User talk:Huon/Archive6

CopyEdit

Hello. You have done a very good copyedit job on the article Institut supérieur européen de gestion group, many thanks :-). I was wondering if maybe you can do the same for the article Institut Polytechnique des Sciences Avancées. I proposed it for Good article but Wizardman wants first a copyedit and cleanup. Many thanks in advance if you can do something. Best Regards. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Withrow Minstrels

Hi There-

You keep erasing the considerable work I have done on behalf of Withrow High School to record the history of the Withrow Minstrels. Why are you doing this? Can you email me directly please at srsmcom@gmail.com? Appreciate your help! Thanks Tigertwice (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC) tigertwice, Steve Martin

I have explained my reasons on the article's talk page. In short, the length of the band coverage compared to the rest of the article is excessive, and it's not supported by reliable sources. If you disagree, please explain your reasoning on the article's talk page. I'd prefer to keep our discussion on-wiki; it may be of interest to other editors as well. Huon (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Previous Question

I had submitted a question but I believe I have found a solution and that is why I took it down. Thank you for your response.

Joodia

Joodia (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Follow up questions about my article: H. J. High Construction

Thanks for answering my most recent questions about my article, Huon. I didn't know that "post-acceptance" questions were to be asked here, but now I know. I have one additional follow up question:

• Do you know how I can make H. J. High appear as a hyperlink in other Wikipedia articles? The company is referenced in two other articles (Viera High School and Walt Disney World Casting Center) but not as hyperlinks.

Thanks,

Dan McD D102653A (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

To turn a word into a wikilink, use square brackets: [[H. J. High Construction]] gives H. J. High Construction. If for whatever reason you do not want the text of the link to equal the link target, you can use "piped" links: Using code like [[H. J. High Construction|this link]] will look like this link (and still link to the H. J. High Construction article). (Of course, the term linked should usually be relevant to the target - hiding a link to a construction company behind "this link" would be a bad idea. ;-) ) For more information on links of all kinds, see Help:Link.

As an aside, while I'm happy to help, using the actual Wikipedia help desk may be faster - there are more people watching that help desk, while here you'll probably have to wait until I personally see your question. You can also ask questions on your own talk page and summon helpers by using the {{helpme}} templage. Huon (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thanks for your tireless effort at the Articles for Creation Help Desk! Every time I get on, all I see is your response after response helping out everybody at the AfC Help Desk. Thanks a ton! Patrick Bradshaw (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thanks for reminding the related party the principles. Best, Egeymi (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Accepting Blank Redirect Requests

Hey, just noticed that you accepted a blank redirect request (right here), the one with "My book with this breed of cat is called the Malayan, not the Asian"... just wondering if I missed something here. Thanks! Theopolisme _TALK 05:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC) (please TB :D)

"obviously not a royal seal"

CAn you please detail this? How can it not be real? 79.117.172.236 (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's real or not, but it's not royal. Steohen Bocskoy does not claim kingship. At most it's a princely seal. I'm also rather surprised to see a dated seal - did he not expect to re-use it in 1606? Huon (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about that. I realized the mistake and made the correction (it is a princely seal, not a royal one). 1605 is the starting year of his very short reign (1605 – 1606) 79.117.211.158 (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Follow-Up Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Quantile Framework for Mathematics

Thank you for your feedback. I would like to continue to work towards the acceptance of this article for Wikipedia.

I would argue that the state department of education webpages act as secondary references and they do in fact mention the Quantile Framework for Mathematics.

On the issue of using scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals on education for reference, The Quantile Framework for Mathematics is a relatively new so there are not many journals or articles discussing the Framework.

The Quantile Framework for Mathematics is similar to The Lexile Lexile Framework for Reading which does in fact have a published Wikipedia page. I will go ahead and remove the registered trademark logos from the article.

Thank you for your help with review this article (Cbianco84) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbianco84 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The references for the "State Assessments" section are, in order, the homepage of the Kentucky Department of Education, that of North Carolina's Department of Instruction, an error message from the Oklahoma State Department of Education, the homepage of the Wyoming Department of Education, that of the Virginia Department of Education, and that of the West Virginia Department of Education, the draft's references 16 to 21. Which of them mention the Quantile Framework? I don't see any of them doing so.

If the Quantile Framework is too new to be much discussed in secondary sources, it may be best to wait a while until better sources are available. The Lexile article has at least some references to articles published in the Journal of Educational Measurement and the like. Huon (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see the sources below:

The Kentucky Department of Education webpage discusses the Quantile Framework of Mathematics here http://www.education.ky.gov/users/otl/Math/KY%20--%20Quantile%20Map%20--Educators%20and%20Parents%2012-07-2010.pdf and here http://www.education.ky.gov/kde/instructional+resources/high+school/mathematics/mathematics+assessment.htm

The North Carolina does here http://www.ncpublicschools.org/newsroom/news/2009-10/20100111-01, and here http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/accountability/uisrs/1011eoguisr.pdf

The West Virginia department of education discusses the Framework here http://wvde.state.wv.us/teach21/quantiles.html and here http://wvde.state.wv.us/teach21/quantiles.html.

The Wyoming DOE discusses the Framework here: http://edu.wyoming.gov/sf-docs/assessments/PAWS_2011_Interpretive_Guide_for_Student_Results_Final.pdf?sfvrsn=0

The Oklahoma DOE uses the Quantile Framework in its OCCT curriculum Tests,Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests (OCCT), Grades 3-8

and in Virginia Standards of Learning Assessments, Grades 3-8 (Linking Study spring 2012) http://www.vdoe.whro.org/testing/math/parents_students_2012//DOE_SOL_VIDEO-b.swf CBianco84

A cookie for you!

You get a cookie for being the fastest redirect-er I know! Every time I check my watchlist, I never see new redirect requests... only accept or denies from you! Hmmm... maybe while you eat this cookie, I can sneak in... :D Theopolisme TALK 21:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

RDT

Thanks for cleaning up after RDT, but he also needs blocking so when you come across him again please report him to WP:AIV with a link to the relevant bandiscussion. Thanks. Agathoclea (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If he's only getting blocked for two days, that's not really worth the effort of bothering AIV. Two weeks might make it worthwhile. But if you prefer, I'll report him every two days... Huon (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

My assumption is that once he gets blocked will reset his modem/router and start fresh with a new IP, so no point blocking the IP for longer. Should I be wrong it is easy to prolong the duration quickly. Agathoclea (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense, though I believe the last time he was blocked he returned to the same IP. I'll keep an eye on him and let AIV know. Huon (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The Quantile Framework for Mathematics

Hello, Could you please check into these sources that pertain to the Quantile Framework of Mathematics page. I would like to continue to move towards the acceptance of the page.

