Thanks, for your counsel and clarification on the Able2Extract page, Huon. I'm taking your advice and will edit the page down to secondary sources. Hopefully, I can get your opinion on the upcoming cuts to see if it's on track? Would definitely appreciate your expertise. Thanks, again! TorBel80 (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hi huon - thank you very much for your time and expertise - i am sorry but i will be needing someone to guide me by the hand for me to be able to make even the most basic corrections so i'll do the revisions/citations sometime soon, i hope. for example, i am typing this here because i cdn't figure out where to type it in - really so sorry. and thanks for pointing out that all caps is disrespectful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cori arevalo (talk • contribs) 08:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral
point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources.
I do not understand why you said this. To me, it seems as though my submission is neutral and has a formal tone. Can you please explain further?
do you think the article would be Wikipedia-quality?
There are several issues. Firstly, the draft is very short on reliable third-party sources to establish that the program is notable in the first place. Secondly, it's almost exclusively a how-to guide explaining the program in great detail while ignoring most of the real-world significance - it doesn't even tell how old the program is. And thirdly, your best source is a highly critical review whose criticism is ignored entirely. That's a WP:NPOV violation.
My suggestion would be to find another two or three independent sources, preferably in more mainstream publications, and to rewrite the draft to reflect what those sources have to say. Huon (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spread the Christmas spirit by adding {{subst:User:Matty.007/template/Christmas}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message. If everyone who got this put it on two talk pages, we would have... lots of Christmas spirit! Have fun finding links in this message!
Hello Huon, I saw that you have been doing some really nice work on Wikipedia, including helping me a lot, particularly on BLP, but also in admin-y areas in general; so I thought that you deserved to be the fifth recipient of the 'Really Nice View' award. Congratulations! Matty.00717:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not understanding what you was trying to say to me this is 100pct new to me so please just bare with me.my website looks all messed up since i started and could use some help. My website is paid for for 10 yrs so this is like a project. could use advice and help http://murphysmaddness.us/ there is a wiki tab at the top of the website. STRESSEDOUT... thanks again.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmurphy812 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do intend to remove any unsourced husbands, children and such and unsourced contentious claims about living people from the talk page, citing our policy on the matter. If this leads to repeated re-adding of the unsourced material as it did previously, I will request page protection. If you have reliable sources for the contested material, add the sources when you add the material and there is no problem. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: and I who used to think that the boys (and girls) @ <en:wiki> were tough cookies. . . .(thanks for the support & merry xmas!). (Pronacampo9 (talk) 12:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]
• : Thanks Huon. “They” put the thumbscrews on me for months on end and here’s why (I think): Por regla general, se mira con más detalle y rigor un artículo que ya fue borrado y en el cual se insiste (transl: As a general rule one wants to look in fine detail and with great rigor at an article that was deleted and where [the author] insists.) (from an exchange between two bibliotecarios/editor). Had it not been for your hint where and how to start a subpage, the phenix might never have risen from the ashes (read: being deleted almost the minute I opened my Spanish AfC page). Thanks again. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]
That sounds... counterproductive. "A new editor made a mistake but is willing to solve the problem. Let's make it as difficult as possible!" I don't want to know how many good-faith editors they scare away with that approach. Huon (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, moved to bottom because it was showing up oddly on Facebook. Agree that users should not read through whole article to find info about previous org as new org launched recently. What if its at bottom and in bold? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeteranUSA1 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia couldn't care less about Facebook's display issues. If you consider those issues significant, you should contact Facebook itself. Huon (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail!
Hello, Huon. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 17:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jules Bache, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Furth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
AFTER FURTHER REVIEW I keep running across more coverage and cross-publication so it's clear you don't even know what the fuck you are talking about. Please do some minimal research before attacking pages or just stay the fuck away.
Dear Huon, Happy Holidays. I have followed your advise and removed the poorly sourced comments on Cenk Aydin. However, this gentleman was clearly named Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum which is a great honor. His page is on WEF website just because he was named Young Global leader. Additionally, he is on the Presidents Advisory Group of the EastWest institute, which is one of the most influential think-tanks in the world. You can also read articles on his peers. Additionally, this gentleman was the COO of Bank of America, Head of JPMorgan Segment and Citigroup. An extremely notable individual who combined banking with not for profit activities. I would greatly appreciate if you help me. More than happy to improve, please teach me how.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemaleer (talk • contribs) 01:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, please have a look at this document in addition to the reference list on the page. This explains how notable you need to be to become a Young Global Leader: [1][reply]
Huon- I have found those newspaper articles are in Turkish. Additionally, have you browsed through other names that are named Young GLobal Leaders.
