I'm not sure what you expect me to do here. You have reverted at least as often as him, so I'd be careful about WP:3RR myself if I were you. Furthermore, there's a talk page discussion going; reverting has stopped. Huon (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay: I understand. To place my point that user was welcoming users those who were already welcomed. But after reading your message, I understand my point: and I am sorry for my act. I will keep this point in my mind and never do this mistake ever. Sorry for the harm done aGastya✉ let's have a constructive talk about it (: 13:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chris Whaley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sault Ste. Marie. 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.
If this is about Lovelynoora, that draft was declined (and then deleted) because it was a piece of puffery that promoted her YouTube channel without even attempting to provide reliable sources. The draft on Mindy Mcknight was deleted because it was a blatant copyright violation, copy-pasted from here. Huon (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Geni: There were no reliable sources given for any of the content, there were issues with the grammar and with fragments such as a timestamp appearing in the middle of it. Some parts of the content sounded more like local legends than facts, and for others, particularly the religion, I doubt they're true. At best it was original research, at worst propaganda. Huon (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Babu ID: Unfortunately that draft has already been deleted because it was over-the-top promotional. I have to agree with that assessment. To provide just one small example, consider this excerpt: "... focused on providing highly scalable services with innovative approaches and advanced methodologies". What information does that provide? Very little. What makes the services "highly scalable"? On what scale? What are the approaches, what innovations do they contain, and who reported on them? What are the methodologies, and compared to what others are they advanced? The draft answered none of those questions, and it's pretty clear the purpose of that phrase was not to help our readers' understanding of IDIPIA but to impress them with its greatness. That's simply not what Wikipedia is for. Huon (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my talkpage
Although I am indeed one of those 4,000 cadets and not an official of the Academy, I'm not just having a little fun. This IP should be blocked because it will only contribute WP:VANDALISM that looks poorly on the Academy. I think allowing account creation is the perfect solution. --140.32.16.3 (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no. We're not here to protect the Academy's reputation from its own cadets. In the history of that IP address blocks have been comparatively rare, and the most recent contributions seem to be in good faith. Thus there's no reason to block it, certainly not indefinitely. Huon (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who posted this request while logged out. I'm not looking to protect the Academy's reputation so much as I am the encyclopedia from nonconstructive edits. What will you do when vandalism arises once more from it, though?--DawnDusk (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If vandalism becomes an issue, then it's time to block the IP. We do not block preemptively because someone might use the IP for vandalism, though. Huon (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Hello again. Thank you for your mature and helpful response at User talk:QUSRAAFCAF. Everyone makes the occasional mistake, myself included of course. I also appreciate that being an Administrator on Wikipedia can tend to be a fairly thankless task too. So for my part I apologise for the confrontational tone of my comment. I have self administered a few upper cuts since writing it and will try to be a bit more circumspect in my responses in the future. Kind regards. Anotherclown (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't quite say "my pleasure" to that affair, but I'm glad we got it all sorted out. I only hope we didn't drive off QUSRAAFCAF in the process. Huon (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you too
Thank you, Huon. Any idea why the unicode characater ⁊ appears correctly - on my system - just after the word "abbreviation" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tironian_notes#Current but does not show up correctly - on my system - when viewing this page?
Actually your browser would be my first suspect. I found a comment that the Internet Explorer running on WinXP may need a little extra support to correctly display unicode, for example. The next piece of advice I can give is to use the {{unicode}} template or <span class="Unicode">⁊</span>. Huon (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a question
Hello, I was looking for past contributions made today and found a talk page I deleted for "[redacted]" to be deleted [link redacted]. Any reason for this? I only welcomed the editor and left him warnings (2) for his edits. --FAT RAT (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On this edit [1], I either used rollback or a managed Twinkle revert so there could have been no nasty comment I made that should be invisible. --FAT RAT (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Fat Rat of Chepstow: That username clearly is inappropriate because it accuses a specific person of a crime; it has been oversighted for that reason (you won't find the user in the user list any more). There was nothing wrong with your edits (except the edit summary probably mentioned the username), but the username in question is itself at best a BLP issue, at worst a blatant personal attack. Please don't spread that username around. Huon (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I got a little overzealous with redacting links; while the diff you point out is no longer visible, that's because the previous revision is problematic; your revision (excepting the edit summary) is still available. To see a diff betwee two edits, neither edit may have been oversighted; otherwise the problematic content would still be accessible. Huon (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I've got the picture now, basically the very name is an offending remark so it shouldn't be uttered anywhere on the site; and in order to clear it from the system, surrounding damage is inevitable because you'd have to blank visibility on two revisions and summaries at fewest and there is no way out of it. So without intention, the rollback options all give the reverted editor's user name. As for spreading it around, don't worry, now that it's gone I don't think I can even remember it verbatim!!! Which is the best way :) :) :) --FAT RAT (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Malcolm H. Stern page - quotes
Hi Huon. Thank you again for being so helpful and constructive on the IRC channel. I don't know what it is but I really hear what you are saying when you give me feedback. And I really appreciate it.
I just wanted to let you know I cleaned up most of the quotes on the page, and lo and behold, I think it significantly improved the page. Using the quoted material weakened the page and actually made it less clear. So I really appreciate your help with that point.
I am going to evaluate the works and publications section and may write some sort of summary to encapsulate the breadth and scope of the work Stern did. I may also carve off the works and publications to its own page. I need to figure that out.
Again, thanks so much. I was at my wits end and you really restored my faith in Wikipedia, although I am still pretty upset at my initial mistake, and then the pain it took to fix the problem.
