User talk:Hu/Archive5

Surface Brightness Fluctuation
Why switch to Harvard style references? I'm not used to using those and am curious as to what motivated the change? Thanks. WilliamKF 05:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. I have looked into the issue carefully, and it is the only system on Wikipedia that meets all of these objectives: I recommend it highly for all articles with a scientific or academic orientation. Explanations: Harvard referencing, Template:Harvard reference. Hu 06:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Briefest citation in-line with the text.
 * Keeps the text clear and readable in the editing phase.
 * No confusion about duplicate references. The system requires naming references and an editor may not notice a prior or later occurence of the same reference.
 * Identifies the author and year inline.
 * Familiar to researchers.
 * Indicates currency or precedence of references.
 * With the author's name inline, those familiar with the field will immediately recognize valid references.
 * Works well as a reference section
 * Allows the reference section to be alphabetized by author primarily and by year secondarily.
 * The detailed information about the reference is in the reference section, not the text.
 * Independent of the more common WP reference system,, which is modeled after footnotes and better suited to that purpose. The two systems can coexist beautifully.


 * Could you help with doing Harvard references in this article: Planetary Nebula M2-9. In particular, how do I do a small cite so that the infobox does not get bloated?  Also, is there an et al form for when there are many authors?  Finally, what to do if there is no author like when it is a press release or a database query at SIMBAD?  Thanks.  WilliamKF 00:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it right away. Hu 01:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the article. Thanks for introducing the Harvard reference system into that article. I used the standard reference system as footnotes to keep the infobox compact. Looks like you got the et al working. For SIMBAD, I fudged it by calling SIMBAD the author. Hu 02:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you look again? I've added notes a, b and wonder if that should be changed.  Also, why the change to external links to use &amp; instead of bullets?  And, I thought style guide says no space before the footnote.  Also, if you are willing to take a look at Protoplanetary nebula which I added Harvard too, that would be nice.  Thanks again.  WilliamKF 04:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Harvard references discussion
Please join this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects I think your input would be useful. WilliamKF 23:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have responded there with my take on the advantages. Thank you for inviting me. Hu 05:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Cronisaur
Your tone suggests you believe I was acting in a disruptive fashion. I was not. I considered the article to fall under the 'hoax' category, which is not deletable under speedy criteria. We disagree on that - and I would have chimed in with a delete under the now closed AfD. Regards --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD
I hope no big harm done. Happened the same with myself a couple of times. Since then I don't hit the "save" button on the tagged page until I finish the nomination. `'mikka 10:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No harm done at all. I just thought I'd mention it. However, your advice seems like an excellent way to proceed, and I will adopt it. Thanks. Hu 10:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

notability - "Paco Nathan" page
Hi Hu,

You flagged the page Paco Nathan regarding notability.

I am the author. I was completing an entry to satisfy dangling links from existing pages in Wikipedia, including Boing Boing, Robby Garner, FringeWare Review, and Jon Lebkowsky - which had been on Wikipedia for a relatively long time without a destination page.

There are verifiable archives for FringeWare, such as on the Internet Archive, plus other works are archived in the published content of Wired, Whole Earth, O'Reilly, etc., as well as in the open source projects cited.

What other notability requirements need to be provided? Thanks. Ceteri 21:57, 26 December 2006

Please read Biographies. Hu 22:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image incorrectly deleted
You might want to ask KFP that, as he was the one who tagged it as such. — P ilotguy (ptt) 00:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: your edits, , and numerous others involving the same image. The image Image:Benjamin West 005.jpg is not tagged. I don't understand you. I also checked his/her last 500 edits (since Nov. 29) and KFP has not touched that image in all that time. Hu 00:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That's because the page has been deleted, per his request. The image still exists, but that's because it is linked from commons. — P ilotguy (ptt) 01:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the page deleted, the image is still there. I don't see any request recorded by KFP to have it deleted. If it has been deleted, it should be restored since it is a perfectly fine public domain image used in multiple articles. Hu 01:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

