Jump to content

User talk:Huon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 05:39, 4 June 2018 (Signing comment by Learnois - "→https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oakridge_International_School: new section"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk page archives

Highly recommend (at least a temporary) salting of Ak husky

Note to deleting admin, I originally left a request to have the article protected from creation on Ak husky after I saw that this article was created and deleted once. I find it suspicious that, even though the creator has now requested this article be deleted, he has repeatedly attempted to remove my salt tag, perhaps hoping to recreate the article again once the current one is deleted.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have already salted it for a week. We'll see if that suffices. Huon (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gabi

Hi Huon, I have now edited the article for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gabi_(company)

Is that OK?

Peter the pink (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Versatile scientist

[1] Did you mean "physician"? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First art listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect First art. Since you had some involvement with the First art redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You left something on my talk page, please see this.

{{subst:ANI-notice}}

Draft:Hitco Entertainment

Huon thank you for moving my draft page. I will take your great advice and actively work on the page to address notability. Blue2berry (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ella Sheppard

Re: "Draft:Ella Sheppard"... Several reliable references have been added. Is the article ready to re-submit? Please advise. Nina07011960 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Princeton catalog, this is to show the breadth of the repertoire of the Fisk Jubilee Singers. Ella Sheppard is not given credit as the arranger of the Spirituals. Nina07011960 (talk)

@Nina07011960: I left a rather detailed comment when I reviewed the page, giving specific examples of the issues that need to be improved (though the list of examples was not exhaustive, of course). If you have addressed those issues (everywhere, not just regarding those specific examples), the draft is ready to be resubmitted. To me, however, it seems you have not fixed those issues I mentioned in my comment. Many of the sources you added actually are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards (that includes Wikipedia itself), and several others do not mention Sheppard and thus cannot provide any information about her and have no place in an article about her. That was one of the issues I explicitly mentioned, and to me it seems it has gotten worse, not better. Huon (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "gotten worse"? I think your definition of "reliable sources," again, has not taken into account the difficulty in finding the archives of "Negro" publications online. Since you are not clear, all I can do is add more sources. You deleted information which was well documented and appeared in several sources. Nina07011960 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By "gotten worse" I mean that the number of references that don't mention Sheppard has increased. Those sources might be useful in articles on topics they actually discuss, but not in an article on Sheppard. Also, that's not "my definition" but Wikipedia's; both in my review of the draft and above I provided links that point to WP:Identifying reliable sources. I'm pretty sure I mentioned before that while Wikipedia requires sources to be published, they don't have to be published online. The Library of Congress should have archived every newspaper or magazine published in the US, "Negro" or otherwise. Huon (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. The only reference that doesn't mention Sheppard by name is the Princeton Catalog, which is there to show their repertoire. Which references are you referring to? Nina07011960 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add the accents for "protege"? Nina07011960 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nina07011960, at the bottom of the edit screen is an "insert" dropdown, and if you select "Latin" it will give you text with Latin inputs. If you know your Alt/ASCII codes, you could do Alt+1 3 0 to get é. The other option would be to copy/paste the accented letters from other uses online. Primefac (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
@Nina07011960: I don't see Sheppard mentioned in the excerpt from Queen Victoria's memoirs (reference 17), in the Dvořák American Heritage Association article (reference 19), the Guardian's Symphony Guide (reference 20) or the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on the New World Symphony (reference 21). Maybe you could quote short excerpts from those sources that mention her? The last two of those four sources were added after my review where I commented on the problem of sources that don't mention the subject of the article. Huon (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

dvoraknyc.org, Dvorak American Heritage..., and "Guardian..." references were added to show proof of the use of the Spiritual by Dvorak. Ditto for Brittanica.com. It mentions the name of the Spiritual, "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot," which was quoted in the Symphony. Nina07011960 (talk) I think this entry of the Queen Victoria memoirs is an edited version. Haven't been able to find the unedited version online. Nina07011960 (talk)

