User talk:Huon/Archive25

Please Revisit
Since I was blocked and you put a semi-protect on the site, Ol King Col immediately reverted recent edits done by multiple users to represent the site inaccurately. Please see his edits and the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techtrek (talk • contribs) 18:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a content dispute. You are hardly the one to complain about reverting, given that you immediately reverted as soon as your block ran out. Others have tried to engage in a talk page discussion, you haven't. If you cannot reach a consensus on the talk page, dispute resolution is available. Trying to win by getting the other side blocked with vague accusations is not going to work. Huon (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Police Hour AfD
Their response to our concerns basically acts as an WP:ADVERT for the site, so none of your concerns on the nom were addressed in a neutral manner.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Philippe K Ziade draft
Dear, I have previously exchanged several emails with Wikipedia Information team who assured to me that wiki admins will assist me and be collaborative instead of going lazy with a decline click. I have asked for your assitance in the wiki chat as well as for several wiki admins before you. You were the only one who reply to me that I needed more reliable references and decline the draft minutes after it. I prefere that no abuse of admin authority to be shown by wiki team members. Wiki is based on collaboration since its creation. Rawad00 (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Rawad00, I had looked into the Philippe K Ziade draft in quite some detail. By tagging it as "submission declined", after explaining the reasons in detail, I made sure that no other reviewer would needlessly spend the same effort on the draft before it's improved. I'll also note that I was not the only one to raise concerns about the references. To quote User:Comatmebro: "I also wasn't impressed with the reliability of secondary sources used". Personally I expect the current version of the draft will again be declined, but I'll leave that to another reviewer. I rather do not think Ziade is notable enough to be the subject of an encyclopedia article in the first place. Huon (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear, I understand your point of view. Meanwhile this person was featured in many tv shows and documentaries on the 2 top TV Channels of the arab world talking about notable persons from arab origins having achieved sucess. These 2 TV covers 366 Millions of arab population. He was also ranked as top 1 Real Estate agent in Las Vegas and featured in the top 200 by the Wall Street Journal for many years, and has 33 companies. There's another Philippe Ziade on Wikipedia, not a living persons, a journalist. And many tv specators complained of not having about him on wiki and have confusion with another person instead. My article is to enrich wiki and make information in one place available for all people. Rawad00 (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Rawad00, as I said I'll leave it to another reviewer. I've given my opinion above; trying to convince me otherwise is a waste of your time since I won't be reviewing the draft again anyway. Huon (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

re: Zero Energy Buildings "Certifications" edit
I recently updated the Zero Energy Buildings page w/ info under the "certifications" heading and I was contacted to let me know that I did not provide sources. Is the following link sufficient? http://www.earthadvantage.org/certification/earth-advantage-zero-energy-zero-energy-ready ??? Can you please help me add it in before deleting my work?

Thanks, Ryan Shanahan (UN: thelumbrjack) 2601:1C2:F00:4F70:2572:C562:BB06:18E8 (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Thelumbrjack: I'd advise you to log in; it will be much easier for you to keep track of conversations such as this one when they're all on your user talk page instead of (possibly multiple) IP talk pages. The short answer to your question is no: That link is not a reliable source nor an independent one. It also does not in the least address the concerns about the promotional nature of the content you wrote. Huon (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

OK. I am now logged in. I find it incredibly cumbersome that I can't reply to a message you sent me without starting an entirely new thread. That said, I don't understand how listing the Earth Advantage Zero Energy certification program is considered "promotional" when it is a fact that Earth Advantage offers this certification, just like the ILFI ZE program listed. It's also ridiculous that you won't accept info from Earth Advantage as a legitimate source. EA is a 501C3 non-profit, dedicated to promoting green and sustainable building practices and reducing our built environment's carbon foot print. How would an independent source be any more credible than the info that comes straight from the horse's mouth!?!? I understand wikipedia's dedication to providing reliable information, but this level of scrutiny creates a barrier to entry that will keep people from contributing great new content. Sincerely, Ryan Shanahan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelumbrjack (talk • contribs) 23:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thelumbrjack, first of all, you can reply to messages without starting entirely new threads; there is an "[edit]" (or possibly "[edit source]") link in the section heading you can use. The "great new content" you added to Wikipedia happened to be about the organization you represent (again, please see WP:PAID and make sure you comply with the disclosure requirements). It's in fact promoting the organization you represent, whether that's a non-profit or not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; imagine what our articles on topics such as, say, poverty, healthcare or music education looked like if every charity devoted to those topics added something about themselves. Secondary sources are necessary not just to verify that the content is accurate, but also to establish that the content is significant enough to be included in the first place. If independent sources discussing certification of zero-energy buildings frequently mentioned your charity, then our article should summarize what those sources have to say. If your charity is the only one to write about its own certifications, then it's clearly not a significant aspect of zero-energy buildings that our readers need to be informed about to fully understand the topic. Huon (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