-phob-
Please don't add poorly referenced entries. Please see wikipedia policy about reliable sources. Please also read the section -phob- and have a good laugh. Happy New Year! `'mikka 06:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I only transferred one entry, acridophobia, in from an unnecessary web page. It has a reference, but you can disagree with its validity. I have no stake in the matter. Hu 06:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Warning
I advise you to self revert on science fiction, you've made 4 reverts within 24 hours on said page (a violation of WP:3RR) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not made four reverts. There is no violation. I have made only two reverts (edit history of Science fiction article). I removed the tag, you reverted, I removed it again (first revert), another editor restored it, I removed it again (second revert).  It is not correct to claim  as the first edit of the chain because it was part of a reasonable edit restoring fit external links, but even if you were about to successfully argue that in some detail, it would mean only three reverts, so there is still no violation. Hu 22:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Partially reverting is still a reversion. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note, I have just delisted your account from WP:AIV (was a WP:3RR report and not obvious vandalism) you may be getting listed at WP:AN/3RR though. Thanks, —  xaosflux  Talk  22:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the action delisting and for letting me know about it. It was amusing to read that edit and see I had been promoted to admin! Hu 22:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe they intend to put you up for RFA next ;) — xaosflux  Talk  23:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

They were doing a minute by minute edit
And there were about three people there reverting. It's possible we just tripped over our reversions? HalfShadow 04:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's possible, but one way or another, probably a simple accident of reversion. I just thought I'd mention it to you. It all got sorted out in the end. Hu 04:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

RE
OK then, I put the tag. However, it's just that I don't know where to mention to block the user. --esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 04:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Use Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV). Hu 04:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Partyserver
It is interesting that you have the opinion a game server needs to have a web site to be notable. Indeed, as you argued on the articles talk page "web sites [are] exceptionally cheap and easy to maintain". Does this make them more credible? It is even more intriguing that you first deleted the citation, then argued against the articles credibility. Surely a person who practises Zen and "programming" would know about a language called PHP and a Microsoft scripting technology called ASP, both of which make it impossible to link directly to the Game Monitor Partyserver pages. Perhaps you need to consider getting your facts straight before you choose to condemn an article to your personal opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.79.22.130 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A web site does not make a server notable, but it is absurd to argue that a notable server would not have one. Even if one is not directly linked to the server, a server still benefits from a separate web site. This is proven by the efforts of partisans such as 210.79.22.130 to use Wikipedia as a substitute website, which is ina ppropriate. I am not surprised that Microsoft ASP scripting technology makes it difficult to link to the game server, though I doubt it is impossible. I'm on a server that uses real technology and has no difficulty at all linking both ways between the game server and the web site. I do have my facts straight, and the most important fact is that the web page when I last looked at it had not properly asserted or proven the notability of the game server. Finally, I suggest you read Wikipedia policy. Hu 08:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Heinlein: Gulf vs Friday
The "Friday" novel page currently says that the novel is "loosely related" to the story Gulf. I think that understates things considerably: Friday is in fact (in part) a careful point-by-point repudiation of everything proposed in Gulf:
 * Joe Green in Gulf is taught ultra-rational thinking. Friday is taught totally intuitive thinking.
 * Joe Green gives his life altruistically to save Earth civilization; Friday leaves Earth to its fate to settle down and mind her own selfish business.
 * In Gulf, Kettlebelly states that evil organizations collapse when the head man is taken out, but that his organization would carry on without a hiccup without him. In Friday, Kettlebelly's complete organization shuts down totally within 24 hours of his death -- but evil keeps on trucking just fine.

