wikipedia-related reason for finding the source, I'm not going to put in the effort. Huon (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]