User talk:Huon/Archive13

Sarah Archer

Hello My name is Anita I would Like to thank you for Editing Sarah Archers page I have new information but I seemed to have tried to site but I couldn't if you have time could you possible help as I put her Award for The Duke of Edinburgh's on her website http://www.saraharcher.info/awards/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anita cohen (talk • contribs) 12:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anita cohen: I have never edited Sarah Archer (model), the page you probably refer to, before today. Anyway, Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For rather obvious reasons, Archer's website is not such a source. In fact, the entire article on Archer is only based on local coverage and is a borderline case regarding our notability guidelines. You should also take a look at Wikipedia's guideline on conflicts of interest and the recent changes to the Terms of Use which prohibit undisclosed paid editing, as yours would likely be considered to be when you edit on behalf of your client. Huon (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Cleaners review notes

Thank you for answering me, I only have a couple of questions regarding your judgement. 1. Fantastic Cleaners was created first, then joined other services and became Fantastic Services but the Cleaners portion stays relevant. - Check the Scoot award or the Clensa approval. 2. I have read the "notable" and "independent" sections more than once.. how are official mass media sources not relevant? How are multi-national awards not relevant? Did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_Rug_Cleaning ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Rooter or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxi_Fresh_Carpet_Cleaning cite more relevant, more notable or more independent source to their companies? I should apologise here if I am coming in as a bit passive-aggressive... What makes a rather notable source less important and destructive for the article, and having no sources at all "OK"? 3. The information provided is informational.. the content has only one link to the site and that's it.. I have not used terms as "The Best", "The Most Lovable" ect. Please point out the promotional parts... Ethan Cresdee (talk)

Other problematic articles may exist, but that's not a valid reason to create more - each submission must stand on its own merits. Among the rather useless sources I'd include "about us" pages written by themselves like this or this (not independent coverage of either Fantastic Cleaners or the Clensa recognition) as well as praise by their partners such as this, hardly an "official mass media source" and the only source for the charity, which always sounds nice in a company article. Virgin doesn't say what you cite it for - Zappos is the "innovation leader", Fantastic Services is following its lead. Headlineawards.co.uk is not an independent source on the Headline Awards. Among the nice-sounding but unreferenced content I'd include everything about their international reach, the "dramatic growth", "has more than 40 partners internationally" and so on - in fact, the entire "Operations" section doesn't cite any sources, and for all I can tell none of the references provided in the draft support that content. The lone third-party source in the "History" section also doesn't say what it's cited for. Huon (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Piyush singh450/Jobsdhamaka.com

Apparently he didn't get the hint... (sigh) Revent^talk 09:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• relaunches-following-100000-investment/</ref>, [[Stamford]], [[Stratford-upon-Avon]], [Telford]], [[Wellingborough]] and [[Worcester]]. It also has a mobile tyre fitting service in the Midlands.<

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alan Cavé may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [http://https://twitter.com/AlanCaveMusic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of atheism

Sir.. In regards to my suggested edit of the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demographics_of_atheism&action=submit page, I did not fake the numbers.. I provided the resource link.. As I mentioned in the comments (which thank you for letting me know not to add comments that say "delete me").

The part which you accuse me of faking the numbers are a section that I did not make any suggested changes to.. I left that paragraph alone as I did not see any credible source that refuted those numbers. That paragraph does not even reference anything about percentages.

Here is the entirety of the paragraph:

"

Main article: Irreligion in the United States

According to a 2011 Gallup poll, more than 9 in 10 Americans say "yes" when asked the basic question "Do you believe in God?"; this is down only slightly from the 1940s, when Gallup first asked this question. However, when given the choice to express uncertainties, the percentage of belief in God drops into the 70% to 80% range. When Americans are given the option of saying they believe in a universal spirit or higher power instead of in "God," about 12% choose the former.[1]"

Again, I suggested no changes to that section.. Not one single change by me was suggested...

Please acknowledge that I did not "Worse, you faked numbers" when I never suggesting any edits to what was already written..

As for "If you want to comment about content or changes, the article has a dedicated talk page for that purpose. Editorial comments should never be included in the article itself." Clearly I have never once attempted to suggest an edit to a Wikipedia page. That should have been clearly obvious. I was like the girl who posted how "dumb it was for elevators to have a button for the floor you are on"....

I understand you must get so many suggested changes by biased people. (I read about the recent discovery of that guy working at Wikipedia who was also an employee of Deepak Chopra. I would expect your staff to be especially sensitive right now about suggested changes..

I started off trying to make delineated comments that acknowledged I am a partisan atheist, but that my only purpose was to update the demographics to the latest respectable polls (which I broke down at the top of my suggested changes (only the Pew Reasearch, Gallop Poll, etc). That my only intent was to update the numerical numbers to the latest respectable polls.