And so forth and so forth: The more carefully you read the two in conjunction, the more clear it becomes that Heinlein was very deliberately repudiating in Friday -everything- that he proposed in Gulf. Ending, of course, with Kettlebelly insisting that Friday go anywhere -but- to join the "supermen". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.227.166.46 (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

An interesting analysis. Thank you. I suggest you propose it on the Talk pages of the two articles. Hu 09:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Harvard referencing
Hello Hu. I liked your posting at about Harvard referencing. Can you offer a good example of an article using Harvard references, where everything (in your opinion) is done correctly? I am currently trying to heavily revise an article and have chosen to use Harvard, but don't know of any good existing articles to look at in case of questions. I know that there are official templates for Harvard but am unsure of their value, so haven't used any yet. Thanks. EdJohnston 06:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

64.131.21.148
I received a message from you on the 15th of November 2006 regarding the article on California. I have no idea what you're talking about. I have never edited a wikipedia entry in my life. This says I edited a page on the 15th of November, 2006? Well, I just got this computer brand new from Dell on the 9th of January 2007. Why don't you check your facts before accusing someone of vandalism. How rude. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.131.21.148 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Relax. You are using an anonymous IP address, probably dynamically assigned by your ISP. You can avoid this problem simply by registering a Wikipedia ID which you can keep permanently logged in. Or you can just realize that occasionally shared IP addresses will be abused by other people, so if you receive a message that doesn't apply to you, you can ignore it. As a long-time Wikipedia editor, I am sure of my facts, whereas you are not, which is excusable because you are a new user. You can check your IP address's edit history here: Special:Contributions/64.131.21.148. Editor ChillDoubt has responded on your talk page with similar information. Hu 20:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-standard capitalization of names
Hello, I saw your post at Talk:Bell hooks regarding the related capitalization issue. There is currently a similar, somewhat stagnating discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters), for which I am trying to render input by more editors. Hence I was wondering whether you would like to comment. Regards - Cyrus XIII 09:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

CfM: Science fiction short story collections
Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 15:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My compliments
I've just viewed some of your comments in some contentious debates, and I was impressed by your ability to project a calm, even temper, despite the vitriol of your colleagues. Way to keep sente! Somegeek 01:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Hu 15:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

An RfC brought up by User:Lukas19 et al.
Hello, sorry to disturb but I thought you might be interested in commenting on this rfC: Requests for comment/LSLM·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Complex systems
Thank you for your contribution to the complex system article in the past. Currently there is a Call for Deletion for the associated Category:Complex systems covering this interdisplinary scientific field. If you would like to contribute to the discussion, you would be very welcome. Please do this soon if possible since the discussion period is very short. Thank you for your interest if you can contribute. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 14:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

LÉ Orla (P41)
Yes i know some of the information was inaccurate, misleading and in one case completely worng. I have now updated the page, added references and sorted out the problems. Thankyou for your attention to detail. It was the last Peacock class to get done and i didn't pay it enough attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodym555 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 6 June 2007

Notability of Georgiy Starostin
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Georgiy Starostin, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Georgiy Starostin seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Georgiy Starostin, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Georgiy Starostin itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 08:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Homosexual propaganda
I have read WP:CIV and there is a crying need to write homosexual propaganda with a neutral point of view. Please strike the right note and pave the way for it. Don't pick it off at any rate. Are you ruling the roost? Aende 16:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you are not capable of Neutral Point of View. Hu 18:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Guy Martin
Dont feel that i am being overly argumentative here, but why did you feel that my entry on Guy Martin needed to be deleted? Seeing as a variety of other comparable racers such as Leon Haslam and Karl Harris have entries i do not see how this article was out of place. Neither do i see, as a TT rider and participant in a variety of other races, as well as a columnist in a national motorcycle magazine, that Guy Martin is an individual not worthy of particular note. Minarelli 17 June 2007

The article did not assert his notability. Simply appearing in races is not notable enough. Did he win any important races? The article did not say so. Hu 01:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, personally i think you are applying your criteria of notability, not wikipedia's. Seeing as the Senior TT only has a handful of professional riders from the entire world, i would say that being a participant is enough to mark someone as suitably notable. I dont intend on rewriting the entry, but i do think it's deletion was informed more by personal opinion than enforcing wikipedia's rules. Minarelli 18 June 2007

