I remember a little bit about citing articles, I used mostly Turabian or otherwise known also as Chicago style. How do I properly cite the information, I am trying to be as neutral as possible in being a vessel in writing the article, but need help in practicing citing and making sure the grammar is correct while I correct grammar for future articles written. Is there a good place to practice writing articles. I have much information such as websites, they are being built, that can be used for citation such as ReverbNation.com/LostinGod
LostinGodmusic.WordPress.com. I will write later to you, thank you, Huon. LostinGod (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LostinGod: You didn't cite any sources whatsoever in the Lost in God article. ReverbNation and WordPress blogs wouldn't be considered reliable sources anyway. We're looking for the likes of Rolling Stone, reputable magazines or newspapers which are subject to editorial oversight and have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. WP:Referencing for beginners explains how to cite such sources. If there is significant coverage of Lost in God in such sources, I'd suggest you use the Article Wizard to write a draft and submit it for a review by an experienced editor. Huon (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I like your take on what wikipedia is supposed to be? An encyclopedia to me is a bridge of knowledge that is usually expanded, it takes a good team to expand something, I was reading the stuff, as to where wikipedia is thought to not be an advertising hub of some sort? I agree with that, I love that wikipedia seems to not have a set rules and regulations, but as there seems to be an unwritten set of rules, it is more of ethical part, I hope that makes, I don't know much about writing, but I want to help.
I don't understand the ins and outs of politics, that's way over my head, this might be for a good article, I just don't know enough about them to give some sort neutral answer. LostinGod (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS
Have you thought about requesting access to the OTRS system? You help so many newcomers that having access to it would make sense. Especially in cross over cases like that previous Lawrence Pitchko request whereby the editor had the subject send it in through the OTRS. Mkdwtalk17:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ZORDANLIGHTER/Undertrialryry could have created lots of sockpuppets. You must file an SPI. There also some suspicious new accounts editing like ZORDANLIGHTER.--117.251.218.153 (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what this message means to tell me. That section, unless I'm missing something, was started by myself, and Jimfbleak notified me of his reply, so I saw that, too. What information was I meant to gain by reading my own comments? Huon (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am seeking permission in my message. That I want to copy the comments about Sharif Razi page between you and Jimfbleak at talk page of Article Sharif Razi. Nannadeem (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nannadeem: I'm sorry, I had completely misread that. I don't see any benefit to preserving that conversation on the article talk page, but I see no objections either; just add a note where you copied it from. Huon (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inflation
Thanks for restoring the inflation article. The restored first paragraph is very clear and sound. The bizarre Dr. Diewert comment on the talk pages was posted by the ExpertIdeasBot. It isn't Dr. Diewert's mindlessly anodyne comment which is problematic. The problem lies between the comment which says nothing of use and the ExpertIdeasBot wrapper which insists it says something meaningful.Optymystic (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Optymystic:ExpertIdeasBot is an automated program that's meant to make it easy for scholars and academics not familiar with Wikipedia markup to provide expert feedback on articles. Note that Dr. Diewert commented on the revision of June 4, which differed from the one you first saw. I don't see why you'd think a scholar's endorsement of (a specific version of) a Wikipedia article would not be helpful. If Dr. Diewert found nothing wrong with the article, why shouldn't he comment that it's okay? For feedback that suggests improvements, compare this comment, also left via the bot. Huon (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is rather stretching a point to claim that writing that an article is "OK" is designed to contribute to improving it. You don't need to perform mental gymnastics to deduce that the comment implies the contrary i.e. that the article, as scrutinised by Dr. Diewert is not in need of improvement at all. Encyclopedically, if you have nothing to say, it is usually better not to say it. That's what happens when crude Bots are used. As you know, in this particularly case, I went to the talk pages to found myself puzzled by some of the peculiar contents and confounded by the bot leaving me reluctant to engage properly with the talk page or indeed to correct the article. Thanks once again for correcting the article. I do think the new opening paragraph is quite good and up to usual Wikipedia high standards. I still think that overall the article is too long. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a collection of PhD theses.Optymystic (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently we have to disagree here. I don't need to perform metal gymnastics to get from "looks okay to me" to "no major shortcomings". I consider Dr. Diewert's feedback helpful for several reasons. It ascertains that the version he checked was basically correct (which is not the same as "not in need of improvement at all"). It also tells other experts that this article was recently checked and thus helps prevent doing the same work multiple times. I, for one, appreciate the time and effort Dr. Diewert spent and would prefer editors refrained from suggesting changes merely for change's sake. Huon (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Homer
Thanks for pointing out that you did fix the formatting issue on Homer Davenport, I restored the material once I realized that it was formatted properly. Read the edit summary and hit undo. Sorry about that, want to express my appreciation for your use of BRD... the "D" fixed the "R." Wish more people would do as you did, to discuss the issue calmly and state your views with a focus on the issue. Thanks. (and mea culpa) Montanabw(talk)03:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question about a block
Hello, I noticed that you declined the unblocking of User:Goalkeepar... just want to know why he was blocked? I know him in real life and he asked me why he was blocked as he does not know himself. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The account itself wasn't blocked, and Goalkeepar did not provide enough information to evaluate the open proxy block. There was nothing we could do about the situation without additional information. Huon (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Wow! Thanks so much for taking the time to try to understand what I was trying to do and what my issue was. I felt totally steam rolled by more experienced users and then you appeared! Lol. Thanks, was confused about how to proceed but didn't want to drop it. Feel a bit more optimistic now that it might be possible to get an ethically viable Reiki page happening again now. TrishApps (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
I could see no reason for a PROD of Apartment List, and you didn't leave one, so I removed the tag. Perhaps it needs to be moved, I don't know the naming conventions for websites, and it certainly does have multiple issues, but the topic clearly meets WP:NOTABILITY. Eaglizard (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You did leave a reason, didn't you? Entirely my bad for saying you didn't. I failed to read the actual template. I disagree with your reason, but I apologize for claiming you didn't give one. :) Eaglizard (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bill McDermott
Thank you for your help with the recent edits to the Bill McDermott article. I'm still new to Wikipedia and definitely appreciate the guidance!! Harper70 (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Harper70[reply]
Center for International Development at Harvard University redirect
Hi - I'm trying to determine why wiki page for the Center for Int'l Development at Harvard University redirects to the JFK School of Government page? I'm the comms manager for the center. I also noted we were flagged for Spam. How can I rectify?
