I am new to wiki but I have added certain information on a talk page of an artist "Jennifer Winget". Can you help me apply those changes on the page please. Ra13a13 (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ra13a13: To add that information to the article we'll need reliable published sources such as articles written by newspapers or reputable magazines that confirm those awards. See WP:Referencing for beginners on how to easily create nicely-formatted footnotes to cite your sources. Personally I rather doubt all those awards (is a "most desirable" list even an award?) are significant enough to be listed; I'd focus on the more important awards, particularly ones we have articles about. Please also note that I'm currently quite busy in real life and may be slow to respond. If you need further help, you may want to ask at the Teahouse or maybe at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Huon (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept my belated greetings on your adminship anniversary!
I must however admit that I am more proactive in discharging admin role on UrWiki than editing here, although I am active here as well, however less it might me comparatively.
I want to discuss an unblock appeal requested by User:BukhariSaeed.
I know very well that in the past he was accused of sockpuppetry and fiddling with multiple accounts and faces block since a long time.
The user is now an eliminator on UrWiki and has done tremendous amount of good work there. I request you to please examine the case of unblocking him by placing any condition or observation period.
Personally, I feel unblocking would give him access to the Wiki source code and help article on UrWiki where we don't have an army of contributors like EnWiki. Thank you for the time. --Muzammil (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked users still have read access to the source code. If that's all that BukhariSaeed wants, an unblock is not necessary.
We generally do not accept unblock requests for someone else. BukhariSaeed has access to their talk page on the English Wikipedia and is welcome to themselves request a review of their block via the {{unblock}} template.
There was a community discussion about his latest unblock request (to which you contributed) where the community found that, in light of then-recent block evasion by BukhariSaeed, he was not eligible for an unblock. I do not expect any single administrator (certainly not one who isn't a CheckUser) would feel comfortable unblocking BukhariSaeed under these circumstances. They would likely again need to appeal to the community.
That's all right. But I hope you don't have any problem in accepting my greetings on your adminship anniversary. All the best for your future activities on Wikipedia!! --Muzammil (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anne Frank Trust UK
In what way had the Anne Frank Trust UK committed a G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement such that their page was removed? According to their website, "We are the only organisation in the UK licensed to use Anne Frank’s name" Johnalexwood (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this refers to the page The Anne Frank Trust UK that I deleted in 2014. The page was largely copy-pasted from http://www.annefrank.org.uk/who-we-are/our-mission (see here for an archived copy of that page). The page the content was taken from is copyrighted; there was no evidence that it had been released under a free license that would be compatible with Wikipedia's requirements. There was no indication that the editor who created the page was associated with the Anne Frank Trust; I thus don't know that the Anne Frank Trust committed anything. Putting the content on Wikipedia, however, violated the Anne Frank Trust's copyright. Even if the editor was a representative of the Anne Frank Trust, the content would still have been in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy without evidence of permission of re-use. Finally, their "our mission" page, for rather obvious reasons, was not suitable to become an encyclopedia article about them. So even if the organization had been willing to jump through the hoops necessary to correctly release the content under a free license, it would still have been unsuitable for Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Stefanowski
Hi,
Can you please undelete this article? Bob Stefanowski is now the Republican nominee for Governor of Connecticut and is the first candidate to ever earn the nomination after petitioning his way onto to the ticket via voter signatures and beating the Republican party sponsored candidate.
I'd say it would be easier to start from scratch and to write an all-new article that focuses on what he's (now) notable for than to try and salvage the mess that was deleted. The only part of the deleted page that might be useful is the lone reliable source that mentions Stefanowski:
Hi, Huon. I'm trying to contact user Minesweeper regarding a page they created in 2004. I left a message on Minesweeper's UserTalk page and also noticed that someone else had attempted to reach MSweeper. I went to ask them for help contacting MSweeper but then noticed they had been blocked. I saw you respond to their appeal to be unblocked and figured you may be able to help. Please let me know if that will be possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A&ApProf (talk • contribs) 14:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A&ApProf, Minesweeper isn't all that active but made a few edits at the end of August; they may respond to the message you left at their talk page when they see it (which, obviously, may take some time). My advice would be to point out the article and ask the questions right now so Minesweeper can immediately answer them when they see them; if another back-and-forth is necessary just to get the questions asked, that might well take an extra few weeks, given Minesweeper's level of activity. I don't think other editors will have better means of contacting Minesweeper than leaving a message on the user talk page, and that's certainly true for someone who was blocked in 2016 and (hopefully) wasn't active since then. Huon (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 06:23:57, 20 September 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Globeupfront
@Globeupfront: I generally don't review the same draft multiple times in a row. That said, now that there are inline citations, it's rather obvious which parts of the draft aren't based on the given sources. That needs to be fixed. I'd also say the tone is unduly promotional, and a significant number of sources are Qazi's own writings instead of third-party coverage of him. Huon (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see. As per your suggestions, I have removed the sentences in the draft, that don't end with inline citations. That was also lessened the promotional tone of the article. Please suggest me more for improvements, if any, so that article has a high chance of getting into the article space.