His news are summarized on this page, a news summary page http://newsle.com/cenkaydin Additionally, those are not his own pages, he is featured in those. There are also thousands of news on the organizations where he assumed leadership roles, JPMorgan, Citigroup, EastWest Institute. Would you please let me know. I am trying to convince you to the best as I am also learning this. THanks for the guidance. If you wish I can extract all the newspaper articles. But have a look at those. Kemaleer (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Other sites:
(Turkish) http://crd.ku.edu.tr/sites/crd.ku.edu.tr/files/newsletter/010510/devam_280410_7.html
I have tens of articles on this gentleman. As far as I can see he is on the same list of leaders as Jimmy Wales, Roger Federer, Larry Page, etcKemaleer (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Bad for Craigslist" Award
The "Bad for Craigslist" Award
You are, apparently, "bad for Craigslist". I have no idea what that means, but I very much imagine it's good for Wikipedia. You therefore win this award! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lucia's user pages
Previously at User_talk:Lucia_Black#User_subpages you warned her about WP:UP#POLEMIC. She has continued with her User:Lucia Black/Link Bank and has been making some problematic assessments and has continued with some pretty clear WP:GAMEing issues. One month after the RFC on a merge, Lucia has again started to try and merge it after a larger community consensus rejected merging. Here's the link Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Post-RfC_discussion_and_issues_that_need_to_be_covered. I think action on this and other matters is warranted because it is constantly hindering actual work that I am trying to do and she repeatedly and consistently brings up new issues unrelated to any matter to get attention. Lucia doesn't even do much work in comparison to all her drama-mucking and infighting. She has no knowledge of the industry, doesn't read or write Japanese, and feels inclined to delete all stubs or make all pages appear the same. No one is discussing splitting either of the two articles - including her - so there is no need to constantly and repeatedly discuss these "what ifs" scenarios because they have consensus on nothing and do nothing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated the sub-page for deletion. However, I would advise you to change your own interaction with Lucia Black as well. Comments of the "Oh, stop the drama!" or "Do you always need to have the last word?" variety in my experience will not reduce the drama but rather fan the flames. Huon (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm filtering her out, now. An editor's whose sole purpose on Wikipedia seems to be making merge and deletion discussions and constantly railing against the strong established consensus is typically WP:NOTHERE. Sven's RFC said clearly that it was on a "case-by-case" basis. The Merge RFC on Dragon Ball was a clear consensus against merging. She broke her topic ban and interaction ban no less than 5 times and has constantly been a detriment. Sorry, but WP:RANDY is something that comes to mind. She's uninformed, relentless and constantly disruptive - and I have no patience for someone who redirects articles out of existence (that should be AFDed) and inserts blatantly false information into articles. Removing her replies from my sight will do a lot to make sure I can be more productive and not get sucked into the "drama". And yes, Wikipedia:Drama is something I should eek away from, its why I am going to ignore her. I'll end up leaving Wikipedia if I have to deal with her for another year. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lucia's upping the ante by edit warring with a large chunk of content removal which I reverted per WP:BRD. She reverted me and I reverted again informed her of BRD and made a talk page post. She has again re-reverted 2 minute afterwards citing that her removal was the "status quo" despite being removed only on December 29 and I reverted on Jan 1.[2] I think its removal which includes series citations (in text) is overall unwarranted and improper considering she removed another source as well and comments on the variations by media. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pratyya(Hello!) — is wishing you a HappyNewYear! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.
Happy New Year to you too! And thank you very much for getting my idea ReferenceBot started. What a wonderful help its been to so many editors, not just me! Frze> talk 10:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year!
Frze> talk — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Your closing remarks for the AfD deletion discussion said to post any comments on the Talk page associated with the article, but with the deletion of the article it does not seem possible so I am following up here. Your closing comment said that no third-party resources had been added to the article. In recent days, I added them as stated at footnote 14-19 and 27. I wanted to be sure that you considered those, as well as the new paragraphs added in Publications which explain Coughlin's contributions, in making your final decision.
The appropriate venue for contesting an AfD closure is deletion review. I did have a look at your sources before closing the debate. Source 16 (used twice) was not an independent source; it's his own book. Sources 14, 15, 17 and 18 were book reviews that only mentioned Coughlin himself in passing; in particular sources 17 and 18 did not come close to confirming that his book "has been adopted as the primary textbook at seminaries across the United States as the sine qua non for providing instruction on how to navigate within contemporary civil society while balancing the operative canonical requirements applicable to life in the Catholic Church". Source 19 was another Coughlin book; I expect you miscounted here. Source 27 was a letter to the editor, not a reliable source. If you re-read my closing remarks, you'll find that I said the added reliable sources did not discuss Coughlin in any detail. Huon (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Coughlin Deletion - Emergency Request
Hello,
For safety reasons you will read below, I am sending this message on your Talk Page rather than directly on the Coughlin Talk Page to mitigate any further trouble. I requested help and Ducksjammie suggested I might ask you for assistance in "blanking" or other action.
For purposes of providing you with a bit of background, I received a note on Wikipedia telling me that I needed to nominate the page for deletion due to a conflict-of-interest. I did so immediately, then read the appropriate policies, attempted to withdraw but failed to do so in time.
The nomination has led to threats outside of Wikipedia and I am legitimately concerned for my safety. I had hoped the closing of the conversation would end the issue, so I was thrilled to read it had closed -irrespective of the disposition- and hoped it would delete....yet the current state of the entry has escalated the problem even more and all I can think to do to help is mitigate embarrassment. Is there anything that can be done so that someone who tries to search for John J. Coughlin can be redirected to all of the other John Coughlin's? Make the page a placeholder so that a user interested in the AfD thread has to go to the Talk Page to view it so the deletion history is not the first thing a visitor sees? Blanking? Resurrecting to the old one until I can get a handle on the perpetrator? Changing my actual name to my new username in the thread would make no difference as the person making threats already knows my name. As you can tell, I am somewhat panicked and rely on the experience of administrators to mitigate the situation. If necessary, I can request a police report or whatever else Wikipedia needs to take action to prevent further harm. Please help! CAcarissima (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Huon: User:CAcarissima asked did the redlink John J. Coughlin need to specify the deletion reason. I told the user it was necessary to inform users why the page was deleted but that AfD discussion could be blanked as a courtesy if you felt it was appropriate. I'm not aware of any threat but CAcarissima if a legal threat has been made please raise the issue at ANI if a threat of violence has been made it is unlikely the community of editors, including administrators, will be able to make an appropriate "real world" response so you should contact emergency@wikimedia.org after reading Wikipedia:Threats of violence. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is being informed of the issue, but @CAcarissima: Contacting them directly via the email address supplied by DUCKISJAMMMY cannot hurt. If threats of violence were made off-wiki, I'd contact police as well if I were you - if only to teach the person threatening you that online threats are not a joke. Huon (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Huon, there are a lot of funny things going on here. Two users have been (properly) blocked and immediately adopt new user names. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I expect the issue is resolved; there's nothing else to see here unless you're aware of sockpuppetry that hasn't already been dealt with, in which case WP:SPI would be the appropriate venue. Huon (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUsers have already taken care of that. Unless you know of probable socks not involved in the deletion discussion, they're all taken care of. Huon (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In view of their behavior during and after the AfD they should be blocked from editing under any name whether or not one believes the claims about threats (and by default one does believe them). Xxanthippe (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
As I said, unless you know of any names not involved in the deletion discussion, that has already been taken care of. I expect the CheckUsers have also looked for sleeper accounts. Huon (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Azomite
Hi Huon,
We chatted Friday with AlexJ and Jack McBarn and I saw your last Azomite edit. I really think deleting that entire researched Supporting Science section is harsh. Please consider editing it a bit if time allows. Some of the information directly supports mineral use in our soil systems and is important information in general. Since Azomite is trace minerals, talking about trace minerals isn't off topic at all to me. In the meantime, I'm trying to understand your point and will work on drawing a more direct line to Azomite. Cheers, (Victoriasays (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]
My point is that a section of the Azomite article based on sources that don't even mention Azomite is original synthesis, something explicitly prohibited by one of our core content policies. That content may be appropriate for our fertilizer article, but not for the Azomite article. Huon (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like your "fighting bad" powerful name, thought I have not watched that movie. How about mine: Boreslav - direct translation into English is "fighting for glory", as "Bor-" for "fight", and "slav" as for "glory". Something, yap :-)?