I didn't delete it, and I don't have the power to delete it. I only nominated it. Someone more senior than I deleted it. Hu 16:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Blackle.com
In reference to your warning about the Ownership of the site Blackle.com. i have done further research and have identified Heap media as the owner. changes hav been made in the page

Father Flash
Hey why did you delete my article about Fr. Flash, which was perfectly legite. The statements can be backed up from the daily record website - the only reason I didn't is becuase I don't know how. Please re-instate the article so that people 'in the know' can add sources Barrabhoy 19:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not delete the article. I tagged it for deletion because 1) the article did not properly assert notability (there are many accused priests), 2) the article did not provide sources to back up the claims, and 3) it was written like an attack on a person. An Admin agreed and deleted the article.  If you think the subject is notable, read up on how to write a proper Wikipedia article and try again. Hu 19:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Chris dejoseph
The reason that I removed the tag on Chris dejoseph is that the article seemed plausibly true. Yes, it sounded strange but there's a lot of strange stuff on TV in genral and in pro wrestling in particular. I couldn't tell if it was true or just "patent nonsense". That's why I put the tag on the article.

At least some part of the article is true. If you Google "Chris Dejoseph WWE", you will find out that "The WWE name of the male stripper who appeared on RAW last night is 'Big Dick Johnson'. Well, that's what WWE.com is referring to him as. In a WWE.com clip last week with Jim Ross, he was referred to as 'University of Oregon supporter'. 'Big Dick Johnson' is actually a WWE writer whose real name is Chris DeJoseph." WWE Names Their Male Stripper 'Big Dick Johnson'

--Richard 07:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You had written in the edit summary "This is not an attack page. Assuming the content is true, the text could use some improvement to be more encyclopedic in tone. It also needs to be sourced." I restored the speedy delete tag and summarized "On Wikipedia, we Do Not Assume Something Is True. The [article] reads like an attack and it is unsourced. Therefore the assumption is that it is untrue, not the other way around."  In the next edit you removed the speedy delete tag and wrote a suggestion about Googling in the summary where you also wrote "it's not an admin's job to verify that the content is true". I couldn't find anything on your user page to indicate you are an admin. But regardless, the person adding content is responsible for providing sources and references. I am guided by the following Wikipedia policies from Wikipedia:Citing sources (emphasis theirs):


 * "Biographies of living persons should be sourced with particular care, for legal and ethical reasons. All negative material about living persons must cite a reliable source. Do not wait for another editor to request a source. If you find unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about a living person — whether in an article or on a talk page — remove it immediately! Do not leave it in the article and ask for a source. Do not move it to the talk page."


 * "If it is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; [...] Do not be inappropriately cautious about removing unsourced material; it is better for Wikipedia to say nothing on an issue than to present false or misleading material."

By putting the speedy-delete tag on the article, I was asking for the material to be quickly removed in the most complete and sincere way. Next time I will be inclined to follow the policy more carefully and delete the text before placing a speedy-delete tag.

Hu 09:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with communicating via edit summaries is that it's easy to miscommunicate because the summaries are so short.


 * There's nothing wrong with you having put the "speedy-delete" tag on the Chris dejoseph article. You sincerely thought it was an attack article and thought it should be speedied.  I have deleted a number of attack articles that have been tagged in this way.  The job of an admin is to be a "reality check" to make sure articles don't get speedied inappropriately.  In many instances, the decision is easy.  In some cases, it's not so obvious.  That's what the WP:AFD process is for.  That process gets more people involved in reviewing the article and making the decision.