@Theroadislong: I had spoken to User:Lizdonakey via the IRC help channel and advised them to have the page draftified and to go through the review process. Maybe I was misunderstood. The article seems far better than the previous revision, so there clearly was some progress. Personally I'd suggest histmerging it to the draft (in draftspace), but if Lizdonakey does not want to go through the review process and wants the article to be live in its current form, and you disagree with that, the usual means apply (ie, either speedy deletion, which I'm not sure applies any more, or WP:AFD). Huon (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Huon! I was recently pinged by User:Sparklerae because they left a message on my talk page. Although, I cannot read it because it has been revdeled. I looked at their talk page and saw a lengthy discussion about BLP issues. One of the comments left by you stated: "The message Kadane left you is a standard templated message. Arguably it wasn't the most fitting for this situation, but it's clearly not an invitation to engage in further attacks against a living person.". I am writing to find out what the appropriate message/template would have been in a situation like that. Thanks for taking the time to review. I look forward to your reply! Kadane (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kadane: The main issue with Sparklerae's edit was not the lack of neutrality but the WP:BLP violation. That saw Sparklerae blocked and the edit revision-deleted. So in my opinion a BLP warning template like {{uw-blp2}} would have been more helpful. Or you could have left a custom message, of course. On the other hand, Sparklerae continued to violate BLP repeatedly after the problem had been explained in quite some detail, so I rather doubt a more relevant message would have helped, either. Huon (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing my block
Thanks for reviewing my block. I did follow the flowchart though. There were two separate events of following the chart, one next to other. Plus, after I got a warning, I did not do any edits. Still got blocked though.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reaching out to you, as you deleted everything I wrote on National Aviation Academy's page, plus most of what was originally there (and had been for a significant period of time). Why was the campus info deleted? If you Google Map it, you will see that all information was valid. Additionally, you removed the Military Friendly link that directed people to the NAA page on their website. Per their website: "Military Friendly® is owned and operated by VIQTORY, a veteran-owned business." It is not affiliated with NAA - so what was the issue with citing this source? Lastly, there are a couple typos in what you wrote… which is all that remains on the page.
I want to connect with you directly, rather than simply undo your changes, to ensure I am able to update the page in the proper manner. Can you please let me know of a college/trade school page I can review that is done 100% correctly? I am still new to Wikipedia editing and would like to have an example to review so I can fix NAA's page the right way. Thank you. Updates-for-you 2018 (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Updates-for-you 2018: As I said in my edit summaries, I removed the "references" that didn't actually say anything about the National Aviation Academy, as well as what I called "lots of spam": Promotional content not based on reliable secondary sources. There still is information on both campuses - exactly as much as the remaining sources (which are anything but great) allowed me to write. I rather doubt Google Maps will show me that their Florida campus "has an aviation lab that is fully equipped with Snap-On tools". The New England campus, according to the source, is actually in Bedford, not Concord. And whoever owns Military Friendly, I don't see that it qualifies as a reliable source. It also isn't independent: "NAA is an excellent choice for military service members and veterans because our institution is committed to helping each individual harness their skills ..." - "our institution" means that the text was written by the NAA itself. I have fixed two typos (of which I made only one); if there are others you are welcome to correct them, of course.
I'm not particularly familiar with articles on colleges or trade schools; you may want to check out Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society#Education. That lists several college articles that have been reviewed and found to meet the criteria for a "good article" (which still doesn't necessarily mean they're done "100% correctly").
@Huon: I see, thank you for taking time to explain it in a bit more detail. I've come up with a revised version and citations to go with it. I tried to go in and add it, but it seems I am not able to. Any idea why?
No, it's a school local to me that I thought really needed their page updated. I am new to coding and Wikipedia editing, but I would like to add value to Wikipedia.