Please reconsider my suggested edits.. They are ONLY from respected websites that are more recent than the ones listed on this webpage and are cited. And again, the part where you believe where I "faked numbers" was a section I did not even suggest any changes to...

You made the article say, quote:

According to a 2011 Pew Research poll, 68% of Americans say "yes" when asked the basic question "Do you believe in God?"; this is down from the 1940s, when Gallup first asked this question. However, when given the choice to express uncertainties, the percentage of belief in God drops into the 80% range.

That's not just inconsistent ("dropping" into the 80% range from 68%?), it's just plain wrong. The source you provided for that change in your comment cites a 2013 Harris poll, not a 2011 Pew Research poll, it doesn't say 68% answered yes when asked that basic question, and since it was an online poll with no given margin of error, I have severe doubts it's as reliable as the Gallup poll mention of which you removed. I also seriously doubt religious demographics shifted by more than 20% in just two years; that alone should have given you pause. And that was not the only problematic change. For example, you conflated the "non-religious/unaffiliated" in the Pew poll when Pew points out that two thirds of those explicitly consider themselves believers in God - a fact that would seem relevant when discussing the group in a "demographics of atheism" article, don't you think? Huon (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. "More Than 9 in 10 Americans Continue to Believe in God". Gallup.com. Retrieved 2014-01-06.

Template:Noticeboard links/sandbox

Hi there. You were the last one here, so I thought I'd let you decide what to do: I just started Template:Noticeboard links/Draft per Template talk:Noticeboard links#Template revamp not realizing the sandbox existed. Perhaps just pasting the entire Template:Noticeboard links/Draft to Template:Noticeboard links/sandbox, replacing what is there, would be the best plan. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only edited that page as part of a rollback spree, but I've histmerged /Draft into /sandbox. I'll leave a note at the talk page. Huon (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Dear Huon,

Thank you for replying to my query re: Jorn Weisbrodt's article (sent by Timtrent). Yes, the permissions emails were sent to the right email address with the attached photos, and using the wording given by Wikipedia re: licensing. I'll wait 2-3 days and see if I get a reply.

Kind Regards,

Lulu

Lulu 21:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@SongsforLulu: Okay. On an entirely unrelated note, your signature doesn't include a link to your user page (which hasn't been created yet anyway), your talk page or your contributions. According to WP:SIGLINK, signatures should contain at least one such link. You can sign your messages by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end. The default signature will look like mine, but maybe you customized your signature in your preferences? If so, please make sure that the customized signature contains a link. Huon (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For all your hard work on #wikipedia-en-help, on behalf of the hundreds of editors you've helped, thanks! Thanks, Lixxx235^Got a complaint? 16:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BDBIsrael

You know, you're right. I wasn't entirely considering that there is no real difference between requesting on Talk:Banc de Binary and User talk:BDBIsrael. Thank you for putting it that simply. I wonder if they'll ever come back. Origamite^is out right now 00:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katvcb

Hi Huon,

Thank you for editing my citations and fixing the article up. You said that because the articles I've used all look like variations of the same press release, it might not be sufficiently notable. Should I attempt to publish the information, or keep looking for additional sources?

I really appreciate all of your help!

Katpss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katpss (talk • contribs) 13:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Katpss: Unfortunately I would expect that the eXMeritus HardwareWall Software draft will not be accepted based on the current sources. In my opinion, the breach detection draft was much closer to becoming an article. If you want me to, I can separate the two drafts and put them in separate sub-pages of your user page, while maintaining their respective page histories. (A copy&paste move would also work, but would not carry over the page history). Huon (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Dear Huon, Thank you so much for your assistance on how to format the infobox parameters on my wiki draft. I really appreciate it! -Allison — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allisonellis (talk • contribs) 22:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-up: Manameans (blocked user)

I'm a relatively new editor interested in articles about companies. I found a request this morning on the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies for an article about Sause Bros. from User:Ed manameans. I tracked back to the Draft:Sause Bros. article posted by User:Manameans, whom you blocked. I will be working on a draft article for the company, but wanted to let you know there is a very persistent PR company that seems to be in violation of Wikipedia:Username policy#Promotional names. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usernames of the "Joe at Company X" type are allowed; the problem with "corporate" names (such as the now-blocked User:Manameans) is more that they imply shared use (and the blocked account indeed was used by several people). So I don't think this choice of username is problematic, and the company seems to have switched from trying to write the article themselves to requesting an article, which is also an improvement. I see no need to do anything here. Huon (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy adminship anniversary!!!