I redirected the article on the Center to the article on the John F. Kennedy School of Government because the web and mailing addresses on your website suggested that's the organizationn within Harvard University the Center is most closely affiliated with. The article on the Center cited no reliable sources that were independent of the Center itself, giving no indication that the Center meets Wikipedia's standards for notability and should be covered in a separate article.
I'm not quite sure what you refer to when you say "you were flagged for Spam", but the article on the center was unduly promotional; sentences such as "This research hub actively creates, applies, and integrates knowledge from across the university and beyond to advance understanding of development challenges and solutions." are vacuous collections of buzzwords that provide no information. Or, "The Lab serves as the global hub for Structural Transformation" - says who, the CID itself? I'm sure you'll see the problem with that. Furthermore, both examples were copy-pasted from the CID's own website in violation of copyright. The article should have been deleted entirely for that reason, and I'll remove the copyright-infringing revisions from the page history. Huon (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback.
Howard Richards (Philosopher)
Hi, Huon: long time! I have just completed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pronacampo9_/Main-subpages/Entry3 and was just wondering whether it would be a good idea - before joining the customary long wiki Revision queue - that you could cast, please, a preliminary beady 'wiki eye' on it to see whether there is not anything obtrusive which might cause me to be sent immediately to the back of the queue? Many thanks beforehand! (Pronacampo9 (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Hello Pronacampo9, I expect this draft will need some copyediting, for example to tell the references and the footnotes-that-are-not-references apart (it's technically possibble to sort the latter in a separate "group" of footnotes, see Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: groups, but it may be easier to simply incorporate footnotes such as "Philosophy" (#14) in the body of the article), to remove external links from the body of the article and to either turn them into references or collect them in a dedicated "External links" section at the bottom of the article, and some minor style issues. I may try and do some of that myself over the next couple of days, but I'm a little more busy than I've been in the past, so it may take some time until I manage to copyedit it. Huon (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
29 July: Dear Huon: thank you so much for your prompt reply and your ever-readiness to assist – what I liked most is the mention of “minor issues” (sigh of relief). However, I had not realized that there was something amiss with my footnotes – as you will see I have already incorporated eg footnote #14 in the text and I am going through the text again with the fine comb, in the process of which I already picked out some unclear references (which I amended) and eg non-clickable (wrongly drafted) bibliography references and assorted other blemishes. I am not immediately clear, though, about what you mean by eg converting external links into references: I leave this to you, if I may, for fear of messing up even more. Also, I realize only too well that all Wikipedia work is voluntary and has to be slotted into whatever free moment you can find in your busy schedule. Thank you so much again. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]
07 August: Hello, Huon - I have kept editing until 03 August - I hope the text is now ready for an expert inspection. - kind regards (Pronacampo9 (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)}[reply]
Phil has decided that usertalk technology is too nutty complicated (guess he wished for WP:FLOW or something), and is going to have Sophia-age-16-or-thereabouts try and contact me, since she is more tech-savvy. Her IP may also be autoblocked (she is in Canada filming something but like Phil's machine in the UK she may have used her Canadian IP to sockpuppet). If you feel like helping get these two straightened out, here are the pages that I would request you watchlist:
They also had a bunch of other socks, WelshMusicLover seems to be the most recent associated name, and of course, Sophia will likely try to logout and edit as an anon, but if she is autoblocked will have the same vexations as Phil aka wpHelp90613(approximately) went through to finally be able to edit. Is there some way to revise the autoblock-you-have-been-prevented-from-editing message, so that it has a REALLY BIG wikilink right in the middle which says "click here to edit the page where you can ask to be un-autoblocked?" Telling people to either 'their talkpage' is too ambiguous, when they might have several IP usertalks (home/work/librarysock/etc) and in addition a dozen username-socks, each with individual talkpages. Anyways, thanks for your help getting through to Phil, it was painful but we may yet succeed in converting them from lost causes into productive editors of one kind or another. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're aware that autoblocks expire, and that Mr Taylor being affected by the autoblock means he was logged into his account as recently as yesterday? I'm also highly skeptical about mentions of an "old username". User:Sophia Radisch was blocked; she may not simply create a new account and continue editing. That would be considered block evasion and is itself blockable. She clearly has the email feature enabled; she should be able to request a new password if she can't remember the one she used a week ago.