Sorry, didn't mean to yammer on. I wish there was a way that I could reciprocate in kind on Wikipedia, I'm just so thankful to you for your patience and kindness. All the best, Huon. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick response. Not sure where I go from here. How do I access "file pages" (with "Upload a new version of this file" in the "File history" section")? And if I have an email from the current Bishop saying that I may place the former Bishops' pictures from the Diocesan website in the public domain, can I send this email somewhere (to Wiki) and have this happen, so that they will retain the pictures? If so, where?Jzsj (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jzsj: When you're at the Wikimedia Commons, you'll see an "Uploads" link at the top right of the page, right next to "Log out". That will show a list of files you uploaded, with links to the pages on the individual files such as File:Bishop Osmond P. Martin.jpg. Regarding the copyright, from Wikipedia's (respectively the Commons') point of view it would be best if you could ask the Bishop to send that email confirming that the images are released into the public domain to permissions-commonswikimedia.org himself (or have an authorized representative of the diocese send the email); the people dealing with that email queue will then add the appropriate permission tags to the various files. A standard release form can be found here: WP:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. You should maybe point out that releasing it into the public domain isn't required and may be more permissive than he'd like; personally I'd suggest releasing them under an acceptable Creative Commons license such as CC-BY-SA 3.0 instead. That way, any derivative works would need to be released under a compatible license, and the diocese would need to be credited (for example via a link to their website, which would be a good idea in any case). Huon (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
permission for pictures
Thanks for sticking with me on this, but I keep running into terms for which I don't understand the reference in this context ("template," "URL"). Can I do this. After waiting seven days for my submission of 7 pictures to be removed, I'll send an email with the 7 photos properly cropped to Wikipedia commons. It will mention that I am a representative of the owner of the photos (I have an email declaring this), and, since the photos are merely pictures of Bishops, the Diocese doesn't care if someone wants to use them: they're in the public domain. (I tried the "delete" option but I couldn't find where to enter the tag, so I decided to go this other route.) Bishop Chris Glancy in Belize is very busy and would prefer for me to handle this, given his permission in an email he sent me.
If I understand you correctly, I can request that the Bishop send an email from an official email address to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. declaring that "the 7 attached pictures of Bishops are completely in the public domain, and released from any copyright."
Also, I'm sorry I can't locate the tag you told me to place on the pictures I want deleted. Please resend the tag and clarify for me exactly where I place this tag once I go to the picture's special page. Again, thanks for getting me started on all this.Jzsj (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if the Bishop sent such an email that would help. The people who deal with that email queue will then take the necessary steps to mark the images as being in the public domain, resolving all the licensing issues (that may take some time, though; I hear the email queue is somewhat backlogged). I didn't send any tag for deleting the images, and in fact I'd recomment not to have them deleted. If you want to upload cropped or resized versions of those images, you can do so under the same name without having the old ones deleted. To do so, take a look at the file pages such as commons:File:Bishop Osmond P. Martin.jpg; as I mentioned on your talk page, you'll find an "Upload a new version of this file" link in the "File history" section of those pages. You could also upload the cropped versions under new names, say "Bishop Osmond P. Martin cropped.jpg"; that of course also wouldn't require the deletion of the original images. Huon (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted that page as well to restore the information for which you provided sources. Reverting once is not a problem; reverting over and over again without an attempt to discuss the issue is. Huon (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello sorry that bother you again. But on this occasion there is some problem with an IP. If you look at the history of the article you will see the type of issues that this Ip has made. Leave you a message, but don't think that you lend him much intention. As he could not do this edition, He made this edition. Their editing would reverse, but it would be a loss of time. Since I don't think see you the message that lets you here. Could you do something about it?.--Philip J FryTalk02:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Philip J Fry: I have re-added the cast list as it stood before the IP's edits. There's a longer cast list in the body of the article, but there's nothing wrong with the infobox summarizing the most important actors - just as the rest of the infobox also summarizes the most important information about the telenovela that should be explained in greater detail in the body of the article. Regarding the IP editor, unfortunately I must say that I didn't find the message you left them particularly helpful. From context it was pretty obvious what the IP aimed for; have you considered helping them, telling them how to achieve their goal, or explaining why achieving that goal is not desirable? I'd bet from that IP editor's perspective your removal of the cast list will have looked a lot more destructive than their attempts at restoring it. Huon (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've left him a message on his discussion to the ip on its latest edition. Because the Edition is still incorrect, the main protagonist of Violetta are: Diego Ramos, Martina Stoessel, Jorge Blanco, Mercedes Lambre, Lodovica Comello, Clara Alonso, Pablo Espinosa and Diego Domínguez. Facundo Gambandé not is the protagonist of this telenovela, the only part of the secondary cast. And put "Pablo Espinosa (S.1)" seems unnecessary, because for this already this section of the cast, describing in that season I participate every actor. That single ip is organizing the cast to your liking. And where I understand the template's only television should be the main cast organized as it appears in the credits of the program. I've left him a message, I don't know if my message is clear.--Philip J FryTalk13:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@CosmicEmperor: We have a dedicated review process for drafts, and yours is correctly submitted for a review. At a very short glance I don't see any obvious issues except the bulleted list of URLs at the end. Those that duplicate references should be removed outright, and for the others I'd suggest you either summarize what those sources say (and turn them into inline citations in the process) or add some metadata (for example via the {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} templates) and turn them into a "further reading" or "external links" section. Huon (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Huon: , I don't understand much . My one article is accepted , two are rejected. I spent entire day for creating this. If you can kindly edit what you are writing above , then i will learn. You please go to the draft and edit. I don't have much energy left right now to edit the same draft i prepared for so many hours . The draft will be reviewed shortly--CosmicEmperor (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Huon nice to meet you through Wikipedia. I have question how do I change my username. Also, since it was never built maybe we should put as a former planned route. Thank you for the tip about the username. DietCokeIsTheBest (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay
Hi Huon nice to meet you through Wikipedia. I have question how do I change my username. Also, since it was never built maybe we should put as a former planned route. Thank you for the tip about the username. DietCokeIsTheBest (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, could you help me?.On April 21 I asked for help here, but so far no one has responded. User 98.116.21.171, is adding misinformation in various soap operas articles of Televisa, already leave you a message, but seems that it ignores them and really don't know to do in this case. This user already takes several days doing the same issues.--Philip J FryTalk02:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a closer look tomorrow. At a quick glance I agree the IP editor's contributions are not beneficial, but right now I don't have the time to look more closely into the issue and to determine the best way forward. If you're merely looking for helpers to keep an eye on the IP, WT:WikiProject Soap Operas may be a good place to ask for help, but if the disruptive edits don't stop, a block likely is necessary. Huon (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you think should be done here. We obviously cannot protect every telenovela article to keep out this one editor. Blocking the IP wouldn't serve much of a purpose since they have used other IPs in the past and likely will be assigned other IPs in the future, too. Furthermore, they're a rather infrequent editor; if I issued a block for less than a week they probably wouldn't even realize they were blocked. A rangeblock might be an option, but I'm not sure their small volume of edits justifies a long-term block on an entire IP range, a measure that may cause quite a bit of collateral damage. Huon (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually I don't know what to do in these cases. But up to now only been used that ip for vandalizing. I have not seen another different to that ip. This user only edit once in occasionally and just does the same thing all the time.--Philip J Fry•(talk)02:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right; I had assumed this editor was the same as one of the other unresponsive IPs you encountered in the past. However, I'm somewhat reluctant to call their edits vandalism; that would imply malice, and while the edits are not particularly helpful, I'm don't think we can conclude that the editor doesn't mean to improve the encyclopedia. I'll try blocking them for long enough to get their attention and make them read the messages others have left them. Huon (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I said that because I have not found another word, but well, we hope to change their attitude after their blockade. But by what I could on the contributions of that user, it is not a very active editor. But hey, thanks for your help.--Philip J Fry•(talk)03:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't write Wikipedia-related emails. If you need help, you can contact info-en-qwikimedia.org (which will reply via email). Huon (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@CosmicEmperor: To be blunt, Draft:1987 Meerut Riots reads like an untterly partisan screed, detailing Muslim atrocities in detail while omitting almost any mention of arson and murder by the PAC and Hindus, despite practically every single one of your references detailing such actions, including an alleged massacre of 42 people in police custody. In a particularly cynical twist, the draft makes it appear as if the murder of muslims were part of "controlling the riots", not part of the riots themselves. The references aren't just used to give a one-sided view of the riots, at times - despite explicit claims in the body of the article - they do not say what you cite them for. Furthermore, the chronology of events is unclear, events are not portrayed in a meaningful order, and while I acknowledge that the riots apparently were a complex, multi-faceted affair, the draft does not come close to giving an overview of what happened, much less why.