Thanks for your help.

Please see the sources below: The Kentucky Department of Education webpage discusses the Quantile Framework of Mathematics here http://www.education.ky.gov/users/otl/Math/KY%20--%20Quantile%20Map%20--Educators%20and%20Parents%2012-07-2010.pdf and here http://www.education.ky.gov/kde/instructional+resources/high+school/mathematics/mathematics+assessment.htm The North Carolina does here http://www.ncpublicschools.org/newsroom/news/2009-10/20100111-01, and here http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/accountability/uisrs/1011eoguisr.pdf The West Virginia department of education discusses the Framework here http://wvde.state.wv.us/teach21/quantiles.html and here http://wvde.state.wv.us/teach21/quantiles.html. The Wyoming DOE discusses the Framework here: http://edu.wyoming.gov/sf-docs/assessments/PAWS_2011_Interpretive_Guide_for_Student_Results_Final.pdf?sfvrsn=0 The Oklahoma DOE uses the Quantile Framework in its OCCT curriculum Tests,Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests (OCCT), Grades 3-8 and in Virginia Standards of Learning Assessments, Grades 3-8 (Linking Study spring 2012) http://www.vdoe.whro.org/testing/math/parents_students_2012//DOE_SOL_VIDEO-b.swf

CBianco84 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbianco84 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that these are primary sources, and while they can be used to verify that those states use the Quantile Framework, they should be used with care and do not establish the Quantile Framework's notability. To make sure I'm not mistaken I've asked for confirmation at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Huon (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The editors at the noticeboard argued that sthe states deciding to adopt the Framework amounts to an independent evaluation and that the state websites could therefore be considered secondary sources. I'd still be cautious in their use, though; the Kentucky diagram, for example, seems to have been written in cooperation with the Quantile Framework people, which would definitely turn it into a primary source. Huon (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I will take away the trademark usage throughout the page. Will I be able to proceed in another review of the page?

CBianco84 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbianco84 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The Sole Source of Help lately

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For being the sole source of Help where Help is so desperately needed of late, the Help Desk. Where so many brave souls fear to tread. You are the lonely voice in the wilderness, challenging the beastly editors of unknown commitment, determination, and hatred bent on slaying the hapless helper who dares to challenge their citations.  :- ) Don 20:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! It's my pleasure - and an honour to recieve such a barnstar. Huon (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit for Jose La Luz Article

I just wanted to thank you so much for your edits and your help with the Jose La Luz article. Your direction is very thoughtful and helpful. I personally interviewed Jose, so although there may not be any primary sources to reference about his childhood, would my interview with him count as a secondary source? Again, thank you! Vesperms (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If your interview with La Luz has not been published in a reliable source, such as a newspaper, it is unfortunately not acceptable as a reference on Wikipedia. Basically, how should our readers tell whether you really interviewed him or just made up the interview or its contents? If no published sources report on La Luz' childhood, I'd suggest removing much of that content and focusing on what he's notable for. Huon (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Pages

Hi, As of June 2012 I will be semi-retiring from Wikipedia. I will still watch a few pages every day or two, but not watch many pages every day as before.

Could I ask you to occasionally watch a few more pages that have good referenced content and should really be saved from vandalism, fringe views, sudden mergers, etc.? I think you already watch a few of these, but here is a list in any case:

• Jesus has been stable for a year and is fully referenced. I even took out referenced based on suggestions, but it is stable "because it has so many references". The last big debate was about calling Jesus Palestinian or Jewish, etc. But that is over now once it was pointed out that it was a political issue more than anything else. The magnet for debate there is the regularly scheduled talk page comment that Jesus did not really exist. That has been discussed on talk many, many times and it usually ends with the demand: "per WP:RS/AC, please provide a WP:RS source that says 'most historians hold that Jesus did not exist' instead of arguing about it here". The debate always stops after that.

• Crucifixion of Jesus: Again, pretty stable. And as above, the recurring talk page comment is that he was not crucified. And again there are clear WP:RS sources that say that 'most historians hold that Baptism and Crucifixion are beyond doubt'. And there are no WP:RS sources that say that most scholars hold the opposite. But the key issue here is not to mix these two events with other biblical episodes, for there are many historians who argue Marriage at Cana was not historical, etc. So the only two certain events that are subject to agreement are those two.

• Christ, the Ministry of Jesus and Chronology of Jesus. All three pages are highly stable and fully sourced. They just need to be watched. There is also Nativity of Jesus and Virgin birth of Jesus.

• Josephus on Jesus and Tacitus on Christ as well as Annals (Tacitus). These are three historically important pages.

• Religious perspectives on Jesus, Jesus in Christianity, Sayings of Jesus on the cross, Imitation of Christ and Love of Christ: Again, very stable pages and it is just a question of looking out for merge flags, etc.

Your help in watching these as your time allows will be greatly appreciated. And thank you for all the good interactions we have had in the past. History2007 (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ouch! I'm very sorry to hear that, and the only consolation is that your retirement will not be absolute. I have come to truly admire your knowledge of the scholars and the sources on early Christianity. It's not at all my area of expertise, but I have watchlisted the pages and will keep an eye on them. Thanks for the tremendous amount of work you've done so far, and the best of luck with whatever you will do instead! Huon (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. In cse you were wondering, it was not burn out that made me step back, it was this episode. But I will still watch 50 or so pages that I think add value, but not 1,500 pages like before. And most of the key articles that I wanted to have fixed are in pretty good shape now after 5 years of typing, and it is just a question of not letting them degrade. There are a couple of peripheral items related to the early period that still need fixing (say Pliny), and I will do those by the end of the year. Then most of those items should be effectively complete. And again, Thank you. History2007 (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Halfin -Whitt regime

Please note that the terms 'seminal work' and 'pioneering effort' appear in the introduction chapter of the very reliable secoundary source.Shuroo (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shuroo (talk • contribs)

PC-E Nikkor 24mm f/3.5D ED Lens

Thank you for your recommendation that additional citations are needed. I would like to provide them. Can you guide me? I thought I included everything under external sources. I am not sure what I am missing. I had used Canon TS-E 24mm lens as a model. Jeffrey M Dean (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia content should be based on sources independent of the subject. With the exception of one review, all references and external links are to the manufacturer's websites. That lone review apparently isn't even used as a source for the article text, and I'm not quite sure whether it's a reliable source in the first place - it's self-published without editorial oversight. Rockwell may well be an expert on cameras and lenses, but for all I can tell he might just be a random person with a website.