Wishing Huon a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Anastasia (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global Decency Index (sic)

Hello — A couple of days ago you proposed Global Decency Index for deletion on the grounds that the article and all its sources were brief mentions of a single minor event. An IP editor has since disputed the PROD (or, more correctly, bulk-deleted all the templates at the start of the page), but I've noticed another problem that may be grounds for deletion: the entire text is copied from an external Web site which explicitly claims copyright. I've voiced my concerns on the article talk page Talk:Global Decency Index. Since you've previously expressed interest in this article, might you have a moment to peek at those points? If I'm reading the criteria correctly, this may be a candidate for {{db-copyvio}}. Thanks!  Unician ∇  02:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. Copyright violation indeed is a speedy deletion criterion; I have deleted the page accordingly. Huon (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 20

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

Sorry I had to leave the channel. I'll add my request here.

I would like to request AWB rights to do the following: Add and remove categories, Add persondata, Create list articles easier, Fix disambiguation pages easier, and Add different stubs. I appreciate your consideration. Thanks! A^2 16:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Akifumii: The correct place to request AWB is Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage and not here. Jianhui67^T★C 16:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jianhui67: I know that. The user and I were discussing in IRC and I wanted to finish up the conversation here. I am not going to request this for another month or so until I have 500 mainspace edits just to be safe. A^2 16:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Page

Dear Huon,

Earlier this July you have deleted my draft that I submitted as <National Bring a Kiwi To Work Day!>

I looked on the deletion log, which it was not on. Would you please be able to tell me why it was deleted?

Thank you!

LH

In short, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. This was a pretty obvious hoax, not a national holiday in the United States. It's covered by speedy deletion criterion G3. Huon (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Unger gallery

Dear Huon,

Thank you for helping me out with the gallery in the Hans Unger article! This is indeed how I would like it to be. On the block around the footnotes/references section, I could not find any examples in the English Wikipedia but there is one in the Nederlands Wikipedia (my native language), the article on Dolf Unger (which I wrote). Is this not common on English Wikipedia? I have two more questions: 1) in the infobox (on Hans Unger), I did fill in several names in the "Influenced by"-field but they do not show up in the Read-version of the article. Why? and 2) I noticed that somebody translated my article and pasted it on the Russian Wikipedia without adding a language link to the original article and without crediting the source. What can I do about that? I already put a message on his Talk page, in English, but since he seems to be Russian I do not know if he understands it. --Hansung02 (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia had a copy of the template that Dutch article uses, nl:Template:Appendix, but it was deleted in 2009. That style is not used on the English Wikipedia.

The infobox used on the Hans Unger article simply does not have "influenced" and "influenced by" parameters. See the full list of parameters; the closest are probably "style" and "movement".

The very first version of the Russian article already had links to the Swedish and English versions of the article. Check out the last lines here. Those lines have by now been removed by a bot because the articles are linked via Wikidata, a behind-the-scenes tool used to provide machine-readable information and to, like here, link articles on the same subject in different-language Wikipedias together, so it's still linked to the English article. Personally I do not think that link suffices to satisfy the requirements of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License the English article (and in fact the Russian article too) is published under, but I can't offer much help here: I do not speak Russian and do not know the Russian Wikipedia's policies in this regard. The best advice I can give is to find a Russian administrator that speaks English and to lay out the case to them. Huon (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you very much for recovering and giving what I need to revise to the Forezine (Anime Magazine) I owe you one and I mean it. Great job, I hope there are more editors like you, that values others contribution. Carlo ramos08 (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forezine (Anime Magazine) Deletion

User:Carlo ramos08/Forezine (Anime Magazine) how can I make this encyclopedic?, so that I can recover its original title and not be deleted anymore. I am making this as an article because this is a part of history and claims as the first digital anime magazine ever publish a copy. Please help me thank you. --Carlo ramos08 (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to show that reliable sources that are independent of Forezine (especially not just themselves, their authors or their partners) have covered the magazine in some detail. The Wikipedia article's content should be based on what such sources report. Right now it's largely unreferenced rumor or their own pronouncements, nothing remotely reliable or independent. Put bluntly, I do not think this magazine is notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article at all. Huon (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Huon re Bobby Watson

I did not realize I had left it in the wrong spot, but I ssooooooooooo appreciate your response... I was looking at the fact that all of the rest of the Rufus band members have their wiki articles...and even other musical artist this guy has been in OTHER bands with. It just struck me strange that many of their articles as well do not have a lot of certifications and the Watson gentleman has even produced other well known artist in Japan and China... it was just weird that's all... Every one has ridden on the coat tails of Chaka Khan but Watson... so I guess that is the main thing that the creator of the article was trying to sell. He is very well known for his bassline for Michael Jackson and has worked on albums with Michaels sister Janet and Those are well documented facts in wiki as well. So I guess there is no understanding as to how to certify these facts. He also has produced other American acts and has written music with all of these groups. I guess there is a problem with verifying these things since they happened decades ago. As I told someone one time when Rufus separated from Chaka Khan each and everyone of their albums "tanked" they went no where... so technically the group was "nothing" without her. But.... once again.. the 3 other members of the group have wiki articles. Michael Thompson, JR Robinson, Hawk Wolinksi...and some other guy... Thanks for the input appreciate your rapid response ... really was not looking for it... how do I find out who was trying to write the article that got rejected... I may be able to help them get it going. I don't want to write one myself. Not fueled enough to dig right now...