I'd say Draft:Tomato Date Chutney focuses too much on the recipe itself and has too little encyclopedic information about the dish. Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Two of your references don't provide any information on the dish beyond recipes; the third, the ToI article, is only slightly better. Since tomatoes are not native to India, when was this dish invented, and when did it become a must-have at "traditional" weddings? Was it a variation of previous dishes that were popular at weddings? Your draft doesn't say, and neither do the references. If recipes are all that can be found, I rather doubt this particular dish can be considered notable. Huon (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the previous version, I mentioned the details of massacre of Muslims; but it was rejected by a reviewer and asked me to merge it with Hashimpura massacre . But i felt this needs a separate page for itself---
as in this case 350 people died and in that Hashimpura massacre 42 people were killed. Meerut riots got huge coverage during 1987, but only Hashimpura massacre was remembered as the accused were police. And an article existed in WP. I thought if I mention about Hashimpura massacre in this draft once again, they will ask me to merge with an existing article, something which i can't accept. Even in Teahouse; Host Cullen accepted that the page 1987 Meerut riots do deserve an wikipage, he asked me to fix the bare URLs and add more details. Now as WP follows copyright issues, i was not sure how much to add from the sources. And you are right, I myself couldn't decide the chronology as different sources mention different things. And all of them are reliable sources.If the draft gets accepted, i will add more details from the sources.
A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification.
Thanks for reviewing YMB29's block. Could you please also consider whether their talk page access should be turned off? This was their third declined unblock request, and all they use their talk page for is tendentious attempts to justify their actions to support further similar (and doomed to fail) unblock attempts. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Soussoudis
I just wanted to thank you for approving my article and ask a few quick questions. As I am a new user (making this article for a class) I had trouble uploading a picture onto my page, I believe I didnt have enough edits to upload one. I was wondering if you could possibly help with putting that on the page, the link is below. Also I noticed my article was graded a starter class. Upon looking at the example of other starter articles, I have to disagree. I understand my article is short, but that is all the relevant information about my topic online, there is not a plethora of things about Michael Soussoudis to be found online. Thank you for your time, and have a good day!
Offline sources are also acceptable; you will have to provide enough bibliographical information to allow our readers to look up that source in a library. The video at WP:Referencing for beginners explains how to easily create nicely-formatted footnotes to cite print sources. If you feel the article meets C-class criteria you're welcome to change the rating, but I don't think it's a big issue either way. Regarding the image, we'd need to know whether it has been released by the copyright holder under a free license that allows everybody to re-use and modify it for any purpose, including commerical purposes. I see no evidence of such a permission. Thus we cannot use that image on Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Jefferson Flanders
Hi Huon, I am writing to seek your advice. As I know, other wikipedians appreciate your tolerance for newcomers and constructive approach. I have created a draft article for submission via WP:AFC. Here it is: Draft:Jefferson Flanders. Could you please have a look at it and tell me whether it can be accepted under WP:LIVE?
@JF2015: I'd say that draft will need better references. Of the current references:
Interviews are not independent coverage.
The Kirkus and Foreword reviews were bought and are not an indication of notability.
The Washington Times review apparently was written by a friend of Flanders' father, not quite as independent a source as we'd prefer.
Speaking of Flanders' father, the obituary does not cover Flanders himself in any detail.
I rather doubt the Kirkus Authors page is independent coverage under Kirkus Reviews' editorial control; it looks more like a part of the promotions they offer.
That leaves us with the HuffPo review as the only truly independent coverage of Flanders, and a single source, even if it were something higher-profile than a HuffPo-hosted blog, is not enough to establish that Flanders is notable. Huon (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Huon: I really appreciate such a detailed and comprehensive comment. Thank you for your time and efforts. I see your reasoning and don't dispute that we need more independent coverage to establish notability. I will look for more sources to support my submission or re-submit this draft later, when they are available. JF2015 (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy, last year I noticed you nominated Chester Doles for deletion. I had a hand back in 2006 in adding some citations in to the article, and I think because the article remained largely static since 2006 (while standards for notability have evolved), the notability of the subject was not made clear. I'd suggest that the subject was not notable as a criminal per se, but he became (in the words of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution) "a symbol in far-right circles of an overzealous government prosecuting people with unpopular views." As such, I don't think WP:PERP is the appropriate standard to apply. I wanted to know what you would think about re-creating the article and making his notability more apparent.
