User talk:Huon/Archive10

Talkback
 Sohambanerjee1998  12:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Thanks, Huon, for the advice re: Articles for Creation, Arnott Inc. I have fixed the one link you pointed out, and your assurance about the remnant at the top of the 'pending review' piece is much appreciated. I have, in addition, added additional published articles as references, based on your suggestions.Verogreg (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)verogregVerogreg (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Laboratorio update
Hello Huon: long time! Just a quick update: the (Spanish) guy (Taichi) who blocked my 'Laboratorio' page virtually the very moment I created it (promocional – how could he know, I had only entered the title!!) would not budge and told me that the matter is now in the hands of the ‘bibliotecarios’ with whom I have lodged an appeal, awaiting a reply. I am, at the moment, making good, albeit extremely slow progress, though, on the Spanish sandbox page you advised me to use – it was a shock to learn that the Spanish editorial codes are quite different from the English ones, so I am having to re-edit all the refs and biblios from scratch, hence the slow progress. Saludos (Pronacampo9 (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC))


 * I'm sorry to hear of your problems at the Spanish Wikipedia. Unfortunately I don't know anything about their editorial codes and cannot offer much help beyond moral support. Huon (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

George Halley update
Hello Huon. I've reworked the article and the references as you suggested and would appreciate it if you could provide another critique when you get a moment.

Thanks, Semmes868 Eric Albert 21:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Though you might appreciate
Hi Huon, I was walking around town and noticed this. I took a picture because I thought you might appreciate it. -  t u coxn \ talk 10:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I didn't know there was such a street - now I'm curious what it's named after. Likely not my literary namesake. Huon (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=572225620 your edit] to Farukhabad gharana may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * gats (compositions).

Fort Bard
In the Aosta Valley official website it is called "Bard Fortress", and this should be the most reliable source, I would say. What do you think? In my opinion "Fort Bard" indicated "Bard" as the name of the fort itself, while in this case "Bard" is the name of the hamlet beside the fort, but I'm not a native English speaker, that's why I need your opinion. --Simoncik84 (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I had done a quick Google Books search, and the vast majority, from scholarly books like this biography of Lannes to this 19th century travel description, use "Fort Bard". Search results for "Bard Fort" were fewer, many of them not about the fort at all, and others were due to unconventional word order, such as "Bard, Fort, siege of", with the text itself calling it "Fort Bard". Results for "Bard Fortress" were far fewer still, and again included false positives such as "Bard, fortress of". Thus I'd say "Fort Bard" should be the name of the article – apparently "Bard" is the name of the fort as well as the town. Huon (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I was born and raised in Aosta, and I can confirm that Bard is the name of the town and not of the fort. The fort takes its name from the town beside it. I think that this confusion derives from the fact that the Aosta Valley is not an English-speaking zone, so that in many cases a false name might have been created... could we establish a source hierarchy? The Aosta Valley official website should be the most reliable source, but this is just my opinion. --Simoncik84 (talk) 08:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The preferred name is the one "most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)". Thus it's "Milan", not "Milano", and "Rome", not "Roma", and I'd say this criterion also favors "Fort Bard", not "Bard Fort". See also Google Scholar:
 * "Fort Bard: 139 hits, many of them relevant and in English
 * "Bard Fort": 19 hits, one relevant but Italian, plus two false positives of the "Bard, Fort" dictionary entry kind
 * "Bard Fortress": 6 hits, three relevant, but one or two of the three don't capitalize "Fortress" and thus don't treat it as part of the name.
 * Google Books results had a similar ratio. That looks rather decisive to me. Huon (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Since these are the criteria here on WP and since it sounds alright to an English speaker, I must obey ;) Thank you for your time. --Simoncik84 (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In the photo gallery of the article concerned I added two photos I took some days ago in the prisons. Does this mean anything for this discussion? --Simoncik84 (talk) 09:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Not much, I'd say. We already knew that both "Fort Bard" and "Bard Fort" were in use, and we also knew that local sources tended to prefer "Bard Fort", but I still think a clear majority of English sources uses "Fort Bard". Huon (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * But wouldn't the fact that local sources use "Bard Fort" constitue a purpose to put this version in the article? Of course, not as the main one, but it can't be totally ignored at this point. It is used and it is correct in English. --Simoncik84 (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We could modify the first sentence along the lines of "Fort Bard, also known as Bard Fort, is..." If you think that's an improvement of the article I wouldn't object, but it seems rather tautological to me. Huon (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to insert it from the point of view of the noun-adjective construction, rather than a simple tautology. --Simoncik84 (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