What we should use are sources published by reliable publishers independent of Nikon. There are probably some reviews in trade magazines. The sources need not be available online as long as we can provide enough bibliographical information to allow our readers to find them.

The Canon lens article suffered exactly the same flaw; I've tagged it too. Huon (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added some independent reviews. Are these the sort of things you mean? Most of the stuff I find is from vendors. Ken Rockwell, BTW, is nationally renowned and the first site I go to for info on photo equipment. Jeffrey M Dean (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant, especially the Digital Camera Info review (most of dpreview.com's content is just a press release by Nikon, and blogs are usually considered not all that reliable, but Photography Blog seems pretty good in that regard - it's run by a professional and has some editorial staff). The next step would be to base the article text on what those secondary sources say instead of what Nikon says. I'll do some work on that later today. Huon (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU! I assume there should be references in the text to different articles. Jeffrey M Dean (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For meritorious conduct in the great saw dust-wood dust war. You have the patience of a saint. joe•roet•c 07:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Geoff Bennett.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! avs5221^{(talk|contrib)} 17:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Page: Colin Ratushniak

Thank you Huon for your help with the edits on this page. Particularly in relation to the "stub" tag and the website inclusion. I'm really happy that the page is not tagged as a "stub" any longer and I think a reasonable compromise has been reached sitting he website link in the external links section.

I'm a complete novice at Wiki, this page is the first one I have created. Can you explain something to me? Is it likely that someone else may go on and put it back as a "stub" and take the website off again? And if they do, what am I allowed to do in response?

Thanks again for your help and your patience. --Karendawes (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad I could help, and that we agree about the fansite. I don't think it's likely someone else will re-tag the page as a stub. The fansite is a slightly different matter. I cannot tell what exactly (except their own claim) makes it "official" (as opposed to a random website that covers Ratushniak without his endorsement). On the other hand, the "external links" section tends to have somewhat relaxed standards; for example, we tend to allow links to pages that whouldn't do as references.

If someone removes the website or re-adds a stub tag without a convincing rationale, you can revert him, but since by then we'd be entering "disputed" territory, I'd leave a section explaining your rationale on the article talk page. Then whoever you reverted will see why you did so, and if he disagrees, you and he can discuss the issue on the talk page without reverting back and forth. There are also more formal processes for dispute resolution, for example requesting a third opinion or any of the others outlined in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but I'd only bother with those if attempts to reach consensus on the talk page have failed.

I have added the article to my watchlist and will keep an eye out, but to be honest I don't expect many editors to contribute - it's a rather specialized topic. Huon (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again, I feel a bit more reassured now and I really do appreciate your help. --Karendawes (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I need your help again if that's possible. Someone has now merged my page with that of another and cited the reason as "lack of notoriety in the figure skating world". I dispute this change. Colin Ratushniak is a professional ice skater with a significant following on Twitter and Facebook and has appeared on Dancing on Ice, Holiday on Ice and is about to appear in Kyran Bracken's ice Party as a professional skater. His notoriety as a professional ice skater is good enough to warrant his own page in my opinion. Could you help me in trying to get this page reinstated in its own right? Karendawes (talk) 08:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You already reverted those changes; I agree that Ratushniak is individually notable enough for an article of his own and left a note to that effect on the article's talk page. I'll keep it on my watchlist in case the user who turned the page into a redirect replies. Huon (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm so sorry to bother you again. Firstly, thanks very much for all help (again) with this. The user has now nominated the page for deletion and I've noticed that you've added a note to that. I'm not sure it was appropriate for me to add a note as it's my page that he/she has put up for deletion, but I felt that I should put up some defence for it. I've looked at the policy for deletions and it seems to say that unless the user/editor can get a concensus for the page to be deleted that it stays up and can't be renominated. Is that true in this case? Also, is there anything I can do to the page to improve it so that it's stronger to avoid it being deleted? --Karendawes (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all, it's no bother at all; I'm happy to help. There's nothing inappropriate for the article's author to comment in the deletion discussion, and you make a relevant point about Ratushniak being interviewed in preference to supposedly more notable colleagues.

You're right that deletion requires a consensus ("no consensus" defaults to "keep"), but the article can be re-nominated. There's a low-key "proposed deletion" process which cannot be used more than once, but that's not what's happening here. Consensus may change, so articles that were kept can be re-nominated at a later time; even more so if no consensus should emerge at all. However, if there is a consensus to keep it, the hurdle for deletion will get higher (because the next time the nominator will have to show why the past consensus should be overturned), and immediate re-nomination is frowned upon in any case - the details depend on whether "keep" was the consensus or just the default result in lieu of a consensus either way, but in the first case I'd expect any re-nomination that's faster than in six months' time would put the new nominator in hot water for disruptive editing. In fact I don't expect any re-nomination if there's a consensus to keep it this time - we won't have to permanently defend the article against the same objections over and over.

The most significant improvement you could make to the article to refute the claims of the nominator would be the addition of further reliable sources to show that not just "local newspapers" care about him (though if those local newspapers are from different continents the argument loses much of its weight anyway). Huon (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again, that's really useful to understand. I have an interview that Ratushniak gave in Theatre and Performance magazine which is a national publication albeit rather specialist. Do you think that would help strengthen the article in the first instance? In the meantime I'll try to source some other national press coverage. In your experience do you think it's likely that the nominator will succeed in his bid to have the page deleted and who ultimately makes the decision as its presumably not them or myself? Karendawes (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Every publication helps if it adds to the article, though interviews are often considered not quite as significant as news reports: On the one hand, it's Ratushniak speaking about Ratushniak; on the other hand, the fact that a national publication chose to give him a platform is significant - they presumably don't interview just anybody. Much depends on the details. If Ratushniak just answered a bunch of stock questions, that's not as significant as if the questions are customized and the interviewer interacted with him.

