User talk:Huon/Archive14

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nakhi people may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• houses are made by Bai craftsmen today. Absorbing architectural styles of the [[Han Chinese|Han]] (those same Nanjing traders brought their house building skills with them, and these are used up to
• '' 李近春 and '''Wang, Chengquan''' 王承权: 纳西族 ''Naxizu'' (The Nakhi). 民族出版社 ''Minzu chubanshe'' ((Nationalities Publishing House). 北京 Beijing 1984. 117 pages.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Yup! Problem solved

Thanks, Huon, and Yup! I/we “did” it. (see below – I am preparing two more graphs – in PP converted to png which I will upload & insert later). I am only describing the detail of ‘what happened’ for the sake of future wikipedistas who might run into a similar roadblock. In retrospect, I think that the ‘root’ of the problem was the upload of the original PDF which I aborted because the Wizard was asking for ‘categories’, which I needed to check up on, first. At the first attempt the Wizard had pre-uploaded and stamped the picture with “Pronacampo9” already. When I reentered the Wizard it would stubbornly ‘get stuck’ at the #2 Upload stage: it would advertise the title all right, but it seemed not be able to ‘grab’ the image itself: (re: the ‘timer’ icon would keep going round and round forever). I then converted the PDF into jpg and png but even so, the wizard remained ‘stuck’ at the upload stage. I tried several other computers, but ‘no go’. That’s when I got on your talkpage (I see you are as busy as ever!!). After reading your reply this morning, I tried again, this time on a small laptop, and, as you see, everything went smoothly. My hunch is that, in the intervening 48 hours the Wizard ‘sorted itself out’ automatically. The only other ‘variable’ is the small laptop I used this morning (in the previous attempts I had been using Library computers in the same computer cluster) but I really doubt it. It still looks like the Wizard got its knickers in a knot when I suddenly cut short an uploading process. Now, as I said these (rather boring) details are strictly for future reference in case others experience similar problems. Have a nice weekend, Huon, and thanks again! (Pronacampo9 (talk) 09:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC))

OK, good to see this has been resolved. If I may offer some advice on the image itself, I'd suggest not making the caption a part of the image. This goes particularly for the references - what would happen if Engeström 1999a were ever removed from the article, or if the image were added to a different article that currently doesn't cite Engeström at all? If you want me to, I can modify the image to that effect and add the sources on the file page itself instead. Huon (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Aye, aye, yes, please do so Huon - that would be both excellent & a useful template for the next two illustrative diagrams which I still have to insert. All good! (Pronacampo9 (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC))

• Re: "Modify the image": I was just wondering about the technical implications of 'modifying' a jpg/png image? Would you not need the original - which is in Powerpoint - for this? If so, I would need to know an avenue by which to transmit (the pp). But perhaps I misunderstood? Regards. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC))

I intended to simply take the .jpg you uploaded and to cut off the caption via Paint. Huon (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, I see. My technical knowledge of Paint is rather rudimentary, I am afraid, so not too sure how to go about this. Also, if the “Engeström/Nygård" caption is cut out, it would imbalance the overall outlay of the illustration, i.e. I would rather prefer to go back to the original template, and do the whole job all over again. . . on condition that I, also, can remove the picture which at present is on Wikimedia Commons. Is this possible? The only tab (left hand side column) I can see on WikiMedia Commons images says: “Nominate for deletion” – but that is not what we are looking for, is it? (Pronacampo9 (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC))

• PS: What if. . .I leave the Engeström 1999/Nyrgård 2010 names in the caption, but with their full refs in a (small lettered) footnote ie all inside the illustrative graph. It would look a bit overloaded but perhaps worth attempting? RE: 1. Engeström, Yrjö (1999). LEARNING BY EXPANDING: TEN YEARS AFTER (Translation from the German by Falk Seeger). online. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)2.Nygård, Kathrine (2010). Introduction to Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) (PDF). INTERMEDIA Univ. of Oslo. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (Pronacampo9 (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC))

I have just created this version, simply by cutting off part of the description and some white space. I've uploaded it under a different name (as File:Vygotsky Basic Mediated Action.jpg), but in principle it would also be possible to update the ([[:commons:File:First Generation CHAT.jpg|existing file (disabled here); there's an "Upload a new version of this file" link in the "File history" section. My approach in general would be to keep information that could just as well be part of the caption out of the image itself; then the users on specific articles can decide on the appropriate style for a caption and for references, as I've done here.

Hi, Huon. Do you mind protecting José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco again? The moment the protection expired, the problems with the very same vandalisms reappeared. Could you make the protection longer this time? --Lecen (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for a year. I'd prefer not to semi-protect it indefinitely, but if the issue still persists after a year, we may have to go that route. Huon (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Huon Many thanks for your help. Ndstead (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Huon (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, it seems that you have deleted my user subpages for vandalism (the ones labeled math hurricanes and "User:Pilover819/AmazingDiscovery") a couple of months ago. I understand why it was deleted. I wasn't aware about what I can and can't do on Wikipedia. But can I at least get the data back? I haven't saved it on any of my PCs. Thanks in advance, Weatherlover819 (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've sent you the sub-pages /AmazingDiscovery, /M1HS, /M2HS, /Math Hurricane Bobby/2, /Math Major Dylan and /Math Hurricane Carly. I think that should have been all; if I missed something, say so. Huon (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --Weatherlover819 (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I have a question. You removed some comments my friend Bill Jones made on the biography of Alexander Borovsky, a Russian pianist. I think you removed them because he cited no references. He can add his sources, but it is a bit of a Catch-22 because Bill is a student of Borovsky who has inherited many of the pianist's memoirs and letters. There are really no books he can reference, as he is working on writing the book- there is a lack of published references. Can he cite references for things that have never been published? Thanks. Vince — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.247.34 (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

How can others verify what those unpublished references say? That's impossible; thus Wikipedia does not accept unpublished references. Huon (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The good news is that once Bill finishes writing the book, if it is published by a reputable publishing house, then Vince or someone else (but preferably not Bill) would be able to cite the book as a source on Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Huon. My name is Tokarev Limbo.can you help me Block MilboreOne beacause he Disruptive editing To Block me.The malaysian air force resent to say that RMAF Are actcualy using combat aircraft is Su-30MKM,Boeing F/A-18 Hornet,F-104 Starfighter,McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II,F-111 Aardvark,B-52 Stratofortress,AH-1 SuperCobra,AC-130 Spectre,A-10 Thunderbolt II,F-102 Delta Dagger,AV-8B Harrier II,Eurocopter EC 725 Caracal2552.jpg,CH-53K King Stallion,Mi-26,UH-1Y Venom,Sikorsky S-70 Black Hawk,Kamov Ka-50,AH-64 Apache,Mil Mi-24,Northrop F-5,F-14 Tomcat,Airbus A400M,MilMi-28.can you fix this.And another story of malaysian army infantry weapons.The malaysian army resent to say Malaysian army are actcualy using Equipment malaysian army is MAC-10,Colt M1911A1,SIG P226,MP5,Steyr AUG,FN SCAR H,M16,M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle,AK-47,AKM,AK-74,Barrett M82,Accuracy International AS50,SR-25,TRG-22,M249 SAW,MK 48,PK machine gun,M240,Mk 47,PT-91M Pendekar,M1 Abrams,M72 LAW,FIM-92 Stniger,Atchisson Assault Shotgun,HK33[note:the other wear wrong the HK43 Not use but HK33 in use],MP-443 Grach,DShK,Type 56 assault rifle,NHM 91,RPK,Type 56 LMG,Type 64,IMI Galil,L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle,M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle,IMI Negev.so please edit back. and please block milboreOne.Thank you.Tokarev Limbo (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, misspelling the names of the users you want to be blocked is not helpful. Secondly, the claim that Malaysia is using B52s is pretty ridiculous. Thirdly, you're engaged in sockpuppetry, for which I have blocked this account. You can request your original account to be unblocked, but you should read the WP:Guide to appealing blocks first, and to be blunt, given your past conduct, I don't see how unblocking you would benefit the encyclopedia. Huon (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Huon, thank you so much for the superfast turnaround and feedback on my draft on Rusty Anderson afternoon. I really appreciate your intervention and advice, I will work on these issues! I hope I'm leaving this in the right place for you. The talk interface still confuses me. Your suggestions are very helpful :)Jena fuller (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jena fuller: You're welcome, and this is indeed the right place to leave a message for me, though it's preferred to do so in a new section if the message doesn't refer to any of the previous topics; there's a "new section" link at the top of the page for that purpose. Good luck improving the draft; please don't hesitate to ask if there are any issues I can help you with. Huon (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

My entire professional career has shown me that if you've got a systemic problem, you challenge it, and I find it appalling that the attitude of "you can do bad things as long as you talk like a lawyer and cite policy a lot" seems to be popular on Wikipedia these days.