And while I admire your optimism, Ms. Radisch's and Mr Taylor's sole purpose on Wikipedia, for more than a year, has been to write about themselves. I see no indication that Radisch meets WP:MUSIC or the general notability guideline, and her company seems even less notable than herself. To be blunt, if writing about their own company is all Ms. Radisch and Mr Taylor intend, it may be in Wikipedia's best interest to not unblock them. Huon (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I never heard of autoblocks until today, actually; explicit IP blocks, e.g. schools, but not autoblocks. But yeah, I gathered from the blocklog that they expire, and that Phil was logged in as a username. From the errmsg he posted to IRC, he was logged in (at the UK work-PC of the RockSolid company he and Sophia are co-owners of), under *her* username, it being a shared PC, and him being not-very-tech-savvy. As for your discernment of their intent, you hit the nail on the head, pure WP:SPIP. That doesn't mean they cannot be converted to the Good side of the swartz, because I think the fundamental failing her is lack of clue (Phil is not tech-savvy enough to understand wikipedia and Sophia is a teenager). If not then they can stay blocked, sure, that I definitely agree with. Also agree that RockSolid has very little shot at WP:N, though I do see at least borderline-WP:N for SophiaRadisch, if she has any coverage in 2015 that would make three bursts. Anyways, since she is 16, my expectation is that she will listen to reason, and learn the rules (then stick to them under penalty of being blocked), because she has many decades of life yet to go, and is either borderline-WP:N or maybe just-over-the-line already. Self-interest is the great motivator, as Madison said, and methinks that Sophia can be made to understand that her true long-term self-interest lies in becoming a good wikipedian.
Speaking of which, I also think that the two of them (and their other artists/bizPartners/etc) will be potentially helpful in policing mainspace for competitors that have slipped through the nets, nominating non-WP:N folks for AfD that deserve it. Bands and singers are *really* hard to police, so I would like to see an increase in self-policing aka neighborhood-wiki-watch. We shall see whether Sophia also wants that sort of role, or if she can only see the world as pay-to-play and all-is-fair-in-love-and-online-advertising. Anyways, yeah, for any of this to potentially occur, first step is to train Sophia in the rules, and see if she can get herself unblocked via usertalk. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SAP SE
Hello Huon! Since you seem to have an interest in the Bill McDermott article, I was wondering if you might be inclined to look at the edits I've proposed to the SAP SE article? I would greatly appreciate your feedback! Thank you. Harper70 (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Harper70[reply]
Hello Harper70, to be honest, software corporations aren't quite in my areas of either expertise or interest, but I've implemented some of the proposed changes and left a comment at Talk:SAP SE. In general, it's probably better to call attention to such a request by adding the {{request edit}} template to the talk page section (including the curly brackets). Huon (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Huon!! Your edits to the SAP SE main page are certainly appreciated! Thanks, too, for the tip on the 'request edit' action. Harper70 (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)Harper70[reply]
No, thank you. I spotted it a few hours ago but couldn't be bothered jumping through the SPI hoops. You've saved me the effort. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alex Gilbert Page
Hello,
Please have a look over at Draft: Alex Gilbert. I have added a new source for this page. Please let me know if this page is close to being notable now.
I still agree with the comments of FoCuSandLeArN from the June review and the comments of Spinningspark at the second deletion discussion: Even with the new source (from today? Very quick work...) I don't think Gilbert meets Wikipedia's standards of notability, and the draft largely is not based on reliable third-party sources. Huon (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up just snow closing the page for the incest list. The more I look at that, the more I'm pretty convinced that it'd have ended up TNT'd even if a case could be made for it. I'm also pretty peeved about the inclusion of the "list of pansexual people" on the page since that's a pretty offensive association, akin to someone putting "list of gay people" on a list page associated with child abuse. (Sorry, that's a sore topic for me since I've known some pan people and they always have to deal with the stereotype that they'll sleep with anyone, no standards at all.) It's likely that the user didn't think about it, but still... Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)13:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Howard Richards draft
Hello, Huon: before hitting the Finished? Submit your draft for review-key I would really prefer you could give it a preliminary once-over. Many thanks beforehand! (Pronacampo9 (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
I'm terribly sorry; I was rather busy over the past week or so and haven't yet had the time to look at the draft in detail. I'll do so today. Huon (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So much appreciated, Huon. As you can see in View History I have made the task, since 29 July, as transparent as I could manage it. However, there are a still couple of issues I am not quite sure about and where an expert eye would be more than welcome. Regards. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
12 August: Good morning, Huon. Thank you so much for the great job! What I immediately noticed, though, is that the opening captions: Howard Richards (philosopher) For the American Football player of the same name, see Howard Richards - do not appear any more. Is that not going to complicate google search? (Pronacampo9 (talk) 05:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
PS: I see that the entire |known for = Peace and Global Studies Program, Letters from Quebec, Understanding the Global Economy, Dilemmas of Social Democracies, The Evaluation of Cultural Action, Gandhi and the Future of Economics, Re-thinking the Economy, Unbounded Organization. |spouse = Caroline Higgins}}" person-information string has been retained, - in the "EDIT" version at least -, of the {{infobox scholar - file, but that this same info fails to "show up" - (for reasons unknown!) - in the "READ" version of same. By switching to an {{infobox person- file, this information appears again. (as you can see). Question: I am not sure whether the intention was to delete the |known for information altogether, or whether, this information "just fails" to show up in the {{infobox scholar file, whereas it does [appear] in the {{infobox person file? COMMENT: Whatever the case, I must say that the Howard Richards infobox Scholar containing just his date of birth, and no other information, looks a bit "information-bare"? (Pronacampo9 (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Hello Pronacampo9; unfortunately that copyediting turned out to be a lot more work than I anticipated.
