User talk:Haon 2.0

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! RadManCF (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Nomination of cerebral palsy as a Featured Article
I nominated cerebral palsy as a featured article on June 26.

Hi there...
Hi Haon,

I saw Featured_article_candidates/Cerebral_palsy/archive1 and wanted to do a quick check - Your userpage says you nominated it as a 'good article'  (which is this process - Good_article_nominations) as opposed to the Featured articles, which have *much* more strenuous criteria (generally they go though the Good article and Peer review processes first...)- can I check, which one you intended to nominate Cerebral palsy for? Fayedizard (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Reviews of The Muppets (film)
Good articles on Wikipedia have specific standards, as laid out in WP:WIAGA, the Good article criteria. You have recently done two reviews of the Muppets article that do not reference these criteria at all, but simply express your belief that they are good articles. This is neither sufficient nor adequate.

Similarly, you started a review of Contagion (film) in Talk:Contagion (film)/GA1, which basically expressed your opinion that it was good, but you wanted a second opinion.

The good article review is a specific process, involving checking the article against a set of criteria. You need to know portions of Wikipedia's Manual of Style, be able to check sources to make sure there isn't any plagiarism in the article, be sure that images don't violate the rules, and any number of other items.

If you want to start proper reviewing, you will want to find a mentor to help you learn the process. We take good articles and good article reviewing very seriously, and hope you will as well. In the meantime, I expect that these two articles will be reviewed by others, since you aren't knowledgeable as to the requirements.

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations about your reviews, since they have created problems. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not used to reviewing and only do it when I genuinely feel that an article is good or bad. As such, I probably come across as a lazy jerk who doesn't bother to actually back up my opinion. I'm hoping that others who actually know what they're doing will be able to correctly judge, and I'll see if my opinion was correct or not. User:Haon 2.0 (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've just copied your above comment from my talk page so the conversation is all in one place, and so it's clear exactly what I'm responding to. I'll continue to follow the conversation here.


 * I wanted to be very clear: the Good Article review process is a formal process, and one that no one should participate in unless they are prepared to do the work. It is not something with which to register an opinion or feeling, but to actually measure the article against the established criteria. If this isn't something you're going to learn and do, then you should not review any Good Article nominations.


 * It's not about being a lazy jerk or failing to back up an opinion, it's about flouting an official process because you have that opinion, even if it's a genuinely held one. This is serious: the last two people who decided their opinion meant they could declare articles Good Articles found themselves banned from Good Article reviewing. You're also not being fair to the people whose articles you say are good, because you end up delaying their ultimate recognition: once your "review" is unwound, which has happened twice now, the article has to go back into the reviewing queue.


 * I hope you do not continue reviewing in the manner you have done so far. Although I don't think you meant it to be, it has been disruptive. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages
Dear Author/Haon 2.0

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address edited an article on Cerebral palsy. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance.Hydra Rain (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

History of Mars observation
Hello Haon. I just wanted to let you know that History of Mars observation has been promoted to FA and to thank you for your comments and support. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Verizon 4G LTE Card.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Verizon 4G LTE Card.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Verizon 4G LTE Card.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Verizon 4G LTE Card.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Stephen King
Salutations, I saw your edit to the Stephen King article and removed it. You really should provide sources for stuff like that, and the material in question was a bit too much for that section. His foray into directing should certainly be noted in the article, just not in a section that is about his appearances in media. There is an adaptations sub-section in the 1980's work section where the material about his directing work can be included, provided that it is backed by the necessary citations.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Screwworm Dog.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Screwworm Dog.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Genndy Tartakovsky Profile Pic.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Genndy Tartakovsky Profile Pic.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Carniolus (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Genndy Tartakovsky Profile Pic.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Genndy Tartakovsky Profile Pic.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Channel Awesome shows for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Channel Awesome shows is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of Channel Awesome shows until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Hello, I'm Doniago. I wanted to let you know that I undid your recent edits to the The Devil's Advocate (1997 film) plot summary because they added a significant amount of unneeded detail. Please avoid excessive detail and high word counts when editing plot summaries/synopses. You may read the plot summary edit guides to learn more about contributing constructively to plot summaries/synopses. There are also specific guidelines for films, musicals, television episodes, anime/manga, novels and non-fiction books. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- DonIago (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

How to nominate
Hi Haon, I noticed you tried to nominate Isaac Asimov as a GA today. You don't make nominations by editing that page directly, though; you can see the instructions at WP:GAN/I. This is why the large warning message appears atop the page when you try to edit it.

Looking at the article, by the way, you should probably deal with the outstanding cleanup tags before nominating, or it will simply be failed. You can see the full criteria at WP:GA?. Good luck! I'm glad you want to work on this important author; he'd be a terrific person to get to GA. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov
Please see WP:GAN/I for instructions on how to properly nominate an article at WP:GAN

April 2015
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Jerusalem's Lot. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Journey Title Poster.png
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:RichieFoleyStaticShock.png
Thanks for uploading File:RichieFoleyStaticShock.png. 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Shrek in the Swamp Karaoke Dance Party for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shrek in the Swamp Karaoke Dance Party is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Shrek in the Swamp Karaoke Dance Party until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Trudy-Monk.PNG
Thanks for uploading File:Trudy-Monk.PNG. 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Trudy-Monk.PNG
Thanks for uploading File:Trudy-Monk.PNG. 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)