Wikimedia Australia did an incredibly successful recruitment event, which got a bunch of articles on topics we needed, that were pretty much all cited to very solid sources, and potentially bringing a bunch of new editors on board. Nearly every single one was jumped on on spurious notability grounds, even though zero of those articles would pass AfD, ensuring that all of those editors' first experience with Wikipedia was a bad one. This is a terrible outcome, and it's a key reason why Wikipedia has such shocking problems with editorial attrition: when this is how we treat newbies, we stand no chance of bringing on enough good new editors to replace the people we lose over time.

Equally, I said what I had to say, and moved on, and now Chess is continuing to try to bait me into a fight and making threats on my talk page, because the culture says that that kind of bullying (and it is bullying) is fine if someone has criticised you harshly as long you do it in a lawyerly tone. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Huon, would it be possible to hide a comment please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.172.105 (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Technically that's possible, but it's not done lightly, depending on how "hidden" you want it to be. If it's your own comment, nobody has replied to it, and you just want it off the page, you can simply remove it from the page, but it will remain in the page history. If it's someone else's comment, or if someone else already replied to it, it should probably stay unless there's a very good reason for removal; see WP:TPO and WP:REDACT. If you want it excised from the page history as well so that only administrators can see it, revision deletion would be the procedure, but that is only performed in very specific cases. Finally there's Oversight, which would hide any indication that ever an edit was made, even from regular admins such as myself, but use of that tool is even more strictly regulated. Huon (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Huon. An editor came to me on #wikipedia-en-help asking me for help with Draft:Rantic. It looks like you rejected it a few months ago but they have since improved it with multple sources. I told them I'd ask you to take another look. Thanks. --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 05:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Huon, I came across this website called "Rantic.com" on the news and I decided to create a Wikipedia article. I saw that someone had already made one and it was rejected a few months ago. I went ahead and removed all the content in the former article and replaced with news articles that mention the subject in detail and neutralized the article. I was wondering if it met the guidelines for Wikipedia. 98.249.241.179 (talk) 05:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't have high hopes for a draft where the very first sentence turns out not to be true. This company does not exist and never has. And there are still quite a few sources that do not mention the subject. SocialVEVO might be notable; I rather doubt Rantic is. And given the falsehoods propagated by 98.249.241.179 in the past, I would not trust a single half-sentence without a reliable third-party source that backs it up. This will require some very careful checking before it can ever become an article. Huon (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe that some of the text that you removed was indeed "commentary" - however, this edit did not improve the style of the whole piece. I would have preferred a more careful approach to the piece, with a welcome critical warning as to give some source for specific paragraphs that you feel did lack them. After this undetailed and general "clearance" that unnecessarily removed a lot of "underbrush" from a text which had been written with a lot of care (maybe not in all respects) I do not know how to procede. There certainly won't be any "edit war" because I am not going to waste my time on it - rather leave the piece unattended to your "creativity" or "wiki-purism" (whichever you like better! Khnassmacher (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Khnassmacher: The "commentary" part was not the only problem; the lack of sources part was also of concern. The only content I removed that cited a source was the party membership, which was just used to lead to some questions about the finances. An encyclopedia article should answer questions, not ask them. Other paragraphs, such as that about the effect of good-intentioned policy changes without proper enforcement, amounted to pure speculation. See the diff for my edit; if you think any of the content I removed was of value, please explain why and provide a reliable source that supports those claims in the context of New Zealand political funding. I have to note that you're adding even more personal opinions to the article. Who says 1996 is "only quite recently"? You? Huon (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Huon, maybe you have noticed that I haven't added anything for a couple of says. And that is likely to continue. Hope, you are satisfied! Khnassmacher (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Khnassmacher: I did not intend to drive you away, if that's what you mean. Writing an encyclopedia article takes some getting used to, and the preferred style on Wikipedia is quite different from that used to write an essay or even a research paper. You're obviously much more of an expert on the topic of political funding than me, but even the experts still need to base the content they write on reliable published sources, not on their personal expertise. See for example WP:No original research. Huon (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Re edit warring in Passbook: Mr Cellular keeps undoing my edits and still hasn't posted to the talk page to justify. Is there a way to lock it or block him from this? gujamin (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I've left comments on both the article talk page and MrCellular's talk page. If he continues to revert without engaging in a more thorough discussion than can be had via edit summaries, WP:ANEW is the place to contact. That said, edit-warring is not, in itself, vandalism, and you should not accuse people of vandalism who are acting in good faith, even if you disagree with them and they violate Wikipedia's policies. Huon (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

hi Huon, i so sorry to edit back. hey if you help me. i nead a favor.this time.im a not a Sock puppetry,please,i'm seriusly.about the BTR-80.Did Malasyian army uses the BTR-80. Sometimes,the people arange it.can you help he.but you don't understand about malalysinan army infantry weapons.They DID NOT USING FN FAL BUT THEY USING L1A1,HK33,AR70.DO you got it.thanks. Kovax TRO (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

What I get is that you're still evading your block. Given your ridiculous claims about the equipment of the Malaysian Air Force, I don't think I need to waste time checking out the equipment of the Malaysian Army. Huon (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I even have a lower opinion for people who accuses me of faking sources;such as your self. .. I can explain why i cited those pages.It was a honest mistake,i have pasted the wrong reference!!!!.Beleive it !!! it happens!! 15:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Raaedasfour

@Raaedasfour: Sure, you by accident copy-pasted the wrong reference, and when you corrected the page numbers, they just happened to be one off those of the reference you copied. Well, page 96 and 97 of which source did you mean to cite, then? Huon (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Huon, it's your nemesis again, darn. In researching stuff, I realized my great-grandfather's name is misspelled all over the place: "William Deidrick" and his name in "Fresno Scraper" should be: WILLIAM HENRY DIEDRICK. I gave the ancestry source. But I don't know how to correct the head on what is now "William Deidrick." I made the link from the Fresno Scraper article, but of course it went nowhere. Thanks for your help.

As for the Gloria Stuart article, I spent a month on it and earnestly want it to be of value. I believe I took out all the personal opinions. Yes, most of the source that remains is the subject herself. No good? Kindly advise. All best and thanks, STPMiramaribelle (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

To be blunt, Ancestry got it wrong. This is his patent, signed by himself, and he clearly writes "Deidrick". I'm not going to argue with the man himself how his name should be spelled.