 * My concern was that I got a different impression from reading the article than you did. You saw an attack article, I saw an article that might actually be true and not an attack.  As it turns out, Googling for "Chris dejoseph WWE male stripper" brings up a bunch of hits.  Now, admittedly, all of these are blogs and there is no link to an official WWE site confirming what these many websites are saying.  However, it seems likely that the following are true
 * Chris Dejoseph is a creative writer for the WWE
 * Chris Dejoseph played the part of a male stripper in a WWE event
 * The storyline was kind of wacky


 * Is the entire text of the article true? I don't know.  Some parts of it sound wacky (e.g. sticking his head up his butt).  I would delete anything that can't be sourced.  As you point out, Wikipedia policy is to remove text that is negative.  That is not the same thing as deleting the article.


 * Now, there might be other reasons to delete the article (e.g. Chris Dejoseph might not be notable) but the article itself does not seem to me to be an attack article.


 * Since much of the article is true or at least appears to be true and not necessarily an attack, I would leave the article in place and just delete the questionable text.


 * Obviously, you and I have different opinions about whether or not the article is an "attack" article. That's normal.  If you continue to disagree, you can take this to WP:AFD and see what other people think.


 * P.S. I'm a new admin so I don't want to insist that I am 100% right in what I wrote above. This is my understanding of Wikipedia policy.  If you disagree, it's possible that you may be right.  I'll ask on the administrator's noticeboard for other admins to look at this and provide their opinion.


 * --Richard 05:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with you removing the speedy delete tag after you googled. I just think that your approach of "Assuming the content is true", and thus not googling (the first time around), is the wrong approach, especially with biographies of living people, per Wikipedia:Citing sources, which you have avoided addressing. Hu 05:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, OK. Maybe I should have been less lazy and Googled first.  You could have Googled as well.


 * When I first read the article, it sounded like it could be true and it didn't sound like an attack to me so I didn't feel that the text absolutely had to be deleted immediately.


 * In the end, I did Google twice and, so far, it looks like most of the article is actually true. The real difference between your perspective and mine is that it didn't read like an obvious attack to me.  To me, it sounded like more of the wacky kind of script that you see in professional wrestling.  I concede that it could be considered negative to assert that someone is a "male stripper" but professional wrestling does have weird story lines and to say that someone played the wacky part of being a male stripper is not the same as saying that he actually is a male stripper.


 * --Richard 05:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, after writing the above, I decided that the more appropriate reason for deleting the article was failure to assert notability so I speedied it on those grounds. --Richard 05:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

mdash deprecated?
Hi, saw your edit summary for the Sapir-Whorf page. Can you show me where you saw the info that emdashes are deprecated on WP? Thanks. Ling.Nut 01:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * One clue is that &amp;mdash; does not appear in the list of charcters or strings to Insert that appears below the Editing boxes and buttons, whereas the character — does appear (in fact it is the second one of a long list). I'll try to chase down an actual reference. Hu 03:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It turns out that either way is acceptable according to this reference: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes). However I will continue to replace &amp;mdash; with the single character since it will be easier for editors to read source text.  Sorry for the erroneous steer, and thanks for making me check. Hu 06:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No prob, and thanks for checking!
 * [Commercial plug]: If you know anyone who's interested in endangered languages (or) the Three Kingdoms era in Chinese history (or the relevant pop culture shtuff), please send them to WP:ENLANG or WP:3K, respectively. Thanks! Ling.Nut 14:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Coffee Hag Albums
You put a copyright notice on this page. This is not a copyright violation, see also the remark on the talk page. I am the author of both the Wikipedia site as well as the original site, see my own user page as well as the whois information of herladryshop.biz.Knorrepoes 18:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You put a copyright notice, I did not. What I put was a notice of copyright violation. You have to either decide that you own the copyright or not. If you give up the copyright to Wikipedia, then you can't claim copyright on it and must not put any notices on Wikipedia. I did this to force you to decide. You need to read up a bit about Wikipedia and Copyright. Hu 23:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved amicably. See User talk:Knorrepoes. Hu 02:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

New pages
You're very quick today. You've beaten me to it on about a dozen new articles so far. :))) -- R OGER  TALK 10:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I do that too (less competition!). Happy cruft-hunting. -- R OGER  TALK 11:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yak Racing
Look I'm sorry but do I look like a hoaxter to you? In Tibet were there are an abundance of yaks the sport is watched by up to 50,000 people across the country.