It's a little early to predict the outcome (the deletion discussion runs for seven days, and if no one but us replies by then, it might get re-listed for another seven days to receive a little more input), but I tend to be a deletionist myself and rarely argue for the keeping of an article that ultimately gets deleted - thus I expect the article will be kept. Unless the decision is an obvious keep (say, because the nominator withdraws his nomination and no one else has argued for deletion), an admin will determine consensus by weighting both sides' arguments - it's not a vote or a headcount, though numbers do help (if you see someone writing about a "!vote", that refers to such a not-vote). Of course the admin should not himself have taken a position in the deletion discussion. The procedure for non-admins to close a discussion is explained in Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Appropriate closures; of course the non-admins must also be uninvolved. Huon (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou again. I've now added the interview although as you say I think it is stock questions and so isn't as strong as I'd initially hoped but I will keep trying to source further relevent sources to cite in the meantime. --Karendawes (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Huon. You have new messages at Gold Standard's talk page.
Message added 18:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gold Standard 18:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Just wanted to say a huge thank you for all your help in making my page look professional and for your advice and guidance on how things work on Wiki. You've been amazing. Thanks again.:) Karendawes (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your comments, please

How do you feel this is coming, now: PC-E Nikkor 24mm f/3.5D ED Lens

And I would appreciate any comments you might have on this: User:Jeffrey M Dean/sandbox

Thank you. Jeffrey M Dean (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits on the lens article. Does it still need the "needs additional citations" note? Jeffrey M Dean (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have swapped it for a more specific (and less obstrusive) maintenance template. Two of the reviews remarked on the lack of compatibility with various Nikon cameras because the camera body interferes with the shifting mechanism. I don't think we currently mention that; we probably should.

Regarding your sandbox draft: That still needs some work, I believe. It seems written for a specialist, not for a general audience. For example, the very first paragraph talks about the R68's "more modern looking front fender" - more modern compared to what? (Also, the second paragraph's fender description is much better in that it describes the changes instead of just calling them "more modern", which is rather vague.)

I'm also skeptical of the rather long quotes. We should probably rewrite that in our own words, especially as the two quotes are partly redundant.

The draft also says it's "the most desirable postwar BMW motorcycle". That's a rather subjective statement and would require attribution to a secondary source ("Historian/reviewer/whatever Smith called it the most desirable postwar BMW motorcycle"); otherwise it's editorializing, which we should not engage in. (On your user page you call it the "rarest and most valuable", which should be much easier to find sources for.)

I'm no expert on motorcycles, and the people at WikiProject Motorcycling may give you more specific advice. Huon (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Woody Interruptus

Deletion proposal aside, can you do something about major contributors to this article? They are too reluctant and too arrogant to think rationally. --George Ho (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There is not much I could "do" about the contributors, nor do I believe something needs to be done. I could not find evidence of arrogance - can you point out specific diffs? Furthermore, while I disagree with them, they do make a good point about the awards conferring notability. I'm kind of a WP:GNG purist and would say that an award without significant coverage in secondary sources does not bestow notability, but we have to accept that other schools of thought exist, and this time they will probably carry the day - even if there is no consensus to keep it a separate article, a consensus to move it seems unlikely. You have already drawn attention to the discussion at WT:WikiProject Television; now I'd let the discussion run its course. To be blunt, unless I miss something, any attempt to escalate the effort and to "do something" about the other editors could easily turn out to be a WP:BOOMERANG. Huon (talk) 18:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

How come notability is mentioned? As I told you, notability is stepped aside, so content is discussed. --George Ho (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

As for the arrogance part, [1], [2], [3], [4]. --George Ho (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, notability is important to the decision on whether to have a separate article or not. If the topic is notable on its own (and there are sufficient sources to verify its content, which isn't at issue here), we should have an article; otherwise, we shouldn't. I don't think there's any policy or guideline indicating we should not have articles on topics that are individually notable if those topics are also covered as part of a list. (You argue that there's too little content for a separate article, and that might indeed be one exception to the rule, but I don't think there's that little content - we'll probably end up with a decent stub.)

Regarding the arrogance, I see none. Those all seem rather plain edits and edit summaries. Of course edit summaries aren't as elaborate as full talk page comments and thus may seem curt, but I'm willing to assume good faith and expect the editors could have provided more elaborate rationales for their edits on request. Huon (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:articles for deletion/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter: Policy triumps guideline. --George Ho (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but what policy is this article supposed to violate? WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Since we mention the episode's reception (those two awards) and its high ratings, that does not seem to apply. I agree more would be better, but it's not just a plot summary. Huon (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, still WP:merging applies: one of reasons is duplicate. That's it. --George Ho (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not a policy, and the "duplicate" reason is "duplicate topic", which does not apply. The "text" or "context" reasons seem more appropriate; I'd argue for one of those, but whether the article is "very short" is debatable, and it doesn't take bad faith or arrogance to disagree with us on that point. In summary, I'd consider the article a borderline case, and while I personally favor a merger, I have come to accept that community consensus on such borderline cases often disagrees with my opinion. Huon (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

When this discussion is over with administrator closing, then I shall propose a straw poll on excluding non-Writing awards from notability of any episode. How is that? The Directing... the only review that says positive about directing is more valuable than a mere award, actually. --George Ho (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Oxford Univ Press?

Forget OUP.... There is a new source for scholarly information... Guess what it is before you click on it... You will never guess. I was really surprised. History2007 (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I seem to miss your point. That's Facebook's Wikipedia mirror; so what? I don't have a Facebook account; maybe there's more than meets my eye? Huon (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

My point was that I never expected anyone on face book to be able to spell Josephus, let alone have a page on it. I saw it as yet another sign of the great siphon off, say this. It is no longer a question of mirroring, but siphoning. Google started by getting the node names, in time they (or others, say Bing or DuckDuckGo) will siphon off the rest and build a Wolfram Alpha type engine with content that is safe from vandalism. Note that Google allows user yes/no comments but no modifications. Clever, click on Feedback. It is just a question of when, not if siphoning will turn into vandal free versions. History2007 (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Gledden

You declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Gledden twice for a lack of reliable sources. The author asked about the rationale on the help desk. I'll reply and address some issues with the articles, but since the article gives as sources several newspaper and magazine articles and some BBC and Radio Sheffield radio coverage, it does not seem to lack reliable sources, and I believe the lack of inline citations on its own is not supposed to be a reason to decline a submission. Could you please explain your rationale at the help desk? Huon (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hiyas Huon,

I think i can explain this one rather easily - the review in question is 25 days old as of current, and the article has since been improved by the editor. The revision i reviewed was this one, which didn't contain any reliable sources. As far as i can tell the article is currently waiting for a new review of the changed content. Perhaps the editor is simply a bit confused that the old decline templates are left behind? Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 15:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Huon (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The AfC Help Page job is yours

1. The pay sucks.
2. Some of the editors are pricks.
3. Some of the editors do not speak English.
4. Most of the reviewers are jerks.(e.g. User:Dcshank), but you are Soooooo F**king good at it.  Diplomatic, vs. me ("Your article sucks, you suck, go somewhere and die"), precise in instructions vs. me ("Duh"), extremely knowledgable, or at least good at finding the answers in this mess they call the Wiki vs. me ("Somebody here know what to do?").  You have impressed me and others.