Regarding Gloria Stuart, I haven't looked at the article (and I'm rather busy tonight, so I won't find the time to do so in any detail), but yes, when most of the sources that remain are Stuart herself, that's a problem. Wikipedia content should be based on independent sources, and while primary sources such as Stuart's autobiography can be used to add uncontroversial details to the article, they shouldn't be the only sources for significant amounts of content. Huon (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Huon, wanted to know when you are available so we can chat for bit? 98.249.241.179 (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

You have found my talk page; you're welcome to add comments or questions here. Huon (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering if you can do a review of the draft that I wrote about this viral marketing website. I see that the subject had issues in the past with you regarding false information and conflict of interest. I have added all information according to the news coverage. I saw the marketing "website" (not company) on the news recently on RT, Reuters, BBC, CNN, TIME, MTV...etc. talking about the marketing site. I have also dug up 3 in-depth articles that were recently written by credible news outlets that discusses all the information I added. Every sentence in the article is backed by a credible news source. And I wanted to know if you can do a deep check of all the sources and the information I have written, and see if it qualifies. I read all of the inquires that you posted for the subject in the past, Although sources like BBC, Mashable, CNN, TIME, Rolling Stone, Fox, CBC, MTV..etc. describe the marketing group as a "social media marketing company", It is not a registered company, and it is just a website offering shady services as well as a group of notorious pranksters that have been seen on news for years now.

Upon reading the recent news coverage, Rantic.com is reported as a re-brand of Socialvevo/Swenzy. They are the same marketers and site, just moved to new domain site. According to The Daily Dot, Epoch Times, News Corp AU, Mashable and Reuters, the social media marketing "WEBSITE" rose to prominence over their recent Emma Watson hoax that was supposed to be a letter to Barack Obama to try and bring attention to a recent internet scandal involving celebrities. Because of the false representation, I had changed article from "company or business" to "website" style of article. Tried to keep the article plain, simple and short.

Some feedback would be nice to improve the article. I hope Im not taking too much of your time? Thanks. http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rantic 98.249.241.179 (talk) 06:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"Every sentence in the article is backed by a credible news source"? Not so. I have nominated it for deletion after finding yet more falsehoods promoted in that draft. Huon (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Huon, i'm requesting achieving for article talk page: Talk:Book of Isaiah. It would be better if you gave me a code for archiving, so I won't bother you in the future as there are much needed article talk pages to be archived. --Thnx & Cheers-- JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@JudeccaXIII: See User:MiszaBot/config on how to set up a talk page for automated archival. Huon (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Big Stone Gap (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big Stone Gap. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 17:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Huon, I didn't get the DEIDRICK spelling from Ancestry--I got it from two original census pages ostensibly with the man sitting in the room himself. Lordy. But I'm grateful to have seen the original page on the US Patent web site with his signature. A puzzlement. Anyway, of course it should be left as is. As for the Stuart article, I am so mortified by the banner over the piece that I will happily take out EVERYTHING you recommend. Except that I just again looked at the Bette Davis entry (which gets a star for excellence) and much of the opening has very few references. And than the biographer Spada is the principle authority. Why is it that a biographer has more credibility than the subject herself or the subject's closest relative who set down nothing she did not witness? A researcher can look up things in GS's autobiography the way you can look things up in Spada. Yes? I also read somewhere--can't find it now--a notice in Wikipedia hinting that it would liven up the place if an entry broke a few rules--was a tad creative. Say, what if the piece went to arbitration? Anyway, I thought I'd taken out all personal comments...I just would appreciate that banner coming off! Thanks, Huon. Miramaribelle (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The lead sections of articles are meant to summarize the rest. If the rest is well-referenced, there's no need to duplicate the references in the lead, which is why some of our best articles have lead sections with few or no references. The body of those articles will expand on what the lead says, with references.

The reason we prefer secondary sources such as biographies to first-party sources such as autobiographies is twofold. Firstly, writing an autobiography is something everybody can do (and it this day and age it's easier than ever), while biographers only write about people who have some legitimate claim to notability (and not just inflated egos). That's obviously not of primary concern for Stuart, who clearly meets our criteria of notability. The second issue is that primary sources are much more likely to be biased or non-neutral. For example, Stuart might downplay or omit less successful films, or might portray her own role in a more positive light than a more neutral observer would do. For that reason we need third-party sources for anything beyond uncontroversial biographical details such as a birthdate.

I wouldn't be all that eager to remove content, though. I still have some other pages on my to-do list but will give that article a look soon; I'll try to resolve the "personal reflection" issue then. It sounds more a problem of tone than of content, though some parts may need to be shortened. Huon (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks for advice left earlier NMintdev (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on my edit to the entry for Evan_Blass. I believe my edit meets the requirements of verifiability for a biography of a living person. Please point me to any rules that require a secondary source for something that is as easily verifiable as confirming a Twitter account has been suspended.

While I have yet to see any coverage on Twitter's suspension of @evleaks' account, this alone may call the entire article into question. If @evleaks can disappear without notice, he may not meet the minimum bar required for notability on Wikipedia.

00:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

See WP:BLPPRIMARY. Especially in the context of the libel Blass has been subjected to, we can wait until third-party coverage exists to provide context. Also, while the Twitter account may be suspended, you'll find that BBC reports don't vanish quite as easily. Huon (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referring to with respect to libel. I'm talking about facts: the account has been suspended. That suspension is intrinsically verifiable by clicking the link, and can therefore be added to the entry as a clear and present fact. Wikigeek2 (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Not everything that's verifiable is significant enough to be part of a Wikipedia article, particularly for biographies of living persons, where use of primary sources is explicitly cautioned against. If the suspension really is as significant as you claim, third-party coverage will emerge. And by "libel" I mean the false claims of an FBI investigation against Blass, claims that had found their way into the Wikipedia article. Huon (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your logic that the suspension of the @evleaks account does not have an obvious, significant, and intrinsic impact on the @evleaks section in the article--the topic being discussed no longer exists. However, as User:Lixxx235 appears to agree with you, I will refrain from making the change again until there is third-party coverage. Thank you for engaging in discussion on the matter. I will add a note on this discussion to the article's Talk page. Wikigeek2 (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Huon. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Huon. 175.136.109.130 has requested an unblock on my talk-page. I suspect this editor may also be 60.52.78.148. I also suspect that the IP users may also be Addinqaisara. This matter appears to centre on a Royal Malaysian Air Force pilot with a personal or family name "Imran". What do you think about this? Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's Addinqaisara. He was blocked for repeatedly added ridiculously wrong information to articles on the Malaysian military, for example the claim that the Malaysian Air Force uses B-52s, and for harassing other users. Socks include Tokarev Limbo, Kovax TRO and Col Imran Regaz, probably the "Fonte de Regaz" mentioned on your talk page. I see no reason to unblock any of them, and I rather doubt we're really dealing with an Air Force officer here. You may want to explain again why they're blocked, but I don't expect much of a benefit from that, either. Huon (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Huon. You have new messages at Talk:Eritrea.
Message added 21:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks again for all your help so far. --Elvey^(t•c) 21:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC) (bump)

Why have you reverted my edit about Mr Hutch request for censorship? (Yes, I have read his talk page and the relevant discussion.) FYI, smilar biography articles do mention this "right to be forgotten" censorship in the articles themselves, e.g. this one: Dejan Lazic. Zezen (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source that connects Hutch himself with the removal of the link from Google. The latest rumor I heard said that not Hutch, but someone else was behind the removal, which would make that episode irrelevant to our article on Hutch. The source you provided was explicit in noting that Hutch may not be the one to request removal. See also WP:SUBJECT. Huon (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, at the time of writing, the Wikipedia article Gerry Hutch still shows up as the first result in a Google search on his name on google.ie and google.co.uk. This makes it unlikely that Hutch is behind the removal request. Unfortunately, we don't know who made the request or why. It would have WP:TOPIC issues to mention this in his BLP without clear evidence that he was behind the takedown request. The talk page consensus at the moment is not to mention this, per WP:SUBJECT.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

"The latest rumor I heard " Well that clearly meets WP:RS!