Please give me deeper analysis what has happened with my "First" denial. In my opinion all further and all at all progress in the field of cosmonautic are well related! The same exitment and the same best impressions, people ("there are much more good people than others") like and interested to share. JPL is about Curiosity, like "Zvjozdnyj Gorodok" about Sputnik. The space is a magnet, a dream, a hope, right? I would like to get closer, what to remove, as against policy, and what is acceptable. Practice teaches better.
That sounds like an interesting topic for an essay, but it's clearly off-topic for an encyclopedia article on Cosmonautics Day. That article should be about the holiday, and neither the fact that California is "home of the rover Curiosity" nor your translation of a Russian song provide any information whatsoever on that topic, and I sincerely doubt that you'll find reliable sources discussing the relevance of the Californian space industry in relation to Cosmonautics day. In fact, the article doesn't even explain how the rock song is relevant to the holiday. Is it just another unrelated symbol of Russian cosmonautics? Is it the official or inofficial hymn of that holiday? The article doesn't tell. You may want to have a look at WP:COATRACK, an essay on Wikipedia articles used to hang up unrelated content. Huon (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Advise this user about overcats
Salutations. Take a look at these two contribs: Special:Contributions/27.48.161.0 and Special:Contributions/Abitoby. Both doing exactly similar sorts of over-categorising. One from 10:42–11:00 10 January 2014 (UTC) and other have an editing gap over that period. While this isn't much of a SPI case, I would be grateful if you advised this user about OVERCAT (I'm a bit reluctant because of the user's block log). If there won't be self-reverts, then I don't mind doing this large scale undoing myself. In the end, it's a dirty job but someone's go to do it. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. In the absence of block evasion or an attempt to appear as multiple editors, editing without logging in is not considered sockpuppetry, though - in this case it may well have been an accident. Huon (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry for this again but just take a look at the user's recent contributions. On User Talk:Abitoby, there are numerous warning about moving pages, overcats, etc which are just being ignored for almost a year now. And this continues...I'm really running out of patience now. What should I do? thinking of filing a report at the WP:ANI...what do you suggest? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tom, welcome to my talk page. I'll keep an eye out for your page, but it may take until tomorrow for me to do the actual editing. Huon (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have many more references to add for all statements I have made. I will continue to update and improve these
I have several very good quality photos of the site before and after restoration. I took these images and I am more than happy for them to be used on wikipedia (no copyright issues etc). I'm not sure how to upload and caption them though. I will investigate further tonight.
I feel the main title is too generic (my bad). There are many congregationalist cemeteries in the UK. Is there a way to call it the "Congregationalist Cemetery, Ponsharden"? Historic records also called it the Independent Burial Ground or the Dissenter's Burying Ground. Is there any way of also tagging these titles so they bring the site up if it is searched for on Wikipedia or Google?
The Reverend Richard Cope has already got a wikipedia page. Is there any way he can be linked to in my list of Noteable people please?
He was blocked, not banned. A "ban" would imply a community consensus that he should not edit, whereas a "block" is just an administrator-imposed technical measure. The topic ban which prohibits Dcelano from editing Wiggles-related pages was community-imposed, the blocks were imposed by Quadell to prevent topic ban violations (without much success so far). By default blocked editors are still able to edit their own talk page, meant to give them a venue to appeal the block by showing that they have understood why they were blocked and that those issues will not recur. That's why Dcelano could still remove sections from his talk page, and with the exception of the notes about active sanctions there's no reason why he shouldn't do so. Of course it won't help him appeal either the block or the topic ban. And yes, I agree that he hasn't shown that he understands the issues in the least, which is why I gave him a rather sterner warning after his latest block. Personally I expect that, if he should violate his topic ban again after this block runs out, he will be blocked indefinitely. Huon (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the education. I saw the "sterner warning". Thanks for your assistance in this area; The Wiggles articles tend to be vandalized often, so it helps those of us who look out for them to not have to deal with Dcelano's behavior, too. I agree that it doesn't seem that he's learning and that he isn't taking things seriously. I've said from the beginning that I expect that he'll eventually be permanently blocked, and events have borne that out. I like being right, but to be honest, not in this case, although things will work out in the end. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huon, Daniel has again broken his topic ban, as his contributions of the last few days show [3] His edits have improved, but they'll still unsourced. Thought you'd like to know so you can take appropriate action. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, he deleted the sterner warning.here He hasn't really improved. He might source something correctly once in a while, but he'll throw in incorrect edits out of the blue to counter his improvement. here Even when I "warned" him by reverting and adding "rv per topic ban" he doesn't get it. Thanks for dealing with him. -AngusWOOF (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Transposed excitation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antenna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
11:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Zeuscart is the opensource software released under GPL License. And similar software already have pages in wikipedia. So it is good to have a page about zeuscart also. But it's deleted. Can you please help to get it back.