I never said the two accounts were "technically indistinguishable" or even confirmed. If that were the case, I could just have blocked and tagged them with the appropriate findings. Based on the technical data, they could be one person, but they are more likely two different people who know each other and are promoting Menkes. Regardless of their relationship, I see no benefit to the project in their edits, e.g.: "It is important to remember that straight men do not make eye contact while in the act. Doing so will question their sexuality. This term became contentious in the Brett Kavanaugh hearing for SCOTUS on November 27, 2018." I mean really.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sharkslayer87: I have explained my reasoning on the talk page (and removed the content again). Maybe my edit summary was a little too concise and I should have been more explicit the first time, sorry. Huon (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of Ranorex GmbH Page
Hello Huon,
It looks like the page for Ranorex GmbH has been deleted and turned into a re-direct. The comments for this change refer to the talk page, but as it's gone, I can't see the talk page. Could you please let me know the reason that the page was removed? Best regards! Jaking01 (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Huon: Hi Huon, and thank you for submitting the Ranorex GmbH article for deletion review. Could you please restore the content for this page so that it is available to all editors interested in determining notability? Unless I missed it, all that is available is your description of your concerns with the article, not the text itself or the links under consideration. Jaking01 (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaking01: The first sentence of my comment at the deletion discussion is: "I turned this version of the page into a redirect ..." - "this version" links to the version of the article before I turned it into the redirect. Interested editors can look up other versions in the page history, too. Huon (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
School block issues
Hi this is the princpal for the school. When I went back on to the wiki it said that I was blocked. But then you told me I wasn't and you were right. They said that I was block due to user:Flasty Jam. He must have caused the issue in the first place and that caused the ban. Now above all of that some other people might have disruptively edited articles but that was a long time ago. This schoolwide block affected the school (of course). So I need you to look and investigate Flasty Jam and see what the problem was. 168.8.249.165 (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to "make admins review" anything. The old unblock request was answered, so I'm not sure why it would show as active. Just the same, that's no reason to revert everything. Just remove the unblock request, or better yet, tell me about the issue and I'll fix it, and also know about it going forward. Relax, there is no need for the hostile accusations. Have a nice day - wolf18:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The unblock request wasn't answered; the request itself contained another declined unblock request. And yes, that is a very good reason to revert troll edits that had been reverted long, long ago and that you reinstated (quote: "ROFLMFAO Pwnt. Try again, motherfuckers."). To echo your edit summary: Why is that IP talk page important to you? Was there anything in the edits you added that was still relevant? I didn't see anything of that kind. Huon (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I get it. There was an unanswered unblock request in the midst of the answered block request. Obviously I missed that, or do you think I suddenly felt like stirring up shit in the unblock request queue for... what? The fun of it?
It doesn't matter what it said, WP uses 'big-people-language-that's-not-nice' all the time (unless you're claiming this should be revdel'd?)
You didnt need to get all bent out of shape, revert everything and post snippy accusations. You could've either a) told me there was problem with the edit, I'd fix it, problem solved. Or, removed the one open request yourself, which would fix it, problem solved.
Hopefully we've both learned something from this (I know I have). And with that, I take it we can consider the matter closed? Great. Have a nice day - wolf23:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting everything was the least-effort solution, and I haven't seen an explanation why it might have been inappropriate, despite asking you for one above. And I didn't revert it because of OMG think of the children! but because it clearly was not a good-faith unblock request and spending any effort on it would have been a waste of that effort: That's why it was immediately removed back in 2009. See WP:DNFTT. Huon (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Air Calédonie logo 2015.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Air Calédonie logo 2015.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).