See
 * http://www.humanrights.cn/zt/magazine/pic/046/p29-1.jpg

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 12:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, from the pretentious signature to the nonsense on your user page, yes. Hu 13:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Pretentious and nonsense? I like to liven things up mate -otherwise wikipedia would be dominated by geeks - dull and boring people with no personality. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 13:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That slam came out of NOWHERE! Somegeek 19:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Pip Utton
I believe your concerns regarding the notability assertion have been answered; consequently, I have removed the speedy deletion tag. Alas, the article still remains a stub at this time. Please let me know if you have any further concerns. Digwuren 14:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That takes care of it. Hu 15:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

4th25
Yo you arrogant fool there is a message for you on my talk page if you have time to delete my page you certainly have time to read it. Mdamon1224. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mdamon1224 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. Hu 10:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Shahbal
You tagged Shahbal with the following, slightly invalid tag:. Did you mean to question its notability? Then the tag should have been. Or did you mean to list it for speedy deletion, because its notability is not asserted? Then the correct tag is. I curently did not change the article, not knowing what you intended. --B. Wolterding 12:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The object is not a company or a corporation. I did the best I could because there is no Speedy Deletion category for articles that do not adequately assert notability of their subject when the subject is an object. The thing will probably have to move through the ProD or AfD process. Hu 12:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The corresponding notability guideline (to which these tags refer), WP:CORP, deals with companies, organizations, products, and services. That's why products like this one go under "companies" for purposes of notability. But sending the article to PROD or AfD is not wrong, in any case. --B. Wolterding 12:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a product. I have Proposed it for Deletion. Hu 12:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Timway
Because a rewrite was permitted after DRV, this should probably go back to Afd. I think it not notable and borderline spam, but it's not really appropriate to speedy something that has been given dispensation by the community at DRV to be re-tried. (and yes, the same problems still exist, and yes, process sometimes is a pain in hindquarters, but that's my recommendation. Carlossuarez46 01:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Took a bit to figure out what DRV means (Deletion_review/Log/2007 July 9. On that basis, I've withdrawn the Speedy Delete tag from Timway.  I will put it through AfD a couple of days from now unless somebody puts it in earlier. Hu 01:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Since it had been to AfD before, Prod wasn't valid on the article. However, I have gone ahead and nominated it for AfD again: Articles for deletion/Timway (2nd nomination). —C.Fred (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hey, I noticed you reverted some vandalism to my profile, which the vandal turned around and reverted back. Could you warn/kick him? I'm not really sure how to petition this sort of thing. Rhickey1986 14:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You can warn the user on their Talk page with one of the vandalism warning tags such as or. If they ignore strong warnings like Blatantvandal and test4, and the vandalism is ongoing, you can then report them on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV). In this case, the vandal is not active, so I think it is best to let it rest for the time being. Chances are the vandal has lost interest in Wikipedia. Hu 00:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Dialling
Hi Hu ... not sure what category Dialling would go in. Went search of a list and got lost in the various articles on "the do's and don'ts of categorization". After twenty minutes of following links around Wikipedia I give up. What category do you think a word might fit in (ie, physics terms?) Is there a list of current categories that I can select something from? Thank you kindly in advance. JimScott 21:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