The "For the football player" hatnote could be created with the {{for|the American football player|Howard Richards}} template, but unless the football player article is moved to a different name, someone searching for "Howard Richards" will automatically end up there; thus the football player article will need a hatnote pointing people looking for the philosopher article to the right location, but not the other way around. That's best dealt with when the draft has been turned live.
Wit the infobox I wasn't thorough enough; {{Infobox scholar}} offers a host of specialized parameters that are relevant to biographies like Richards', but some of the parameters are named slightly differently from those of the basic {{infobox person}}. I've fixed that and added his UC Santa Barbara thesis to the infobox.
I'm afraid a problem I couldn't resolve is the comparative dearth of third-party sources discussing Richards in some detail. The vast majority of references given in the article are Richards' own works, or the websites of organizations he is affiliated with, or websites and articles that don't mention him at all. For example, the Stanford Daily article which was given as a reference for Richards organizing student protests against the HUAC did not mention Richards and thus cannot confirm that he organized something. Since Wikipedia content should be based on what others have written about the subject, not on the subject's own writings, this issue will require some attention. Peer-reviewed papers by other researchers discussing his work, or newspaper articles that cover him, or something like the book by Michael Doyle that has a paragraph on Richards' work for the Peninsula Peace Center would make good references. Unfortunately a Google News search found only a couple of passing mentions and a book review in a publication that seemed so bizarre that at first I assumed it dealt with another person of the same name. I expect finding betetr references will be no easy task. The local newspaper of Richmond may have written some articles about Richards that could help, but their online search doesn't find any. One of the most detailed references given in the draft, Prabook, is user-submitted content without editorial oversight; I could edit the page, and so can anybody else, without any fact-checking. Something like that isn't considered reliable by Wikipedia (for the same reason, Wikipedia doesn't consider itself reliable, either; IMDb has similar problems and should not be used as a reference).
Finally there's one issue I can help address, but where I don't think the draft is optimal yet: References, notes and external links. Wikipedia generally frowns on external links within the body of an article. If the websites linked to serve to back up the content of the article, it's better to put them in a footnote and thus list them in the "References" section. If they don't do so, it's probably better to remove them outright; only few external links that are unfit as references should be collected in the "External links" section - Richards' personal website, his faculty website, maybe a few others that are related to Richards but do give useful background information on him. I'd say the draft currently tends to err on the side of giving too many external links in that section. I have also started to sort apart the "notes" and "references", but I don't think that's finished yet. Many "notes" could probably be included in the body of the article itself; for example the first two could probably become part of the "main ideas" section. (The lead is meant to be a summary of the article, so there's nothing wrong with it giving only a short, incomplete introduction to aspects discussed in greater detail in other parts of the article.) I've tried to integrate quite a few other notes in the body of the article already, but had to rewrite some parts to re-establish a rough chronological order within the sections (for example, I've collected the mentions of Pinochet's coup and its effects on Richards and his work from separate footnotes). The code to put something in the "Notes" section as opposed to the "References" section begins with <ref group="nb"> instead of <ref>; both sections only have a {{reflist}} template, with one of them customized to list those footnotes in the "nb" group.
I'll try to edit the draft some more, but as I said I'm rather busy in "real life" at the moment, and it may be another few days or a week until I find the time to work on it again. Huon (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Huon: I just notice, a mere couple of minutes ago, that someone has been one step ahead of me. So, here goes again. The reward is, indeed, doubly deserved!
13 Aug: Hello Huon, re: (yesterday talk) : Quote: “or websites and articles that don't mention him at all. For example, the Stanford Daily article which was given as a reference for Richards organizing student protests against the HUAC did not mention Richards and thus cannot confirm that he organized something.
Hello Pronacampo9, I'm sorry, obviously I didn't look closely enough. That issue of the Stanford Daily was given as reference for the statement, "organized the Stanford students' protest at the House Unamerican Activities Committee meeting in San Francisco. (See eg The Standford Daily Volume 137, Issue 59, 16 May 1960)" Thus the article I tried to find Richards' name in wasn't the "Pacifism Talk At I Center" one but the one entitled, "Stanford Student Declines To Answer Sub-Committee" - unlike the I Center article, that one deals with the students' protest against HUAC, but neither says anything about a leadership role Richards played at those protests. Thus, the basic problem remains: The reference does not confirm what it's cited for. I fully appreciate that it's probably extremely difficult to find 1960s references that do confirm what you presumably learned from Richards himself. Two approaches may help: Firstly, we're not limited to online sources, though those obviously are easier for our readers to check. If you know of print sources that discuss Richards in greater detail, you can cite those as well - just provide enough information to allow others to look up the source in a library archive. Secondly, episodes such as the protests against HUAC were significant events in American history, and far later sources may discuss those events. Radical Chapters by Michael Doyle, published as recently as 2014, is one such example. Huon (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