I know it is always a pain to revisit old deletion discussions. However I think the discussion got it wrong in this case and there's ample evidence of notability as a prominent neo-Nazi (enough that a US Congressman worked on his defense). Of course, mindful of BLP and such, would you have objections to my creating and further editing the article to show notability? Many thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still see no indication that Doles is notable. There's a little local court news, but nothing of any relevance on Google News. (There also seems to be, confusingly, an unrelated (former?) Klansman of the same name in Maryland.) The SPLC only mentions him in passing while describing the National Alliance's slide towards irrelevance. If you disagree and can show that Doles does meet Wikipedia's standards of notability, go ahead. Huon (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If another account of that user was blocked when the page was created, and if nobody else has substantially contributed to the page, it qualifies for speedy deletion via G5. That's something of a judgement call; if you think the article genuinely improves Wikipedia, you don't have to nominate it for speedy deletion merely because it was created by a sockpuppeteer, but it's a quick and easy way to get rid of stuff that isn't worth the trouble. Other than that, no specific actions are required. Huon (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A link to the specific page might have helped; however, it seems G5 doesn't apply here, so there's nothing to be done about it beyond regular new page patrol, maybe with some extra scrutiny. Huon (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A bowl of strawberries for you!
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my question. It means a lot to me. God bless you! Susanna Correya 22:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that someone is deliberately using the tactics of creating multiple through away accounts and pretending to be a slightly different person using each account, but I do not have time for for creating a proper SPI report. My very best wishes (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had; it's at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Hamburg322. Ironically Hamburg322 is the only one of the bunch I didn't feel entirely confident about since many of their edits seem to be good-faith improvements. They're all blocked though I might consider unblocking Hamburg322 again since there's no technical evidence for that one and behavioural evidence isn't as strong as for the others. Huon (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! Now, speaking about User:RossiyaCitizen22, he behaved a little differently from others, being intentionally rude and offensive. That's because he/she planned to be blocked, but reappear later using these newer accounts, I think.My very best wishes (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
List of most populous cities in Pakistan
Hi Huon,this is an estimate which is absolutely true and is not added by me and it is a sourced material.So, don't try to do delete it..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.116.19 (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what's the source? Certainly not the site cited in the page itself, citypopulation.de, which only gives an almost-correct version of the 1998 data. And what do you mean by "Not added by me"? By whom else? Huon (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Huon, Please, most respectfully, your edits and corrections I agreed, but you have deleted few sentences which clearly picture the essence of Rajamudy. Of course, the section "notable people" you deleted, I agree. It is small village and whenever, even in future after 100 years too, somebody reads Rajamudy will get the knowledge of earlier people residents of Rajamudy as a stimulating factor for development.
Two important things: Without telling about the Stadium and its history Rajamudy is nothing, do you know that, for I am born and brought-up in Rajamudy starting form the migratory years; but you deleted. And few sentences from "Culture" I explained evolving of culture and exemplified narrating in two lines the harmonious celebrations of all religious rituals and masses. But you deleted, now tell me a village in Kerala, everyone supports Christmas, Jayanthis or any such feasts in accordance. In Rajamudy no one abstain from not their own religion's but other religions' function.
I agree that I am new to Wikipedia and I have a lot of mistakes and problems technically. I can point hundreds of articles that are of your language "Irrelevant" and wrong. Let guide me so that I may become like you a Wikipedian of editing. Thank You very much --Peter Thomas Olickal 04:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)--Peter Thomas Olickal 04:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC) Peter Thomas Olickal 04:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@Olickal Peter Thomas: None of the information I removed was based on reliable third-party sources, and the parts about the stadium and the religious festival seemed rather irrelevant to me: The paragraph on the stadium mainly consisted of a list of names of ward members; the paragraph on the festival seemed both promotional (it's "famous"? Really?) and of little relevance to the village itself. The easiest way to show I'm wrong is to provide reliable sources such as a travel guide or a newspaper report about sports in Idukki district that discuss these features of Rajamudy. Huon (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source; it should not be used as a reference. The Encyclopedia Britannica article and the book about Dalit Christians don't mention Rajamudy, and http://Dalit%20Christians:Sc%20or%20not? is not a valid URL. Those references say nothing about Rajamudy and should not be used in the Wikipedia article on Rajamudy. Huon (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm new at this so I hope I am responding to your comments correctly. The study you are talking about in the Rape Statistics page was conducted in 1999. It is 2015 now. That study is outdated and that's what I said. And the Armenian Genocide issue, I have not deleted anything about how Armenian people were forced out of their towns. I have not hid how badly they were affected by the actions of the government. What I deleted was a contentious issue where there is a divide in opinion. I am happy to see that you are making sure that people are not being misled. However, as I explained I am not trying to misguide anyone. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cimbombom1905 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cimbombom1905: You removed, explicitly as "false" and "misleading", statements that the Young Turks carried out the Armenian genocide, plus sourced information on the scope of the genocide. There are extremely high-quality references for those statements, including scholarly books published by the likes of Princeton University Press. Regarding the rape study, it's 16 years old - so what? Is there newer scholarship contradicting those findings? If so, please provide a reference. If not, well - the text you removed clearly said that it was a 1999 study and thus cannot have mislead our readers into believing that the figures were any more recent. Huon (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rajamudy, part 2
Dear Houn, I now I have full of respect towards you. How gently you point my mistakes. Really Thankful to you. Let me correct my mistakes further. I just prepare two more articles, not about villages, but about two important caste group sharing major portion in Christian population of mainly Kerala, Tamilnadu, Karnataka of southern India. They are historically right from the embracing of Christianity by Kerala and India, exists, but is always sub-standardized. SO no article specific about them. There is mention in Wikipedia. How is it? Is it good and can I go with them?