One can put it into a high level category like Category:Mathematics and leave it to somebody else who patrols the high level category to refine the categorization. However, you may be able to find an appopriate lower level category by scanning the high level category page and working down through the subcategories. Hu 00:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. JimScott 01:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Blues musicians
Listcruft? If the issue was indiscriminate listings, why did you not just ask for references? We could have cleared this up before this whole thing started. I happened to create the lists and categories you are mentioning. The lists appear with the categories to give users further coverage of musicians in that genre, especially those who do not yet have articles here on Wikipedia. I hope the references now added to each article satisfy you, but if not...no big deal. These will never be deleted anyway. (Mind meal 05:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC))

Ha ha... (Mind meal 10:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

WP:NOT
Yeah, gee. I was wondering if you would care to actually back up your claim about WP:NOT stating that categories are better than "unstructured lists". I mean, as soon as possible please. You are abusing the system and you know full well nothing you are citing is backed by policy or guidelines anywhere. I'm documenting all of these types of behavior by users such as yourself to make a clear case to an arbitration committee that certain users are in violation of WP:POINT repeatedly, after being exposed. Have a good day. (Mind meal 21:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC))


 * "You're very quick today. You've beaten me to it on about a dozen new articles so far. :))) --ROGER TALK 10:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I do that too (less competition!). Happy cruft-hunting. --ROGER TALK 11:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)"

Very interesting Hu. It will be easy to demonstrate your bias. (Mind meal 21:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC))


 * As usual, you deflect criticism rather than address the substance of it. (Mind meal 03:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC))

HI (Honghu)
Hi Hu, and thank you for introducing me to Wikipedia even though I have been a member long since ago. I use Wiki a lot for school and projects, etc., but I haven't posted articles or edited pages until recently. I have found the "how to edit a page" site very helpful. Thank you again. Honghu 02:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Its me Alex Gilbert
Please dont delete my Bob 3 Page cause i have been working on that game for over one year and I really want to sell it over the net and all. Its being sold here in NZ and why dont you check out the Demo... http://www.archive.org/details/Bob3Demo

You can help me with the game if you want PLEASE?? I still need a soundtrack for the game so mabey you can help.. Please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alex436 (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia is not for advertising or self-promotion. Hu 09:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Heinlein
Hi -- I'm rather taken aback by the hostile reaction to my edits to the Heinlein article. I supplied extensive summaries, and left messages on the article's talk page. You don't seem to have paid any attention to either the summaries or the talk page.--76.81.180.3 01:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

While you were posting this message I posted a long message explaining my reasoning on your talk page. Hu 01:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth postal orders move
Hu, Your move request for Commonwealth postal orders did not use the correct templates and did not set up a place to discuss the move, so I added the templates and set up the discussion area. Incidentally, I agree with you that Commonwealth of Nations postal orders is a better name. The discussion area is here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryHenryGebel (talk • contribs) 15:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to go back to school!
Your English use is very bad. Since when has titling an article or starting a sentence with 'Commonwealth of Nations' been good English? The correct answer is IT NEVER HAS BEEN! I can assume that you are quite dumb. No wonder why you are very palsy with that braindead wanker called User:Kiand. He's a POV-pusher, just like you are! You should really think about going back to school. - (Numismaticman 19:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

Numismaticman is Aidan Work evading a ban on editing. He hasn't learned his lesson from the last time and has gotten banned again. It sad to see someone stuck in deep anger over multitudinous issues and unable to progress. Hu 02:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Aidan Work
He came back? Oh dear oh dear... --Kiand 22:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes he's back left this message on my talk page. Spreading his hate again here . Unbelievable, I've IP and ID banned him from my numismatic forum a half dozen times and he acts like I'm his buddy. Is there some fast track to get this IP ousted too?  Bobby  I'm Here, Are You There? 04:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I put Benford's law of controversy up for afd
regards,Rich 02:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My "Clumsy edit"
Fair enough, but Commonwealth can refer to a number of things throughout history I just showed what it was referring to. The title of this section should be Commonwealth of Nations, which it seems you added to the paragraph after seeing my edit and changed it to “In armies of the Commonwealth of Nations” so I wasn’t completely in the wrong before you came and moaned at me! -- Climax-Void  Chat  or  My Contributions