I had already deleted this article following your prod but then I noticed that there was actually a previous prod that had been contested. So because proposed deletions can only be used once per page I've restored it and nominated it at AfD. De728631 (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes yes, I knew that already. Also the picture that was removed was not a screenshot of the broadcast. It was a photo of her taken on her post-victory media run in New York. Just for the record. Can you aid the page by correctly uploading a picture? FaceOffTournament (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Huon: Well seeing how you can name image you're uploading anything you want, yes lol. That is also the name of some articles about her because it's a quote she said. But I have no idea what images are freely licensed from what images aren't. Would images from her official Facebook page count? Or her Reverbnation? On her Wiki's talk page, I nominated these two pictures, although I have no idea if they're "freely licensed":
The latter was photographed by Gino DePinto for AOL, if that helps at all. All it needs is the outer edges to be cropped a bit and then it's perfect to be used.
I see no indication that either of those images has been released under a free license. By default they're copyrighted with all rights reserved; there would have to be an explicit note about the license. You could ask the copyright holder - likely either the photographer or Chin herself - to release them under an acceptable license. See our example release form; they'd have to sent the image and the permission form to permissions-commonns@wikimedia.org. Otherwise those images are not acceptable for Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Huon: Ugh, such an overly complicated process for such a simple change lol. I'll just wait for someone to FINALLY find a suitable picture. I'm hoping her label handles it. Thank you for your help anyway. FaceOffTournament (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huon, are you running for sainthood? I'm afraid I would have lost patience with the user quite some time ago. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Pronacampo9: That's due to the different location: Drafts at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Whatever... get a template with some AfC-related information; drafts that are created as sub-pages of userpages (ie User:Pronacampo9/Large Group Capacitation) get a different template with more userspace draft-related information. Both of those templates have a "submit your draft" link, so they'll both serve. The preferred location for drafts is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/..., but that's more of an aesthetic preference, not something you need to bother with. Don't be surprised, though, if a reviewer moves the draft when you have submitted it. If you prefer, you (or I) can move the page right now and/or add the other template - it doesn't matter much either way.
(As an aside, I commented out both templates above lest my user talk page is tagged as a draft - those templates do more than just produce the readable message.) Huon (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now: I could have avoided much of the to-and-fro of the last couple of days if only I had first consulted “Help Moving a Page” help-page (and acted accordingly). Thanks for pointing me in the right direction, Huon. When it comes to self-capacitating “you-can-only-learn-bike-riding-by-riding-a-bike”, I still seem to prefer the safe pair of hands of the Administrator. Ah, well. . . In my self-defence, though, I can say that “Before moving a page[edit]” counsels that asking for advice/permission of the Administrator, first, would be the safer option. Anyhow, I do feel more confortable with the ‘old’, familiar grey "Draft article not currently submitted for review" opening frame.
I'm still seeing a lot of gutting and plenty of challenges to that gutting. He has ignored requests to stop, or at least respond to his talk posts. Considering my history with this user, I really can't involve myself in any sort of action. Both you and User:Callanecc have commented. Perhaps you could review his contribs to see if he should be handling such massive removals in another fashion. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I'm not writing to suggest action be taken. I'm writing to see if you think what's going on is appropriate. Please don't be influenced by me at all. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer not to do so. The French say that image is copyrighted, and while I'm not a copyright expert I'd tend to agree with that assessment. We already have a different version of that image that's currently used on the Nickelodeon Junior article. The French version is rather too high-resolution for a non-free image, so I'd have to resize it and upload it as a newer version of the current image, all for negligible gain. Huon (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Foodler logo.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Foodler logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi Huon,
I'm not sure why you're removing my link on my article?