And I will again look back to "Rajamudy" and will make corrections with only references of reliable sources, please excuse me> Thank You very much...--Peter Thomas Olickal 17:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olickal Peter Thomas (talk • contribs)
@Olickal Peter Thomas: That would depend on the references you can find. If modern ethnologues have written about those castes, you can summarize what they say and thereby write a Wikipedia article. There may also be 19th-century British scholarship, but that's much more suspect and may not conform to modern scientific standards. I happen to be familiar with some Wikipedia articles on groups of South Indian Christians, and they unfortunately tend to be in rather poor shape, often based on church websites or the like, sources that aren't really of the quality we require. Huon (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Houn, exactly the things you shared with me are correct, I will see that the article will never be in favour of any so-called churches, or religious base. I will take each and every thought and point you mentioned. And I need to thank you again for the quick and regular reply by you. Thank You Very Much.--Peter Thomas Olickal 17:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olickal Peter Thomas (talk • contribs)
Too much wikilove
Hi, Huon, I noticed the trollish complaint about a userpage that you replied to.[2] Frankly, those two accounts have my spidey sense tingling. Did you notice all the pies and other wikilove that "James" had previously posted, higher up on the same page? I've inquired privately of a checkuser. Bishonen | talk17:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I'll keep an eye on those accounts. Personally I'd be rather surprised if either of them suddenly became a productive editor. Huon (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About Deleting the entry for writer Daniel Genis
Hi- I am Daniel Genis. I just saw that I no longer have an entry, which surprised me. Then I found you saying that only my friends write about me, even if it's in the New Yorker.... This surprised me too, because I wonder how you know who my friends are, and when I became friends with NPR or the Huffington Post... I think you made some error; for example, today I am in the biggest paper in Germany, and I have a biweekly column in Vice, and Penguin paid me a lot of money for the memoir they are about to put out... after all, I basically went right from NYU to doing ten years in prison. In Russia I am the son of a very famous man, but even in America I did not fit in. I have published 75 articles since my release in 2014, and they are in places like Newsweek, the Washington Post, London Guardian, Paris Review and more. I've appeared on Canadian TV, on a Huffington panel, and as a guest lecturer in British Columbia. I have thousands of twitter followers and fans around the globe; in fact, I discovered two separate pirate translations of the New Yorker profile by Halberstadt. Is he a friend of mine too? The article begins with the story of our meeting. A month before. After doing ten years in prison, you don't have all that many friends left and have to trust in your talent. I was insulted by your disparagement but can only think it was a mistake, and if you knew what I know about what Hollywood has planned for 2017 regarding me and who is involved, you'd really smack you head. It might not happen; options work that way. But I have hundreds of thousands of readers. One viral article alone got 855,000 views... If you like, links to all of my publications are nicely collected on my site, www.danielgenis.net . So are profiles, interviews, video, audio, photographs... in many languages. Let me know if I can help; the sweet reader who put the old site up did such a nice job, and you deleted it. ....96.239.82.211 (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Daniel Genis[reply]
I didn't delete the article; it was deleted by another administrator after the deletion discussion you read. It was pretty clear from that New Yorker article that the author was a personal acquaintance of yours. We stayed in touch, and, in the course of several dinners and many bottles of sulfurous mineral water ... - that sounds like a friend to me, though you and I may have different standards there. Anyway, the basic issue is that while you're a prolific writer, Wikipedia content should be based on what reliable independent sources have written about you. And that's very little, too little for an encyclopedia article about you. I also have to note that there has been a recent campaign to add spam links to your personal website to Wikipedia, and that only today a new article about you, of which you are already aware and which is both promotional and largely unreferenced, has been written. To be blunt, from Wikipedia's perspective it would probably be best if you didn't "help" with an article about yourself; writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged due to the inherent conflict of interest. Huon (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted that new article since it was blatantly promotional. Wikipedia is not a tool for your personal PR. Huon (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huon, who are you that you have no idea how media works but are allowed some measure of authority? " It was pretty clear from that New Yorker article that the author was a personal acquaintance of yours. We stayed in touch, and, in the course of several dinners and many bottles of sulfurous mineral water ... - that sounds like a friend to me, though you and I may have different standards there." This demonstrates that you are not fit to be doing this. The man interviewed me over a few afternoons. He ate in my kitchen and drank mineral water. Do you realize that by your standards I am friends with CJ Ramone, whom I interviewed over dinners, and with Terry Gross of NPR, and here is the best one of them all- I interviewed Blondie this afternoon, we ate lunch, and I will do it again next week. I am now friends with Debbi Harrie? The one case in which a friend of mine profiled me is Harry Siegel, of the NY Daily News. He actually was my best friend in High School (all of this is totally none of your business but I am humoring you) . Now I write a monthly op-ed for the Daily News and he is my editor on it. My boss. What will you make of that? I really wish I knew how to report you to some kind of arbitrator, though I'd prefer to talk to you in a regular way and hope you understand that you've made an insulting mistake towards me... And if I were to take the (ignoble) step of complaining about you, I would simply REPEAT YOUR OWN WORDS. Because according to you, I am not notable because NBC News, NPR, the New Yorker, Bibliographile (they report publishing deals of 100,000 and up only), the NY Daily News, the Huffington Post, a couple of Russian sites, an Argentinian one, and all of the author description places for the many places I work for are not notable. You just can't trust that old Newsweek, can you? As a matter of fact, I've had dinner with the Deputy Editor of Newsweek as well- he must be an accomplice! You know, I took this to heart because I don't know how to write wikipedia entries, and don't have time. I had a quiet entry for a year, I think, and then you and YOUR accomplices came and said I wasn't notable. Now, I know better than you whether I am or I am not, but it happened at a time when I was selling foreign options to my book and was embarrassing to me. Thanks to your actions, a BBC producer was the one to let me know that my Wikipedia entry was deleted.... And then I go and look at some of the other people at 'my level' in the business and see their entries, and they have nothing close to the references I do, let alone the publications I have. Luckily I have very loyal readers, and I am sure that one of them will make me an entry with all the references in the world for you to examine.... but I was also taking this a little personally because of the personal effect it had on me. I was going to ask my agency to open a formal investigation about your qualifications to decide when NBC is dependable and when it isn't. Or who is my friend at the New Yorker. But I thought about it- unlike the mysterious methods and even more mysterious motivations behind this (does someone know me in person somewhere?), I actually have nothing to hide, exaggerate, lie about or be ashamed of... considering that I have only been out in freedom since 2/20/2014 and worked very hard against the obstacles, it looks like pure bullying to attack me by questioning the dependability of Terry Gross. NPR did an episode on me because of my notability; it's a strange story I have, and Penguin bought a memoir from a 36 year old man for six figures for the same reason. You are concerned about mineral water. And If I am addressing the wrong person, the bullet and not the gun, my apologies... but please direct this to the right one. You put me in the humiliating position of having to defend my notability and I have to answer at least one letter a day about how to help undo this wrong... People are very passionate about me- they either DESPiSE me or adore me, but never neutral. When they hate it's by judging, and it pisses them off that I 'profit' from my crimes, ignoring that I paid for them with ten years of my life. Is that what is going on here? Someone thinks I have not had enough? But that cymbal player with the same last name as me, there is a notable man. No friends at the New Yorker for him...I hope I have made some sense. I don't know how to write and entry, I was in jail for ten years. I am lucky my iPhone works. You have that old entry, though it's out of date by now, somewhere, or maybe someone can make me one if you provide the entry that used to be up. I figured I would try talking to you the way I would like to be talked to myself... I may not be the smoothest, but it's all true.... So, i'd love to hear what you think and hope I don't have to bother my agent with this. By the way, the editor of the New Yorker is David Remnick. My father awarded him a prize in Moscow in the 90's. Accomplice #2? Let's stop with these games... they can cost a lot in reputations and ducats. And there is no reason for them. Ciao, Huon! ----Daniel Genis
Hi Huon, you may want to read this. There is something close to a threat there, do you think it merits me warning him or taking other action? The irony with this whole business is that if he put half as much effort into writing a proper article as he does on our talk pages, he might well have been able to write an acceptable article. Jimfbleak - talk to me?10:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To me that reads as if Burton1978 means I will, as soon as Mr. Genis' movie comes out, want to hide my shame of having dared to nominate the article on so famous a person for deletion . But that's not the way it works. If notability is not in question in 2017, by all means let's have an article on Mr. Genis then. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we don't write articles now because the subject will unquestionably be notable at some future date. Huon (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my talkpage
Hello! It was me, Yoshi24517 on the irc channel. I accidentally left, but I am looking for help. Could you please check my talkpage, as I have already said, because if you asked any other questions, I might have missed them. Thanks! P.S. Please ping me if you reply to here. Yoshi24517ChatOnline01:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huon, your complete deletion of the paragraph on politics dealing with Mayor de Blasio is a blatant display of bias. The piece weighs so insanely heavy on israel, and negates all else. Torossian bridged the police and the mayor and you simply delete it? He, as pr guy for both, brought the two to the table and you just play into the nonsense of the rampant effort to steer this article one way only.