Major H. Ivan, again, see WP:IMPERSONATE (and my previous explanations). You need to provide proof of identity via email to info-enwikimedia.org. How else could we tell that you indeed are the principal and not some student impersonating the principal? Huon (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Major H. Ivan, that email proves that you are a person who can register a Gmail account. It doesn't prove that you are who you say you are. Surely your school has some official email address from which you can send an email? I'll not answer that email but will provide the people who will answer it with some context since you omitted any. Huon (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand but the only problem is I cannot use the school email due to the fact that it is strictly for business and school purposes only. Plus I don't think the school itself has an email. I'm a new principal so I'm still learning things in this school. I'm using my personal email since that is the only way to do this and how I can communicate to you. Major H. Ivan (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Major H. Ivan, since you were conducting school business on Wikipedia by asking for the school IP address to be unblocked, confirming your identity via a school email address should be OK. How about this text? "This is to certify that 'User:Major H. Ivan' on Wikipedia is me, [your name], principal of [your school]. Please add a tag to my user page to show that identity has been proven." I'm sure the administrative staff has a way of emailing parents that doesn't require use of their personal email accounts; you may want to ask them. Huon (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I will do that soon 19:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Major H. Ivan (talk)
I have some bad news. I went to go ask the county board (they control what content school emails can and cannot have) and they said I cannot do that because editing wikipedia is considered for (fun) entertainment purposes or hobby-based and not to contribute to school-related purposes. I believe they also mentioned that Wikipedia is still not a reliable source in general even though I personally think it is. The emails are controlled by us to a degree but ultimately the county does the control. If I can still talk to you then that would be appreciated. I just didn't like what Boing! said about me and how I was a student. We can still talk but I can't use the school's email to do that. With regards, Major H. Ivan (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then I have some bad news, too: I'll block your account for impersonation. I'm sure you can figure out some way to prove that you are who you say you are; then the account can be unblocked. Huon (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With reference to this (Please, see the sockpuppets), Arbaz_khan_Tanoli (talk·contribs· logs · edit filter log · block log) is not only adding incorrect information to Tanoli, a topic which has been heavily discussed and reiterated that Tanoli are not Pashtuns (Please, see the talk page of Tanoli) and are of undetermined origins, but, just in case if his attempts fail, he has created another page Tanoli_(pashtun), along with other pages (i.e. Nawab_khel) providing no independent, reliable, verifiable or academic sources. He has even created Pathan_tribe although there is already a Pashtun tribes. In a nutshell, User:Arbaz_khan_Tanoli seems to be a sole-purpose account (possibly an reincarnation of a sockpuppet) to promote each and everything about Tanolis and making them to be a Pashtun on Wikipedia without providing any independent, reliable, verifiable or academic sources whatsoever. Please, look into these matters at your convenience. Thank you. McKhan(talk)08:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@McKhan:Which sockpuppets am I supposed to see? I didn't see a case at WP:SPI. I don't see any recent suspicious edits at Tanoli either. Accusing other editors of misconduct (such as sockpuppetry) without evidence is considered a personal attack. Please don't do that.
That said, I don't even see any edits by Arbaz khan Tanoli after I left a more personalized message on their talk page explaining why their edits were problematic. Huon (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if it came across as a personal attack but that wasn't my attention at all.
In lieu of sockpuppetry, I was simply referring to this, this and last but not the least this - listed on this.
It is important to note that the topic of Tanoli, as per the talk page of Tanoli, is very much contentious, so much so that it is under protection. @Enric Naval: might be able to shed some more light on that.
Having said that while going through Arbaz khan Tanoli's edits, one cannot help but to see an underlying theme of pushing/promoting/inserting Tanoli in almost each and every Wikipedia Article - related to Pashtuns or Pathans to show that Tanoli are Pasthuns (also known as Pathans) without providing any independent, reliable, verifiable or academic sources, a fact highlighted by Huon on Arbaz khan Tanoli's Talk Page.
On the side, he also created Tanoli_(pashtun) (although Tanoli already exists hence I marked it under CSD as having two articles on the topic of Tanoli on Wikiped makes no sense) which contains almost the very same information he tried to add to Tanoli without providing any independent, reliable, verifiable or academic sources. Subsequently, he created Nawab_khel, Pathan_tribe (although Pashtun tribes also exists) and working on Khan_khel (draft).
To add to that, I primarily reverted Tanoli because the additional material was blatant WP:COPYVIO. The article history and their talk page activity seem to suggest that they are either unable or unwilling to follow guidelines such as WP:RS and WP:CV, despite mulitiple warnings regarding the behavior. — AfroThundr (u · t · c)21:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@McKhan: Firstly, that's not vandalism. There's little doubt that Arbaz khan Tanoli acts in good faith and honestly believes his edits improve the encyclopedia. Secondly, my talk page is not the appropriate place to bring up such issues. The way to go is either dispute resolution or WP:AN/I. Since in this case communication didn't seem to work, I have brought up the issue here. The next time you have a similar issue, please do something like that yourself instead of coming to me. Huon (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Saudi Telecom Company logo October 2018.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Saudi Telecom Company logo October 2018.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).
Thanks for flagging the Molly DeWolf Swenson page. I went in and edited general tone for objectivity, removed unsourced facts, and sources that either didn't mention Swenson or were not valid sources (i.e. blogs), added a couple of additional sources for notability (Forbes 30 Under 30 and the RYOT sale price of $15 million), and added a recent article that mentions her and G-Eazy.