Commonwealth of Nations
Thanks for your assistance on Police with this; don't know how you caught it. However, as a Brit, I guarantee that if you go up to anyone in the street and ask them what it is, most won't know. If, OTOH, you ask them to name countries in the "British Commonwealth", most would have a go at Austalia & New Zealand, Canada & a handful of African countries. Fewer would mention India or Pakistan, let alone some of the smaller Pacific Island nations. Most Brits seem to know only the Commonwealth Games, but that's an insular nation for you! Thanks for correcting this. -- Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 13:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. This is an encyclopedia, so we use the correct information, not the erroneous information, even if millions of people may use an erroneous name. It is the official desire of the Commonwealth of Nations for over 50 years (half a century) that "the British" is not part of the name. Hu 15:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand
Please remember that Betacommand operates his bot in good faith. Positive suggestions for improvement, made in a spirit of collaboration, will go a long way towards resolving the situation quickly and with a minimum of frayed nerves. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'm not sure that running an unmonitored bot, or running an unmonitorable bot (hundreds of edits a minute) is "good faith". Hu 22:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't run the bot, but I do run other bots, and I don't see any way to handle the enormous size of the image namespace without making very rapid edits. The purpose of bots, according to the banner, is to do "repetitive edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually." While I would support the theoretical formation of a larger programmer group to run the bot, in the meantime I believe Betacommand is performing a service to the community, as a volunteer. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

One obvious way to monitor it, is to run a couple of edits first, check them, and then let it loose. Another way is to require the operator to press "ok" on each edit after giving him or her a status screen of the relevant info and some links to click. The operator can still accomplish many edits per minute this way, and perhaps follow the links for a more thorough check every couple of minutes. A third way is for the bot to make a list of proposed edits and then operator can do a quality control sample of them every hour or so and then OK a batch. In the event, having the bot make 750 edits before some alert users complained and got the bot operators attention, is not a good state of affairs. It could have been much worse if the user had started the bot and then gone to take a shower and shave. Wikipedia was lucky it didn't happen. Hu 22:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If the code has been running successfully for some time, and isn't changed, at some point one trusts that errors would likely have been discovered. For example, there are bots that deliver the signpost every week; presumably those bot operators don't need to continue testing their code each time. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Presumably they would. They don't need to do a full bottom-up unit test every time, but I would hope that they at least look at a few pages every week, some the same and some randomly sampled. Quality control is an ongoing process. In a large system like this there are many inter-dependencies of code and things can change. That is what Betacommand is claiming. I suppose the finger pointing will get sorted out, but operator monitoring is important. At the very least, check at the beginning of each session before more than a few edits have been made. Nip things like this in the bud before hundreds of users are inconvenienced and before several editors have to spend time cleaning up, and before the operator becomes incivil. Seems like it should be official standard operating procedure. Hu 22:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You recent edits to WP:AN/I
Please be watchful as to how you word things. Any legitimate looking request was probably made in good faith. That is to say, it is not a waste of time. Regards, N at han    21:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes with regard to this edit, they were proceeding in good faith, and at the same time, their request did not provide context so they were wasting our time. I did assume they were in good faith, so I went looking to see if I could help. Another editor had to spend time clearing up the matter. It is also noteworthy, separately but in conjunction, that the user in question has a disruptive time-wasting misdirect on that same talk page. Hu 22:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

PJ's MfD
Hi Hu. I found your response to my !vote to be a bit excessive. I agree with the sentiments you have expressed, but might disagree with the method of dealing with it. Wikipedia is not a place for righteous indignation either. Please consider modifying your comment. Ta, cygnis insignis 04:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I consider it a bit excessive that you would want to replicate bigotry like PJ's just to make a point that idiotic bigotry exists. Also, a fundamental point to understand about all positions in "for Deletion" debates is that they are not "votes". Hu 17:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Next
User talk:Hu.