HEY
How are you Huon? Could you do me a favor and restore my page :) thank so much!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TamikaLamison (talk • contribs) 00:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Charmlet moved the page to WT:Articles for creation/Make A Film Foundation. It is not in an appropriate shape to be turned into a live article. It's unduly promotional (in fact I just deleted a copy of the article for that reason) and not written in a tone appropriate for an encyclopedia. You should also add inline citations to clarify which of your sources supports which part of the article. Several of the sources just seem to mention the foundation in passing without providing any details; those are likely useless. See WP:Referencing for beginners on how to easily create nicely-formatted footnotes. Huon (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

--Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Luis D. Ortiz
I see that you have helped in the past protecting the integrity of this article. However the user LuisDOrtega continues to alter it to fit his own views. What do you recommend in order to prevent this from happening? Regards, Americanoexpress (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Shuisky Michael, opera singer
Hi, I can not find out our talk via help desk where I asked help how to create a Gallery. You were so kind to answer me, after that I asked you more questions. So would be so kind restore our chat.

Шуйская (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The AfC help desk is archived every few days to prevent the page from becoming unmaintainably large. If you want to ask more questions, please don't modify the archive (there the question is almost guaranteed not to be seen) but add a new section at the help desk itself.
 * Regarding the newspapers, the problem was not the newspaper themselves, but that you merely quoted them, and that many of the quotes were in Russian, which isn't really helpful for most readers of the English Wikipedia. As I said you should summarize in your own words (in English!) what those newspaper articles have to say about Shuisky. Foreign-language sources are accptable, foreign-language article content usually is not. Huon (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Donny Hay and Michael Yellowlees
Dear Huon,

Many thanks for reviewing the above articles. I understand your frustration at the quality of the references for the articles, I feel the same way. Unfortunately, both had their careers when the internet was in its infancy and there are very few surviving articles from that era, other than those that I have been able to find. (Hence, the stub) I know both men played at the highest level in international competitions and were central figures during that era. I was hoping that if published, someone might be able to provide more information. I know there are articles for sportsman that have fewer references. Would you please reconsider?

Many thanks for your time. Gomach (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not quite sure what you want me to reconsider. I have tagged the articles as needing better sources, but I have not nominated them for deletion, nor do I expect that they would be deleted if I did so. Huon (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Many apologies, I have just noticed the articles have been published. Thanks. Gomach (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

An Infantry Tank Mark II, General Staff Specification A12 for you!

 * Thanks! Now I want to know whether Huon Street is named after the campaign... Huon (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Block of Farhad shahnawaz
How does Farhad shahnawaz's username not meet policy? Aren't real names always allowed unless you're impersonating a specific living person? Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * He admitted he was not Mr. Shahnawaz on IRC, thus the account is blocked. It is also blocked to stop the mass pasting of his content to try to avoid deletion of it, although I'm not sure Huon explicitly said that :) ~ Charmlet -talk- 01:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The content that got mass-posted may actually be the basis of a valid article (if it were improved at AfC, for example), but apparently User:Farhad shahnawaz is not Farhad Shahnawaz. Impersonating a specific person gets him blocked. Huon (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Where does it say not to column lists?
Hello, I understand using a code that works for refs is not the optimal way to make columns, but is there some MOS rule against using columns for lists in general? It looks pretty silly to have a huge list to scroll down where a 15-character bullet occupies a full line. Way too much whitespace.