The specific statement those sources are cited for is: "It was the melody of Sheppard's arrangement of the spiritual "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot" that was sung to Czech composer Antonín Dvořák by his student Harry Burleigh in New York, which was quoted in the first movement of his Symphony from the New World." The sources might confirm that Burleigh sang that spiritual to Dvořák, but how do they confirm that it was Sheppard's arrangement? That part is the only connection between Dvořák and Sheppard, and it's not backed up. Huon (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheppard's arrangement was the only published arrangement at that time. Do I need to re-use the sources that show this? Nina07011960 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even that wouldn't help. How do you know that the version Burleigh sang was based on a published arrangement? The spiritual itself is much older, so why couldn't he have sung some traditional version?
You're trying to engage in original synthesis: Instead of summarizing what reliable published sources report about Sheppard, you have a preconceived notion what the draft should say and then try to make use of sources that, while none of them confirms your given text, confirm something each that, with good faith and combination, can be made into an almost-confirmation of your text. Wikipedia unfortunately does not accept original synthesis. If you want the article to say that Sheppard's work inspired Dvořák, you'll need to find a source that confirms that claim. Huon (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the Fisk Jubilee Singers pages, several sources state that Ella Sheppard's arrangement of the Spiritual became famous in the US because of their recording of "Swing Low..." I'm looking for evidence of Burleigh's use of her arrangement. Nina07011960 (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source:[1] Look at the dates. Nina07011960 (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another source: [2] Nina07011960 (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"George (White) began collecting and arranging these 'secret songs,' with the help of his secretary, Ella Sheppard, who brought him 'O Freedom' and 'Swing Low, Sweet Chariot,' lullabies her mother had taught her. In time, White and Sheppard collected over a hundred songs. In 1871, Fisk was on the brink of ..." from [3]. Nina07011960 (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that many men of that era tried to keep her from getting credit from her work. I'm sure I don't have to explain sexism to you. Nina07011960 (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to explain sexism. You have to explain where any of those sources connects Sheppard and Dvořák. Not in the sources and we have to connect the dots ourselves? That's original synthesis, a kind of original research, and Wikipedia does not accept it. We could discuss whether Burleigh would have needed to rely on someone else's arrangement of a song he learned from his grandfather, but it doesn't matter either way: If the sources do not explicitly confirm Burleigh sang Sheppard's arrangement to Dvořák, that statement has no place on Wikipedia. Maybe a scholarly journal on music history would be a better venue for that information. Huon (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=19898
  2. ^ http://africanamericanspirituals.com/Fisk-Jubilee-Singers.htm
  3. ^ http://www.singers.com/gospel/spirituals/

Well I added the quote from John Work stating he was informed of the facts directly from Sarah Sheppard, AND the source. And Burleigh's grandfather would have heard the Jubilee Singers' recording, according to those dates, which was heard all over the South. Why are you automatically accepting a man's version of history, and not a woman's? I know the answer. Typical... I'll remove the reference to Burleigh, then.Nina07011960 (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned about personal attacks before. If you're convinced that everybody who disagrees with you does so for nefarious reasons, there's nothing to discuss. Huon (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please hand this project over to someone who is more helpful. I believe your bias is clouding your judgement. Thank you. Nina07011960 (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nina07011960: First of all, I should apologize; I got confused and it wasn't you who was recently warned about personal attacks. So please consider this a warning: Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks, and you have quite a history of underhanded accusations of racism and/or sexism against other editors for no reason other than disagreeing with you. If you keep that up, it's not going to end well.
That said, there's no "project" I could hand over to someone else. I reviewed your draft and gave a very detailed explanation of why it currently does not meet Wikipedia's standards. That's the entirety of my involvement. Earlier someone else reviewed the draft; the next review would be by someone else. I would advise you to address the issues I pointed out, though; otherwise you'd just waste another reviewer's time to get the draft declined for the same reason again. Huon (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed 3 references. If you don't see Ella Sheppard's name in the reference, it is because the particular reference is regarding the use of the Spiritual in the New World Symphony, or the details behind the formation of the Fisk Jubilee Quartet. Nina07011960 (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then those might make good references for our articles on the New World Symphony or the Fisk Jubilee Quartet, but not for an article on Ella Sheppard. As I said before, linking events to Sheppard when the sources don't do so is original synthesis and not acceptable on Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jana Barros

Will you help with this article?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jana_Barros You declined it and didn't work on it at all but it's got formatting issues hindering us from working on it and I don't know how to do thee it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.229.105 (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to take a look at WP:Referencing for beginners; the video at that page explains how to easily create nicely-formatted footnotes. That should help with the formatting issues. That said, the vast majority of the listed references do not meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability or independence and are useless for Wikipedia's purposes. Beyond the referece formatting issue, the draft's tone is blatantly promotional. Huon (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

Hello, I was wondering if you can handle some reports at wp:aiv because it is so overloaded and some of those vandals are still active. CLCStudent (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence

Done right, precision can help clarify, plus it's fun.

