User talk:Huon

Talk page archives

/Archive1 December 2005 to September 2006 /Archive2 Non-local numbers: A discussion. September 2006 /Archive3 September 2006 to November 2008 /Archive4 November 2008 to January 2011 /Archive5 February 2011 to May 2012 /Archive6 June 2012 to October 2012 /Archive7 November 2012 to February 2013 /Archive8 March 2013 to May 2013 /Archive9 June 2013 to August 2013 /Archive10 September 2013 to November 2013 /Archive11 December 2013 to March 2014 /Archive12 April 2014 to June 2014 /Archive13 July 2014 to September 2014 /Archive14 October 2014 to December 2014 /Archive15 January 2015 to March 2015 /Archive16 April 2015 to June 2015 /Archive17 July 2015 to September 2015 /Archive18 October 2015 to December 2015 /Archive19 January 2016 to March 2016 /Archive20 April 2016 to June 2016 /Archive21 July 2016 to September 2016 /Archive22 October 2016 to December 2016

Happy New Year Huon!

Happy New Year!

Hello Huon:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, JustBerry (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Huon}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Requests for histmerge on Kygo, Flume and Matoma discographies

In case you didn't see it on TheMagnificentist's talk page, may I request that the original history of the redirect be merged into these pages? I do feel it's necessary to show that those redirects were created months before TheMagnificentist performed an unnecessary move to take credit. Ss112 04:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Ss112, I have merged the histories (rather messily), and you're now listed as the creator of those three redirects. Huon (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. In future, I'll request a histmerge instead of engaging in moving pages around like other users... Ss112 06:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for histmerge on Let's Hurt Tonight

Hey Huon, I reverted a bunch of IPs recreating content that failed WP:NSONGS at multiple times on Let's Hurt Tonight (OneRepublic song), also because it was being created at a namespace with unnecessary disambiguation. So I then added its peaks, fixed basic formatting, cut out unreferenced information, tagged it for its errors and created it at Let's Hurt Tonight. Would you be able to merge the histories (without merging the content that failed WP:NSONGS), maintaining that I created the redirect in September before Let's Hurt Tonight (OneRepublic song) was created in December? I get it has a more complex history than the above discographies, but hopefully it's still manageable. Thanks. Ss112 12:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This guy

Looked like Kingshowman even before that rant. Could you please extend the block and relieve him of TPA? Thanks! GAB^gab 04:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

		The Guidance Barnstar
		message Nerd1a4i (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Awarded for your hard work and patience in the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help ^connect. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Nerd1a4i, thanks, it's my pleasure. Huon (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for merge of Don't Leave (Snakehips song) and Don't Leave (Snakehips and MØ song)

Hey Huon, can you please merge these two pages? I contested the move of Don't Leave (Snakehips and MØ song) out of a stubborn user's sandbox (as they have flatly refused to copypaste their content over a redirect and always request that their sandbox creation be part of a page's history), but it was ignored by another admin and the fact that I created the redirect was erased. However, Don't Leave (Snakehips song) already existed, and now we have two pages. Can my original creation of the former redirect be kept in place and the pages merged (and histmerged?) Thanks. Ss112 23:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay nevermind, the move was reverted, as I contested that the page that was moved was even notable yet at all. Ss112 23:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining why those redirect creation credits are this important to you? Redirects don't have any meaningful content beyond the name of the target article; if an article is later created in place of a redirect, the article's content won't depend on the redirect's. Thus there's no need to maintain the redirect as part of the page history from a licensing point of view. In fact, such redirects are routinely deleted to make way for a move (see WP:CSD#G6); requiring others to copy-paste their content is not the way to go. Huon (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not that I "require" it of anybody, I just contest this type of thing because I don't understand why users have to erase redirects because they think they're not being credited, when it is recorded in the page history that they created the content where the redirect is. That's the argument they put forth—"I created the content, so my name should be first", but it's never anything major. It just appears several more users these days refuse to copypaste their content out of a sandbox, when it seems like that was more prevalent on Wikipedia in the past. In instances like this, they can type two sentences, deem it notable and request that it be moved. I don't think that's right or a very good practice. As you saw with what TheMagnificentist did, users mostly go about it the entirely wrong way and do it in an underhanded attempt to pretend like they were the first user to come up with the idea to generate content for something, when the maintaining of the redirect in the history acknowledges another user had already deemed it a good idea to target the page elsewhere before substantial content could be created for it. That may be an insignificant acknowledgement, and yes, I get the mere act of typing a page target on an uncreated page and clicking "save" is not necessarily worthy of credit all the time, but I don't get why it's necessary to erase either. It appears stubborn to me to want to erase the fact that another user created a page, even a redirect, before you. Ss112 23:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me just say that moving a page over a redirect is explicitly mentioned as a valid reason for deletion of the recirect per above. Copy-and-paste moves, on the other hand, are something to be fixed: WP:CUTPASTE. I don't think what you propose here is considered best practice. Huon (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I know what you're referring to and I know of WP:CSD#G6, but that just feels like a formal process for existing pages (as in, "this page is unnecessarily disambiguated", or "this established page should be moved there because [reason]") to me, not "I created a tiny article, here admins, move it out of my private sandbox!" A page history belonging entirely to one user doesn't seem like something that needs to be maintained. There seems to be some unspoken consensus among users to copypaste content out of a sandbox and over a redirect, rather than requesting that a page in their userspace (and any history that page may have, including if they worked on other unrelated pages on it, which would be confusing to any user looking at a page's history if its moved) be kept. In this case, it just appears here that WP:CSD#G6 supports users who request pages be moved because they want to say they created another page from scratch, even if that means erasing an "unimportant" redirect history. Ss112 01:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Dan Wagner - help request