To my knowledge there are 4 ZE certifications offered for single family homes in the US. Ours is one of them, and it is definitely relevant within our industry. Because I didn't see it listed I figured I would do that. The work we are doing is cutting edge, therefore there isn't much info on it other than what we put out there. If you, or wikipedia for that matter, want to stand in the way of getting good information out there to people interested in solving climate change by action than I guess it's not worth arguing about. It's a shame that you think you're somehow defending the integrity of wikipedia by standing in the way of an honest attempt at adding quality information to a useful resource for us all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelumbrjack (talk • contribs) 00:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If your cutting-edge work is so new that no one but yourselves has written about it, it's too soon to write about it on Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

request
plz, improve the template:Hadith-usc because its link is broken till now as the link of the template:Cite quran was. Sharif Uddin (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I updated the links and fixed some intermediary template that had been blanked. All the test cases looked good to me, but the Hadith-usc template does strange stuff I didn't bother to understand; apparently it was meant to provide different translators, but I don't think USC offers more than one translation. I checked Perseus, too; they don't have the Hadith online. Huon (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Camp Lejeune
Thank you for the input. The premise that reliable secondary sources are more valid or reliable than archived documents is something that makes a dunce of me I guess. Completely agree that the footnote should have been written better.

Have to add that I like how you keep your talk page tidy with your file system. Thanks againMcb133aco (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Unblocking
Thank you for the unblocking Huon. I was wondering, why no one told me the reason why the Bundesliga attendance figures I added were removed. I did a lot of effort to put the figures in the right tables, and I thought it was no problem, because all other major sports leagues already have those attendance figures included. I still can't figure out what was wrong with the figures I added, maybe you can tell me? Thank you already for the help, Houndground Houndground (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Houndground, I'm sorry, but I can't tell you what's wrong with the figures you added - personally I'd assume the editors who removed them considered them useless trivia (compare WP:INDISCRIMINATE), but I haven't checked if that assumption is correct. I can, however, tell you how to proceed:
 * Check the talk pages - your user talk page and the talk pages of the articles where your edits were reverted - and see whether the editors who reverted you left comments. You may also want to check the page histories of the articles for relevant edit summaries.
 * That way you may learn why editors objected to your edits. If you find their reasoning convincing, good, case closed. If not, or if you can't find the reason, you should discuss the issue with the editors in question. If there's already a talk page with such a discussion (other than your user talk page; that is not a good place to discuss article content issues), you may want to use that; otherwise I'd choose a central location such as one of the WikiProject talk pages I mentioned when I answered your unblock request, WT:WikiProject Football or WT:WikiProject Sports.
 * To make sure the editors who reverted you become aware of the discussion, either leave notes with links to the discussion on their user talk pages or ping them when you start the discussion itself.
 * When that discussion has established a consensus among editors on whether or not adding the attendance figures is helpful, that consensus can be implemented.
 * That way, you can find a resolution without having to edit-war. Huon (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information, Huon. Houndground (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Apology
I'm sorry if I unfairly maligned you at Talk:0.999..., and I apologize for that. I appreciate the work you've done in keeping the cranks out. I agree with you that the discussion of the hyperreals seems like dramatically undue weight. However, I feel that this undue weight is even more out of proportion given that much more relevant and important facts do not even appear to be clearly and succinctly stated at all in the lead. In fact, I would be fine with deleting the mention of hyperreals completely if we were permitted to state a standard definition of the notation 0.999..., which seems like it is vastly more relevant to the lead of the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. As I said on the article's talk page, I don't think there's one standard definition, and picking one seems difficult without ultimately resorting to our personal preferences. For comparison, my favourite definition is "a real number greater than each element of the set {0, 0.9, 0.99, ...} but not greater than 1", which has the advantage that as long as people agree that it should be a real number they usually accept that it should have both of those straightforward properties. I rather doubt this definition is common in the literature, though. Huon (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

PC-1 settings Lena (actress)
G'day,

Just so you're aware, for whatever reason, your edits to the article (per history) were not automatically accepted. This is actually apparent around multiple articles (List of highest-grossing Pakistani films) of experienced users not having their edits automatically accepted. Are you able to escalate this to the correct place or let me know what I can do about it?