Congratulations on your promotion.
 :- ) Don 16:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, though I'm not sure whether that's a promotion or punishment. :-) Huon (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

De Hirsh Margules Redirect

I don't know if you noted this, but another alternative spelling of the last name is "Margolis." "Margolies" would be another one. Some of the art sites also include the first name "Dehusch" or "De Husch." AdrianLesher (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Those misspellings seem extremely rare. Google didn't produce more than ten hits for any variant with those names except "DeHusch Margolies", and that one was still at less than a hundred hits. I'm amazed at the art world's inability to correctly spell his name and the wide range of misspellings, but I don't think we need a redirect from every one of them. Huon (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Just maybe...

Please tell me this is not a puppet. The writing style is similar, and once I mentioned it might be a puppet on a page, it just avoided that one. And looks way too familiar. The salad may not have been consumed... Too early to know for sure... Anyway, time will tell... History2007 (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on him, but I have't seen the Christ Myth area of Salad's operations and cannot compare. I'm utterly astounded by the volume of edits on Arthur Drews, though. 500 edits over the last ten days? I can't decide whether that's impressive or obsessive... Huon (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That used to be the M/O of salad. Would use many edits to clean up past history. No proof yet, but just looks too familiar, the writing style in the fire of Rome is too similar and is beginning to look like a match. I first noticed it here, mentioned puppet on the talk page and the edits stopped cold. Not sure yet, but time will tell... History2007 (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Minor other point. I am not sure if you know of this tool. Just FYI. History2007 (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Hero Fund

Huon, the Globe & Mail article is an editor's response to a reader's question, not a reader's suggestion. Further, the news release from the Governor General of Canada should count as a reputable source. The Canadian Hero Fund AFC h\should meet your criteria for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.209.133 (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail article says: "We asked other readers for their suggestions, and reader Zach Dumont suggested the Canadian Hero Fund." How is that not a reader's suggestion? The entire rest of the Hero Fund coverage is a quote by Hero Fund campaign coordinator Abby Vaidyanathan. The Globe and Mail hasn't written a single sentence of its own about the Hero Fund. The Governor General similarly does not provide significant coverage, and I have doubts whether the Governor General is a secondary source on the honours he is awarding. Is there some newspaper coverage of the Jubilee Medal? Huon (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The press release is replicated on numerous newspaper's websites, yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.21.161 (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Huon, would the addition of this article to the Canadian Hero Fund article meet your criteria for notability? http://eedition.whatsupmuskoka.com/doc/Whats-Up-Muskoka/wum_hvl_lob_apr4_2012/2012040301/2.html#2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.21.161 (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That's definitely an independent, reliable secondary source, and while it doesn't say too much about the Hero Fund, it does give some useful details, including the founding date and the size of one donation (while that's not as helpful as information about the Fund's total revenues or expenses, it gives an indication of the size of the Fund - they're not raking in millions, but it's not just pocket change either). It's definitely much better than many of the draft's current sources, including the Globe and Mail article. Whether it's enough to satisfy notability is not quite clear to me - the "significant coverage" requirement is usually interpreted to mean "more than one source", and the others given in the draft are rather weak (mostly primary sources by organizations directly involved in fundraising for the Fund). If that source is added and the draft resubmitted, it could go either way.

There are organizations which review and rate charities for efficiency, trasparency and similar criteria. If one of those organizations has reviewed the Hero Fund and produced a non-trivial report (more than just "yes, they exist"), that might also provide a helpful reference. Huon (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

How about the sources listed on this part of Canadian Hero Fund's website? http://www.herofund.ca/press/articlesandinterviews/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.21.161 (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Those look good. I get several 404 errors, but the Wayback Machine might help with those. And I can't play the radio interview, but that might be a software problem on my end. The rest, especially the Toronto Sun (not just a local paper) and the CottageCountryNow (provides some financial details) are the kind of sources we're looking for. With all of them, notability should be firmly established; now it's a question of rewriting the article so it reflects what the sources say. We may end up with a shorter article, but a much better-sourced one. Huon (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the financials on their website, the numbers in the cottage country article are out of date - they have raised around 300k, as opposed to the 15k in that article. How do you suggest establishing that fact without a secondary source? They are a registered charity in Canada so I'm not sure why a reasonable person would doubt the veracity of their annual report as a source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.21.161 (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

follow up to feedback about Brad Burton article

Thanks for your feedback re sources. I have gone back through my references and just want to check what makes a source independent and how many independent sources would be needed to make a subject notable? As a journalist of 20+ years' experience, I would always count a BBC interview or interview in a national newspaper as an independent source. The journalists would have checked any claims made by the interviewee prior to broadcast/publication and would only credit them with authority if it stood up and if the interviewee's position and claims met their editorial guidelines. Surely 4 BBC interviews, 3 features in The Times and an interview in The Guardian all count as independent sources?

References no's 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 are all independent sources showing that Burton is hired as an inspirational speaker. I included podcasts recorded at business conferences as further proof that Burton is hired as an inspirational speaker.

References no's 24 and 25 give independent assessments of reader reviews of Burton's books

Ref no 15 is an independent source listing Burton in the credits for Gamesmaster

I am about to add in another newspaper reference to highlight Burton's campaigning.

I understand what you have said about weblinks that don't list Burton. I used Richard Branson's wiki entry as my template. His schools etc are listed, even though the websites make no mention of him. But I can see now that they are merely weblinks, not references, so I will change this.

I would still appreciate your advice to clarify what is meant by an independent source and how many references are needed.

many thanks

Siobhanstirling (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome! Need your help though!