Hi, apologies for dragging you back into this but can you take a look at the Dan Wagner page again. Another edit war has broken out. New editors are failing to engage on the talk page. Thanks in advance. 188.29.165.91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Huon, it appears you have been taken advantage of by the serial vandal on Dan Wagner - User:Ol King Col who also makes anonymous edits under User:185.145.156.53. He obviously mistakenly edited under his User:Ol King Col name by accident at 17:17 today before reverting to the anonymous editor. He has been a serial vandal on Dan Wagner since 2014 when he was fired from one of Wagner's businesses. It is clear that the intro is unrepresentative of the subject in that Dan Wagner has created two businesses that sold for over $1b and others but the intro presented gives the impression only of failure. You need to review the page before reversing the edits in the intro and those that were added by me today are representative and factual. Please revisit. User:Ol King Col is clearly more adept than others in the ways of Wikipedia but that doesn't and shouldn't allow him the ability to deface wiki pages.

If you look at the intro now, with the text 'and numerous other successful technology businesses' being replaced by 'its subsequent 95% share price drop in 2000 when the dot com bubble burst' is case in point. The dot com bubble bursting affected 99% of all public company tech stocks. All lost 90%+ of value that day so to represent the business in this way, when it was sold for $3.55 billion recently, is clearly misleading. Also the link to a National Portrait Gallery painting of the subject bears no relevance to the comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.78.117 (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I protected the page to stop an edit war. I won't comment on the content since I've acted in an administrative capacity on the page. If there's an issue with the content's neutrality, you are welcome to raise that issue at the noticeboard for biographies of living persons. Also, how do you know that User:Ol King Col was fired from one of Dan Wagner's businesses in 2014? You may want to take a look at WP:OUTING. I also expect you've seen my comments on the article's talk page regarding WP:SPI; continuing to accuse another editor of sockpuppetry and vandalism without evidence beyond that of a content dispute can be considered a personal attack and may see you blocked. Huon (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Huon's support has been more than helpful. He answered to all of my questions and he offered me a comprehensive walk-through on how to build my first Wiki article. FirewalkerSpirit (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

hi u deleted my page

hi u deleted my page . can u give me my typed material from the page krishna_prasanthi

please can u do it fast!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutansai (talk • contribs) 02:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

\come on man!! give reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutansai (talk • contribs) 04:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Nutansai, I have undeleted the page and moved it to User:Nutansai/Krishna prasanthi so you can get the text for your personal use. Please take from that page what you want and tell me when you're done so I can delete it again. The page is totally unsuitable for Wikipedia for a couple of reasons. Firstly, there are no reliable sources at all. Secondly, the tone is unsuitable for an encyclopedia - I understand you have a high opinion of your mother, but phrases like "she is a noble minded, kind and balanced person" have no place on Wikipedia. Thirdly, most of the rest is a CV, not an encyclopedia article. For these reasons, the page would need to be rewritten in its entirety to become a valid encyclopedia article - and the first two reasons are grounds for deletion. Please do not write a new article based on this content; it would only get deleted again, and it might even see your account blocked from editing. You may want to take a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest - writing about your relatives generally is not a good idea because it's difficult to do so from a neutral point of view. Huon (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

thanks HUON for your advices. I will ensure them next time. I have copied the document. you can delete it

Isis (journal) cover image

Dear Huon,

Thank you so much! I finally managed to replace the cover image on the Isis journal page.

Best, ManEdit — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManEdit (talk • contribs) 13:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Request on 10:50:02, 18 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Kaykris

• Kaykris (talk · contribs)
  • User:Kaykris/sandbox/Evidence-based Anatomy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Huon,

Thank you very much for your comments.

The center for Evidence-based Anatomy, Sports & Orthopedic Research has been named such when it was created to look for evidence regarding musculoskeletal anatomy and disease. It started with small prospective clinical studies that took 2 and 3 years respectively to be published: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21856145 (in 2011) and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24499538 in 2012 (online first). Then its first orthopedic meta-analyses appeared on 2013: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23653955 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24162582. Since the work has been mainly focused on anatomic meta-analyses; the center has been recently named institute and its anatomy department has been labeled as a center.

Indeed both articles that you have mentioned dealt with morphological anatomy; however, their authors looked for anatomical structures in very specific subpopulations such as athletes and schizophrenic patients. In fact, the aim of the center is to look for the normal anatomical structures and their variants in the whole human population. In other words, it is focused on normal anatomy and the variations observed in humans excluding confounders such as sport or disease or age... The goal is to generate weighted values (such as frequency, size...) that could serve as references of normality in morphological anatomy. It also serves to find correlation between anatomical variants and gender, side, ethnicity.. Such research in the field of normal anatomy is the missing pre-requisite needed when studying pathological anatomy or anatomy limited to a specific group. I have to add that these 2 MA were very partial; they used a single diagnostic tool which, in both cases, is not the reference when studying normal anatomy. Though the diagnostic tool was very appropriate to look for functional anatomy, the reference tool for morphological gross anatomy is dissection.

In case of such meta-analysis had been published earlier, I will happily remove the term first to be on the safe side.

Thank you again for all the effort you are taking for reviewing this draft. I wish to discuss all other comments and suggestions you may offer to make this paper publishable.

Cordially.

Kaykris

Kaykris (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)