please do not remain neutral or worse, prejudiced. there is no many other things Torossian does, and these people just want to single sum. TLVEWR (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See my explanation on the article's talk page. I have a very low opinion of people who misrepresent their associations and, worse, misrepresent reliable sources to further an agenda. Huon (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwertyxp2000: I haven't used the script myself and know next to nothing about it, but the page I linked you to has detailed instructions, including a step-by-step guide in the "How to get it working" section. I won't be able to tell you more than what I learned from reading that page. If parts of those instructions are unclear, you're welcome to ask me for help with specific issues. Huon (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Link Spam
Hi,
I am not spamming links. If you look at the refs that I have re-instated, they are referencing birth names etc. They are no unreferenced.
Even if they now were unreferenced, that would not be an excuse to re-add unreliable sources to biographies of living persons, much less to re-add the same unreliable source to a dozen of them. Huon (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello sorry to bother you again. But I have a problem, the ip 187.171.177.191 added fake names on characters, look at Televisa and those names don't exist, even you can look at IMDb. Left you no message already that this ip has used other ips to continue editing, as you are: 187.171.133.142, 187.171.134.105, which makes it impossible to be able to leave a message, because I doubt very much that will read it. In the final just hours you have used one, but insurance your ip will change. I thought about going to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, but the last two times I went to ask for help there, no administration helped me. Request protection for the article, but was denied. Anyway after this message, I will leave you one to that ip. --Philip J Fry•(talk)04:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither version of the cast list is referenced beyond IMDb which does not give the characters' last names and thus largely does not allow a judgement of which version is correct. The one difference where IMDb was of any help was the role of Agustín Arana - and there IMDb says his role is "Florencio" - in line with what the IP editor says, not with your revision. The IP's English cast list also largely agrees with the Spanish cast list, which wasn't modified by that same IP, for all I can tell. I tried to find a source for whether José Eduardo Derbez's character's last name is "Bocheri" or "Bocelli", and I didn't find a single reliable source for either variant - in fact they all looked like Wikipedia mirrors to me that simply mirrored different versions of our article. On a related note, not a single reference in the article actually postdates the release of the telenovela. Newer sources say the character of Itatí Cantoral is actually named neither Bocheri nor Bocelli, but Isabel “Puchis” Mayer or Isabel Mayer de Velasco.
I don't speak Spanish and don't think I had access to Amores con trampa itself even if I were interested in watching a telenovela I cannot understand. So I'm left with unreferenced information you and the IP editor disagree about, and in one instance I could check you're the one who appears to be wrong, while in another you are both wrong. On that basis I'll definitely not help impose your version on the article. Instead I will pare it down to only the characters' given names, as supported by IMDb, plus the few last names supported by the sources I found. Huon (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you do not speak Spanish. But "Puchis" is not a name or a surname, nor is it a nickname. It is rather a descriptive which make the protagonist. With regard to surnames, I think it should be in Austin and Ally, that do not use the surnames of the characters since they create confusion as these. As recall in February when Televisa announced the premiere of Amores con trampa, Itati Cantoral character was called "Isabel Velasco" not "Bocelli". There is in fact a promotional video where the surnames of the characters are mentioned. And needless to say that a telenovela each character changes names all the time, on all the villains, I don't know if you understand. But anyway I will try to communicate on the article talk page, leave a message and not to the ip seemed to see it. Anyway, I will look for references to surnames and names of the characters.--Philip J Fry•(talk)16:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is seen that the user who has been bugging, has now appeared with a new ip address. Already leave a message in the discussion of the article even leave a message to the user in another ip address, but impossible to reach an agreement with someone who edits from various ips. I clearly I have provided references that confirm what you say, but this user has not contributed anything. According to Televisa and Univision surname is not of them, their correct names are "Carmona and Velasco".--Philip J Fry•(talk)19:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I don't understand how villainous characters change names all the time. I could imagine a dramatic reveal that character John Doe actually is someone else's long-lost son and thus adopts that someone else's name, but other than that? Anyway, we should go with what reliable sources report, and that's neither "Bocelli" nor "Bocheri" - but it is "Mayer de Velasco" for Cantoral's character, and whatever "Puchis" is, Peru.com uses it to refer to that character. Huon (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that the names of most characters used only should be used. There have been many cases where a single character has about 4 names, simply because they are delinquent, but during all the soap opera known by a single name. "Perú.com" not many times is a reliable source. Or are the other characters that also used the surnames of grandparents, step-parents, and more, there are soap operas where the confusion of children orphans. If on the page of Televisa, his name is "Isabel Velasco", why not use that?, why is there to put the millions of names and surnames which have a single character?, that creates too much confusion. If you saw the soap opera you would you give account "Puchi" is just a descriptive word, is as I say say a woman "My love", "Cholocate" or "Puchis", that nicknames seem to be totally irrelevant.--Philip J Fry•(talk)21:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheramar Christians
Hi, thought I'd better let you know that you have been referred to in this thread. Understandably, the new contributor is somewhat bemused by the contradiction between your actions and mine. - Sitush (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush: For all I can tell my only action was this comment, made without seeing the article which I understood hadn't been written at that time. I'm not sure how that comment could be seen as an endorsement of what Olickal Peter Thomas ultimately wrote, which shows just the kinds of problematic sources I warned him about. Huon (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Huon, You are really great and the way you treat everyone, not only me, is something not merely applausive rather it is praiseworthy. Wikipedia's page syas respect everyone. I am not saying that I am perfect, I am really very new to Wikipedia. I wrote the article "Cheramar Christians" based on my experience too, I am from Kerala, S. India. I do service to NGOs, Colleges and Voluntary Service Sector. I worked with European Union, UNDP, UNICEF and many. This is to introduce me to you only.