I´m not sure what´s happening to article I tried to create yesterday. It seems to be under review but I can´t locate it and I don´t know how long it takes.

I thought that this would be solved by registering myself and I thought I did, unless there´s osmething I´m missing out on.

The article I created and want to be published, which is floating around somewhere, is about Valerie Miles.

Encatedrales (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Please come participate in the new discussion on the exodus.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Huon. You have new messages at benzband's talk page. -- benzband (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

One more cleaned up

FYI, on my way out, I was touching up unfinished items, so cleaned up one more article in the Josephus/Tacitus genre, namely Historicity of Jesus. Now Ministry of Jesus, Chronology of Jesus and this make a trio which establishes the timelines, sources etc. and rely on the Josephus page. But in its own right, you may be interested in the Pauline section of Historicity of Jesus page - I came across a few interesting new things as I researched that... And if you manage to watch those as I slow down that will be great. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Declined redirect request: 3TG, 3T's

In regards to the declined redirect request for 3TG and 3T's, please perform the following searches:

https://www.google.com/search?q=3tg+conflict+minerals (~12,800 results)

https://www.google.com/search?q=3ts+conflict+minerals (~34,300 results)

By the way, is there a better way to respond to your request for additional sources? The entry on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects states "This request has been declined. Please do not modify it." even though there is an active edit link for the entry. Should I use this edit link to respond?

Thanks

GDW13 (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, now I feel stupid. I did perform Google searches of my own, but I managed to miss both the Brookings Institute and the CSIS - the hits I looked at seemed very dubious no-name organizations, some of them apparently interested in selling "3TG" merchandise. I have created 3Ts (that seemed the most common punctuation), but 3TG is protected against creation; I have asked for creation by an admin on the talk page.

The most common way to provide the sources would indeed be on the redirect request page by editing the relevant section (or by starting a new section with the same request and the sources provided). After all, the decline message explicitly asks for sources - it would be absurd if we then weren't interested in a reply. When you do modify a declined request, please de-collapse it by removing the {{afc-c|d}} at the top and the {{afc-c|b}} at the bottom of that section; otherwise your changes are likely to be missed by other editors.

Thank you for your good work! Huon (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Steam Bandits: Outpost

Hi there. Thank you for alerting me to the user's concerns about my review of Steam Bandits: Outpost. I have added the following to the help desk and hope it helps to clarify my thoughts on the article. If you disagree, though, I'm won't be bothered at all if you go ahead and create the page.

Hello. I was the reviewer who declined your article. I have a few concerns that I will elaborate on here. First, the game does not yet exist so you are seeking to create a submission about the potential development of a game. Most of the articles cited are about the Kickstarter page which is set up to try to raise money for the development of the game and the proposed nature of the game and almost all of the information for the articles, by necessity, comes directly from Jason Fader, head of Iocane Studios, who is trying to launch the game. The submission, therefore, is not so much about a video game but a proposed video game and the fundraising campaign that has been put in place to help create it. So, in my view, the article is more of a promotional article or advertisement than an article about a video game that is in existence and has had independent review and commentary about it in reliable sources. Once the game is created, it may well receive such independent, secondary commentary and you may wish to resubmit your article at that time. Other editors, however, may take a different view so you are welcome to revise your article and resubmit it. Your talk link isn't working here so I will add these comments to the article itself to ensure that you get them. Sorry I couldn't accept your submission at this time. Snowysusan 11:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 00:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Re Arnold Anthony Schmidt

Okay, as suggested, I've added several journalistic sources. Fussy Scholar 23:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fussy Scholar (talk • contribs)

WP:AFC/R

I disagree. They're only different versions of what already exists. Why are Poland, Greece and Norway acceptable but Germany, Brazil or Belgium are not? Why is Category:South Park (TV series) navigational boxes fine but Top Model, which has an enormous amount of navigational boxes, not?

And how on earth can it be that Category:United Kingdom television personalities navigational boxes, Category:United Kingdom television network and channel navigational boxes, Category:United Kingdom television series navigational boxes and Category:Ireland television series navigational boxes were accepted a matter of hours ago, but the similar Category:Ireland television network and channel navigational boxes and Category:Ireland television personalities navigational boxes have now been refused. Someone came along and did those ones earlier and left the others. Then someone came along and refused the lot of what remained. So those only escaped that because they had already been done. I know "otherstuffexists" (an essay, not a policy) but this is hardly a reasonable, rational use of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.197 (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Otherstuffexists, which you persistently make use of, is an essay. Ignore all rules is a policy and Wikipedia is not (or is not supposed to be) a bureaucracy. This is not common sense at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.197 (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Template categorization. In my opinion most of those other categories should not have been created either, and I, for one, won't create more just because someone has created the first few (not even if I'm the someone myself). WP:IAR cuts both ways and hardly can be used to argue someone else should do something. Huon (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

And while I'm at it, I personally consider the creation of lots of tiny categories for the sake of completing a categorization scheme just the kind of useless make-work that bureaucracies are infamous for. Huon (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/GYULA KOI: check

Hi, my question and your answer are disappeared. You gave me a link, which must to embedding to the top of the page of the contrib, if I would like to a review by a special review... Can you help me? tHanks for your kindness. Alkabala (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I have re-added the question and replied at the help desk. I have also re-submitted the draft for a review (it will take about two weeks until it gets reviewed because of our massive backlog of unreviewed articles, though). However, there are still some issues that should be addressed before it's reviewed; I mentioned the issue of inline citations and footnotes at the help desk, and you should also try to avoid using primary sources, such as Koi's own articles, as references (and there are still several of those). Since I cannot read Hungarian I cannot help that much with the inline citations - I don't have much of a chance of finding out which part of the article is based on which source. Huon (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness, and your valuable advice. I am going to improve the problematic parts, and I would like to use inline citations and footnotes, too. Alkabala —Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I can't see your message:-S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkabala (talk • contribs) 17:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I can see, it was the older one. Alkabala (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:RSN post

There is already a post on the same issue, namely Ehrman 2 sections above, by yours truly. Maybe you want to comment out or delete yours to avoid duplication? The RSN crowd usually wants all the items listed clearly, that is why I listed them that way. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Now I feel stupid for not looking; I've merged the sections. I'd have said that Ehrman and Van Voorst should be sufficient to settle the issue and thus didn't bother with all the others, but the more the merrier. Huon (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