— Betsy Hodges

For your help at Rex Orange County, Infinity Knight (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kurzon

I appreciate the optimism that troublesome individuals can learn to modify their behavior. Sometimes they can. But User:Kurzon has immediately returned to his old tricks. His is edit-warring at Superman ownership disputes (another editor here reverted his reinsertion today of his contentious edits from last year, and Kurzon again reinserted them here) and he is not, as he suggested he would, discuss his proposed edits on the talk-page first.

In his unblock request he said, "Whenever I wish to make a major edit to the Superman article, I will propose it on the Talk page so that other editors can make remarks." He has not done so, and then on his talk page he lies and says, "I have not violated the promise I made in my unblock request." The edit-warring alone is a violation of his promise to behave better.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenebrae: I only made such a promise for the Superman article, not Superman ownership disputes. Superman ownership disputes is a low-profile article that nobody but me seems to care about, which nobody has developed during the time I was blocked. This is why I did not see any need to propose edits. The Superman article is a different matter. It is a popular article that many editors are touchy about. I got blocked because I didn't know how to deal with that level of sensitivity.
I made an edit to Superman ownership disputes, and it was reverted out of hand by Sro23. He raised no issues about the content, it was just about me. That, I thought, was unfair, and Huon seemed to agree. Now you have done the same. You reverted my edit without raising any issues about the new content. This is unreasonable. It seems you misinterpreted the promise I made in my unblock request. Kurzon (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see. So at Superman you'll simply place a 26,000-character copy-paste of your preferred edit, rather than discuss your edits. And for any article besides Superman you'll edit-war and do whatever you want. No. That is not how Wikipedia works, and you appear to know this and not care. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenebrae: What's wrong with you? I have done no such thing and promised not to. And for other articles I will edit in the proper way that is demanded by protocol, ie I will make bold edits until somebody raises objections. Kurzon (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sro23 raised an objection, and instead of discussing it on the talk page, you began edit-warring. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenebrae: There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#user Kurzon. If you feel Kurzon violated policies, that's a good spot to raise the issues. I don't think we need a second discussion on my talk page. Huon (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Wasn't aware of it. I hope I wasn't a bother; the only reason I came here was in your capacity as the block-removal admin, and thought you should be aware.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns and am keeping an eye on the situation. If other admins feel Kurzon's behaviour after the unblock is too disruptive I wouldn't object to a renewed block, but personally I'd hope they'd get the hang of things. Huon (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious four years!

Precious
Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IPv6 blocks

I replied to you on my talk page. —Kenyon (t·c) 21:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Consider the deleted draft

Note to deleting admin, I've made the required changes in the draft. However I cannot find any more changes to be made now, please help me out.

Maanas vohra (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maanas vohra, you seem to have missed that I explicitly said that the list of problems I pointed out was not exhaustive. You also seem unable to see on your own just how blatantly promotional the draft - still - is. Maybe you have a conflict of interest regarding that topic? Then I'd suggest finding a different topic to write about. Huon (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Micaela Miano

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Micaela Miano, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:User Huon papercut.svg

I hope you like it. Thanks for your help.--Respublika Narodnaya (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Teahouse#Wikipedia_Credits_Secondary_Sources,_Discredits_Primary_Sources

FYI because you posted a response to a similar concern on their talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