@AdorableTeddy: I removed only irrelevant trivia such as her "goals" and "advice" - those are not hard facts and do not belong in an encyclopedia article. We care about what she did, not what she aims to do. I assume "your link" is the one to http://www.kellytrangtran.com/; that is a personal website and not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. It should only be used for uncontroversial details such as her birthdate, but not for arguably promotional content. The other source I removed was a celebrity gossip website that did not say what it was cited for. If you are associated with Tran, you may want to take a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest. Huon (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Huon:The link is not a celebrity gossip website, it's actually a magazine webiste in Vietnam. I'm not associate with anyone, I'm still new to wikipedia and this is my first article about Asian woman who won American pageant. I'm still searching for more beautiful Asian women out there and promote them. I'm sure you're Vietnamese and so do I, I'm half Vietnamese and Hispanic. Not sure why you said the website is a gossip website and I'm not sure why you change my articles, I agreed on removing the personal site but I do not agree on removing the other link. ADT (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@AdorableTeddy: This is not "your" article. I am not Vietnamese, but the Google translation of that "magazine article" is good enough for me to be certain that it does not mention the Susan G. Komen foundation, international ambassadors, or cancer prevention. All it focuses on is her looks and her "ideal measurements". That doesn't really look like a reliable mainstream source to me, and even if it were, it does not support the content it's cited for. It should be used in place of her personal website as a source for the birthdate, though. Finally, I'd really appreciate it if, while re-adding unsourced content (which you shouldn't do in the first place), you at least wouldn't also undo my grammatical improvements and re-break the citation templates I had fixed. Huon (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not speaking or understanding another language, please make sure to use a good dictionary before editing any other foreign related article. I'm not here to fight with you but I'm trying to learn how to write article, please provide good source when you're editing an article.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdorableTeddy (talk • contribs) 01:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, can you tell me what sources you can use when editing posts....as I did with the question you helped me with..and also what third party is needed and why? Hope I am doing this right.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharonharvey (talk • contribs) 18:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sharonharvey: Wikipedia requires reliable third-party sources for two reasons: Firstly, to allow our readers to verify the content, and secondly, to establish that that content is significant enough to discuss it on Wikipedia in the first place. If a newspaper article or a book on Emmerdale published with a reputable publisher says that the character of Scarlett Mary Nicholls is based on your fan fiction, great, then we can cite that source. If no such source has said so, then the role of your work in the development of that character apparently wasn't big enough to be noted by others, and Wikipedia shouldn't note it either. Huon (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject AFC is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1800 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
Hi,
You have closed the discussion here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=597830744&oldid=597830349). Very well (although I did not find that very welcoming, but it may have been made in a friendly spirit that I could not perceive). Also, thank you for the link to WP:DUCK but...what do you mean? I read it but can not find the answer to my question: WHO on the WM projects sites can help me having FR WP Admin simply checking the facts? (As for your second comment, I had not used the account so that you can read my IP address, so I don't think it was useless). Danke schön.--Slinggelid (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "Nothing the English Wikipedia can do here" was unclear to you? You're in the wrong place; we cannot help you here. I also doubt the WMF will second-guess the admins on specific projects (and neither will the admins on other projects, including me). So your only avenue of recourse is with the French Wikipedia. While I don't know the French Wikipedia's rules, on the English Wikipedia Checkuser is never used to "prove innocence"; if the account you are accused of being a sock of hasn't edited for over a year, it would likely be stale anyway, so even if they were willing to perform such a check, it would probably come up inconclusive, and they'd still have to rely on behavioural evidence. And apparently by now multiple admins have concluded that your behaviour indicates you are indeed that indef-blocked user. Huon (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi likewise. What part of Assume good faith is unclear to you? I am not that user. Never mind. Thanks for the reply, anyway.--Slinggelid (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More of the same
Hi Huon, I really hate to bother you with this, but the day after his block ended, Daniel was back to the same: [4] I highly recommend that you block him permanently, since he's exhibited a lack of awareness that you guys mean business. And thanks again. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dcelano seems incapable or unwilling to leave the Wiggles alone, and worse, he still doesn't cite any sources for his additions. Huon (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, he's socking over at HERE, editing the talk pages that involve him, and still injecting unsourced or poorly sourced Wiggles information. -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked the IP for a few days, but it seems to change rather quickly anyway. You may want to leave a note at a more central location the next time; AN/I or maybe AIV (depending on how vandalistic his edits are) will likely see him blocked quicker. Huon (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Editing of the Article (HCLT)
Hello Huon,
I am a new user at Wikipedia. You deleted my write-ups on HCL's culture and branding. Can you please help me understand the reason for the deletions of the same? Look forward to your response. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bansal Simpi (talk • contribs) 09:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to stop the PROD, but I did want to ask, have standards changed with television stations and notability since I wrote the article? If so, and if the article falls short, just G7 it. About the only unusual thing about WDYR was its newscast, and even that only lasted a year. Raymie (t • c) 07:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what the standards were back when you wrote the article, but I'd say the relevant guideline is WP:ORG, which says: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." I do not think the FCC's station database satisfies that standard. Huon (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember that the notability guideline was really low, and it is (WP:BROADCAST): "Because of the public interest served, most television stations that produce original content should be presumed notable for Wikipedia purposes." That WDYR newscast probably saves it under that standard. Raymie (t • c) 04:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's an essay; the relevant guideline still is WP:ORG, which has significantly higher standards. If the station is notable, find the sources to prove it. Huon (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the bar's higher than it used to be, I completely understand. This station really only stands on that newscast. Raymie (t • c) 21:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ive seen no problem regarding on the List of wars involving the Philippines , the format of that was also look like on List of wars involving Japan (Please look for comparative sources) For the highly non-standard layout you talk.
And i added sources and References to my new article ,
'Please improve it, not to delete , Also The point of making this article was to show the whats the history of the Philippines as a country not only an island (like Guam,HawaiiSolomon islands and Marianas that does not mentioned any Detailed nor correct History in instance .
Anyway i remove the Deletion tag (As you said to my talk page) and i add a reasons also .
I have looked over your comments and appreciate them Huon. However, I think that this is an important Wikipedia page. Mustang News has recently won 13 awards at a national convention including the fourth consecutive College Newspaper of the Year award. Mustang News is an important part of journalism becoming digital, and if you take a look for yourself, you will see this is important. Thank you for reconsidering and for helping to educate others! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kff2010 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fraud played by ZORDANLIGHTER to win his proposed edit in CRITICAL RECEPTION section of Total Siyapaa
Dear Huon, kindly un do decision in CRITICAL RECEPTION section of Total Siyapaa because it was based on FRAUD played by ZORDANLIGHTER , he misrepresented my edit summary for other protected edit request relating to Controversy section for critical reception protected edit request . He used that summary to show the WP consensus by me but that is not the case. He must also be blocked for playing CHEAT. Xcrescent9 (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Xcrescent9, I'd be really, really careful about accusing others of fraud without good evidence. ZORDANLIGHTER quoted your edit summary correctly, and he gave enough details to allow others to check it for themselves. Now I agree that the edit summary refers to something else, but if ZORDANLIGHTER only looked at the combined effect of your three subsequent edits, that may have been a honest mistake. I also have to note that, while you found the time to edit that talk page multiple times, you have yet to provide any objection to my suggestion for that section. If you don't like it, say why, or provide a suggestion of your own, so we can discuss it and improve the article.