Peace' poekneegurlPoekneegurl (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the page history (which you can check via the "View history" tab at the top of the page), the author of that draft was Tmfelderstein, who has not made any edits since January. So I wouldn't expect too much from contacting them. Huon (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Favelle Favco Group edit request

Hello Huon!

You have assisted me before with an edit request on the page of the company I work for, Favelle Favco, for which my managers and I are very grateful. We were hoping to have a few additional changes made however, and as such I posted a message on the talk page (using the edit request template this time, as per your previous instruction) two months ago to the day, incidentally. I know that there is a bit of a backlog on the requested edits page, and I know also that my edit request is a little on the large side, but I was wondering whether you would have any time to spare to have a look at this? Thank you, your assistance would be much appreciated!

ZenIchi (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I intended to take a look today, but I was too busy with other issues, sorry. I'll try to do it tomorrow or in the next couple of days. Huon (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thank you Huon. I appreciate your time and effort and look forward to seeing your updates! ZenIchi (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Watson (rufus musician) article...rejected January 2014

Huon, Thank you for your time...and the information...I saw where they have not been active...but I also saw things for expediting of deletion...(is that to erase the page)? And something called a G13 clock reset...is that someone trying to ask that the page stay on wiki and not be erased so someone can work on it? And if it is scheduled for deletion and no one has worked on it, why would another person try to save the page, if THEY were not working on it? Oh and how can I just delete a page I was working on and save you all the trouble. LOL

Have a wonderful day Huon... by the way... where are you...I am in California...

poekneegurlPoekneegurl (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stale drafts indeed are eligible for deletion after six months (G13 is the relevant criterion for speedy deletion). If I understood FreeRangeFrog's comments correctly, that page had been deleted, was un-deleted by FreeRangeFrog on someone's request, and he re-set the timer so it's not immediately deleted again - it's good for another six months now.

If you were the only major contributor to a page you want deleted, you can add {{db-author}} to the very top, including the curly brackets, which will tag it for speedy deletion with the rationale of "Author requests deletion". Huon (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability and Trustworthiness of Wikipedia as a scholarly resource

Hello, how do I increase the reliability of Wikipedia? How can I make it more scholarly and trustworthy, like Scholarpedia? Frogger48 (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By providing reliable sources so our readers can independently verify our content. Scholarly sources such as papers in peer-reviewed journals or books published by an academic publisher are best, if available. Huon (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for helping a kid who's still trying to figure all this out. User:SmartyPantsKid 01:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Sachs (poster collector)

Well, actually, each and every poster that I put in my article was specifically mentioned in a source as being identical to one owned by Hans Sachs, usually the two auction catalogues. And what you claim were "dozens" of posters numbered 21, less than two dozen. But don't bother put anything back. If you made a mistake recognizing the posters, then that's my fault. I am going to put in another set of images, with a clearer heading to them. I'll do that myself in time. But is your sort of edit not considered a bit heavy in Wikipedia editing circles? I have published close to two dozen articles, and not editor has ever before removed a significant fraction of an article without asking me anything about it.

Henry Townsend 20:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrytow (talk • contribs)

The auction catalogues will "specifically mention" all the thousands of posters on sale, won't they? That won't allow us to point out the highlights of Sachs' collection, and they aren't really the kind of reliable sources Wikipedia content should be based on in the first place. Furthermore, I doubt a gallery of his possessions will really be all that useful for our readers - if a image of Sachs himself was available, that would be much better, I'd say. Regarding "my sort of editing", see WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. I removed not a single line of article text, nor any piece of information about Sachs himself or his life. Huon (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

The following message left on my talk page may be of interest to you too:

"This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Historicity of Jesus". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 20:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)"[reply]

Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Historicity of Jesus". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 August 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a Speedy Deletion

Is there a way to remove the deletion message from the Web? Bananadoodle (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Oversighters may have the ability to purge the deletion log, but that's not done lightly, and I don't see why it should be done here. The chances that someone will actually see the deletion log are very, very slim, though. Huon (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you very much for patrolling #wikipedia-en-help. Cheers and Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 15:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Huon. You have new messages at My Gussie's talk page.
Message added 21:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GLR9763