On the Road Again

Maybe looks familiar now... Spencer Kennard 1948, etc. Was our old friend's favorite item... History2007 (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries, they were all blocked again...He even went back to handing out Marcion quotes... History2007 (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm impressed by your demonstrated ability to spot him so early, and it's good to be rid of the interference once more. Thanks for your effort! Now I'll only have to listen to that song to fully savour the reference... Huon (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry I can not type the early clues here, for he may read it... They gave him away early on but when he used Kennard and Marcion it was 110% sure. History2007 (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Huon

Whacked! 99.229.41.79 (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Unwhacked! RashersTierney (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Redwhacked!99.229.41.79 (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

RashersTierney! I just wanna whack him! 99.229.41.79 (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain what I did that you disagree with? Otherwise this is pointless. Huon (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Drop the axe right now on religion in national symbols

Drop the axe right now! 99.229.41.79 (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion at Talk:Religion in national symbols. Huon (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Articles for Creation barnstar
		Like everyone else who awarded you a barnstar, everytime I get onto AFC, you're already there! It seems that no one has given you an AFC barnstar before (unless it's in your archives). In any case, you well and truly deserve this as probably the most active participant in WikiProject Articles for Creation. Cheers! Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, despite your efforts, AFC submissions is about to top 1300 submissions! It's time to start declining or accepting! ;) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Sport in Clonakilty

Category:Sport in Clonakilty, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aly Jetha: I need help

hi Huon,

I hope I am using this correctly. Thanks for your review of my article on Aly Jetha. You said I only listed 2 reliable sources but I counted at least 4. Can you tell me which ones are considered reliable. Also, to your second point, what type of information should I be pulling from these articles?

thank you,

Sara — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarasepidzadeh (talk • contribs) 00:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me describe the seven sources in detail:

• Midtronics acquires Intra Technologies assets doesn't mention Jetha at all.
• I have no idea what the second source is supposed to be, but the page linked to doesn't mention Jetha or the "40 under 40" list.
• I've counted the Business in Vancouver article among the reliable sources, and it does provide a rather thorough portrait of Jetha, but the draft doesn't really use it: The draft completely ignores Jetha's education at Berkeley and his first work experience at Bain, and the BIV article could also serve as a source on Intra Technologies that actually credits Jetha.
• The Vancouver Sun article is also a good source that provides background information, for example on Jetha's birth in Ndola, Zambia, and on his family's background. Again the draft ignores much of the information.
• The two pages from his own company are primary sources, and I believe they don't mention Jetha anyway.
• YouTube videos are usually not considered reliable, especially if the uploader is not the source of the video. Unless I miss something, Shabnam Rezaei doesn't mention Jetha by name anyway (I expect he's the husband she refers to once - the draft should be a little more explicit on that and use the BIV article as a source for Jetha's marriage). Even if she did mention Jetha, his wife wouldn't be an independent source anyway.

In summary, BIV and the Vancouver Sun are reliable sources, but we could draw an entire (short) section on "early life and education" from those sources and also use them as substitutes for some of the more problematic sources. The rest are a broken link, two primary sources, one that's reliable but doesn't mention Jetha at all, and the YouTube video which has a combination of those problems. Huon (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for the Irish presidential election, 2011

Category:Candidates for the Irish presidential election, 2011, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Irish politicians by century

Category:Irish politicians by century, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Give Me a Ring Sometime (Cheers)

Merger discussion is in place. Join in to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Poland television navigational boxes

Category:Poland television navigational boxes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Greece television navigational boxes

Category:Greece television navigational boxes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Magnificent work at AfC

I have been looking over the assistance you've been giving people at the AfC help page -- a page I admit I just discovered today. The work you have been doing there is truly remarkable, and a valiant effort to make up for the deficiencies of the original reviewing. You are saying the same things to the new users that I would, and therefore I naturally think you are extremely accurate and perceptive. :) I have myself been working trying to educate the inadequate reviewers, and I see what you're doing as an excellent complement. I'm going to leave the help page to you, and go on with the way I've been finding things in the hope we can between us reach more people.

I want to ask you something, though. I think it would help your work to be an admin; the extra weight it can add to a recommendation is sometimes useful, and you could yourself remove the material called to your attention that needs removal. I would like to nominate you. Reply by email if you like. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that's quite an honor. I have thought about it, and I believe becoming an admin might indeed be helpful - less because it gives more weight to my recommendations (it technically shouldn't do so anyway) but because it allows me to more efficiently deal with the work I stumble upon that requires the tools, such as some page moves or deleting pages on author request. I'd also be glad to help out with WP:RM or WP:RFPP if they need additional help - that seems just my line of WikiGnome work.

I heard some horror stories about the shark tank that WP:RFA supposedly has become. I'm currently reading up on the RfA process itself; do you have any special advice? Huon (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

On a more technical note: I'll be traveling next week and will probably be less present on Wikipedia; it might be better not to launch the RfA before October 22. Huon (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Just to throw my tuppence in, on numerous occasions I've seen questions on the AfC help desk, not had time to answer them and thought "never mind, Huon will do it" - which happens all the time, so I'd agree with everyone else who says your work there is invaluable. For what it's worth, I was talking about WP:RFA with Tom Morris over the weekend, and I've discussed it with Dennis Brown in the past, and I know WP is starved of admins at the moment, and really could do with some more, and consequently when one turns up everyone and his pet dog contributes their thoughts. You need to have a thorough grounding of wikipedia policies - the most recent RFA for Σ kicked off with a question about applicable copyright and notability of an article. From your work at AfC, you should have no problems with the latter. Some people will look at your entire contributions history and pull any minor infraction to pieces - my attitude to that is if people place more importance about minor infractions than obtaining willing and trustworthy volunteers, then they should not complain about the lack of admins. (FWIW I'm not considering adminship right now due to a lack of time and commitment, but I'll support other people going through). --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the laurels, but that's definitely true in the other direction as well - earlier today I decided to go for lunch before replying to a couple of questions, and when I returned, you had already taken care of them - and that's just the most recent example. As an aside, I found this reply particularly fitting: Your German is about as... interesting... as the original author's English. ;-) Was that a machine translation? Huon (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No, that was a demonstration of my best German (which isn't very much being born and bred British) and attempt to practice a foreign language! It's been well over 20 years since I did it at school. Please tell me I didn't write completely incomprehensible gibberish. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Huon. You have new messages at Go Phightins!'s talk page.
Message added 21:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Go Phightins! (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peter Prior (Gulumba).
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Sionk (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Not my draft; I just forgot to change the author in the submission template when I "submitted" it by repairing a ref tag. I've notified the author. Huon (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops! it was an automated notification. Feel free to remove! Sionk (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Didn't mean to step on you at Salins

Greetings, hadn't meant to step on you there at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gunars Salins; I should've put up a "working" tag in retrospect. I had a ton of changes that hit conflict, so I reverted yours, put mine in, and then checked yours against the previous to try to bring over all your changes, which I believe I pretty much did. My bust for not advertising I was doing a lengthy fix, and hope I didn't come across as rude. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, good work! Thanks! I'll just have to reword my reply at the help desk, that's all. Huon (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policies and Procedures

Hello! I did not read everything but your post on the challenges is really really good!