13 Aug - Never cease being amazed by your thoroughness! Yes, I do/did realize that there are still problems beyond HR's name 'not being there'. And yes, I do countercheck for accuracy with HR. For him, all this nitty-gritty detail, in the end, is less important than the overall picture. I am also aware that 'physical' evidence which can be found eg in library archives. is equally valid. The problem is knowing the date/page of publication! From previous exchanges with HR I know, for example, that there was an article in Time Magazine about him and a fellow student promoting a national Beethoven craze with people wearing 'I Like Ludwig' buttons parodying the then famous 'I Like Ike' buttons, but I don't think HR kept a copy of that particular TIME issue. . .In the coming days I will keep an eye peeled for (more) third party testimonies about HR, but there is at least one which you may not have realized (or overlooked?) re Re References #16 "This OISE thesis was published as Richards 1984 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRichards1984 (help) "Evaluation of Cultural Action", reviewed by Beatrice Avalos, 1985". Thanks again so much. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
PS There is also eg Howard Richards, the Union's first volunteer lawyer, also helped the Union protect its funds from grower lawsuits. Telephone Interview with Howard Richards, Former Volunteer Attorney, UFW (June 28, 2004) [hereinafter Richards Interview]. See Reference #29. Gordon, J. 2005 Law, Lawyers and Labor. U. PA. Journal of Labor and Employment Law. p. 13.Note 38. And there must be more of these 3rd party refs if you are specifically looking for them? (Pronacampo9 (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
I'm aware of that UFW lawyer reference; in fact I believe I slightly reworded the sentence it was cited for. Book reviews like the Avalos one generally make good sources, too, because Avalos likely (I don't have immediate access to that review beyond the freely available first page) puts Richards' work in context, discusses his main ideas or possibly his writing style. All of that could be summarized to flesh out parts of the draft, or if it's already there, the review can be cited as source for those parts. In general I tend to agree with Prof. Richards: It might be easier to have (or at least start with) a shorter article that gives the overall picture but omits hard-to-source details. Huon (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
14 Aug edit: HR's involvement with Cesar Chavez' UFW is part of both his Social Engagement and Law Practice background. So I have taken the liberty to insert an "a b" double ref (# 18')[1] in both Biography passages. Wonder what you think? By the way I found the name of HR's "I like Ludwig" campaign buddy, Edmund Leites, in the TIME Magazine Archive re: 29 April 1957 (https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#sent/14f2b12fed1d3372). However, to 'read further' (ie Howard's name), I will have to cough up a TIMES subscription fee. But, as we said, it's not all that important, but good fun all the same. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
PS re: @ Avalos review: Amazon USA runs a long review by J.P.Franks of "Dilemmas of Social Democracies" which also discusses, a.o., the (co-authors;) main ideas. Would/could this count as another 'Avalos'-type 3rd party source? (Pronacampo9 (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Amazon reviews are somewhat problematic. The review by Franks is essentially self-published, with no editorial oversight by Amazon. I'm pretty sure I could add another review of Richards' book to Amazon without ever having read it. If Franks is an expert on such subjects whose works on related topics previously were published by reliable publishers (I don't know if he is; I haven't heard of him before today), then we can directly use his self-published blog post here despite Wikipedia's general disdain for self-published sources since there's an exception for "published experts writing on their area of expertise".
Unfortunately the gmail link doesn't work for me; I don't know if that is because I don't have a gmail account or whether it's somthing in your personal "sent" folder. The TIME paywall is not a problem if you have read a physical copy of the source (which should be available in well-equipped libraries); while sources must be published and accessible for our readers, that access need not be easy or free.
15 August: Joe Franks, is indeed a prolific (Amazon/Goodreads-accredited??), book reviewer. Josephus P Franks (josephus.p.franks@gmail.com) does indeed publish on the brandenotes BlogSpot. So including the original branddenotesblog 'url' would do the trick? Thanks for the info on difficult/costly-to-access reader-accessible sources. I usually work from a University Library, so I may have more 'matter-of-fact' access to sources than the average reader. So, for example, I get the full text, not just the first page of the Avalos review when I click the Beatrice Avalos, 1985 hyperlink. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
PPSS There are also some reviews of "Unbounded Organizing" which do not seem to be directly open text 'customer-generated'. (plus W.Shor/Geoffrey Wallace) - (I happen to know reviewer #3, Roger Hand, quote: retired RSVP Director, having had 1,000 volunteers in the field.) (Pronacampo9 (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Regarding Pilay, I can't quite tell how Google finds it, but what their first hit points to is https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/cpi/article/download/22935/17082 which for me opens the PDF directly. Reviews published in journals such as that one will indeed prove very helpful, not for statements of the "X reviewed this book" kind, but because they allow us to summarize, based on independent sources, what Richards' theories are, and what the scholarly community (exemplified by the reviewers) thinks of his work.