Thanks for helping to resolve the difference of opinion for the moment (and I also strongly agree that having columns is not going to make an article deletion-prone). MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any MOS rules on columns and was thinking about adding the "proper" columns myself. I'll do so in a moment. Huon (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You already did so. Thanks! Huon (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for Deleting..no, really.
Hi, you deleted the user name lilyriva on the 26 of september. I tried to remove that user because it is my real, full name but it seems to still exhist...I have tried to learn to delete it but can't. Can you give me suggestions? Thank you! Lilyriva (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * We cannot delete user accounts, but we can rename them. MBisanz renamed your account to User:Lrh246, but you re-created User:Lilyriva later that day. Since (as I said) we technically cannot delete that account, my suggestion would be to simply stop using it and to use the Lrh246 account instead. Huon (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Template for future/planned events
Thanks for you reply. We may need to create a new template like the one in Russian Wikipedia. Teyandee (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
For intervening on Daniel Squadron, so that editing on it wasn't left to just two sides. Thanks! :)--96.224.241.205 (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Kliegl Brothers Universal Electric Stage Lighting Co., Inc.
Thank you for your comments. I have delayed responding, in part due to other commitments, but also, frankly, because I am uncertain that any article on the subject topic can be acceptable, and I do not enjoy spinning my wheels. I am certainly happy to redraft the article to fall under the look-up heading "Klieglight", but I cannot do a great deal to add to the references. All of the firms engaged at the time in the manufacture of electrical equipment for theatres, movies, etc. were relatively small, family held, firms that did not release financial or sales data. Their hard copy trail is largely to be found in their published catalogs and related sales data, and this I have already supplied and documented. Over the hundred-year course of this firm, the products cataloged clearly, and referably, document the development of the product lines.

I can doubtless locate technical references that detail the physical principals behind the Klieglight, but the drawings that detailed its construction (which I have handled) were trashed by the younger John Kliegl who had, himself, no interest in the firm's history. I have, myself, been a witness to much of the 1960's activity, and have access to other eyewitnesses, but as I understand that Wikipedia cannot accept this testimony, have not attempted to include it in the references.

In short, while I can chip around the edges (I am sure, for example, that somewhere in NYC's records is confirmation of the existence of the Kliegl Reflector Co. (which plant I had several times visited)the question remains: can the core of the available data ever be presented such as to be acceptable to Wikipedia?

Dwsafford (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If those are the best sources to be found, then I don't think the company is notable enough for an article. What we need is not something written by them, but written by others about them - newspaper articles, articles in reputable magazines, published books about the history of movie making, technical treatises that discuss their products (written by others, not by themselves), and so on. I find it hard to believe that they have managed to avoid all such coverage for a century, though. Huon (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * On advice from FireflySixtySeven I have taken a look at Google Books which shows many entries that look promising. In particular: biographical information and sunglasses anecdote, technical details on some more common lights, a little on the company history, and more. These sources, even combined, don't come close to the level of detail in your draft, but they do represent third-party coverage of the company and its founders, and better sources might still be out there. Google News also has a few results that seem worth a closer look. So reliable third-party sources do exist, and now it's just an issue of finding the best of them and summarizing what they have to say about the company. Huon (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Grjgt893u34 bus page
1. There are from Chinese Wikipedia, there provide Free License, not a copyrighted website. 2. It is my personal own page, not formal article. I have only insert texts from Free License sources. 3. There are drafts before i have finish translation.

Grjgt893u34 (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles are published under a free license, specifically the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, but that license still requires attribution to the original author. You cannot just copy the content without attribution (see WP:Copying within Wikipedia). Technically you could add attribution for all the pages you copied content from, but it's probably easier to just collect links to the relevant Chinese articles in your sandbox, say zh:台中市公車30路 (created by this code:  zh:台中市公車30路 ). Either way, those Chinese articles' sources don't suffice to establish that the bus routes are notable by the English Wikipedia's standards. You'll need better sources, and you'll have to bring the English articles in line with what the reliable independent sources say; thus a direct translation of the Chinese articles won't be of that much help anyway. Huon (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Sun Chan Thol
Dear Huron..sorry I am new to this so not sure how to communicate correctly. This is regarding Sun Chan Thol. He has personally asked me to have wikipedia correct his name to Sun Chanthol. I hope that isn't too much to ask. I can contact u via email for reference and can expand his page further. Petet — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterBachner (talk • contribs) 06:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said at Talk:Sun Chan Thol (which is a better place for this discussion than my user talk page), I don't think the current name is wrong so much as simply a variant transliteration. It's the one used by the Cambodian election commission and the Phnom Penh Post, and they should know how to correctly spell Mr. Chanthol's name. Since there's a slight preponderance of sources using "Chanthol", I'd say we can move the article to Sun Chantol, but we should probably provide both spellings of the name in the first sentence:
 * Sun Chanthol, also transliterated as Sun Chan Thol, is a Cambodian politician...
 * If we had the original Khmer spelling of his name, that would be even better. Huon (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI
I mentioned you in a post on ANI, which you can find here. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 02:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