Regardless of Xcrescent9 accusations that how wrongly consensus was achieved by misrepresentation, I will suggest a middle way. Whistlingwoods on behalf of ZORDANLIGHTER (since he is blocked ) will favour current critical reception section full cherry picking of negative reviews but that was with out consensus and ignores all positive reviews. On other hand Xcrescent9 after block removal will try to put all four positive reviews. Keeping in view all the reviews from both sides,It is a clear case of Mixed average reviews i.e. a combination of good and bad reviews. This fact is also supported by http://www.indicine.com/bollywood/total-siyapaa/reviews/ which says that movie got average reviews from critics with average score of 37. In pakistan too (from where the hero of the movie belongs) it got mixed reviews from movie critics on the premier please see http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/entertainment/13-Mar-2014/total-siyapaa-opens-to-mixed-reviews-moviegoers-treated-to-taj-cinema-s-revival . Forth evidence of mixed reviews is IMBD rating of 6 out of 10 including nine critics see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2727028/. I think in order to wind up quickly this prolonged discussion. I request a new edit to critical reception section. Since we already know one pool stances of ZORDANLIGHTER , Whistlingwoods and Xcrescent9 no further discussion from them is invited on this proposed edit (see below).
Total Siyapaa received mixed reviews by domestic and overseas critics. Kirron Kher's performance and Ali Zafar comic timings were seen as one of the strong points of the movie. [1][2][3][4] However Critics were critical on the lack of a solid plot,[5][6].
Some blocked user wrote all garbage in my talk page. At first I couldn't understand but reading the lines written in urdu usingEnglish alphabets(check the link-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Whistlingwoods#Mza_aya), it's clear the user is Xcrescent9 or Ibnebatutaji . The translation in English is this "I wrongly presented my statements to make sure my favorite movie gets good opening overseas................"rest is abuse in vulgar language which I don't want to translate. This person is writing in urdu so that International administrators don't understand what he is saying. Now in last few weeks I was busy with critical reception section of one movie only Total Siyapaa.--Whistlingwoods (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
same thing for you- this is not your war ground.Wikipedia administrators are more clever than you. Today or tomorrow they will find the truth.--Whistlingwoods (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Huon. I was not really expecting an extensive, in-depth overhaul-cum-cleanup – merely a preliminary impression, from a knowledgeable wiki expert, of how the article would ‘come across’ to the average international AfC Reviewer – and whether there are any obvious – (but hidden to my author’s 'blind spot') – blemishes/pitfalls. (Your Spanish colleagues used to call this "cosas para mejorar’: ‘things which you need to put right’. - first - and, boy, were there cosas para mejorar!!) Kind regards. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Unfortunately I was even more busy than expected and likely will remain so for the next few days. At a glance the draft looks good to me, with two comments: Firstly, I just noticed that we have an article on capacity building; if there is a source contrasting capacitation and capacity building, it may be worth the effort to add a little on the difference to your article, likely either where you currently mention capacity building or at the end of the history section to describe the shift of focus away from (large group) capacitation. Secondly, you provide a few sources that seem rather off-topic, such as the "generic" footnote with a dictionary reference for that term - unless such terms take on a special meaning in the context of the article I'd say we don't need an explanation for common English words. In contrast, the "transitive" and "intransitive" footnotes both are relevant to the context of capacitaiton.
Neither of those issues are particularly severe. There's also a little copy-editing to be done, such as tidying up some links, applying Wikipedia's preferred style to the "History overview" and "Theory overview" subsections and the like, but that too is easily fixed. Huon (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
:: Reply: I knew you were busy, Huon, and I am sorry if I appeared to have been pressing you – However, in terms of article development I felt I was stalled in ‘neutral’, so much so that, in the meantime, I had already started on a Spanish version of same. . So, your reply is more than welcome, not least as your assessment is overall positive as well as, at first blush, there appear to be a rather moderate number of cosas para mejorar, but certainly enough to keep me busy for the next few days. One quirky detail I have been struggling with: there are a lot of ‘repeat’ refs (same author) in the ‘Notes and References’ section. So I have been trying to streamline the "{harvnb}" refs using "{sfn}" (same footnote). Problem is, even though often the authors are the same, the page references are different, so, the "{sfn}" does not 'work'. However much I tried, I only ‘managed’ a solitary "{sfn}", ie in the very last sentence of the article (re: note 54): (Andersson){sfn|Andersson|2004|page=168}}. I would really have liked to ‘compress’ the number of notes (54) in a relatively short article – at least I tried. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
--
: PS: subsequent to your remarks this morning, I have already done some major juggling with the outlay of the page, so, the notes/reference numbers indicated above have changed already. Sorry. (Hope the new outfit looks better/more wiki-like?) (Pronacampo9 (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
: 21:25hrs: I have now revised the entire AfC text at the hand of your suggestions and made some further (minor) adjustments of my own. I left 'Categories' untouched. Next stage: time to press the 'Submit' key?? (Pronacampo9 (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
: A: If ever proof were needed, there is nothing in wiki-granbretanland that the ‘grand immortal King-Emperor’ does not know an answer to. . .chapeau! Indeed, ‘hiding’ from google would be pointless. You reassure me, though, (thanks!) that facsimils will not in any way influence the review process of <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Large_Group_Capacitation> (to which I can of course continue to make the occasional edit until such time a reviewer takes charge) . . .
PS. Apropos - clicking on (some of) the 800-plus AfCs in progress and I see that Roger the dodger is still a very active reviewer. I do hope my andragogies and zones of proximal development wont frighten the horses.(!)(Pronacampo9 (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
WP mentorship
Hi Huon, there is a proposal ongoing about a development of Wikipedia mentoring, to make it slicker and a better, more standerdised process. We would love to have you on board, and would appreciate your help, anything you can do, from reading the proposal and leaving comments to volunteering to be a part of the scheme is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Matty.00716:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Huon, I would very much appreciate your assistance and/or input on my attempts to edit the "torture in antiquity" sub-topic.