Deletion of articles is something really bad, if I created something unworthy, derogatory, rubbish or any such, its okay. He can ask me to do that or delete the whole headings and at least he can keep the first paragraph where the caste is introduced. Am I write? He pointed a sentence and said that I "copied" it, I want to challenge him, but its not good, he is little bit prejudicial, for thinks that I an unable to form such sentences. Dear Sir, I wrote hundreds of articles in both Malayalam and English and over 1010 project proposals and reports. I spent so many days in preparing that. What I was thinking if we look at some articles they seem to be about 15 to 20 lines only, but the real history is centuries. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so that a reader has to get a totality of the particular topic within a small group of 4 or 5 pages. If not how can we say that it is encyclopedia. Few editors of Wikipedia are in that category only.
Just read Bihari Rajputs what do get about the history of Rajputs in Bihar at least the prominence and dynasties, the different rulers time, Mughal period, British period, their present status - after 1947, nothing. Why I told about this is - he challenged me to find mistakes in that, and it is not to his challenge, but my thinking of adding or writing articles. And also what is the evidence 14th century migration of Rajputs? Sorry if I used more of precious time. Thanking You with all respect...--Peter Thomas Olickal 17:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olickal Peter Thomas (talk • contribs)
Hello Peter Thomas Olickal. Unfortunately Wikipedia does not accept pages based on personal experience; that's considered "original research". Instead, Wikipedia content must be based on published sources such as books, peer-reviewed scholarly papers or maybe articles written by newspapers or reputable magazines - reliable sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Your draft's sources were a mix of blogs, church websites, 19th-century British sources of rather dubious veracity, and sources that discussed the Pulayas in some detail but didn't mention Cheramar Christians at all. I haven't checked all the references, but among those I did look at, not one was a reliable source discussing Cheramar Christians in some detail. Furthermore, major parts of the article were not relevant to that subject, for example the list of scheduled castes in Kerala. What was that supposed to tell our readers about Cheramar Christians? Yet other parts of the article read more like an essay or a pamphlet, giving opinions instead of facts. Since both your references and your own article agreed that the Cheramar and the Pulayar are basically the same (possbly barring the conversion to Christianity) and since we certainly don't need two articles on the same topic, adding what well-sourced information you had to the Pulayar article looks good to me. Huon (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for helping me on IRC, it means a lot to me I am now going to blast off into my journey of Wikipedia, thanks to you! Yonikasz (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheramar Christians, part 2
Dear Houn, Thank you very much for your invaluable comments. I agreed. Please I may take one more chance to ask you whether I can add a general information about the Cheramar Christians as the Article "Pulayar" with reliable sources again? Only general information not contradiction or anything. Since you mentioned let me point what was my intention by adding the castes, it was to make sure where the "Cheramar Christians" are included in the official caste order of Kerala.
Please advise me on my query of adding a general article on CHeramar Christians in Wikipedia, please don't misunderstand me! Thanking You, Peter Thomas 15:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)--Peter Thomas 15:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olickal Peter Thomas (talk • contribs)
You're welcome to improve the article on the Pulayar if the added information is based on reliable sources. I don't think a separate article on the Cheramar Christians is either warranted or even possible right now - but I'm open to persuasion if reliable sources that explicitly discuss the Cheramar Christians, and not just the Pulayar, in some detail are found. Huon (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is a faint hope that they will behave better
Rather than my making a weighty and possibly rather silly dash to ANI, I was hoping you might take a look at the racist slur levelled at me and at Diannaa, and by implication at a number of other editors including you, at this talk page by IP editor 122.102.32.106.
Since you have had some 'dialogue' with them on IRC your thoughts might carry some weight there. I have a feeling they are on their way to a block anyway, and are probably using the IP address to get around a block as it stands. I have opened a SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enanews to reflect my suspicions.
I suppose it was inevitable that a POV pushing editor has tried to play every card in the pack including the race card. It is a card I dislike most strongly, though.
I imagine that, were they to do the research, they could write a half decent and well referenced article about ENA. I was tempted to do that initially, but the enthusiasm deserted me immediately I was accused of being unethical and so much else besides. It is a silly way to behave, but they are choosing to do this of their own volition. I do not think it is a language barrier issue, nor a cultural issue. It is assuredly not a racial or national issue. I think it is a determination not to adhere to our policies.
You may, of course, feel too involved to enter the fray here. In which case please would you ask an uninvolved admin who cannot possibly be considered to be partial to take a look? FiddleFaddle15:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: I'm sorry for not replying sooner. I indeed felt too involved here to take administrative action. By now the account is indef-blocked and the IP blocked for a week due to the SPI, so I don't think anything else needs to be done right now. Personally I tend to agree with Tokyogirl79 that the sockpuppetry alone did not warrant an indef-block, but the remainder of the conduct certainly did. Huon (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had the feeling you might feel involved, and am not concerned. T-Girl's view echoes mine In a way. These people are... unusual, at best. I imagine they will return to haunt us. Happy Halloween!! FiddleFaddle22:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to create article about Ivana Raymonda van der Veen, which you previously deleted.