Cheffounet (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad something I wrote was helpful, but I'm not sure what you refer to. What challenges? Huon (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Shabbat Chol Hamoed Redirects

Huon, thank you for approving. Based on how Shabbat Chol HaMoed is written up in each of those two places, I can see why you made the call you did. However ... There are three reasons that Chol HaMoed#Shabbat CholHaMoed, as I proposed, is the better target than Special Shabbat#Shabbat Chol HaMoed.

1. The concept of a "Special Shabbat" is a little bit artificial, in that it doesn't really exist per se as a religious concept in Judaism. It's more of a catch-all description of convenience to capture different Shabbatot that vary a little from the norm. In distinction, "Chol HaMoed" is a very real religious event–the intermediate days of the festival.
2. Because of this, someone wanting to learn something about Shabbat Chol HaMoed is almost certainly wanting to understand it in the context of Chol HaMoed (and the rest of the holiday). It is far less likely that they are looking for information in the context of other, mostly unrelated, Shabbatot.
3. I did put a "see also" at the Shabbat CholHamoed section of Chol HaMoed; it's not so hard to jump if one wants to look at that, too.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Your reasoning about context does make sense. Since the two instances of coverage link to each other, there's not much gained or lost by changing the redirect targets anyway; I've performed the change.

As an aside, you could have done so yourself; in fact, you could have created the redirects yourself entirely. WP:AFC/R is only necessary for editors who don't have an account since IP editors cannot create new pages. So please be bold in improving Wikipedia. Of course you're also welcome to continue using WP:AFC/R, especially if you'd like a second pair of eyes to look at your suggested redirects. Anyway, thanks for your contribution! Huon (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I remembered I could be bold ... after I already submitted the template. <rueful grin> But once you pointed those redirects I thought it would be rude of me to change them without discussing with you first. Thanks very much. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Answer to your question on my Talk/Watch/... page

Wikipedia's ideals are about to die.

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/23/is_wikipedia_going_commercial/

But utopian ideals often become diluted when put into practice on a large scale and inevitably fail.

-> like in business a large scale needs a workflow as a backbone

To bring Wikipedia back to an oasis from commercialization, it’s not the commissioned editors that should be given attention, but rather the reasons for their success — abrasive discussions, convoluted guidelines, impersonal communication, and so on. In other words, people would be much less likely to pay for an edit if learning the ways of Wiki-world was a painless task. Wikipedians may be their own worst enemy; if they can’t learn to get along, the empire they’ve created may deteriorate.

-> publishers of new posts need a Social BPM workflow explaining them on a more friendly manner how to prepare their posts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheffounet (talk • contribs) 23:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems a little pessimistic to me. Firstly, Wikipedia has committed massive resources to helping new editors. There's the Article Wizard, the AfC help desk, the Teahouse, the feedback system and so on, and the users involved in helping new editors tend to be among the more polite and patient ones (if I say so myself). Of course that's still not perfect, but it certainly is a step in the right direction. Secondly, I'm not sure paid editors are all that influential. If their creations don't just linger in a dark and forgotten corner, they're likely to be sooner or later brought in line with Wikipedia's guidelines on a neutral point of view. Furthermore, those who pay for an advertisement "article" probably wouldn't edit Wikipedia on their own anyway.

If you have questions on your own work or proposals for the improvement of Wikipedia, please go ahead - my talk page is probably the wrong venue for the latter, though. Huon (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello!

What is the right venue then? As I said the Wikipedia editors are ok, very competent, nice, patient, constructive, etc...

Business processes and systems are my area of expertise. Regardless of your efforts the Wikipedia ideals are about to die within max two years if you do not invest in a technology and procedure overhaul. Current editing procedures can be compared to Assembler programming language although we have now HTML5 to design web pages.

That's the basic idea of Social BPM. Introduce smart new generation systems but leave peoplen in control.

I am ready to develop a concept of Social BPM for Wikipedia and to coordinate the set up of a technological proof of concept.

Free of charge because the idea of Wikipedia is great. Knowledge sharing should be accessible to as many people as possible, free of charge, free of commercials.

Here my site http://www.social-bpm.co

And if you think my comments are utopic then let me simply update you in one or two weeks so you can see what happens if one works in Social BPM mode.

Best Regards

Cheffounet (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

For such suggestions I'd try the village pump, in particular its proposals subpage, or maybe first the idea lab to explain your suggestions before launching a yes-or-no proposal. Technical changes would have to be implemented by the Wikimedia foundation's programmers; I have no idea how to contact them, but I expect the people at the village pump will know. One word of warning, though: Those people tend to be among Wikipedia's most experienced, and they tend to be a little less restrained there than when dealing with new editors. See for example the proposal that degenerated into something Monty Pythonesque. Wikipedia does have its abrasive discussions and convoluted guidelines, and while the village pump by far is not the worst example, it's much less laid-back than, say, the teahouse. As an aside, I had a look at your website, and much of it is hidden behind a password request, including even the "contact" page. The rest didn't tell me all that much (the photos are beautiful, though). Huon (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Salvation

There is a difference between Catholic-Orthodox teaching and Protestant regarding the nature of salvation. The edit you are promoting does not take account of this. 81.106.127.14 (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I've replied at the article's talk page. Huon (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Colours (Musical Group)

Dear Huon. Thank you for explaining what happened to Colours article. I am new to this and appreciate your help. I will have to search for written published articles. I think they were covered when the music was released in LA Times, etc. but will have to research it. Thanks again for the detailed explanation. brosed brosed (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for covering for me, I forget the {{subst:coin-notice}} when I filed that section. Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)