Hi Huon,

If you'd like to be helpful, please do so by editing citations that are not in proper format. Do not just delete text. In this case, I intended to fix citations but run out of power on my computer. When I returned, I found your deleting whole sections instead of simply fixing cites. FYI, since you do appear knowledgeable in the area of games and fantasy, you should do more research on the history of the Supreme Court decision pronouncing games to be a form of art. It may be of interest to you. Then you would know everyone's role. Again please do not delete text if you are just musing about its origins and study the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glr9763 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Glr9763: There was nothing to fix. I checked every single citation I removed, and they basically came in two varieties: Those that did not mention Rose, and those that were empty shells with no indication of what they were meant to point to, such as <ref name=finalruling/>. I assume that was supposed to be the Supreme Court ruling, but does that ruling really say it vindicates Mr Rose's views? Or was that just your personal interpretation?

The new references you have added now all share the same basic problem: They do not mention Rose, at all. Thus the entire content is either off-topic or unverifiable. I'll also have to add that the "Rose's views were vindicated" language strikes me as decidedly non-neutral, as does the general tenor of your edits. At a closer look, these problems - unreliable sources, sources that do not mention or discuss Rose, a general promotional tenor - are prevalent throughout the entire article, with the entirety of the current sources not sufficient to establish Rose's notability. Thus Articles for deletion is the way to go. Huon (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Rose

When I created this I was just following the people in the Gaming Industry and I agree it was basic bio content. I can't speak for what it has become so there is not really any argument from me.--Monstermike99 (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "Wikibomb"

Hi Huon, I remembered that you wanted to talk with someone responsible for that, and it seems that User:Kerry Raymond has some sort of organizing role. They've created articles for others to work on. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 05:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Betancourt

Finally some common sense! By the way, the Derwick Associates sections on legal disputes are too lengthy so I strongly recommend to summarize something; now almost all contributions seems to have been written based on extracts of media news, which is not the most appropriate for an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. The same has happened in the Spanish wiki so administrators corrected an excessive euphoria about.--Gilwellian (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Huon! I apologize for resurrecting this issue, but a while back I opened up an SPI due to my suspicions. It is still ongoing but did uncover a number of users active on the page as Socks. Although its possible this was just someone's misguided attempt to improve Wikipedia, I am still wondering what the implications are for these pages. Does the SPI need to be concluded entirely first? I dont want to stir up animosity but I would also like to see this resolved. Righteousskills (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be reluctant to act when the CheckUser who made the initial investigation put the case on hold, but I'll leave Risker a message to make sure he hasn't simply forgotten about this. Huon (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've already done so. Let's see what Risker says, and please take into account that he says on his talk page he's traveling, so there may not be an immediate response. Huon (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds good. I'll look for another way to get the process going again if there is. Thank you for your help. Righteousskills (talk) 04:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Manya (actress) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• }}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Singh Grover

There is nothing unsourced on that page, all the extra information added, was there in this article: http://entertainment.oneindia.in/television/news/2014/unknown-facts-about-karan-singh-fans-pray-for-comeback-qubool-hai-132693.html and this article has been put as a reference!

The upcoming movie, while arguably sourced, isn't important enough to be mentioned in the lead. I'd consider the "unknown facts" a rumor page of highly dubious reliability. If you disagree, why didn't you also add the tenth of those facts, his affair with the choreographer Nicole that ended his marriage with Shraddha Nigam? Claims such as "KSG is the famous man among the masses and will comeback soon just for his fans" are not serious reporting but pure PR hype. Huon (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article you have posted has a statement from a friend, however the times of india wrote no such thing! Hence I don't see why that needs to be put down, it seems like a spiteful thing to do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oblivion-hazael-grace (talk • contribs) 21:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivion-hazael-grace: See my previous comment. Even your own sources report the affair: Karan Singh Grover and Shraddha's relationship came to an end when Karan started having an affair with a choreographer Nicole, whom he met on the sets of Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa 3. The Times of India says in its own voice: Shraddha Nigam and Karan Singh Grover's 10-month-old marriage is over thanks to Karan's philandering, and Shraddha and Karan's relationship ran into rough waters when Karan started having a steamy affair with a choreographer, who he met on the sets of Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa 3. Karan's attraction towards the choreographer refused to die down. Grover's behaviour is not my fault; I'm summarizing what the Times of India says about it. Huon (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shakti Mohan

Hi Huon. My name is Snigdha. Shakti Mohan is a television actress and a popular dancer who has an Official Page and website too.

Redirecting it to Dance India Dance Season 2 won't give the complete details.