This relates to the sub-category of "torture in antiquity" about which we spoke earlier.
This is my first experience here, my first attempt to contribute to Wikipedia, and it has been a bit frustrating. I am fully aware that my lack of knowledge may very well be playing a role here, so I am trying to figure this out, and am entirely open to learning the correct approach/method, as I have made the same corrections more than once - each time I have followed the "instructions," yet met the same results.
Following our interaction in the chatroom, you posted the following:
"I'm a little concerned about the "antiquity" section, particularly the "Romans, Jews, Egyptians and many other cultures during that time included torture as part of their justice system" part. I don't think the Catechism of the Catholic Church can be considered a reliable source on ancient history or sociology. And the source for Jewish stoning confirms that Judaism had stoning, but does not put it into the context of torture. Thus we're left without a reliable source connecting those execution methods to torture. A section that asserts modern scholars' opinions should clarify who exactly those scholars are and where they said so. Huon (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)"
I took the time to expand on this, and provided what I feel are multiple valid reasons which would justify removing the reference in question. Each could stand alone, yet taken together, I feel that the rational for my edit was solid. I wrote:
I have removed all references to Judaism from the "antiquity" section, in light of the issues as described by Huan, as well as other reasons which I will list shortly; my contribution has been limited to torture in Judaism, as I do not have sufficient knowledge regarding torture in ancient Rome or Egypt. Regarding the portion which I deleted (torture in Judaism), I first examined the source which had been cited to support this statement. It made no mention of torture, and furthermore, made no conclusive statements of any kind. The source was based on the writings of Philo, though did not directly quote him. Furthermore, without exception, all references to "stoning" in Judaism (the original justification for including Judaism to the list of torturers in antiquity) were suppositions and assumptions; the following are representative examples from the text: "Stoning is probably..." "The precise nature of method of stoning is not stated precisely, however..." "To Philo stoning seems to be...but he does not invariably state the method..." "Philo has relativly little to say of the ways execution was to be carried out..." "Hence, while stoning is not always stated explicitly by Philo, it seems probable that this was the most natural way of punishment carried out." I feel obligated to point out that the statement made in the section was presented to be a statement of fact with a citation as proof of its authenticity and accuracy - yet upon examining the source cited, I was appalled to discover that the statement a) made no reference to torture at all, and b) made no conclusive statements of any kind regarding "stoning." To make matters worse, the source itself justifies the lack of facts/clarity by stating that there is "no need for such an interpretation to be understandable," and provide a citation to bolster this claim - amazingly, upon examining this source (ie. the "source's source), I discovered that this source relied on the Christian bible ("New Testament") to support their position - they cite 8 verses in the bible, then conclude by saying: "but none of these suggest the procedure... nor do they need such a procedure to be understandable." This entire episode is very disturbing. In this case, we had an article which stated unequivocally that torture was/is a part of the Jewish religion - a loaded accusation with profoundly negative connotations - which falsely provided a citation to a source which failed to support the claim, and in turn relied on another source which failed to support the claim, and used the Christian bible their source. Not only is there no mention of torture anywhere in any of these rather dubious sources - but the entire use of the word "stoning" is in of itself an incorrect translation, the result of Hebrew being translated to Greek, then Greek to Latin &tc... One only needs a basic working knowledge of Hebrew to know that the root of the word which is used each time this method of execution is mentioned is Resh-Gimel-Mem (ר-ג-מ), which can connotates tossing, heaving, or pushing, yet when a person throws a stone or other object/missile, the following roots are used: Shin-Lamed-Chaf (ש-ל-כ) (flinging) or Zayin-Resh-Kuf (ז-ר-ק) (throwing), or even Tet-Yud-Lamed (ט-י-ל) (casting/hurling/launching) - which is why all authoritative scholars of Jewish jurisprudence agree that the method known in English as "stoning" in fact involved the "tossing/heaving/pushing" of the condemned (by one of the two required witnesses to his crime) from a specific height, to fall and be killed on a stone courtyard below - and only if the condemned somehow survives this fall, is a boulder pushed from the same place (by the second witness) to crush his body below. This is further bolstered by a textual analysis of the conjugations involved and the context. Also, any death that would cause a) mutilation to the condemned (ie. that would cause his corpse to be mutilated after death), or b) avoidable suffering (making all previous 'torture' references doubly inappropriate) is prohibited, as it would bring the witnesses/judges to transgress a significant number of commandments, both positive and negative. Again, I have chosen to elaborate on this specific example, as I feel it serves to represent a) an example of extreme distortion/misrepresentation/outright falsehood being presented as a cited fact b)having that cited source also present distortions &tc as cited facts as well c) having those cited facts be based on the Christian bible d) admitting that even in the Christian bible, those facts are not stated conclusively! If this were an article on, say, the culture/religion of the Akkadians or other ethno-religious minority which no longer existed, it would still be unacceptable - yet this is a profoundly "inaccurate" statement on Jews and Judaism, a highly maligned and persecuted minority - and it served to portray them in a violent and unseemly manner. I have no right to explicitly question the motives of whoever chose to insert these misrepresentations, yet I would be naive to assume that the possibility of malice could not have played a role either. I am very new here, so if this is too long/in the wrong place/written in an incorrect fashion, or inappropriate in any other way, please let me know, so that I can learn what is considered acceptable here on Wikipedia. Abu~Labid al~Zuraiqi [נשיקות פיהו] (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)"
Almost immediately, I received a notification from the same user who had undone my previous attempt at the same edit.