RE:Chris
I actually don't have a long-standing issue with Chris. I was on hiatus until about a month ago, came back, and discovered this sordid saga. Chris has a long-standing (since at least January) issue with numerous editors. As for it being an attack, I'm sorry, but the message is for his own good: I've seen similar cases time after time and if someone doesn't get through to him just how thin he's wearing the community's patience we're going to lose a useful editor. --erachima talk 04:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed we don't want to lose a useful editor. But I believe ChrisGualtieri feels antagonized enough already. As I said, personal attacks do not help, and we also don't want the useful editor we lose to be you. Huon (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Signature
Hi Huon Thanks for your advice: "Hello Osborne, I noticed at User talk:A930913 that your signature doesn't seem to contain a link to your user page, talk page or contributions. Signatures should contain such links. Huon (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)" I'm sorry but this is all beyond me! I don't understand the system! - I give uo. Thanks for your efforts to helpOsborne 20:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Take a look at your preferences; apparently you have customized your signature. The easiest way to fix that is to remove whatever you put in the "signature" field and use the default signature instead - that's what I do, and the four tildes ( ~ ) will produce links to your user page and your talk page, and a timestamp. Huon (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh I'll take a look and think! Life becomes too complex for me. I'm not sure how to remove what ever I put in that field.Osborne 13:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Condon
Hi, a published source is not necessarily required. For example blogs can be reliable by subject matter experts. If Condon's son used the OTRS system that can be used; his son would be presumed reliable for those claims. It would be a pity to squander the chance to go from a good article to a great article with the sort of input from his own son who can certainly be viewed as reliable for these claims, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A blog is self-published, but it's still published. I haven't yet heard of a citation to an OTRS ticket or to a Wikipedia talk page. The latter technically would also be published, but I really don't think it would be an appropriate source for a Good Article. If no one but Condon's son has ever bothered to correctly report on Condon's religious persuasion, then I don't think it's important enough to be added to the article in the first place. Huon (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Finally. Thank you. At least there's one descent person here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kacper.jed (talk • contribs) 23:02, October 10, 2013‎ (UTC)

Noelia
Thanks for point out my mistake, I've unblocked with an apology. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Slipchenko
I improved my article, added the sources confirm the reality of writing of this article and want to fill it again Fightmaximus (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And I have told you how to submit a draft. How else may I help you? Huon (talk) 05:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Laboratorio
Hello, Huon. Long time! The ‘Laboratorio Organizacional’ article has been dragging on and on, mainly, at first, in (fruitless) attempts to get my ‘Usuario’ page unblocked. In the end, no-one could give me a precise reason as to why exactly the article was judged ‘promotional’ (?) and everyone just stopped talking about it (!). While my page proper remains blocked, -- (I am still in ‘draft’ mode) -- I have recently established a degree of communication with a Spanish ‘bibliotecario’ who first told me to 1. remove all external links from the main body (ok) and 2. Make drastic cuts in the length. Both of which I have done. He has now promised to look into the content itself this weekend. Anyhow, this is just an update on my excursions into wiki español. The main reason why I am writing you is because I just found that Clodomir’s picture has disappeared from the article. It is a picture I took myself of Clodomir in October 2008 (in Costa Rica). Any idea who did this, and why? Taa (Pronacampo9 (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC))