Please don't delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snigdharsha (talk • contribs) 22:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The unfortunate fact is that reliable sources that are independent of Shakti Mohan apparently do not give the complete details either. The references I found fell into two classes: Those that were not independent of Shakti Mohan, and those that only mentioned her in connection to her Dance India Dance success. See WP:BLP1E for our guideline on living persons who are notable for a single event only. As an aside, I too have a website; that won't get me an encyclopedia article. There's a discussion about the article at WP:Articles for deletion/Shakti Mohan; you're welcome to contribute, but you may first want to read the guide to deletion. Huon (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added the references. Shakti has many articles post Dance India Dance without it being mentioned too. Please remove or modify text without references. Thanks.

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Historicity of Jesus, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Animation Domination High-Def, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spin-off. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar For You

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For all the feedback and guidance you give me at IRC. You are so helpful and your judgement is so good. Thank you! I am eternally grateful. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matti Leshem

I've updated the draft on the Matti Leshem talk page, which you were previously very helpful with. Would greatly appreciate your thoughts on the revision. NinaSpezz (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, finally. See article talk page. Huon (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I posted a question to the talk page last week regarding the remaining page tags. Interested in your feedback when you get a chance.NinaSpezz (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kamunyak

Hello Huon. Since the film is obviously of relevance to the subject and useful to anyone seeking information, what link is acceptable? If that part of the blog, which is directly connected to the subject and has useful information, is not acceptable what is? Mcljlm (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC) 29 August 2014.[reply]

As I said on your talk page, sources are considered reliable if they're subject to meaningful editorial oversight and have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Peer-reviewed scholarly paper or articles published in newspapers and reputable magazines would make good sources. Regarding the film, you would have to find a version that was uploaded with the copyright holder's permission (for example, uploaded by the copyright holder), and link to that. Huon (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is required on the topic of Syrian Civil War maps

Dear user, you input is required on the question whether adding Israel as 5th belligerent to Syrian Civil War maps is legitimate, due to you previous participation on Syrian map module in June 2013. Please discuss it at talk:Syrian Civil War#Adding Israel as belligerent on Syrian Civil War maps.GreyShark (dibra) 09:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a dishonest and non neutral comment and inappropriate canvassing. The discussion is not to ad Israel as 5th belligerent to Syrian Civil War maps, but to show that in a map showing the "Current military situation in Syria" Israel is occupying the Golan heights. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reference to deletion of page

hi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakti_Mohan

before the references were not added but has been added now .. it would be nice of you to remove the deletion notice on that page

Indiantellyfan (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Indiantellyfan[reply]

Hey, I Think Some Guy Vandalized And Reverted My Reversion. What Do I Do?

You're the only person I know on here, was looking for the proper procedure on this situation. Not 100% sure he vandalized, but pretty sure he did. Looks like it. Busy Moose (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about this edit to the Ghana national football team article? That doesn't look like vandalism to me, but like good-faith removal of unsourced content. If you think that shouldn't be removed, you should provide reliable sources backing up those entries. Intruder007 seems to use one year as his criterion for "recent" callups, which doesn't seem blatantly unreasonable to me. If you think a longer time frame would be better, you should discuss that on the article talk page. WT:WikiProject Football may be a good place to ask for opinions, too, since the time frame for "recent" callups would be relevant to many articles, not just that one. Huon (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It totally was good-faith removal of unsourced content. If the players you had them were, indeed, called up in the last year, I'd happily accept my mistake. Just prove they were called up and for what game/competition. Anyway, cheers.Intruder007 (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry about that. Wasn't clear to me right away what the change was, didn't see an edit summary, just saw a bunch of content removed without context Busy Moose (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to tell you thank you for your help back end of July this year...

You sincerely are an asset to this site... I wish you nothing but the best and a beautiful life ahead of you. God Bless and Jesus loves you my wiki friend...

poekneegurlPoekneegurl (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhbir Kataria

Hello Huon, My name is Sushil I would Like to thank you for your comments. The image which is uploaded belongs to us and its also in public domain since I'm a public servant and I have released in public domain for people's use.It doesnt have any copyright issue. Thanks!! Sushilburnwal (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Sushil[reply]

Speedy deletion

Hi Huon, ı see that you have deleted the page Mersin International Music Festival. But it would be much better if you'd propose deletion and start a discussion. It could have been improved then. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was no claim of notability, making the page eligible for speedy deletion via criterion A7. In such cases there's no need to bother with a full deletion discussion. Since the article didn't cite third-party coverage for more than four years, I rather doubt it would miraculously have appeared by next week. Huon (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the List of music festivals a list of more than 100 music festivals with blue links. What was wrong with Mersin International Music Festival ? I kindly request you to put it back. Thanks. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, there was no claim of notability and no significant third-party coverage by reliable sources. The festival exists; so what? That on its own is not a valid reason to have an encyclopedia article about it, and the article's content wasn't verifiable anyway. While I haven't checked the articles on the festivals list, I wouldn't be surprised to find that many of them do not meet our inclusion criteria either - but that's no reason to tolerate this specific article on a non-notable topic. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