I'm much more skeptical about the various Amazon reviews, though. For example, if Joe Franks' reviews are only published on Amazon, Goodreads and his own blog, then none of those websites employ editorial oversight, and Franks can write in all three places whatever he chooses without restrictions. Again, I too could write book reviews on Amazon, on Goodreads and on my own blog - without having read the book itself. Such a source cannot be considered reliable, and by extension, unless Franks is an academic with peer-reviewed papers on similar topics, or his reviews are also published in newspapers, magazines or journals - publications that wouldn't publish just anybody's reviews - he wouldn't be considered a "published expert" by Wikipedia because all his work is effectively self-published. I can't tell who Amazon reviewer "Ansible Services" is; if that's some pseudonymous individual and not a well-known reviewing organization that I just happen to be unfamiliar with, their reviews likely will not help. The same goes for the other "customer reviews", unfortunately. Huon (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
<-- Very helpful indeed, Huon, and thank you for your time. And 'points taken', too. I have been several times through the text by now in the light of these and previous observations. Perseverantia ad finem optatum atemque Perseverantia Omnia vincit. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
16 AugQuery: * in my earlier version of the biography I had included - (under the "Early Life" section) -, for the sake of 'verifiability', Howard Richards personal background. This is the only 'verifiable' source which I could find online about HR's early life. In the present version, this source is not there any more? * I have found a couple more '3rd party' sources (UNESCO - Jane Stillwater - Betty Reardon - Anand P. Mavalankar) which were already, or which I have now integrated in the text. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
I removed that YouTube video because YouTube generally is not considered a reliable source; unless we're dealing with the official channel of a TV news station or the like, there's no editorial oversight. Furthermore, the video was of an interview, with Richards speaking about himself. We might get away with citing it for some uncontroversial details, but I'd rather advise against using such sources, particularly if they are the only sources for significant amounts of content. The third-party sources you found will be of much greater help. The details of his early life probably are not what Richards is known for, so we won't lose content of critical Importance if we have to omit those details. Huon (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
18 Aug 'Early Life' is a standard biography ingredient and allows to 'situate' the subject. Richards' details are not 'notorious', but not entirely 'unknown/able', either. Would therefore moving the video to the 'External Links' section not offer an 'intermediary' solution? (Pronacampo9 (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
PS: Cross referencing: There is at least one additional, 'long hand' (online, non-youtibe) Early Life cross reference (Topica) re: "Howard Richards was born in Pasadena, California on June 10, 1938. His father and mother both came from families that had migrated to California in search of work during the depression of the 1930s. His family moved from place to place in southern California as he went to various public primary schools there, finally graduating from Redlands High School in 1956. He subsequently studied at Yale, Stanford Law School, University of California at Santa Barbara, Oxford University, University of Toronto, Harvard University (the summer school course in moral education with Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan) and Middlebury College (summer school course in German)". * His WWII Uncle Jack is mentioned p 257 in Understanding the Global Economy, as well as in A Logical Plan for Peace (under "The Holocaust", 4/5ths down) re: "My mother's brother, Jack Darwin McCune, a second lieutenant in the United States Army, was one of many who gave their lives to prevent tragedies like the holocaust from happening again. But tragedies like the holocaust have happened again: in Indonesia, in Argentina's Dirty War, in Cambodia, in Biafra, in Chile, in Rwanda, and in other places. Many scholars have sought to further through peace research the cause Uncle Jack sought to further by volunteering to fight Hitler. They have sought to learn how to prevent holocaust-like tragedies by understanding their causes". (Pronacampo9 (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
PPSS For completeness' sake, there is of course also the bio info on the PRA page (and on the lack of refereed oversight of which you have already commented). (Pronacampo9 (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Hello Pronacampo9, I'm sorry for the delay. If I interpret Topica correctly, it's an email discussion list, which would make it a rather dubious source, too. We can probably get away with the current, rather short, section on Richards' early life, but expanding it without some independent, reliable sources will probably prove problematic. Even now a pedant might argue that parts of that section aren't really supported by the given references. While some background information like the one on Richards' early life and education is common among biographical articles, we often have to recognize that's not what someone is known for and consequently not what independent sources write about. Thus the Richards draft quite appropriately focuses on his work. Huon (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
21 August Point taken that this (modest) caption about HR's early life would leave us hostage to the/a pedant. Even so, there are two online texts, and one online audio testimony (of HR about himself), from which it is possible to triangulate. As for the info about uncle Jack (re: McCune - same surname as his mother Donna, equally influential for HR's later ideas and work -rather than his paternal side), this is confirmed by at least one (hyperlinked to book page) source.(re: p 257 in Understanding the Global Economy. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
25 August Hello Huon: since 29 July the draft has gone through a considerable number of edits. Your considered view of the overall picture at this point would be very much appreciated. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
@Pronacampo9: Sorry for the delay; I finally found the time to look at the draft today, and it looked pretty good to me, very much improved since the last time I took a closer look; the only issue I can see is that external links seem to be creeping back into the body of the article, especially in the later sections such as the "Social engagement" one. I don't think that's enough of an issue to keep the draft from being accepted, but don't be surprised if someone (possibly even me) starts removing those external links. Huon (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
01 September Thank you again so much, Huon. After a final once-over I will be cutting the draft's <Finished? Submit your draft for review!> moorings and set it on its course on the waves of the global reviewer ocean. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: WikiLove isn't really something you're meant to give yourself but rather a tool to express appreciation of other editors. On others' user talk pages (but not your own) you'll find a red heart at the top, next to "View history". Clicking that heart will open a pop-up window with the various WikiLove options. You can duplicate those effects manually on your own talk page, say by adding {{subst:The Original Barnstar|Message ~~~~}} - but why would you want to do so? See WP:Barnstars for a list of available barnstars. Wikipedia:Personal user awards and Template:WikiLove templates have lists of less formal awards, including the all-purpose {{WikiCookie}}. Huon (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i wanted to know if they can block this user?. Their behavior already has me a bit tired, and more than that do you understand that your edits are incorrect, seems that you don't. Reverts my edits without any reason, as it has done in "Abismo de pasión", see my edit here. And as the user reverted my changes. Already long ago told the user about this type of descriptions in articles, because also towards these same issues in "Lo que la vida me robó", as you can see here. Really not is whether to block or not, but I hope that you can give a warning, because I'm already tired. The user also makes changes to multiple articles without reaching an agreement. --Philip J Fry•(talk)16:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to EspectrumHD, this user edits sporadically and whenever it does add information without reliable sources. And more notice that I left him, the user does not want to nor ignore. Review of this here, but until now any other administrator has responded. I hope you can help me or tell me to that other place need contact me, thank you.--Philip J Fry•(talk)16:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I will not block anybody here. Discussion on talk pages is sporadic and on your part largely consists of warnings and threats that don't clearly explain the problems. You already asked for Nyanchoka to be blocked three days ago and had the request declined; you were asked by the reviewing admin to discuss the issues on the article's talk page and have not done so. Huon (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really didn't see the response on the request of war editions of Nyanchoka, because much edited the page, but if the user returns to revert my edits without any reason where I go?. With regard to EspectrumHD I can do?. Really would like to know what to do. Thanks for your reply.--Philip J Fry•(talk)00:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When another editor and you cannot agree on the article's talk page, you should try to get more community input, for example by asking for a third opinion or by leaving a request for input at WT:WikiProject Television. You should only ask for admin intervention when attempts to explain and discuss the problems have failed to elicit a response and the problems persist; WP:AN/I is a good place to do so. Huon (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Huon: The AfD discussion is currently at a stalemate and it would be great if you could offer an insight in the form of an opinion on if or not the article should be deleted. Thanks :) 'Olowe2011Talk06:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I commented, but I have no idea why you asked me, specifically, to take a look at that. I have no special knowledge about, nor a particular interest in, British indie labels. Huon (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
wizard
Hello again..