 * Apparently the image was deleted by Fastily because there was no source for the licensing information. According to the Commons' page on sources, you can simply re-upload it if you provide such a source, which in this case may be as easy as adding  to the image page to clarify that it is indeed your own work. As an entirely random example of where to add it, take commons:File:Cesano Boscone stazione piazzale.JPG and its source code. While the Commons' guideline doesn't say that's necessary, it couldn't hurt to explicitly send a confirmation to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org - see the default declaration of consent. I'll also leave a note at Fastily's talk page and ask him whether he has any additional advice for you. Huon (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Restoration of NWS Norman
Thank you for restoring the page National Weather Service Norman, Oklahoma. I hope that all of the editors, including I, can come to a consensus concerning whether or not the article stays or goes. I, personally, think that this topic is of sufficient importance, and so should stay. At the current time, it may not be the best article, especially considering that I collected 100% (-1 minor edit by another user) of the information by myself, without any help. Despite this, I suspect that if I had the help of some other editors, that the issue could quickly be amended. This article has much potential, and I again thank you for restoring the information held on the page. I hope that the article can soon be made official again. Thank you for restoring the data! Dustin  talk  21:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have undeleted that article upon a request by Charmlet and have moved it into his userspace at User:Charmlet/National Weather Service Norman, Oklahoma. Personally I agree with the deleting admin that the article didn't even indicate why NWS Norman is notable, but if that can be fixed, so much the better. If it were moved into the mainspace without improvement I'd likely nominate it for deletion. Huon (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Battle of the Damned (2nd nomination)
Might you re-visit the AFD? As the film IS released, the nominator's thoughts towaqrd WP:CRYSTAL do not apply. My own searches found numerous sources discussing this released film. And while the article can definitely be improved, notability is found through sources being available, and not through them being used... that would be a matter for regular editing, not deletion. I would request you might reconsider your vote for deletion. I do not think the project is served by deletion of arguably notable topics when issues of tone and sourcing can be easily addressed through regular editing... something I am willing to do myself. Thank you,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 23:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The appropriate way forward would still be to delete this spam and to improve the incubated version instead. There's nothing salvageable in the current article or its history, with the possible exception of two unsourced cast links. As an aside, I have doubts about the reliability of the sources you provided in the AfD. Huon (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I will go ahead and fix up the incubated one and then suggest the older-but-improved version replace the newer, poorly-sourced one... though it is fixable through regular editing as well. As for the sources... while not all are the best, many are quite suitable for film articles (such as IO9, Screen Daily. JoBlo, Bloody Disgusting, and Influx Magazine) and were offered to show the absolute lack of any sort of WP:BEFORE on the part of the nominator.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the fix on the Salt River (California) just now. There is no "problem" with the commons category name, merely that when I saw it, I realized that Salt River (Humboldt) was just wrong and it needed to be Salt River (California). No problem, merely it made me pay attention to the formatting of the other river names. Thank you!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

List of zombie films
Huon, I just added referenced statements and this editor removed them. Please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Library777 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * While I agree with the gist of your complaints, YouTube comments definitely are not a reliable source. I have started a discussion on the article's talk page; please comment there and help us establish a consensus on what films should be included in the list and on what kind of sources we should require. Huon (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Baye_McNeil
Hello Huon, FYI, I did quite a bit of cleanup/edits on the Baye McNeil article you looked at - after reading your comment and doing online chat with other Wikipedian at articles for creation help desk...Was wondering if you or someone else might have another look...Trying to be as objective with this piece as possible. Haven't found any negative criticism of subject except for one review on Amazon.com and one video on Youtube (neither of which are considered good sources by Wikipedia)...Also, left a message where you posted re. article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk ...Thanks for your help!Minusminority (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

A favour to ask
Hi,

I have done some Copyediting work on Leo Gross, but am not sure if I changed the meaning of any of the text from what I assume is a machine translation from the German version. Could you please check, and correct anything? Also, I have no idea which places in the text to add the references. If you could add the references, and any texts I have missed, that will be great!

Thanks! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll do so, but it may take a few days. Huon (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

bracket bot, and detection of standard international unicode-brackets
Hello Huon, I was browsing the bracket-bot archives (umm, long story, don't ask) and ran across your reply concerning CJK brackets as non-standard.