If you disagree with my deletion rationale, you can ask for a review at WP:Deletion review. Personally I see no reason to restore the page. Huon (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gerhard Vollmer may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{date=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFCH script

As you're using the old version of the AFCH script, please take a look at this discussion and the question (poll) raised below it.

Reference: (diff | hist) . . Draft:EVO-K‎; 2014-09-12 23:58:10 . . (+469)‎ . . ‎Huon (Talk | contribs)‎ (Declining submission: submission does not contain minimum citations (AFCH))

--Gryllida (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Mersin International Music Festival

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mersin International Music Festival. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Thanks for helping on the IRC channel! I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you've got enough beer, baklava, brownies, and bubble tea, but one can never have enough cookies. textractor (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Khan

Do you think this article needs semiprotection? Recently it appears that almost every IP edit is being reverted. So the benefit to the encylopedia of allowing further IP edits (at the moment) appears small. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Afican Union's site vandalism

Dear Huon, User:Knisfo Is not giving accurate information on the Infobox official language of the African Union, as the AU has no 4 working languages, African Union has 6 official languages ​​and "any African language." Either are official languages ​​may be used as a working language. Here is a video from Youtube where it takes place in one of the Summit of the African Union, the announcement of the formalization of the Spanish in the organization. Wikipedia is not giving accurate information on this issue because a publisher called User:Knisfo to change without any real source is allowed, just do not provide any evidence of his claim.

Equatorial Guinea President Teodoro Obiang, "Announces Spanish as Official Language of African Union"

The announcement happened during a press conference on 30 July 2011 immediately following the third day of the 17th Ordinary African Union Summit at the Sipopo International Conference Center on the island of Bata in the Republic of Equatorial Guinea. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXYtVDz29wc Thanks and regards.Enciclopediaenlinea (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spreading discussions widely over multiple unrelated pages is not a good idea. The place to discuss the content of the African Union article is that article's talk page. Huon (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Note of Appreciation

Thank you, Huon, for your quick response to my "Help me!" request for redirecting the Redirect of Tachash from Tabernacle#Plan to Tahash. You are an example of the friendly face of Wikipedia. Most appreciated! I wish you well. --Encyclopedic researcher (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Huon!

Hi Huon, how are you? You'll keep up the good work on Wikipedia helping others! :) --Allen ^talk 03:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A conundrum

Good morning, Huon (which time zone are you in?).

I'm having a marvelous time in this new and challenging world.

But I am REALLY having a tough time--so that I walk around muttering to myself--with this matter of erroneous printed sources trumping eyewitness testimony. I keep finding errors with my two subjects, quoted from sources in print or on the net. And if I set the record straight without a printed reference, it's flagged.

Should the information simply be omitted?

Perhaps it's time for the Wiki Powers That Be to decide an eyewitness source is acceptable, so long as it's marked that way.

In the meantime, what do you suggest I do with, for example, the problem of Sheekman's dying of Alzheimer's when he didn't?

What a fascinating life you lead!

Thanks again, so very much!

Miramaribelle (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Sturgis

You're completely misguided. I do believe you're just butthurt. Don't be a dick bro. Sturgis is so much more notable that you will ever be. Just stop being a douche and well all be fine and dandy.

Cullenisanidiot (User talk:Cullenisanidiottalk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably aware that your behaviour is unacceptable and in violation of multiple policies, including the username policy; you should be glad I have better things to do than to link this account to your main one and to get that one blocked as well. If I see further indications of sockpuppetry I'll do just that. Huon (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I got an update on the OTRS ticket. The permission release covers written text, photos, and logos. Best, Mike V • Talk 16:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! I'll upload the logo pursuant to that ticket. Huon (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shridhar University

Shridhar University, Pilani

श्रीधर विश्वविद्यालय
Motto	"Way To Transform"
Type	Non-Profit, Private
Active	Nov 2008 (Nov 2008)–Till Date (Till Date)
Chairperson	Mr. Vijay Pal Yadav
Vice-Chancellor	Prof. C. P. S. Yadav
Location	Pilani, Rajasthan
Campus	Semi-Urban, 60 Acres
Colors	Cyan & Magenta
Affiliations	AICTE, AIU, BCI, UGC
Website	shridharuniversity.ac.in

Shridhar University (SU) is a private technical university located in Pilani, Rajasthan, India. It is an ISO 9001:2008 Certified Self-financed Institution established by the Government of Rajasthan, notified by University Grants Commission under Section 2(f) of UGC Act, 1956 and approved by All India Council for Technical Education and by Bar Council of India and accredited by Association of Indian Universities.