Thank you for your advice & for adding the tag, although it is the 'pacifist politics' bit that needs the citation, not the entire sentence. I am relatively new to contributing to articles & have a COI which is making it difficult for me to get my head round (that & being ancient!). Do I need to put my COI on the article's talk page? If so, where does it go? I have already made a bit of a pig's ear of 2 articles & am trying to avoid doing it to a third. Thanks again *ptrs4all* (talk) 08:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@*ptrs4all*: I don't see a source for the rest of the sentence either. All of it needs citations. Regarding your COI, I'd suggest simply saying something like "I don't want to edit the article directly because..." when you post your suggestion there. There are some fancy templates to format it more nicely, but you can let others deal with that - openly stating it will be good enough. Huon (talk) 08:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Huon! One of my students was wondering if she could have the article on Lord Fletcher's restored so she could work on this and also show it to her professor as proof that she worked on an article. If not, is it OK if I email a copy of the article to the student so she can show her professor? I'll advise her not to repost it to her sandbox if you don't want to restore it. The student in question is Californiagirl9285. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to email her a copy (or I can do it if that helps), but I'm not going to restore the page. I'll give a more detailed explanation on the student's talk page. Huon (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Huon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adora_BatBrat
I hope this is the correct place to respond. First, thank you for deleting the orphan tag. I agree that's not the biggest problem. I thought it was the easiest thing to address. I will address the notability issue in the next few days. Wampyrie 11:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wampyrie (talk • contribs)
@Wampyrie: OK. Please note that the page has been nominated for deletion due to the unclear notability; the discussion will take a week. When you have addressed that issue and improved the article accordingly, you'll want to leave a message at WP:Articles for deletion/Adora BatBrat. I also nominated the collection of images for deletion over at the Wikimedia Commons; we'd need evidence that the copyright holder(s), likely the photographers and not the model, have released those photos under the stated license. Huon (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
and remove the photos which are proposed for deletion. Is it ok for me to make this chance, or must I discuss it somewhere? Thanks so much. ps - I am continuing to work on notability. Wampyrie 23:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Wampyrie:Wikipedia has a policy on exteral links, WP:EL. Of particular relevance is the part WP:ELNO which describes what external links are inappropriate. I don't think a page of Google image search results meets our standards of what to link to.
The article on The Beatles actually does contain song snippets. Those are used to illustrate points about the music made in the text and supported by reliable third-party sources. The article on Adora BatBrat currently does not have comparable sources discussing her makeup and looks in appreciable detail, and even if we had those sources, it would be more difficult to argue that freely licensed images cannot be created than to argue that we can't get a Beatles song freely licensed. After all, you did take one photo of her yourself and released it correctly.
On an entirely unrelated note, what do you mean by "I understand that the author was tring to provide examples ..."? Aren't you the original author of the article on Adora BatBrat and the person who uploaded those images and them to the page about two weeks ago? Huon (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Huon, indeed I had requested it before, but was not able to act on it. Now I think I can obtain some help to finally have the page fixed and published. Please let me work on it once more. Sorry for creating issues, I am still learning about wikipedia. --Pinballdot (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Huon I am not the original author, but I'm using their login. I first heard of Adora over the summer and checked wikipedia to find out more. I noticed It was marked for deletion. I sent adora a FaceBook message about it. She sent me the login & password. I'm going to continue to try to establish notability. Wampyrie 17:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wampyrie (talk • contribs)
@Huon Ok, I've been schooled about not having my own id. I will correct this. I had hoped that the fact that it's being worked on would buy some time, but the page is "gone". Can you tell me if it's still accessible so I can continue to work on it? Also, does putting "@" in front of your id generate an alert for you? Can I msg you directly? Thanks. Wampyrie 23:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wampyrie (talk • contribs)
@TommyHot: Sorry for the slow response; I'm very busy in real life. The page indeed has been deleted, which makes it unaccessible to anybody but administrators. If Sandstein, the admin who closed the deletion discussion, is OK with that, I can restore it as a draft to be impfoved, but there are two caveats: Firstly, I'd like to see some indication of notability by Wikipedia's standards, that is, a reliable source that's independent of Adora BatBrat and reports on her in some detail, such as an article in a newspaper or a reputable magazine (not an interview, though) - multiple editors did look for sources but came up empty. The content of a Wikipedia article should be a summary of what such sources report, so there'll be quite a bit of rewriting to be done since the content as it stood wasn't based on such sources, and it's unlikely that sources, once found, will back up this exact content. Secondly, I get the impression that you're a rather new editor; thus I'd strongly suggest that you do not turn the improved draft into a live article yourself when you think it's ready, but rather submit it for a review by an experienced editor who will assess notability and other issues (I can add a messagebox with a "Submit your draft for a review" button that you can use when you're done). Would you be OK with that? Then let me know and provide the reliable third-party source to show that there's hope. Huon (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Huon,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that
Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"
My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk22:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas!!
Thank you for all great contributions to the project Huon! My very best wishes for this holiday season. May your heart and the heart of those around you be filled with happiness during this special time. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