It doesn't matter who initiated this request. The effect of it does affect him, therefore it's relevant to this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I never claimed the rumor was a RS, and I wouldn't add anything based on such rumors to the article. I'll reply at the article talk page regarding inclusion in general. Huon (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If the "latest rumor" is the theory that a retired Irish police officer mentioned in the article is the person who made the request, this is far from clear either. His name does produce the "some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe" message, but many names produce this for no obvious reason.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This discussion belongs at the article talk: page because changes are already being reverted on the grounds of "no discussion" Andy Dingley (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed your proposed deletion tag because the article's deletion, without debate, might be controversial. Can you go to WP:AfD instead, please? Bearian (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Done, though I would have appreciated an indication why the deletion of that article might be controversial. I was seriously considering to not bother with PROD and to simply delete it via A7 because there isn't even an indication why Chen might be notable. Huon (talk) 19:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Huon

I think the article for this one is not advertising, we are currently editing the article to make it more informative with the help of 115ash also the ikoala is synonymous to Australia since Koala is native animal in Australia and the company ikoala is helping those wildlife and the koalas. You can also check ABN number which it is included in the article. If you have advice or can help us to improve my the page it much highly appreciated. :)

talibong (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, please provide a reliable source that is independent of ikOala and confirms that ikOala is synonymous with Australia. A newspaper article, say in the Sydney Morning Herald, on how ikOala has become the new synonym for Australia would do nicely (not a press release, though; those are not independent coverage of the company). Huon (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi ikoala is one of the biggest sponsor of hunter koala reservation society (www.hunterkoala.com/sponsers-and-supporters.html) and helping www.savethekoala.com/ they also adapt koalas from Koala Hospital Port Macquarie (www.ikoala.com.au/crescentheadjimmykoala) I included koala is synonymous with Australia coz that animal is a native in Australia and that company promotes that by helping the wildlife charities. As you can see the page is currently on the editing mode since I am asking from help with 115ash in making the page more informative. I can appreciate if you could help me with that too. :)

talibong (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You will need to provide reliable sources that are independent of ikOala - not themselves, not the organizations they sponsor. The more extravagant a claim (and "is synonymous with Australia" sounds very extravagant to me), the more reputable and reliable the sources should be. Without any such sources we cannot have an article. See also WP:ORG. Huon (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You mean the news? We can remove that since I assumed that Koala is a synonymous with Australia since it is native animal. They are reliable company who are helping Australian wildlife and Koalas. You can check it here http://abr.business.gov.au/SearchByAbn.aspx?abn=67148937277. Just like I said the page is not yet finish editing I am asking help to 115ash to correct other stuffs like punctuations, highlights, references and many more. If you can help me with that then that would be fine. Thanks talibong (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

An ABM number is not an indication of notability. Coverage in newspapers or reputable trade magazines that discusses the company in some detail - not their own website or press releases, not blogs or social media, not just passing mentions - would be required to write an article on Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia article should summarize what those sources report. Huon (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Huon

Whats the matter with the article? I already edited that to make it informative and wikipedia also approve. the speedy deletion has been removed after I added distribution date since I forgot to add that. Why you deleted the page without informing first on the talk page. Please restore the page so that I can correct the article. Also there is no advertising there as you marked on the deletion.

talibong (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll reply at your talk page. Huon (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bani_Maran#References thanks alot for reviewing my article but you removed alot of it i added reference plz review it and make it live article and msg me if u can thanks alot alot

Those references are pretty much useless. In fact one of them claims Bani Maran is abandoned. Neither confirms significant parts of our article's content. Huon (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

2601:B:BE00:217:226:BBFF:FE01:5AC5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) more Wiggles editing on talk pages and Wiggles-related articles. I tried ipsock on his talk page but he deleted it. -AngusWOOF (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedia User and Administrator,

I am one of the people that was working very hard on the draft of Alcohol Abuse in Ireland.

Can you please state why the page was deleted? And if it was due to copyright infringement, can you please say which part of the article was in question?

After first deletion of the page, we started all over again with revised referencing and it got deleted again.

What is the procedure now of creating the page one more time?

Thank you

Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arman.pinjo (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@Arman.pinjo: I deleted the page (again) because it was chock-full of copyright violations and copy-pasted content. Your colleague had stated, quote, "We will not try to put the content of this page on Wikipedia again." Several others told him in no uncertain terms that copyright violations were entirely unacceptable. You didn't start all over again, you copy-pasted from the sources again, re-creating exactly the same problems that saw the draft deleted once before. One of the sources you copy-pasted from is this. As I said: You can submit a new draft on the same topic, but you should make sure that you summarize in your own words what the sources report; don't just copy-paste them. If we have to delete another copyright violation from your group, personally I'd advocate for blocks to put an end to this behaviour. Huon (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Huon, as there has been a complete restart of the page (now it should be all good), I was wondering if we could use the same photos as before?

were they problematic?

regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arman.pinjo (talk • contribs) 22:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how police in the US warning someone about a curfew due to a hurricane or a car crash in Denmark are relevant to alcohol abuse in Ireland. The image caption "Young people drinking Ireland" was incorrect because the photo showed people drinking on the London Underground before that was prohibited. The world map of alcohol consumption per capita and the diagram comparing Ireland to the Western European average seem much more relevant. Huon (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Huon: Since you do not want the matter discussed constructively and only have negative input over and over, might you please consider to just stay out of it? You know very well what I want discussed. Why not either face the fact that WP has some serious credibitily problems - this an excellent example - or just abstain from being doggedly negative about trying to fix them? Is that too much too ask? You repetitous negativity is hogging the discussion and preventing anything constructive from being said and done. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem to disagree with the provisions of WP:COMMONNAME, which says we should use "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)". That would be Hedwig, for all I can tell. Now arguing that we should ignore that policy and name the article after what she's commonly called in Swedish sources instead may be a viable position (not necessarily one I agree with), but it would have helped if you had from the outset clarified that that's what you're after. You may also want to consider whether the policy talk page wouldn't be a better venue if you want to change the policy from "prevalence in reliable English-language sources" to "prevalence in reliable sources in the language most relevant to the subject" - I assume Hedwig of Holstein isn't the only subject where there's a marked difference. Huon (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Just curious, three questions:

1. do you think Hedvig and Helvig are the same name, and thus that Hedvig is a legitimate English exonym for Helvig? If so, what makes you think that?
2. do you think it's OK if WP names a biography with a name that the subject person never has had in real life, just because consensus wants to do that?
3. are you aware of the fact that Queen Helvig of Sweden (i.e. the woman in question whatever you want to call her) is virtually unkown to English literature?

If I can understand you better, maybe we can get along. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

1. No opinion.
2. Yes, if that's what the subject is most commonly known as in English. Compare Emperor Meiji, who never had that name while alive, Harald Bluetooth, who isn't found under either "Haraldr blátǫnn Gormsson" or "Harald Blåtand Gormsen" on the English Wikipedia, or Henry the Fowler, Frederick the Great and any of the other Germans whose names in English are commonly anglicised. Now you'll say the latter are "legitimate" exonyms while "Hedwig" isn't; this is not a distinction I'd be willing to make without a reliable source supporting it with reference to this queen.
3. There is some English-language scholarly literature about her, and it tends to use "Hedwig" even when aware she's named "Helvig" in Swedish. It's not much, but enough to not call her "virtually unknown". Huon (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You examples under '2' are irrelevant here as those are extremely well known people and their name discrepancies are well documented including how they happened. I doubt if you'd agree that Harald Bluetooth should be called Howard Bluetooth (?) under any circumstances. Your attempt to use epithets against me, when what we are discussing is something as vital as a persons first name of address, is a bit scary, and quite alienating. Your reply under '3' may convince you, but I'll stick with virtually unknown and add unnamed in English by one single reliable English scholar. Your cavalier attitude toward the vital point '1' is the most shocking of all, to me. How can you even discuss this seriously with such a nonchalant attitude? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Barbara Bottner

added links pointing to Cosmopolitan, Scorch, West End, Chapter, Sam Shepherd, Young Adult and Mama Said

Battle of Ramu

added links pointing to Arakan and Burmese Empire

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Please understand what your impact your changes have making before editing. You changed Bettada Wodeyar to Chamaraja Wodeyar V. Then as you went on with these changes, propagating it to the various "Chamaraja Wodeyars" in the dynasty and you ended up with Chamaraja Wodeyar X, when in reality, there is no Chamaraja Wodeyar X in that dynasty. Just as an example, let me cut and paste one sentence in the history section of the article to you and you will see how you distorted the content by tampering with the template:

"After the demise of Maharaja Chamaraja IX, Krishnaraja IV, still a boy of eleven, ascended the throne in 1895. His mother Maharani Kemparajammanniyavaru ruled as regent until Krishnaraja took over the reins on 8 February 1902".