Cheers —   IVORK  Discuss 00:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. The correct place to report a bug like this one is Phabricator. I can't do that right now; if you do, please let me know, otherwise I'll report it in a few hours when I have more time to deal with it. Huon (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No problem. The task is here. —   IVORK  Discuss 08:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Sandeep Maheshwari undelete
Dear Huon, could you please move article Sandeep Maheshwari to draft as i intend to work on it. He is notable and have good, reliable sources. Greenchilliesproductions (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Greenchilliesproductions, I'm sorry, but no. That article is tainted by all kinds of problems, from spam via copyright violations to sockpuppetry. If you are associated with the past attempts to create that article, you likely should not edit at all (see WP:MEAT); if you are not, it will be far better to start over from scratch, baased on those reliable sources, than to try and rescue that tainted page. Huon (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Might be time for talk page access revocation...
for blocked user Genius (42nd power)... funfunfun talk page history. Shearonink (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Upload text file
Hi, thanks for responding to my question about uploading a text file. The article is too long (>15,000 words) and I'd have to copy-paste one screen at a time. So copy-paste isn't a good solution and I do need to upload a text file, if that's possible. If it's not possible, then I need to know that it's not possible so that I can look for some other way of doing the editing I need to do. BurroLoco (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * BurroLoco, there's no need to copy-paste one screen at a time. If you use Windows, when you click somewhere in the editing textbox,  will mark all the text within that textbox, the article's entire source code, at once (and nothing outside the box). Or you might have a "Mark all" option when you right-click in that box. I'm pretty sure Linux, iOS or whatever else you might be using offers similar options for marking (and then copying) everything at once. Uploading files is meant for images and media files; you could upload a PDF, but it wouldn't become an article others can edit. Huon (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not using a computing environment that you're familiar with. As I said previously, I'm editing in vi. The things that you're suggesting won't work. Also, copy-paste causes Wikipedia to double the new line characters, which can only be corrected with the sort of tedious work I'm trying to avoid. My question is whether it's possible to upload a text file. BurroLoco (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you cannot "upload a text file" other than by pasting the content into the text box. If your computing environment cannot manage copy-paste without doubling new line characters, I suggest you change your computing environment. If you had the email feature enabled I could mail you the code of the article in question, but you still wouldn't be able to get it back to Wikipedia if you can't copy-paste content out of your text editor. Huon (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 'No, you cannot "upload a text file"'--That's the answer to my question. Have a nice day! :)BurroLoco (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

qatar visa problem
Dear Sir,

You misunderstood the meaning, the Macau passport holders have the free visa on arrival to Qatar. Please revert to the original edits182.239.115.134 (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Provide a source that explicitly confirms that statement. If you cannot do so, we'll go with the source we have: Visa at arrival. (As an aside, "Free visa at arrival" is wrong either way. It's either a non-free visa at arrival, or it's no visa at all, but in no possible scenario is it a "free visa" involved.) Huon (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Open UTRS appeals
Howdy, a couple of UTRS appeals that you have reviewed are still open since you used the 'Custom response' rather than the 'Custom response - Close' template. Was it your intention to keep the appeals open in order to take further action? Just Chilling (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oops, sorry. That wasn't my intention. I think I cleaned up. Huon (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Combining citations/references help
Thanks! That did the trick. Geordie.birch (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Storm Bay article
Hi, I have made some edits, some of them bold. Would you have a look at Storm Bay (British Columbia) and let me know what you think? Thanks. Geordie.birch (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Mz7YamlaHuon username
Hello,

I didn't know that this new username, which I found a bit strange indeed but was not so uncommon given what we can observe as global renamers, consisted of your usernames. I will revert my renaming. Thank you for having brought this to my attention, and sorry for the inconvenience! Litlok (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Huon (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Huon, for your replies to my questions about changing Wikipedia's entry for David [Sylvan] Fine. I'm sorry that Wikipedia can't do anything as simple as adding that middle name to the title. There are a lot of David Fines in this world, as I'm sure you know.

Anyhow, I appreciate your answering my questions.

Gloria Hamilton Airolg10 (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:University of Fashion logo, 2016.png
 Thanks for uploading File:University of Fashion logo, 2016.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) 17:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock!
I'm glad you accepted my request to be unblocked from Wikipedia, and yes I agree that 7 years is a pretty long time. Still figuring out the editing features of this site BTW! --Willguitar100 (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Follow-Up - Comments on Blocking User/Wikipedia Page
Hi Huan,

Thank you for your response to my comments on the Teahouse forum yesterday. I should have been more careful with my phrasing of the issue that I posted about, and my apologies for leveling harsh accusations without doing thorough background research and presenting evidence. I have vested a lot of faith in Wikipedia over the years--it is the primary place I go to for information before I delve deeper into any topic. It was the source I used to find information about the organization being discussed, in fact, before I started to learn more about it. All I know is that when I searched for International Federation of Interior Architects/Designers (IFI) the other day, nothing came up! I was dismayed because it has been my intention to fix this page up so that it accurately reflects the accomplishments of the organization. For some time, it has been sparse. This is not to promote a cause, but ultimately to communicate verifiable information that has now been altered or the page reverted back to an earlier state because some of the info is incorrect.