‎Your submission at Articles for creation: World Art Nouveau Day (May 17)

hi admin, just wondering as I'm the last reviewer, who did the G12 reporting? thanks, not urgent can take your timeQuek157 (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Quek157: The author asked about the copyright issue here. The article wasn't tagged for speedy deletion. Huon (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see, but they are everywhere, so I am a little confused, on my talkpage also. This is the problem of the long template which lead them to teahouse, talkpage, deleting admin, their own talkapge as well as helpdesk. --Quek157 (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Quek157: The way I see it, they weren't sure where to reply to the message about your review and thus replied both on their talk page (where I saw it) and on yours. On an unrelated note, in my experience new editors like Seishonagon3 often aren't familiar with Wikipedia jargon. Thus it helps to not talk to them in such jargon ("reported for G12") without an explanation or at least a link to the relevant page that explains the jargon. Huon (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't know who reported you for G12 bit a 39% copy paste is too much." - 39% copy pasting I mentioned here. I also mentioned as well as legacypac "Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: [1] 39% seems too much. Still more concise needed Quek157 (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: There is too much direct copy. Please reword in your own words. Orherwise this page is acceptable. Legacypac (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)" on the article itself, so I think it's fair. I personally was an editor for 5-6 months around 2007, and came back just 2 months only. Around 2007, we only have CSD. Yes, for me I am also hard to adjust, just have a G4/G11/A7 CSD declined due to criteria, so I myself is also navigating. Hope to be cut some slack but yes, will be more careful next time to AFC. The template simply have to change and the entire Article Wizard has to change. When I returned to submit an article, I submitted it then what, it's a draft (then what is a draft, since in 2007 there isn't), then I realized what ACTRIAL is then I reverted to mainspace. I am also learning the new stuffs here --Quek157 (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:15:34, 17 May 2018 review of submission by Funkfux


Hi Huon! Thanks for the review. I understand the promotional parts to Amazon and the online shop. I did not consider it while adding and happy to find an appropriate reference.

I would need some support on the following three items: 1. "Basically a dictionary entry with ..." I started working on the article based on two other articles already published: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moin - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servus if they have not been considered a dictionary entry, this one shouldnt as well. Especially because the greeting is nowadays even sold on shirts, beer, and cider. 2. "...a few local media mentioning the subject in passing" What exactly is meant by local media? One of the references is one of the biggest German speaking newspapers sold all around Germany. Is this still considered local? Would it help to add some books as reference? 3. Inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia; Happy to improve, but not sure what part you are referring to exactly?

Thanks and cheers, Philipp Funkfux (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Funkfux: Regarding your specific questions:
  1. Those articles, particularly Servus, are not necessarily good examples to follow. Draft:Gude, beyond content about the company of that name, basically amounts to "It's dialect for Guten Tag" (except the draft claims it can also be Guten Morgen or Guten Abend, something I didn't see in the cited sources). That's something Wiktionary is the natural home for, not Wikipedia.
  2. Of the draft's references, SZ merely gives the meaning in High German. The part it's cited for in the draft, about people "having truly arrived when they're greeted that way", is fluff that isn't meant to be taken literally as a factual statement. I don't have immediate access to the Frankfurter Wörterbuch, but I'd be surprised if it says that itself is the first written reference for the word. If that sentence is meant to say that the Frankfurter Wörterbuch documents where the word first was used in writing, not that the Wörterbuch itself is the first use in writing, then that's useless without telling our readers where (and when!) that first use occurred. The Quick Guide to the Language of Frankfurt doesn't mention Gude at all and thus is useless as reference for an article on Gude. One of the Frankfurter Rundschau articles is a passing mention that doesn't say what it's cited for; the other is about the company named Gude, not about the word. That leaves FAZ, which again does little beyond giving the meaning(s) in High German. In particular, it's misrepresented in the draft unless "gained attention to a wider audience" is supposed to mean "all over Hesse".
  3. Particularly the "If you are a newcomer to the region... " sentence is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. We don't address our readers. See also my comment on the SZ piece that's based on. Huon (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please Suggest me the necessary Edits

Namstey , I did the best as per my knowledge please suggest me the necessary edits for the creation . Thank you Suraj Chiluwal (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Suraj Chiluwal: That draft would need to be rewritten almost in its entirety. As I said in my review comments, it's thoroughly promotional, and significant amounts of content are not based on reliable sources. Furthermore, many of the given sources do not meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability and should be removed (we're looking for sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy); some don't even mention you at all.
Writing about oneself is strongly discouraged due to the inherent conflict of interest. If you cannot see how your draft's tone is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, your conflict of interest may be too strong for you to neutrally write about yourself. Huon (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Guidance Barnstar
Thanks so much for your help and patience at the Live Chat! ⇒ Lucie Person (talk|contribs) 23:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional content

Why was my content removed in Community Choice Aggregation? First, it is not my employer and secondly, I had cited sources. Thirdly, other companies are listed there as well?

Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattCirclepoint (talk • contribs) 19:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you from Yseult-Ivain

Thanks, Huon, for answering my question about copyrighted material. Afraid I did break that rule in some of the writing I did the other day. Will remember to use the procedure you explained from now on, instead. Thanks again, and have a great rest of the day! Yseult-Ivain (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

i think you are legendry person that i ever seen because of your texts . but can you review my Article amir yoosef safarnezhad and accpet it from me . i update ref also . just this time . best regards Pacotins (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pacotins: I'm sorry, but I don't see where the latest source you added mentions Amir Yoosef Safarnezhad. The Google translation didn't seem in any way related to an academic working in America, and the original didn't contain his name, for all I can tell. Huon (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

update

can you please review my Article amir yoosef safar nezhad i update ref links . thanks Pacotins (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pacotins: I don't see that the latest source meets Wikipedia's standards of reliability. To me it looks like someone's personal website. As I said on your talk page, Wikipedia should summarize what reliable sources such as newspapers or reputable magazines have reported about the subject; tz3.ir clearly isn't that. At a closer look, it's pretty obvious that the entire draft is fake. Those achievements are those of Ali Khademhosseini, not of Amir Yoosef Safarnezhad. Could you please explain why you submit a draft that gives someone else's name for Khademhosseini's biography? Huon (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I see you're online

Could you consider acting on this protection request ? Thanx, (I don't have access to IRC ATM) - FlightTime (open channel) 21:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not. This doesn't seem an urgent case; the last bad-faith edit was many hours ago. WP:RPP isn't really my area of expertise, so I'd leave a borderline case like this one to admins more familiar with that area. Huon (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thank anyway :) - FlightTime (open channel) 22:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hi, sorry was a bit dismissive earlier, forgot you were an admin and have a lot of experience. The problem I have is there seems to be a difference of interpretation between admins as have seen two admin turn down a G5 on the same basis that I did but on the otherhand you may well be right and they were wrong. Have looked through the guidelines and essays and cant find anything more than is at WP:CSD. Am considering a deletion review to clear it up and wont remove any G5s unless its supported at dreview, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and Update

Thanks again for your help on 5/28/18 during IRC chat. I'm the one who asked re: improper ref. in Classical Lib. article. After your assumption that ref. pertained to a source in, "Further Reading Section" you told me to see WP:SFN. I did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Shortened_footnotes states clearly that SFN should be listed to source in "Ref. Section" and I found also here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Further_reading#Relation_to_reference_sections in "Relation to Reference Sections" section, it indicates the "Further Reading Sect." should not be used as part of a ref. supporting the article. OK full circle, How should I proceed to correct?Bjhodge8 (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The references already are listed in the references section. {{sfn}} will link those entries to the cited works - maybe "Further reading" will have to be named "Bibliography" or something like that to clarify that those works are the ones being referred to. If I find the time I'll give it some attention today or over the next few days. Huon (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Huon (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Travis Allen, Abortion Legislation, Planned Parenthood

Taking this here for now so we can go back and forth until we make a decision. Should we list out the other bills that Planned Parenthood rated on those years Allen got 0% to keep it non-biased? I’d can do that research without laundry listing it. It’s usually only a few bills each year.

Or perhaps we put planned parenthood under women’s health legislation and the put his prolife stance elsewhere.