So i will remove references that passing by kayyali and keep references only who work on developing their research based kayyali.
if this would be enough..then fine
if this would not be enough..kindly help editing or directing my lined to finish it.
@Davidstone1415: The draft is correctly submitted for a review, but you'll want to continue working on it before it's reviewed; in its current state it's unlikely to be accepted. Not all of the references would be considered reliable sources, not all even mention Kayyali edge detection, others only mention it in passing without providing any details, and it's entirely unclear which part of the draft is based on which of the references (if any). WP:Referencing for beginners may help. Huon (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there; you just unblocked this user. I had posted on his talk page the standard three questions, which he had not, and still has not, answered. I would be most grateful for insight into why it was appropriate to unblock this user without waiting for the answers? --Anthony Bradbury"talk"21:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I took them starting WP:TWA, following Tokyogirl79's advice, as evidence of a good-faith attempt to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. The first unblock request does mention that the editor didn't think about whether Wikipedia was an encyclopedia or a business directory before; so that answers the first of the three questions. Should there be further issues regarding spam that cannot be resolved via education, I have no objections against re-blocking. Huon (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Orphaned non-free image File:Zhou Xuexi, Minister of Finance.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Zhou Xuexi, Minister of Finance.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi, again, Huon: the bottom line in the yellow AfC box at the end of the article has a red rubic re: Reviewer tools [show] Warning: This page should probably be located at Draft:Entry3 (move) - I am a bit puzzled by this, neither can I find the H.R. draft listed under the AfC "P" group? Pronacampo9 (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
01 Sept 17:05h I have just been advised (Happy Sailor) that the page now has been moved. However, that does not seem to be the end of (possible) con-fusion? re: Warning: The page Howard Richards already exists. Please verify that it is not a copy of this submission and that this page does not need to be moved to a different title. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
PS The article's original title was Howard Richards (philosopher), but I think it was you who dropped the (philosopher). Is it possible that the original H.R. is still floating about somewhere? (The only H.R. article I know of is and has always been in my Entry3 User page? (Pronacampo9 (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Hello Pronacampo9, there indeed is an article on another Howard Richards; I expect your draft will be named "Howard Richards (academic)" What I removed was a line of content at the top of the draft that said "Howard Richards (philosopher)"; I did not change the title of the page, which used to be "User:Pronacampo9 /Main-subpages/Entry3" (that's now a redirect pointing to the renamed draft). Anyway, the reviewers generally are perfectly capable of dealing with such page name issues. I don't expect that will prove an issue. While I could move the draft to a unique title if you want me to (or you could do so yourself; see Help:Moving a page), you can just as well ignore that warning. Huon (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
01 Sept 19:50hrs: Thanks for this, Huon. On top of my original draft I had included a 'disambiguation' reference to the American fottballer H.R. I now see that its omission is creating some turbulence, so I would really appreciate that you deal with (re?)making the H.R. article unique. Thanks. What is slightly more worrying is that, so far, I have not been able to "spot" the new H.R. submission in the "P" column of category "Pending AfC submissions? (Or am I looking at the wrong page)? (Pronacampo9 (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
I moved the draft to Draft:Howard Richards (academic) (I don't think his work as a philosopher, as opposed to more general work in education and social science, is what he's best known for). Regarding the Category:Pending AfC submissions, there are, unfortunately, more than 600 drafts awaiting review, amouning to multiple pages of articles in that category. They're sorted by age, oldest first; Howard Richards was on the third page when I checked. The article is definitely correctly submitted. Once it's live we'll add a hatnote to the football player that tells people who came for the academic where to find that article, or maybe even move the football player to something like Howard Richards (football player) and create a disambiguation page in its place. A hatnote for the article on the academic will be unnecessary since someone looking for the footballer will not search for "Howard Richards (academic)" and thus is unlikely to end up in the wrong place. Huon (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
02 Sept: thanks for solving both problems, - which weren't real problems after all - with your usual flair and knack for accuracy. Silly me for not having noticed the "next page" prompt in the AfC 'P' list. Excellent idea also, - once everything is done and dusted -, to create a Howard Richards (football player) title which would allow us, I presume, to revert to the earlier H.R. article title. For this post-factum creation I would have to rely once more on you, as changing a third party article's heading would be beyond me. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 07:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Noticed a page I was about to edit was deleted due to "non-relevance". I kindly ask that the page is restored as the team working on it wasn't closely related to the subject however the topic was quite relevant. There was a misunderstanding among some users that I believe led to this. Hoping something can be worked out!