User_talk:A930913/BracketBotArchives/_5

That's not actually true, of course... they're officially standardized in Unicode, various JIS reports, and so on. While I realize that enWiki needs to internally 'standardize' on UTF8 as the encoding, and on ASCII parens as the on-disk representation used in articles, I would like to see bracket-bot improved to recognize-and-(optionally)-convert the internationally standardized codepoints used for Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Arabic, and special-bracket-variants that are typical in other languages. There are plenty of folks working on enWiki that are not native English speakers, and/or editing from operating systems which default to non-English, so methinks this will be helpful to wikipedia overall.

Since you replied to the linked question, I assume you are the botmaster? Or can point me in the right direction. I'm happy to assist with this upgrade, if necessary, since I've had some relevant programming experience in this industry sub-niche. Of course, there are not *that* many internationalized variants on the standard lparen/rparen, so I doubt it will take much work. Thanks for improving wikipedia, feel free to ping my talkpage if I fail to respond promptly. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not the botmaster; I'm just a talk page stalker replying to BracketBot questions. The botmaster is A930913; that's why all the BracketBot questions are at User talk:A930913 and its sub-pages.
 * Recognizing these alternative parentheses likely is not a big problem; automatically converting them, however, is not a good idea because there may well be cases when such variants of parentheses are desired, something the bot would be unable to recognize. Huon (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

AFC assistance
Hi Huon,

Congratulations on your recent RfA! Thanksspam over, I wonder if you could take a look at this for me? Editor moving submission directly to article space because they don't like the answers they're getting at the help desk. I'll leave it to your judgement as to whether this should stay in article space, but the title could do with fixing up with your admin tools at very least. Thanks in advance Bellerophon talk to me 20:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have fixed the title, copyedited it, and proposed it for deletion. There don't seem to be any third-party sources on this college. Huon (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've sent a similar and related article to AfD at Articles for deletion/Punjab College Kharian. Bellerophon talk to me 21:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Workshop - Laboratorio

 * (Yes, it's me again!)
 * Dear Huon: I had been planning to return to the  AfC as soon as I got the Spanish version of <Organization Workshop> (Laboratorio Organizacional) online. However, things have been taking much longer than expected, after my new, Spanish, Página Usuario -- (as you already know) -- was blocked almost the very moment it went online last August. It has, unfortunately, never been restored (desbloqueado), even after the Spanish bibliotecario Shalbat started (as from 10 Sept) helping me with drafting the Spanish text which - (on your advice) -- I had created in the ‘rough draft’ sub-page (página de trabajo personal).

I am afraid I will need your advice and good services (yet) again, not least because, at this very moment, I have apparently nowhere else to turn to: it would appear that Shalbat, while (quite profusely) helping me to (re)draft the article, never had the intention of un-blocking it. This became apparent when at the very (‘strategic’) moment that the article was ready for publication, Shalbat, without explanation, stopped communicating. He has also stopped me from communicating with him as I am now unable to open Shalbat’s ‘live’ Talkpage. All I can open, since last week, is S.’s ‘Archive’ talkpage, which, being an Archive, is, of course, non-live. Here is the (Spanish) article in its ‘finished’ state: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:Pronacampo9/Laboratorio_Organizacional I would have expected Wikipedia to be happy to accept an article in which I have invested hundreds and hundreds of hours of work, but that seems, unfortunately, not to be the case. I do not know why. You will see in the yellow box, on top of the article, that this is merely a ‘rough draft’ (espacio de trabajo personal) space, which, therefore, cannot be submitted. In other words, I am ‘stuck’ and do not know where to go from here. If only, -- ('ojala!') as I was able to do with the English AfCs --, I could ‘submit’ and subject it for fair assessment into Wikipedia 'open space'. But this being a 'non-submittable' draft page, I am truly left high and dry. Thanks beforehand for, please, a thought on this? (Pronacampo9 (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC))
 * PS: what I am missing most at this moment is the Spanish equivalent of <Submit your draft when you are ready for it to be reviewed!>. What is puzzling, and at the same time worrying, is that, so far, none of the bibliotecarios I have consulted about the issue ever gave one single justification as to why the article was judged ‘promocional’ (and therefore blocked back in August - when there was still only a title and 1 paragraph to base this 'judgment' on). (Pronacampo9 (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC))