• In the template, you conveniently changed Chamaraja Wodeyar IX to X, but this threw the content of a well written FA into disarray.

"The years that followed saw Krishnaraja Wodeyar I tread cautiously on the matter while keeping the Kodagu chiefs and the Marathas at bay. He was followed by Chamaraja Wodeyar VI during whose reign power fell into the hands of prime minister (Dalwai or Dalavoy) Nanjarajiah (or Nanjaraja) and chief minister (Sarvadhikari) Devarajiah (or Devaraja), the influential brothers from Kalale town near Nanjangud who would rule for the next three decades with the Wodeyars relegated to being the titular heads."

• In the template, you changed Chamaraja Wodeya VI to VII. But the contents of the FA says a different story of succession.

If you continue to revert, it will be considered as disruption of a featured article Kingdom of Mysore..Mayasandra (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• • I get the feeling different sources may see this nomenclature slightly differently. Be aware that this is an extremely well referenced FA and this issue of IX or X, VI or VII may well be a mute and insignificant issue. The choice we have is to either leave the template as is and be consistent with the content, or make necessary naming alterations through out the FA to match as revised template (you version). The second option is not good because the content will be out of wack with the referred sources. Better to keep it as is. Just my thoughts.Mayasandra (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mayasandra: Did you check where the link for Chamaraja Wodeyar IX in that template points to? It will bring you, via a redirect, to Chamarajendra Wadiyar X. For someone who doesn't exist, we seem to have quite a detailed article about him. If you check out the other articles on people named Chamaraja Wodeyar linked from that template, it will bring you to rulers with the same numbers, but with the wrong dates of their reigns (for example Chamaraja Wodeyar VI says he reigned from 1617 to 1637 - the dates given in the template for Chamaraja Wodeyar V) because the numbering of our articles actually agrees with the sources I provided, and I made the template link to the correct articles. If you prefer to have the template pointing to the wrong ones, I'm almost about to wash my hands of this mess and let you have the broken template in an FA. Huon (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand your concern. Please be aware that this article not only is a FA, it also went through a thorough FA review back in 2009 when the original FA author was deeply involved with other editors in an exhaustive clean up and improvement process that went on for months. The problem you are having is with the sub-articles which no one has taken the effort to research and write with citations. You are right, the sub-articles are out of wack with the main article, but it is the main article that went through the FAR process. So the sub-articles need to be up dated accordingly if someone so chooses. At the same time, I understand that different authors have differing view on names, exact time period of rule and such, but we can have only one view here. I was recently visiting what is now the main museum run by the Wodeyar dynasty in Mysore (the Jaganmohan Palace) and the entire chronology of the Wodeyar dynasty is provided right at the entrance. I wasn't surprised to see a royal family name on the list that I had not seen in history books. This is often a problem with dynasties that have 400-500 years of rule and 20-30 rulers. Also keep in mind, this whole concept of III, IV, V is western and this also causes conflicting views among modern historians who are more western minded and less western minded when they give names of rulers. BTW, while practically every book calls them Wodeyar (from the native Kannada word odeya meaning lord), the remaining members of the clan today call themselves Wadiyar, which is an English/British corruption of that word. You will find similar differences in the board outside the Bangalore Palace where the remnants of the family live (also a palace I have visited). Hope this helps.Mayasandra (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mayasandra: I've opened a discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Mysore. The one source cited in that article for the numbering of the Chamaraja Wodeyars I could easily check is actually mis-cited and supports not what the article says and what it's cited for, but what I'd like to make the template say. Unless you have, personally, checked the other references and found them to support the article, I'm not inclined to put too much stock in the thoroughness of the FAR process. Huon (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I have self reverted and left a message on the article talk page.Mayasandra (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A nice bunny being given to you, and maybe not for the first or last time. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I hope I don't appear too much in need of a bunny of tranquility... Huon (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on the YoYo Games page - I'm just a low level employee there and it saddens me to see stuff like that - thank you so much - I wondered if you could do the same for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameMaker:_Studio Studio page and the weird page that is Yoyo Games with a lower case Y - you do incredible work here and this site wouldn't be as amazing if not for people like yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.213.226 (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@195.99.213.226: I've just removed the "controversies" without reliable sources from GameMaker: Studio. Yoyo Games is a "redirect", a page that's intended to lead readers who get the capitalization wrong to the correct target. Right now it points to GameMaker: Studio; I'll change the target to YoYo Games.

That said, some remarks about your efforts here. While I appreciate that the YoYo Games article was something of a mess and desperately needed cleanup, you should be sure not to overdo it and should not remove the good (that is, the reliably sourced) with the bad. You may also want to think about creating an account (for yourself, not for the company - Wikipedia does not allow "group" or company accounts, and only one person may ever have acces to an account!); if you want your Wikipedia username to be associated with the company, a username such as "John at YoYo" would be fine (though not "YoYo Games" since that would look like a group account).

Finally, you should take a look at Wikipedia's guideline on conflicts of interest and on the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use governing paid edits on Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again - I have written a talk section on GameMaker: Studio. I'm very confused and I just want to get this sorted. Thank you SO much for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.244.79 (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Man... some of the 'controversies' that you removed are now back... these people are taking the piss - both of the recent editors are competitors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BlitzGreg/sandbox We are trying to have a nice discussion. with them but they are still using it to twist our article into a mess of negativity. Rmanthorp (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Rmanthorp: Writing about a company is not the same as working for a company. To me BlitzGreg looks like an editor without a conflict of interest who is genuinely interested in game engines of all stripes. Other articles he has written include, for example, ANGLE (software), Voxel Space, Godot (game engine) and Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye (book). That doesn't quite scream "DS Game Maker employee" to me. I'd strongly advise you to work with him, not against him. Your chosen approach of initiating talk page discussions is what Wikipedia recommends for editors with a strong conflict of interest such as yourself; the more specific your requests are ("change A into B and and add C, based on third-party sources X, Y and Z"), the more likely is it that they'll be quickly acted upon.

The section on the "2009 logo controversy" wasn't re-added by him, but by JudgeSpear, whoever that is. I have removed it again. The remaining "controversies", the over-eager DRM tool and the prematurely launched April Fools joke, have received third-party coverage in reliable sources and should stay, though not necessarily with exactly the current wording (I haven't looked into that in any detail). Huon (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there- thanks - still getting used to all this and we've had a meeting about it in work - as you can see from the Studio talk page myself and RGibble (another employee at YYG) have been discussing edits with BlitzGreg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GameMaker:_Studio - However, Richard more structured edits have been ignored for my minor - The only thing that still confuses me about BlitzGreg is that we have a banned user on our GMC forums with the same username who was banned for causing trouble in the past - information I can't fully look up or disclose :( - anyway... I'm really grateful for your help - I wondered if you could take a look at this for me and advise what we all need to do to clear this up?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jaymd_123 as it now has a mark on my own talk page for this - is this something I can clear up?? Rmanthorp (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

If there's evidence of a conflict of interest that you cannot publicly disclose, you may want to contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly (see WP:Contact us/Subjects). In general, if there's a dispute, a good way ahead is almost always to invite wider community scrutiny. For example, if you feel the article needs work and the editors aren't helpful, you could add a note to the talk page of WikiProject Video games, a central discussion board for editors interested in that topic.