Windbreaker1976 (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This should be kept on the article talk page so others can see it and comment. I'll reply there later; I'm busy with other stuff right now. Huon (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I would like to just acknowledge receiving your email. Thank you 331dot (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Zehra Neşe Kavak

Hi Huon, I am writing an article.I got your warning. Can you give me an idea of ​​what I should do? I'm trying to learn. thank you. --Anilaydin (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anilaydin: I'm not aware of having warned you. I did, however, review your draft. As I said in that review, the sources do not suffice to establish that Kavak meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. So finding more, and better, sources would be necessary to write an article about her on Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaronmichaelalper

Hi there! I see that you replied to User talk:Aaronmichaelalper and it looks like the interaction from my standard template message about conflict of interest is being interpreted rather poorly. He replied back with what could be perceived as a (empty) legal threat which doesn't jive with me staying as such. I know ignorance is bliss but this editor just had to disclose he was an editor of the book on the userpage. I don't understand the personal stance on the reply or it appears he's taking it personal when it's simply guidelines. – TheGridExe (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGridExe: I wouldn't read that as a legal threat; to me it sounded more like discussing the copyright confirmation requirements. I have replied again. If he again chooses to be offended, I'd likely disengage but keep an eye on their future edits. Huon (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Huon: Wow. All I can say with the exchange is thank you for being level minded. I don't understand the narcissism especially when nothing about the issue was questioning the significance of the comic. Sigh. (Personally I never heard of it and I doubt it was the last big story for the pier as there's a 5 year span between the book and it being demolished.) – TheGridExe (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Zehra Neşe Kavak

Hi! I noticed that you have declined the submission of the a.m. article on the grounds of non-notability the person. If I am not wrong, the verification was performed by a bot. However, as noted by WP:GNG, significant coverage is there by reliable sources. The three references are major nationwide Turkish newspapers, two in Turkish language and one in English. Foreign language sources do not violate the rule. The article is well inline cited. Therefore, I ask you kindly to recheck it on your own and to reconsider your decision. If needed more references can be added. But at this moment, I don't see a necessity. CeeGee 08:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CeeGee: Of the current references, I have serious doubts about the reliability of #1. Yeni Akit is a newspaper, but the piece in question is not a newspaper article. It doesn't show a publication date, doesn't give author information, and is only one in a long list of similar biographical pieces. It also happens to be identical to the Turkish Wikipedia article, so someone there is infringing someone else's copyright. My impression was that the newspaper scraped Wikipedia and forgot to credit us. #2 is an interview, Kavak talking about herself, with only very little independent coverage. #3 is a government publication that should be considered a primary source. It's her appointment, signed by the President, not independent coverage of her. #4 is a passing mention; what it says about Kavak is "said Prof. Dr. Zehra Neşe Kavak, the university’s rector and a member of its governing board." I wouldn't consider that significant coverage of Kavak. If the draft were a live article in its current state, I'd nominate it for deletion. This is made even worse because the draft was - and to some degree still is - blatantly promotional. Huon (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Huon:Hello Huon. I have made some changes in this article. I have found enough resources. If you can control, please. I do not think it's wrong. Respects. --Anilaydin (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And now we're pretty much back at the state of the page before CeeGee rewrote it, when it was blatantly promotional. The number of sources is significantly greater, but I rather don't think the quality is. Many of the additional sources are not independent coverage of Kavak, many others are just very short mentions, yet others are not reliable. There's also some broken layout and language issues such as grammar errors. If there are additional useful sources in there, I'd strongly suggest improving CeeGee's rewritten draft instead. Huon (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bs

Boldstandard is not obeying your rules... CUfiveo (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CUfiveo: Which rules, specifically, has he violated? To me this looks like a content dispute; if you cannot agree with Boldstandard on what the article should say, you should pursue dispute resolution. Huon (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The rule you stated that a consensus should be reached on the talk page before editing the main page... CUfiveo (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And this is about which article? Huon (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia University, the user keeps making "straw man" arguments and uses other weak sources like webpage directories to edit the page to add "affiliate school" in the graduate school listing for Teachers College which has since been shown to the user to statutorily be a Faculty (statutes updated 2017) and only have CU graduate degree programs (unlike UTS and JTS which confer their own degrees). CUfiveo (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At a closer look, Boldstandard hasn't edited at all for several days. If you have an argument to make regarding that article, you're welcome to make it on the article's talk page. Huon (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oakridge_International_School

Thanks Huon for the quick help. Really appreciate it. Shall I just copy - paste the edits from talk page to the article page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakridge_International_School — Preceding unsigned comment added by Learnois (talk • contribs) 05:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huon&oldid=844327111"