 * I'm not sure what kind of help I can offer, but I can give some advice. Firstly, while Usario:Shalbat did archive the talk page, he set up a new live version at es:Usuario discusión:Shalbat. His method of archiving doesn't allow him to pick and choose which threads get archived - he has to archive them all. So I'd expect that wasn't an attempt to break off communicaton, but rather an unfortunate coincidence.
 * Secondly, I expect the "Este no es un artículo enciclopédico" hatnote will disappear on its own when the draft is moved into the article namespace. You should be able to move it yourself; here is the Spanish help page on moving pages (my own account apparently has too few edits on the Spanish Wikipedia to move pages). Of course you should first make sure that the draft is ready for the main articlespace. At a very short glance it looks ok to me, but then I don't speak Spanish, and you shouldn't really rely on my judgement here.
 * Thirdly I believe your userspace draft by now is much better than the deleted article ever was, so undeleting that page would serve no purpose. You'd only have to replace its content with the draft's, and moving the draft is preferred to that.
 * I hope this helps; if there's anything else I can do, please let me know. Huon (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

--

•	Hello Huon: I left a reply on my talk page. In “PS” there is also one (unexpected) new development. Many thanks again (Pronacampo9 (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC))

--
 * 06/11


 * Thank you so much for your your additional research, assistance and es:wiki AfC ‘intelligence’. In retrospect I must confess that, (by all appearances), having been cut off from my editor, I momentarily ‘panicked’ and turned to you for your invaluable advice, ‘just in case’. The editor, thankfully, is back now, and we are now in a post-crisis situation. The moral is that I probably will have to practice a little bit more patience. I do hope that the experience has been, somehow, instructive for you, too, learning from an excursion in, (for en-wiki) ‘foreign’ (es:wiki) territory. I fully realize that, in that respect, you have gone as far (and almost surely much further) than I could have expected and hoped. I will now follow up my editor’s latest instructions and hope that, eventually, he runs out of cosas para mejorar (!) (things that you must put right).  In the meantime, I have been keeping half an eye on ‘Capacitation/Community Development’ and the Spanish excursion has had additional benefit for me, too, in terms of newly discovered links and info. This, therefore, is not a goodbye but a hasta la vista. Saludos. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 09:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC))


 * You're welcome, though on a foreign-language Wikipedia with processes that apparently widely differ from the English ones I'm of little help. Thank you for all the effort you put into improving Wikipedia! Huon (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

--
 * ::7/11: some news for you in my Talk tonite - Greetings. (Pronacampo9 (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC))

Need your participation
Please take a look at the discussion here. Thanks. --<font style="font-size:18px" color="#848482" face="Palatino Linotype">Zayeem  <font color="#483C32">(talk) 13:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Sound/soundtrack
i request you respond to the issue i brought up. at the moment, music and soundtrack should share the same information as they are both related to the music of Ghost in the Shell (film). It something that needs to be addressed for GA. the current soundtrack section is merely a track listing and infobox. Not only that but some review information of the music is in the music subsection of "production". which is not relevant towards it. I still believe merging the two is the best choice.Lucia Black (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I was busy otherwise, and I don't have much of an opinion on the music section, but if the review information deals with the film soundtrack itself and not the separate soundtrack album, the "related media" section would be the wrong place for those reviews. I don't think the current version needs to be improved much, though a track list for the soundtrack album seems to be a common feature of film articles. Huon (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Using SEC filings as article sources
Hi Huon, thank you again for taking the time to look at my proposed changes. I've left you a note on the article talk page regarding SEC filings. I felt my selection of sources was acceptable based on precedent.Glc1066 (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Short track speed skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics
I am not sure why it is speculation, it is hard fact from world cup results. Was the issue that there was not a inline citation to the numerical charts? The sources cited indicate how a nation qualifies, and the qualification is done.18abruce (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * What I removed said: "The expected quota allotments are as follows: ..." (emphasis mine) - that didn't sound as if the quotas were fixed yet. If they are, please provide a source that confirms them. I'm sure sports magazines will report on Olympic qualification results. Huon (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Expected" was my choice of words because there can still be reallocation if a nation decides not to participate. The pdf document on the page indicates that qualification is done.18abruce (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You mean the PDF which says, "the ISU will inform NOCs/NFs, by 21 December 2013, of their respective total number of quota places and the number of Skaters each NOC/NF can enter per individual distance"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to say even the NOCs haven't received the word yet. So which source exactly confirms, say, that there are to be three American women for the 1000m race? I don't see one, and it sounds as if there can't be one yet. See WP:OR, especially WP:SYN. Huon (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The American, Canadian, british, and other noc's have indicated how many athletes they will have in each race, it is not a mystery to any of the federations. You don't need to source (for example) 45+5 to know that it is 50 and is greater than 45.  However, it appears wise to me to leave it alone because a shred of doubt has been presented at an Olympic forum regarding a couple of the final qualifiers, and I believe it needs to be followed up on first.  Thank you for your time and input.18abruce (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Now we have a source, and it turns out your quotas were wrong and the ones you edit-warred against were correct. That is why I removed the numbers altogether when we didn't have a source yet. Huon (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the whole thing was horribly embarrassing, including my comments above. I apologize, and again thank you for your time and input.18abruce (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