The sockpuppetry investigation is something you should keep an eye on in case further questions emerge, but where I personally don't expect any further input from you or your colleagues is required. I'd expect the people dealing with the request will see your explanation and accept it without any further ado, closing the investigation. The message on your talk page is merely a notification for your convenience; it's nothing to worry about. If you want to, you can simply remove it (that counts as evidence you've seen it). Huon (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Huon,

A few people have read the entry and agree that all the "personal" stuff has been removed. No opinions. No sighs. No alarms and excursions.

Could you perhaps ask a colleague who has no history with our mutual travail to read it?

Did I ever mention that somewhere--can't find it, darn--in Wiki's advice to the newbie is encouragement to break out of the Wiki mold a little--make the pages lively. I had hoped that by giving a first-hand witness to her life that might have had such an effect.

At any rate, if it's still not a good piece, is there any way the banner can be modulated? I really do find it rude.

All best and thanks. And Happy Holidays!

Miramaribelle (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Miramaribelle, I've asked for 7&6=thirteen's advice since they have heavily edited the article over the last few days. They pointed out one specific example of "schmaltz", and I agree that's not the appropriate tone for an encyclopedia article. I may take a closer look at the article myself over the next few days to resolve that issue. Huon (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Write it like you didn't know her, and you were writing a dispassionate ENCYCLOPEDIC article about her for the ages. I gently suggest you take a look at the Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th edition and read some of their biographies to see how it's done. They are available on line. That she was a good person and you liked each other isn't a fit subject for such an endeavor, and it shouldn't color how you say it. I would say that her oeuvre speaks for itself. Putting garlands and frosting on the cake obscures the central truth. Not trying to be pedantic or critical here, but there is a time and place for a personal story or tome (e.g., a eulogy) but an encyclopedia article just isn't one of them. Hope that helps. Be strong. You can do this. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I pulled the tag with a note in the summary that the problems are being addressed. See what I did—a small tidbit that was peripheral I put in a note. Hope that helps. And I hope I didn't p.o. somebody important. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Huon and 7&6=thirteen (☎): Whoa. I am most grateful for your trouble in this. My thanks. I hate schmaltz--had no idea there was any in the piece. Glad it's gone. I love the extracted A B C notes--very deft, lovely editing. You could delete the four grandchildren etc under Legacy. Not interesting--I was genuinely thinking that part of her legacy was what her inheritors got from her, but maybe that's too sappy. Is that the schmaltz? Had no idea--truly--there's any whipped cream on the piece...I was striving for straight information. Had no idea any affection showed through. Surprising. As for revising it, I'm afraid the month of September or was it October that I spent on the article is all I can do for now. I will keep dipping in and out, hoping nobody adds misinformation. But I don't expect to have any more to say. I found an errant {{efn=ua| after Finch in the second graf. It was in red when I opened it. I tried adding the source (high school yearbook, page 45), but that didn't affect those darn little letters. Can you fix that, please? It's an annoying typo. Darn, I was aiming for a gold star. I'm lucky to get out of this with an above-failing grade. Your faithful servant, Miramaribelle (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Huon, 7&6=thirteen (☎) and Barrel Proof: Wow again. That was fast! Thanks for the clean-up--and no, not a bit of p.o. I've just printed the article up, will compare with my earlier copy to find the editing and learn from it. I do accept your gracious challenge of reading the 11th edition of the E.B.--weren't those the days! I wish I still had our multi-volume set--and going back and being more scholarly. I hope to do so, but first I must finish my book. At least the article is factual, yes? And now I wish to say that it has been a GREAT ride. I've learned worlds...and had a glimpse into your fascinating Wikisphere. When I skim down the notes to you, the subjects take my breath away. What fun you must have in your daily rounds. Hugs and happy holidays and I look forward to the next encounter in a year or so. Miramaribelle (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Huon, please state the name of one country that follows Cagan´s definition of hyperinflation today? Odereiugif (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove Citation Requests without supplying a citation as requested for the sentences requested. You can get banned per WP policies. As you did on Hyperinflation. Odereiugif (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

See the comment I left at Talk:Hyperinflation#Cagan´s definition is the generally accepted definition in the world economy. (the section heading isn't by me; I merely added to an older section on the same issue). In short, I don't know of any countries using definitions of hyperinflation, and the article doesn't say they do. It says economists commonly follow Cagan's approach, and I provided a reliable source backing up that claim, written in 2000. Huon (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Huon, you do understand English. You are not a baby. I did not ask you about economists´ use of the definition of hyperinflation. I asked you about the use by any country of Cagan´s definition. Please supply the name of one country that uses Cagan´s definition today. When you do not know the name of one country that uses Cagan´s definition since it is impossible to know that name since no country uses Cagan´s definition today, then any reasonable person would simply admit that no country uses Cagan´s definition today since that is a fact and the status quo. Everybody except you know that. I thus ask you again, Huon, please tell me the name of one country that uses Cagan´s definition of hyperinflation. Huon, I am not asking you about what economists use: I am asking you to tell me the name of one country that uses Cagan´s definition.

Huon, again I ask you very formally here on Wikipedia: please name one country that uses Cagan´s definition of hyperinflation today. Thank you for taking part in this discussion. Odereiugif (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a deposition of Wikipedia editors. Not an appropriate argument and the questioning is "out of order." Objection SUSTAINED. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Wait, does that mean my block of Odereiugif as a sockpuppet of PennySeven is holding him in contempt? :) Seriously, user blocked as an apparent sockpuppet of an earlier account that present the same arguments. —C.Fred (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"I don't think an ACLU press release about their own activities is considered a reliable third-party source." Come on, you do know better than that. An ACLU award page is a perfectly good secondary independent reliable source for the coverage of David Cole. It would, of course, only count as a primary and non-independent source for a page about ACLU itself. Nsk92 (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying the ACLU is a secondary source on the ACLU bestowing an award on Cole? Sorry, I don't see that. WP:PRIMARY says: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." Who could be more involved in that award than the ACLU, the organization bestowing it? The only coverage is by the ACLU itself and by Georgetown University, Cole's employer. No one else seems to have cared about Cole winning that award. There is no independent coverage of Cole, not a single secondary source in the entire article. Huon (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Substitute "event" by "person" in your quote of WP:PRIMARY and you'll see why you are dead wrong in this case. For a WP article about Cole and as a source of information about him, ACLU is a perfectly good secondary and independent (from Cole!) source. For an article about ACLU itself, ACLU would, of course, be a primary source. Nsk92 (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

So if I named Cole the "Worst Lawyer of the Year" and published a press release to that effect, that would be an independent, secondary source about Cole? If not, what makes the ACLU bestowing an award on Cole more independent than myself bestowing an "award" on Cole? If you cited the ACLU for anything but their own award, you might have a point. But policy explicitly confirms my stance here: It's original material close to the event they write about, written by people directly involved.

On an unrelated note, now there's a secondary source in the article. I hope you'll realize the difference. Huon (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 15:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Good afternoon Huon,

I did some editing on the above article, but I do NOT see how I can resubmit it...will you please help me... Thank you,

poekneegurlPoekneegurl (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I have re-added the old "submission declined" message boxes which not only should remain on the page as a historical record until it's accepted, but which also contain a "resubmit" button. However, resubmitting the draft in its current state is pointless since it doesn't show that Watson has been the subject of significant third-party coverage in reliable sources such as newspapers or reputable music magazines; it will not be accepted. Huon (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Huan, I nominated Open Source Judaism: for deletion. Everything was good until the assumption was made against me: by User:Stalwart111, then this was sent to me on my talk page: by the editor. I deleted it, but then this was posted publicly in the discussion of the the deletion page: . This editor is utterly rude and disrespectful, trying to contradict the topic away towards me by placing accusations/assumptions against me. I wish to pull off my deletion request as I feel that my credibility as an editor was publicly damage in the discussion, which will lead to doubts of deletion. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

To me Stalwart111's comments look like well-meaning, though at times somewhat strongly worded, advice, not like accusations (of what?). I don't see how they could be considered rude. In particular, I'd say putting that advice on your talk page was an attempt not to derail the deletion discussion.