References

• http://wikimapia.org/16379726/Shridhar-University
• http://www.ugc.ac.in/privateuniversitylist.aspx?id=29&Unitype=3
• http://www.shridharuniversity.ac.in/
• http://www.shridharuniversity.ac.in/approval.aspx
• http://www.shridharuniversity.ac.in/courses-offered.aspx
• http://www.shridharuniversity.ac.in/about-the-university.aspx
• http://www.shridharuniversity.ac.in/admission-procedure.aspx
• http://www.shridharuniversity.ac.in/infrastructure.aspx
• http://www.aiuweb.org/Members/MembersS.asp
• List of private universities in India

Category:Universities and colleges in Rajasthan

Hello Huon

Please create a page "Shridhar University" with neutral contents... — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeninDev (talk • contribs) 17:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have given a grand total of zero reliable third-party sources that cover the university in any detail. Such sources, say articles about the university written by newspapers or reputable magazines, are required, both to allow our readers to verify the Wikipedia article's content and to establish that the university is notable in the first place. Without such sources we cannot have an article about the university. Even if reliable independent sources were provided, I personally have other tasks on my to-do list that I find far more interesting; it may be quicker to request someone to write an article at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences#Schools, colleges, and universities. Huon (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ronn and the help channel

Please ping me on my talkpage (or indeed anywhere else) if Ronn should visit the help channel again. That would be most interesting, it sounds like User:Diannaa and I missed quite some theatre (maybe!). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tachash

There is a bit of a background, and I'm looking into the newly-created foreground. See the talk page archives; In ictu oculi just pointed me this way. Oh, I just saw this, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael Paul Heart. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled on the redirect after the article at Tahash had been created; I was about to ask for help at WikiProject Judaism. It might be possible to write a well-sourced article on this supposed beast, but the current version is clearly unsuitable, and the sockpuppetry and pov-pushing OR certainly doesn't help at all. Huon (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you so much for your answer about the taxobox for the monarch butterfly.  Bfpage |leave a message  17:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, happy editing! Huon (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Playing the devil's advocate

Dear Huon, Not sure if this is the right place to address you or if I should've added my note to the bottom of the pile on your other Talk page. At any rate, I take your "Verifiability, not truth" caution to heart, and of course am most sympathetic to the idea. I've been busy deleting--or referencing. But here's what I'm very curious about: I used the Bette Davis and Katharine Hepburn articles as my model for Gloria Stuart, being actresses of a certain period and somewhat similar backgrounds. And when I began, I had no idea Wiki ranks the articles...when I found out about the gold star, naturally I've been aiming for one--that's also why I chose Davis's and Hepburn's entries. They're both wonderful articles, rich, expansive, and they fill in lots of blanks. But in terms of verifiability, there are MANY MANY MANY areas in both articles that go on at length with nary a reference. See for yourself. And yet they are both ranked at the top of the form. Kindly enlighten me. I want so much for these two articles (Stuart and Sheekman) to shine. Warmest thanks, Sylvia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miramaribelle (talk • contribs) 19:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Miramaribelle, this is indeed the right place to address me. If by "my other Talk page you mean User talk:A930913, that's not mine but the one of the editor who runs BracketBot, and A930913 probably wouldn't want to see it turned into a general discussion forum for issues unrelated to them or BracketBot.

I'm not sure I understand the issue. At a glance the Bette Davis article has short parts here or there that don't cite an immediate source, but Katherine Hepburn looks near-perfectly sourced - the only major part in either article that doesn't cite sources is the lead, and that's deliberate because the lead is meant to summarize the article's well-sourced content and doesn't need to repeat the sources. Could you point out specific statements or sections you think could do with additional references?

Also, both articles cite multiple biographies written about Davis and Hepburn by third parties. I rather doubt it's possible to find sources of that quality on Sheekman. Thus it will likely not be possible to make the Sheekman article even remotely as detailed as the ones on Davis or Hepburn. Huon (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Something unrelated to our discussion at MOS:TV, do you know why your latest edit summary includes "Tag: HHVM"?[1] I've been seeing it a lot lately and neither Special:Tags nor mw:HHVM explains why in English. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the beta features that's supposed to speed up the loading of PHP pages. See mw:HHVM/About for more details. I turned it on today. No ill effects recognized so far. Huon (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wasn't aware that users could individually switch it on. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]