Hello Jamesgunnrth, the page I deleted satisfied the speedy deletion criterion for events whose articles do not give an indication of their importance. It showed no evidence that the festival has received significant third-party media coverage beyond local event announcements. The text of the draft largely amounted to "a couple of locals are doing stuff of strictly local relevance". Parts of the article had been copy-pasted from the artists' agent's website in violation of copyright (and such blurbs also are unduly promotional even if there were no copyright concern). Should you disagree with my assessment and feel that, in light of the deletion policy, I deleted the article in error, you are welcome to raise the issue at WP:Deletion review to get input from the wider community.
I'm also concerned by your mention of a "team". What team would that be? User:Rockthehills explicitly claimed that the account was used by only one person; shared use of accounts is not permitted on Wikipedia.
If the festival has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources such as newspapers or reputable magazines, preferably not just the local paper, I'd advise you to use the Article Wizard to write a draft that summarizes (in your own words) what those sources report about the festival and to submit it for a review by an experienced editor. We do not restore copyright violations, and the remainder of the deleted article would have to be rewritten anyway to bring it in line with what independent sources report; thus I do not think undeleting the page would be beneficial in the least. Huon (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Huon: Thanks for dealing with the issue. I had originally read under the "COI Issue" topic on your talk page and assumed no action was taken before making a reply to another issue... resolved. --JustBerry (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has come to my attention that you are a sockpuppet of me, however, in consulting my financial records, I do not see that you have ever paid any dues into the BMK Sockpuppetry Fund. Please rectify this situation at your earliest convenience, since I am trying to buy some really neat stuff and I need the money. All the best BMK (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
hardcore punk and mathcore part 2
I know but my thing is that some of their music is related to hardcore punk when Jesse Leach was around in 1999-2003 and they are related to hatebreed they some hardcore punk bleeds in them and even when howard joined killswitch engage in 2003 after Jesse Leach left the genre was added to math coreJg9443 (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jg9443: Sources, sources, sources. Genres are a more sensitive topic than one should think; please do not add or change genres without a reliable published source such as a review in a newspaper or a music magazine backing up your addition. Huon (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yet again not trying to add any genre telling you my evidence because i have evdence but i cant show you because i don't know how to put it in here Jg9443 (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Huon, since you seem to have an interest in the Bill McDermott article, I was wondering if you might look at the Hasso Plattner article, too? I recently found the missing citations that have been called for. Also, I thought it might be useful for readers to see that Hasso wrote and published a book earlier this year. Please let me know. And thanks for your time! Harper70 (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Harper70[reply]
CUNY Baccalaureate for Unique and Interdisciplinary Studies
Hi. The WP creation page suggested I discuss with you the creation of this page, because it records you as having deleted a page with that name "23:07, 8 May 2014", "(G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)". The reason I was motivated to create the page is that I am trying to clean up the CUNY article, which suffers from a few problems. The article would be improved if its section on this component college were to be moved to its own article, as it is the only component college with its own section, and all the other component colleges of CUNY have their own articles. From my cursory glance of a few of the CUNY-related articles, they all do suffer from a POV of a university bureaucrat / manager, but I think are borderline OK and salvageable. I am proposing to create the page, with the content from City University of New York#CUNY Baccalaureate for Unique and Interdisciplinary Studies. Please advise. —Boruch Baum (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Boruch Baum: The page I deleted contained gems like "[...] where highly motivated, academically superior students work one-on-one with faculty mentors to design their own fields of study" and went on in the same vein at quite some length, of course without anything resembling independent sources for that content. It appears the content at the main CUNY article has exactly the same problems (including even the text I quoted above); I'll remove it. I have no objections to the creation of a neutrally-worded, reliably-sourced article on the college; this is not that article. Huon (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IV"e got evidence
IV"e got evidence that in 2003 killswitch engage was part of the hardcore punk scene i did some research that in their live event in 2013 they played hardcore punk scene this is hardcore scene and late 2003 Howard Jones came in and it became mathcore because one of his genre is mathcore and he added that to his songs with killswitch engage.Jg9443 (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jg9443 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and I can't disagree with the principle. It does, however, make the information on this page a little out of date. Ott is no longer in Austin and is no longer using the stage name Big Poppa E, which he retired when he relocated. The retirement, such as it is, has been posted on one of several websites created by or at least about Ott at this point, including but not limited to deviantart, ello and flickr.
Hello Huon: the HR article has now been created re: Frame below.
As dicussed on 01 September (re: Huon Talk above) there now remains the little matter of the hatnote re: "Once it's live we'll add a hatnote to the football player that tells people who came for the academic where to find that article, or maybe even move the football player to something like Howard Richards (football player) and create a disambiguation page in its place" (Huon 01.09.15).
Ideally, I would like the article to be titled "Howard Richards" and the 'other' Howard Richards be changed to: "Howard Richards (football player)".
However, while I feel confident making plain text edits, I am unsure how to change the Title (&hatnote) of an article. So, if I could please ask you to give the 'two HRs' their finishing touch. Thanks again for your invaluable help in facilitating this successful outcome. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Howard Richards (academic), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Hello Pronacampo9, I have fixed the categories; I'm not quite sure what went wrong there, but apparently something got duplicated when the draft was accepted. I also removed Category:Human rights concepts since Richards is not a concept and doesn't fit in that category. One might think about some other categories in a similar vein, but I've left the others in for now.
.jpg)