Anyway, since you want to withdraw the nomination, I'll close the discussion as "keep, nomination withdrawn". Huon (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

JudeccaXIII, there wasn't any attempt to be rude - you misinterpreted my advice and got angry. Your broken English makes it very difficult to give you general advice or guidance without you taking it the wrong way. Huon is right - I tried to raise my concerns away from the discussion and you insisted I do otherwise. Withdrawing your nomination is sensible and Huon's willingness to facilitate that quietly should be welcomed enthusiastically. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I was just in the middle of handling that mess, and you come along and do it better than I would have. You really are the best at neutralizing articles. Many cheers — MusikAnimal talk 04:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Thanks! By now I've rewritten that paragraph entirely; I take it you've seen the new version. Huon (talk) 05:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes and I very much approve. More or less what I was trying for. It's funny how this time I didn't need to even ask you for help. You just come out of nowhere and did it for me. Keep it up! :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

RE: "This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 18:07, 14 December 2014 Huon (talk | contribs) deleted page Ziad Abu Ein (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.timesofisrael.com/un-eu-urge-swift-probe-into-palestinian-officials-death/)"

Q: Why did you not just take out the unambiguous copyright infringement? Q: Could you provide the article without the specific copyright infringements?

Thank you --18:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.130.82 (talk)

(talk page stalker) The whole article was copied from the news article mentioned in the deletion message, so it was impossible to revert back to a version before the copyvio. --Mdann52talk to me! 18:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked the page history; the copyright violations had been added with the very first edit, and they were far-reaching. Cleaning up that article would have been a major effort, akin to re-writing it from scratch. Huon (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, User:Huon. I am confused why the article was removed. I had made many of the recent edits, alongside User:Ricky81682. Times of Israel was used twice as a source in the article. If there was, in fact, a legitimate infringement concern, the majority of the article was constructed from multiple sources and would not have suffered greatly in quality or content if the Times of Israel source had been removed. Looking at the history, it appears that only the last paragraph was sourced from Times of Israel. If you can kindly restore the article, I would be more than happy to remove Times of Israel as a source. If you feel otherwise, please let me know that I can rewrite the article without using Times of Israel as a source. Thank you for your assistance. Rustandbone (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Significant amounts of that article were copy-pasted from multiple sources, with the Times of Israel the most egregious, but not the only example. I will not restore copyright violations. The sources used in that article were:

• Kershner, Isabel; Ghazali, Said (10 December 2014). "Calls for Calm After Palestinian Official Dies During Protest in the West Bank". New York Times. Retrieved 14 December 2014.
• "Palestinian minister dies after West Bank confrontation with Israeli soldiers". The Guardian. Retrieved December 12, 2014.
• "UN, EU urge swift probe into Palestinian official's death". Times of Israel. 10 December 2014.
• Ronen, Gil, Ari Yashar (10 December 2014). "PA 'Suspends Coordination' after Official Dies in Clash with IDF". Arutz Sheva. Retrieved 13 December 2014.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• "Palestinian minister Ziad Abu Ein buried in Ramallah". The Guardian. Retrieved December 12, 2014.
• "Death of Ziad Abu Ein: One autopsy, two very different findings". The Independent. Retrieved December 12, 2014.
• "Palestinian minister dies at West Bank protest". BBC News. 10 December 2014.
• Dvorin, Tova (12 December 2014). "Talks to Halt PA Security Coordination Postponed". Arutz Sheva. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
• "Ziad Abu Ein: Palestinian cabinet minister dies after 'clash with Israeli forces'". The Independent. independent.co.uk. 10 December 2014. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
• ABU TOAMEH, KHALED (11 December 2014). "Profile: Who was Ziad Abu Ein". Jerusalem Post.
• Baruch, Uzi & Ari Yashar (11 December 2014). "PA's 'Delusional Accusations' over Abu Ein Death are Incitement". Arutz Sheva. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
• Kershner, Isabel; Ghazalidec, Said (11 December 2014). "Doctors Offer Contradictory Interpretations of Palestinian Official's Death". New York Times. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
• Rayner, Tom (10 December 2014). "Examining The Footage Taken Before Ziad Abu Ein's Death". Sky News.

You're welcome to write a new article by summarizing in your own words what those sources report about Ziad Abu Eid. Copy-pasting, however, is not acceptable, unless you're specifically quoting someone (and that's not what happened here). Huon (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I will attempt to do that in good faith. If you feel that I am not doing so sufficiently, please let me know so that I can address the issue. Rustandbone (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I've begun the new article, taking great pains to not write directly from any of the source material. Can you please check and confirm that I am doing a satisfactory job of this? Rustandbone (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I have tidied up the new page's references. The text at times still semed to closely paraphrase the sources, particularly the "Biography" section. I have reworded that a little, but more work could be necessary. Huon (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel dumb for totally missing that. Yeah the first edits were entirely copyright violations. Good cal. Do you think someone should speak with User:Olegwiki about it? His talk page shows that this isn't the first time the problem has come up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Huon, thank you for catching the initial copyright issue and then helping out with the rewrite. I appreciate it. Rustandbone (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the Wikipedia: Public domain to my attention.

I have read it thoroughly and have visited the applicable links. I would like to bring your attention to the guidelines on Wikipedia: Public domain. Where it states that Wikipedia is primarily subject to U.S. Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain I will also suggest you see Wikipedia: Copyright situations by country. To all of you who deleted files with reference to Ambassador John Banks Elliott “Your apologies are accepted” now, please replace them so that I can edit them accordingly.Dorothyelliott (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm sorry, I still don't believe you understand. We can't use the files because they might have been subject to US copyright, so they had to be deleted. If they were kept and some Russians who had the copyright sued, they could shut down Wikipedia. The files are not yet in the public domain, as even if the people who took the photos died that day not enough time has passed. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 22:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dorothyelliott: If the Moscow images are in the public domain, we'd need some evidence to that effect. Merely having been produced outside the US does not suffice since the US does recognize foreign copyrights via the Berne Convention and the URAA (though the details of copyright law are complicated). This is a table of what's in the public domain in the US, and I don't see what specific criterion they're supposed to fall under that would make them PD in the US.

The images you took yourself via your BlackBerry, such as this one, are an entirely different issue since for those you unquestionably own the copyright. It's easy to prevent that image's deletion if you're willing to release that image under a free license that allows everybody to re-use and modify it for any purpose, including commercial purposes. To do so, please take the following steps:

1. Take a look at the text of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License (human-readable version) so you know what that license entails.
2. Edit the file page.
3. Remove the line of code that says {{di-no source no license|date=6 December 2014}} and replace it with {{Self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} (including the curly brackets).
4. Save the page.

That will add a note to the file page stating that you have released it under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and will prevent deletion. Please note, however, that this method only works for images whose copyright you own - not for the ones taken by Soviet photographers in Moscow in the 1960s or 1970s. Huon (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Huon! Thank you for checking in on the Jeff Smisek page. There were many other links to sources like Motley Fool and other newspaper articles. But a previous editor (MusiAnimal) consolidated them into the one HuffPo article. That article has been reposted and quoted by many other news sources. It is not a blog. But if you wish to challenge the Fagen article, I think the best thing to do would be to establish consensus on the article's talk page. Thanks for your consideration. Lauraface32 (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to get too much more involved, but Lauraface32 I think it may be the other way around, where consensus is needed to add the disputed content rather than remove it. Remember this a biography on a living person. Per this policy, any contentious material that is deemed poorly sourced should be removed without prior discussion. If we work together I believe we can accurately state what we want without being so disparaging. I also think I can speak for Huon and I that we don't have a particular interest in Smisek, rather we just want ensure content is within the confines of policy. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Lauraface32: I would take your comments about discussing the issue on the talk page a little more seriously if I hadn't already explained my edit there in detail, or if you had bothered to explain your own rationale there when reverting me. Huon (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate you answering my WP:EASTER questions. Just goes to show there's some things I can still learn about properly editing Wikis. Live and learn and do better the next article. But again, appreciate the tips and advice. SanAnMan (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Good day Huon... hope you are well. I have a question. I've done some work on the Rufus article. I noticed today someone edited it inserting information about another artist CONTINUE I ON to artist..but who is not a member of the group. THIS artist has his own wiki article where the same information is...as well as his name and credit is on the song "Once you get started..once again with the same information...that is repeated ver betim on EACH PAGE. Shouldn't there just be a reference to the song writer on the Rufus page and not all the repeated info. And whoever edited it..the pushed off the credit for the song Sweet Thing which was written by Khan and Maiden...group members...so it looks insignificant to the success of the group... the contribution is by unknown party and I do not wish to get into any battle..but it looks like someone just trying to get credit everywhere and even looks like an attempt to make that person as much a part of the group and like THEY WERE THE ONE that made Khan and Rufus famous...and kinda down playing the group who made the artist lyricists work hit the charts.. please read give me feed back on my assessment. Thank you.hole ur well.