summerphd is harrassing me
Huon, I am getting fed up. PLEASE intercede. Can you do dispute resolution. summerphd keeps editing my posts. This is bad wikipedia etiquette. I have repeatedly asked it to stop it refuses. I feel I am being harrassed. And then it has the audactity to put a warning on my talk page! I want no posts from summerphd. All discussion should be on Perri Reid talk page. I posted questions there section by section and summerphd has yet to respond. It is so focused on redacting my posts and saying they are contentious when they are not! 65.205.13.26 (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Perri Reid
Tomiko Fraser ad Agyness Deyn have both admitted they lied about their ages so how is that contentious ? It is a well known fact that Mariah Carey claims herself to be born in 1970 but People magazine maintains she was born in 1969 per hed birth certificate/NY state ID, so how is that contentious ? Instead of focusing on the article summerphd is focused on censoring my comments, meanwhile the article remains sh*tty. Please intercede. I took a one week break because I was so frustrated and still summerphd continued its domination of the page. Other tried to edit and summerphd reverted. Editor carmaker pointed out WP:OWN, yet still no one has corralled summerphd. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Business Plot IP
Seems interested in alleging criminal acts in other articles as well ... you might wish to note their edits (and what may be a newly registered account with the same goal). Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Wind-turbine AfDs
Thanks for helping to sort out all those wind-turbine AfDs. If I had realised the bot would stuff all the surplus ones back in the list as soon as I took them out, I would have deleted them first.

I couldn't understand what was going wrong originally, as those I looked at seemed OK but were not showing up in the list, and then one by one they started to appear in the log, although there were no edits in the log history to explain that. So I told I B Wright that I couldn't see he had done anything wrong, and it must have been a system glitch, perhaps related to the very slow response times.

But now I have a theory: it seems he had been setting up the actual AfD pages without a header, not using "subst:afd2", and you were adding the headers. Could that be what was causing them to start showing up in the log one by one? If so, I will explain to IBW.

Thanks for your help, anyway. JohnCD (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, we worked at cross-purposes here. I was adding the headers to the individual discussions manually, and the bot started adding them afterwards. Combining them seems more appropriate. Thanks for your effort, and extra thanks for explaining it to IBW. I intended to do so myself but got distracted. Huon (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have been made aware that I owe you a vote of thanks for sorting out my apparently disastrous attempt at uploading some AfDs recently. As they started to appear, I had assumed that the server was just being a bit slow at substituting the templates (reasonable given that the edit cycle for the deletion log was particularly extended that day).  I had not appreciated that there was someone behind the scenes doing what should have been done in the first place.  So, once agsin: my thanks.  I B Wright (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...I'm a dork....
Thanks for your response to my help request. I'm not exaggerating... I'd been trying for months to log into my Wikipedia account and do some work on some articles. And I would swear that I had cycled through my usual passwords a hundred times each. But after I got your response I thought...what the heck...one more try...and it went through. I have no idea what I was or wasn't doing before. So I'm logged in again in spite of myself. Thanks again, and happy thanksgiving!!! PurpleChez (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)