The last time I checked there was an extensive amount of information on the page that now appears to be gone. I was informed by the contributor IFIstaff that you had deleted a large amount of verifiable content rather than flagging the specific information or language in question--apologies if this is incorrect or was misconstrued on my end. I am sure there is a way to track changes on the back-end (forgive me, I am not tech-savvy), so your innocence will be preserved.

The edits I made to the page were in fact changed/reversed - although I must admit I am not sure this was you - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Federation_of_Interior_Architects/Designers). None of the sub-pages that I edited appear at all-- IFI World Interiors Day (IFI WID) and IFI World Interiors for the Next Generation (IFI WING). The former is a public and globally recognized day of celebration for the interior architecture/design community and was established by IFI; the latter is a global awards competition, the last iteration being in 2013--why were these removed from the IFI Wikipedia page?

I fully appreciate the NPOV and the information you supplied about Wikipedia and its editors.

Apologies for taking up too much of your time already. Disagreements fleshed out online like this are unusual for me and I would not like them to become commonplace. As I said before, it was not my intention to offend, although my language at the time was unduly hostile and for that I apologize. I just wanted the page to display accurate content and was frustrated that my changes had been deleted in favor of wrong information.

Thanks.

Follow-Up - Thanks for the quick typo edit Gibran
Hi Huan Thank you, for the quick typo edit on Giglio Dante page ref. Could you direct me to the Edit Page for REFERENCES on I have a few other changes to make on some of my other pages Kahlil_Gibran_(sculptor) mostly. again thank you SkyPhoenix6


 * The code for the references is in the body of the articles, where the [1] and so on is placed. You can edit the references as you would edit any other content. Huon (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

AN/I notification
I mentioned you in one of my comments at an AN/I section I started: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Since some admins are now considering unblocking, I think I should notify you in addition to the ping I already gave you in my comment. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request
You apparently require my IP address in order to be able to consider this request, so here it is: 82.10.252.90 Thanks. Helminthophile (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * When you're able to edit my talk page, you clearly are no longer affected by that block. The IP you mention is not currently blocked and I couldn't find a recent block (not sure whether my efforts would have shown an expired range block). So it appears that the issue is resolved. If you still are affected by some block, the block message itself should give an IP address; that's the one we need to know. Huon (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, the issue does appear to have been resolved. Helminthophile (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

06:48:25, 13 September 2017 review of submission by Che SinebyCos
Hi. I've edited the article as per the inputs and resubmitted the article for re-review almost a month back. Can you please check it and approve it if it's fine?
 * I'm sorry, but I don't review the same draft multiple times. You will need to wait for another reviewer. That said, I don't think the draft is ready to become a live article. An entire section is unreferenced, and the tone issues persist. Do any of the sources discuss Choudhary in some detail, or are those just passing mentions? Huon (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey
Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

User Right
Hi, do you know if there is a way if I can get user rights to view deleted pages because I want to use some info in a deleted article and refurbish some of it to transfer to other articles? Hawkeye75  (talk)  04:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * If you want the user right, WP:RFA is the way to go; only admins can see deleted content. If you want the content of some deleted article restored and provided to you, try WP:REFUND. Huon (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Tanay Pant
What kind of sources need to be included here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanay_Pant


 * Wikipedia content should be a summary of what reliable sources that are independent of the subject have reported about it: sources like newspapers or reputable magazines. Not interviews, not organizations he is affiliated with, not blogs or social media. Passing mentions won't help establish the subject's notability either. Huon (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense, will try to correct the article. I have made some edits, removed the tabloid jounalisms and sources remoain mostly from reputable sources. What else do you think need to be done?


 * I'm sorry, but I can't quite tell what you mean. The current references are Tanay Pant's own book, his profiles at various online communities, an "inspirational story of his success" told by himself (that tone is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, by the way) and someone's personal website reporting on an online poll. None of those are reliable third-party sources. Even tabloid journalism would be better than this, but the previous revision of the page didn't have any journalism either beyond an interview - once again Pant talking about himself, not independent coverage. Huon (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's true! Do you think that not even the mention of books would be beneficial for record keeping in an encyclopedia?