PoekneegurlPoekneegurl (talk) 04:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia requires citations to reliable sources. You wrote that Rufus' greatest hit on that album was Sweet Thing, the other editor says it's Once You Get Started. Neither of you provided a reference. How are our readers supposed to tell which claim is correct?

Luckily for you, AllMusic agrees that Sweet Thing is the "biggest track" on that album. Thus I'll revert that edit and provide AllMusic as a reference to prove that the version I re-establish is the correct one. Huon (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Will do. Prlitecky (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, happy editing! Huon (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Huon, On 5 December 2014, you deleted the article "Royal African Corps" on the grounds of copyright violation. Is there any way to see what you deleted? Comparing my notes on this article with the website you referenced as the source of copyright violation do not indicate a problem. Before I recreate the article I would like to make sure that I am not setting it up for deletion. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Practically the entire content from here had been copy-pasted and made up the majority of the article. Huon (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to switch from using "User Profile" to "user page". Sorry for the misunderstanding. 19:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Huon sahib, you have deleted this article objecting to the wording of one particular citation as infringing copyright.

In order to overcome copyright infringement I have revised that objectionable passage as follows:

The terms Anvaya and Vyatireka are used to establish the meaningfulness of components, and also to ascribe individual meanings to components. This is done by observing the concurrent occurrence (anvaya) of a certain meaning vis-a-vis a certain linguistic unit and identifying the absence of a certain meaning vis-a-vis a unit, which effort results in the understanding of a certain meaning depending upon the presence of a given 'root' or 'stem' or 'suffix' but when any one of these three are taken away or replaced then the original meaning is no longer understood or some other meaning arises in the mind of the hearer. This is so because a relationship holds between the evidence and the property to be confirmed.^{R.P.Hayes. Dignaga on the Interpretation of Signs. Springer. pp. 118, 119.}

If this passage is o.k. can I resubmit this article for creation? Thanks.Aditya soni (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Aditya soni: That's better, but please note that the passage copy-pasted from Hayes was not the only problematic one. The sentence immediately afterwards was very closely paraphrased from Dunne, and there are further similar examples. Huon (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Huon Saheb, Thanks a lot. I have understood my mistake. I have re-phrased the relevant passages, and resubmitted this article for its creation. Regards.Aditya soni (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry!?!?!?! Really, Huon?!?!?!?! You have not challenged a single aspect of Fagin's argument. Simply because two people disagreed with you, you have accused them of being the same person? I have bent over backwards, making several of the very good changes that you suggested. I have also thanked you for inserting the Crains paragraph. But we have a fundamental disagreement over the relevancy of articles and the definition of synthesis. I have been, and will continue to be, happy to work with you on these things. But you must prove your position first. You must build consensus. Falsely alleging sockpuppetry is not a good way to do it. Grow up. This is cowardly and low.Lauraface32 (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It's quite a coincidence that an all-new editor popped up to "disagree with me" immediately after I pointed out that so far, the head count was two-to-one in favor of my position. Not that the head count really matters, mind, because we don't merely count numbers but weigh how much the respective positions are grounded in policy. To me the claim that using a source that does not mention Smisek in the article about Smisek can be anything but synthesis is outright bizarre. And I don't have to convince you in order to build consensus - getting more community input will do. I dearly hope that article soon receives some additional scrutiny from experienced editors. Huon (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not a coincidence, and I did not pop up suddenly. I have been in the airline industry for years. I was following the previous attempts to delete a balanced view from the Jeff Smisek page for several weeks -- long before you ever started editing it. It is true I never tried to edit anything before, but I hope to help out with other airline pages in the future. I had refrained from jumping in earlier because of the animosity, which I hate. As for the synthesis, it is you that are creating the synthesis by implying there was some universal resolution by late 2014. Topdog76 (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You accepted this user's unblock request, but forgot to unblock them. MadGuy7023 (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Ooops! Thanks for pointing that out! Done now. Huon (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that something new needs to be done, now that he's claiming WP:SOMEONEDIDIT about the latest unblock request. (See his talk page for the full argument with diffs). Origamite^ⓣⓒ 17:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I have removed Karunyan's talk page access. Thanks for notifying me. Huon (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nut (fruit) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• sickness: double blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial|journal= QJM |volume=102 |issue=5)|pages= 341–8|doi=10.1093/qjmed/hcp026|pmid=19273551}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|author=Bjelakovic G;

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

For scarring my block-log, which had been kept clean for half a decade!

Only joking, we all make mistakes ;) Orphan Wiki (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

We messaged each other at the same time! Posted another reply on my talkpage ;) Orphan Wiki 14:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Huon, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Hi Huon, you previously protected Ricky Byrd in June - could you please have another look at doing so after the recent activity there? Thanks and Merry Christmas. Melcous (talk) 07:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I am a little less active over the holidays, but Anna Frodesiak seems to have taken care of it. You may want to check out WP:RFPP for future protection requests; that page will receive attention from several admins, while nobody but me is likely to see your comments over here. Huon (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Huon you have been very disrespectful to me and the men of this Task Force. We had a brigade from the British 1st Armoured division assigned to us at the Battle of Norfolk. You also make claims of these friendly fire incidents with incorrect numbers. You also are off ten years on the date of this battle. You are presenting incorrect facts yourself without any knowledge of the conflict or the units involved in the Task Force. Instead you single out a very small part of the Task Force's experience while overlooking the fact the Task force was awarded a Valorous Unit award. Maybe you should read two of the books I provided as references. Road to Safwan dedicates a entire chapter to the TF. Don Brunett (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Don BrunettDon Brunett (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The place to discuss the article is its talk page, not mine, and I'll reply over there. Huon (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Huon. You have new messages at Thegreenspade's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Congrats! Because you're support me Bababa67 (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at this new editor's user page. Weird. Dougweller (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and the really weird parts by now have been removed by others. I believe the user means well but doesn't quite understand all the details of what he's doing. Huon (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This is just to confirm that you're on the panel that will close the Cultural Marxism AfD. The other administrators on the panel are Spartaz and Samwalton9. RGloucester — ☎ 17:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that, thanks. Huon (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

...of my user page by Remover remover (talk · contribs). Jeh (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Huon. I wanted to ask if you might be interested in mentoring one or more editors during our pilot of the mentorship space called the Co-op. We plan to run the pilot in late January for about one month. The idea is that mentors will be doing one-on-one teaching based on how an editor wants to contribute, and it's not some huge commitment to teach/learn comprehensively about Wikipedia. We also want to make to easier for new editors to find mentors as well. Your experience as an admin and fielding questions at #wikipedia-en-help ^connect will certainly be helpful. If you're interested, please sign up here and feel free to peruse, make suggestions, or ask questions about how the Co-op will work. Thanks a bunch (and Happy New Year!), I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)