Hello,
I'm very sure at this point that Ivana Raymonda van der Veen passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO (maybe not by a mile, but enough), plus I have fully addressed the copyright violation issue, among other problems. I tried to copy and paste the draft, which is here, into a new article, but a message said that I should contact you first. Please help me because this situation is new to me. I created the Redhead Express article, and I added the pictures via Commons OTRS, but with van der Veen I'm dealing with a draft that I mistakenly submitted for review, and the article had been previously created and deleted. There are too many drafts waiting to be reviewed, and I see no reason to wait for this one to go through that process again. If anyone wants to nominate the article for deletion, I will gladly defend it (I saved The Wakes from deletion), but please help me so that the article can be created again (as I said, I was told to contact you), and please remove the draft from the list of drafts awaiting a review. Many thanks in advance for your generosity. Dontreader (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dontreader: That draft heavily relies on primary sources and ones that don't meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability. Many of the usual suspects are present: The subject's own website (thrice), IMDb, iTunes, YouTube (and that's not the official YouTube channel of Channel 98). Third-party coverage of van der Veen seems in very short supply. While technically you can move the draft yourself, I'd strongly suggest you wait for another editor to review it. Huon (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huon, thanks for reading the draft. I disagree with you when you say that the article relies heavily on primary sources. If you look closely, the subject's own website is used to support the exact birth date and location, as well as her exact current residence. In such cases it is fine to use primary sources since there is no reason to doubt that information, just like primary sources are inevitably used as sources for the age at which a musician began to play an instrument, for example (you have to take their word for it in many cases because there are no independent secondary sources). Her website is used again to support a non-controversial statement in the discography section. Regarding iTunes, it is used as a reliable source in very many articles, including Featured Articles, such as Katy Perry, so we can't complain about iTunes unless it becomes a policy to refrain from using that website. I mainly focus on improving articles about musicians and bands, so I've had that sort of discussion many times. In fact, I could use iTunes to support the non-controversial discography section claim, instead of the subject's website. What's allowed in Featured Articles is allowed in this one, too.
I've seen YouTube as a source in many articles about musicians as well. Besides, although it's true that the YouTube channel I provided is not the official YouTube channel of Channel 98, it's the official channel of Haim Pinkston, who has a program on Channel 98. I emailed him for information, which he kindly provided. The source proves that the subject was featured on Israeli TV (a show dedicated to her, not a passing mention), and to think otherwise would be to enter the conspiracy realm. The subject is also featured briefly in a compilation video on the official Channel 98 website (as I state in the ref section), so as I said, to think that she wasn't on Israeli TV would be conspiratorial territory).
I made it clear in the ref section that IMDb is generally not deemed reliable, but I stated that this is not the IMDb page of the subject. Besides, I also stated that it's a mere backup for another source (the official movie website), which supports the claim sufficiently about her having been chosen to sing a song for the soundtrack. If it had been the IMDb page of the subject, I would not have used it.
Surely you read the draft in a hurry, and I don't blame you for that. I do wish there was more coverage, but nevertheless I have proven that the subject has enough notable achievements. Besides, correct me if I'm wrong, but those radio stations that discuss her are also coverage of the subject. Please check those broadcasts when you have a moment. Audio coverage is just as valuable as printed coverage, as far as I know. It's not against any policy that those YouTube clips are on the subject's website.
I will go ahead and create the article. As I said earlier, if anyone wants to nominate it for deletion, that's fine with me. Thanks again for your time and for your reply. I do appreciate it, but please confirm if you have some time what I have explained above. All the best, Dontreader (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
adding more source as you suggested
I have added more sites corresponding to her activities that , her thesis for master degree from University of Art , the reviews and news of the National Orchestra performance with her name mentioned in those pages as member of the Orchestra, also reviews or articles about the concerts that she collaborated with other groups in concerts. thanks again for your time iranianmusic (talk) 05:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have done very little over there. I have removed that tag, though; by now enough reliable third-party sources have been found. Huon (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
18:01:22, 21 June 2015 review of submission by Mizzgucci2014
@Mizzgucci20140: Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as articles about Gucci Asswell written by newspapers or reputable magazines. If AVN had written about her in some detail, for example, that would help. Press releases or interviews, however, would not be considered independent coverage; neither are the websites of the production companies she has worked for. Huon (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Huon. I've been working on a project with the DAAO which is a significant (community driven, CC licensed) Australian repository of biographies for creative people.
As you will have noticed one of my assistants has been working through the process for getting our BioLinkBot approved. I see that our request has been denied. Firstly because of a beginners mistake for which I apologise (making manual edits with a bot account). And secondly because Lykyd doesn't have any edits up his sleeve.
Could you please advise me on how to proceed from here? We are keen to get testing in order to iron out any issues. Should I resubmit the request myself? What changes do we need to make to our approach to improve the likelihood of approval?
@Queenvictoria: I don't see that such a community-driven project with user-submitted content would be considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards (for the record, Wikipedia does not consider itself reliable), and I find it difficult to tell what would distinguish the bot's proposed edits from a massive linkspam campaign, particularly since your main concern on Wikipedia seems to be the addidion of links to your own project. I'd strongly advise you to first launch a discussion to establish whether those links are desirable at all. I'd suggest WT:WikiProject Australia for that discussion, probably with notifications at WT:WikiProject Arts or WT:WikiProject Biography. Once a consensus has been established that these links should indeed be mass-added to articles on Australian creative people, it's probably easiest to ask for an established bot operator to help out. Huon (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Huon: Thanks for the feedback Huon. To clarify, it isn't my project, it is a project driven by a number of respected Australian universities and the funding of the Australian Government. You can read more on the DAAO governance page. I am just the technician ;). We did have a rather lengthy discussion with creative biography moderators and at the Visual arts project before beginning this project as we were pursuing an addition in the Infobar. The conversation ended with the suggestion the external links would be more appropriate. And with respect, the DAAO is as reliable as it comes in Australia, trusted as a primary source by the NLA/Trove project (which is a Wikipedia authority control. However, good tip, I will pursue other maintainers if you feel that you are out of your expertise base. Thanks again. Queen Victoria (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Following a discussion on my talk page I have have restored the article that I originally closed as 'Delete'. I have done this without prejudice to it being relisted for deletion again if notabilty concerns have not been addressed. if you have any thoughts on this please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Co-op Pilot Results & Mentoring
Hey there! The Co-op has been on a hiatus for a bit, but we are planning on opening up shop again soon. When you're able, please read over and respond to this update on our talk page. We have favorable results from our final report regarding the pilot, and we are interested in seeing who is available to mentor when we reopen our space and begin to send out invites again. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