He had again restored the original phrase, with the original cited source, effectively declaring that my lengthy explanation of my rational was irrelevant. He explained his decision by stating:
"Stoning is w/o doubt death by torture no matter
who did or still does it. I.E. see "History Of Torture"
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://books.google.com/books?id=PVPYAQAAQBAJ&dq=death+by+torture+stoning&source=gbs_navlinks_sCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
I then examined the "History of Torture," the source which was cited to justify the removal of my edit. Firstly, I does not address any of the issues which I raised, as the example of stoning refers to methods employed in the 17th conflict between Irish "Papists" and English Protestants. The following description is given, the source of which is "The History of the Persecutions of the Church of Rome and Complete Protestant Martyrology, 1809."
The text states: "Judith Mandon, a young woman, for refusing to embrace popery [italics not present in text], was fastened to a stake, and sticks thrown at her from a distance, in the very same manner as that barbarous custom, formerly practiced on Shrove Tuesday, of throwing at cocks. By this inhuman proceeding, her limbs were beat and mangled in a most terrible manner, and at last, one of the bludgeons dashed her brains out."
I have many issues with this. Firstly, there is no source presented which even can even remotely link the methodology of "Papists" and Protestants to that of Judaism. As I took the time to point out, the Philo source both admits that the methods were not described by Philo, as well as referring us to another "source," ie. the Christian bible - yet still states that even there the method is not described. So I am at a complete loss as to the justification for deleting my work and providing this new source. I am in complete agreement that what is described in the newest source is torture, yet I have seen zero cause to link that with the matter which I am addressing: Judaism.
Yet there is another issue with this source. I am questioning its very legitimacy, as it employs terminology which is racist, antiquated, and reflects views which are no longer considered acceptable in public discourse. For example, it the first part of the book is entitled: "Torture among the Savage and Primitive Races." [Italics not present in text.] Another example I found in less than 5 minutes of examining this "source," is as follows: "Of all the initiatory rites ever practiced by savages, however, those adopted by the North American Indians probably ranked as the most terrifying, involving excruciating and diabolical torture. The procedure varied in different tribes, but that adopted by the Mandans appears to have been the most pitiless and sanguinary." [Italics not present in text.] Furthermore, it would seem that the entire justification for the stance of the user who is deleting my edits is the following line: "Yahveh, the God of Israel, according to the wealth of testimony provided in the Old Testament, for sheer cruelty, terrorism and frightfulness, surpassed belief...He approved the punishment of dereliction of duty and petty offenses by such tortures as stoning to death and burning alive." [Italics not present in text.]
Now, I am going to state, unequivocally, what should be obvious already: this source describes stoning to be torture - it provides no proofs, justifications or reasoning, and can only be viewed as the personal views of the author - the same author who writes of "Negroes," Savages," "Primitive Races," "Popery," and the Jewish God as a "cruel" and "petty" "terrorist." For this source to trump everything that I wrote is, in my honest opinion, quite obscene. I would very much appreciate your assistance in rectifying this matter. I expressed these thoughts in as polite a manner as possible to the user in question, named "The Magnificent Clean-keeper," and included the following authoritative sources of Jewish Halachic Jurisprudence which describe the method in question, and in no uncertain terms, render this entire business irrelevant; even if the "History of Torture" was not an outdated, offensive source of "racial superiority theories," the sources which I provide clearly illustrate that the method did not involve what is described in this "source." They are indeed in Hebrew, yet I think that it is fair to say that anyone who wishes to forcefully control the definition of a topic should at least have a basic knowledge of that topic. I would not presume to edit pages dealing with subjects which I knew nothing about, did not have the tools to even learn about, and had a clearly biased opinion. The sources which I provided are as follows:
1. Mishnah, Order of Damages, Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter 6:4
2. Tosefta on Damages, Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter 9:3
3. Mishneh Torah leRambam, Judges, Laws of the High Court: Capitol Offences: Methodology and Application of Penalties and Execution.
There are countless commentaries written on this as well, yet these 3 sources are the base for all discussions on the issue, as they outline what exactly was done, and why.
I also mentioned that I have translated the names of the tractates, chapters, and sub-topics named, and of course I will be more than happy to provide them in either the original Hebrew or a transliteration. Please understand that I find this to be quite frustrating indeed. I feel that there is zero justification to ignore my rationale for the edits I made, and to do so based on the characterization described in a book which clearly employs language that is outside of the realm of acceptable, is not scholarly, and is actually quite archaic and offensive. Please reply when you can, I thank you in advance. Abu~Labid al~Zuraiqi [נשיקות פיהו] (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you may want to take a look at WP:TLDR. A wall of text such as this one will discourage many prospective readers.
That said, the author of History of Torture clearly considered stoning, as prescribed in the Old Testament, as torture. It's an often-reprinted scholarly book, reliable by Wikipedia's standards, and what is and what isn't torture clearly is that book's core topic. (Also, that book is old, first published in 1940; "Negroes" at that time may still have been politically correct. Newer sources of course are preferable.) And according to Josef Blinzler's The Jewish punishment of stoning, the comparatively humane methods described in Sanhedrin only came in use after about 70 CE and differed significantly from "Biblical" stoning (which was in use earlier). The Sanhedrin itself is a primary source, just as a modern code of law would be; Wikipedia content should be based on secondary sources, and in any case the Sanhedrin doesn't discuss whether stoning is torture or not. To put it more bluntly: I do not think Wikipedia considers the same kind of sources authoritative that you do. Huon (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review—I would do more research on the subject, tinkering mixed up the citations. Sorry about the "copy-pasted message"; usually, I would have alerted the both of you that I made same request to the other, but I acted in a hurry this time as some days has past since I asked Excirial. In any case, I am alerting Excirial now that you have answered my question. Thank you again. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
