User talk:Hut 8.5/Archive 19

Note that if you want to retrospectively alter your signature, retarget a redirect or other trivial change I don't really care.  Hut 8.5  19:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Help needed
Hello - I'm messaging you as I understand that you're an administrator. I was recently trying to figure out how to respond to messages on my own talk page, when I noticed that another user, undid the edits that I made, and then proceeded to template message me about it.

I can't edit their talk page as I understand I am not logged in, but what should I do in this situation? Did they act correctly? How can I add a note to their talk page? I'd appreciate your advice. Kind regards, 31.205.11.76 (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Nate Speed
You may want to revoke talk page access to the blocked IPs. S0091 (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Another one: 194.36.90.122 S0091 (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

My page PermaGO was deleted as an advert
Hi, sorry to bother you but my page was deleted because supposedly it was one giant ad and thats not what the purpose of the page was. Not only was it deleted literally 15 minutes after it got approved and published, I was given no notice my page was on the chopping block! I have literally a list of other news articles and interviews that will "make my company seem relevant an encyclopedia." It's absolutely ridiculous that I'm even at risk to start from scratch when I can literally get the article fixed with some minor edits.

Any information here would be appreciated. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by HirmizM (talk • contribs) 01:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft:JAMES WEST]
Hello! You did not approve our page, Draft:JAMES WEST, for undeletion citing copyright issues. I'm not positive on which area you are referring to as it is all of our own works which we own copyrights on. All mentions of media were cited and linked when available. We have since rebranded and wanted to update information as well as add our new sculptures. Thank you. Kate Dunn, Marketing Director at Jim West Sculptor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katedunn (talk • contribs) 17:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Secret Story (Portuguese TV series) ‎
Check out Secret Story (Portuguese TV series). A lot of vandalism from IPV6s in the same range. 99.53.112.186 (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I've semi-protected it. You can request this yourself at WP:RFPP.  Hut 8.5  21:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Undeletion Request (OTRS)
Hi,

I'm writing directly to be able to make a clearer REFUND request on behalf of another. The article David B. Coe was PRODed about 30 months ago for not having a suitable ref as needed as a minimum for a biography.

The subject (but not the writer) of the article was hoping to have it restored to him. He is, having just formed an account.

I've discussed the page, its deletion, the difficulty issues with creating a biographical article generally and the additional complexities and COI-aspects of an autobiographical article with him, in significant detail via OTRS. I've also checked and there are suitable sources to demonstrate his notability through WP:AUTHOR.

While the deleted article is somewhat behind the times, he believes it may serve some purpose (depending on its issues, it may also act as an example in what not do to) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, I've restored it and moved it to Draft:David B. Coe pending improvements. I've seen worse but it doesn't come even vaguely close to demonstrating that the subject passes WP:AUTHOR so I think it could do with improvement before it goes back to mainspace. Ping User:Wlmg as the PROD tagger.  Hut 8.5  22:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Question (undeletion/histmerge)
Hello, Hut 8.5! Now that Draft talk:The Continental (TV series) exists (once again), I'm wondering if whatever was formerly at Draft talk:The Continental should be restored/histmerged to Draft talk:The Continental (TV series)... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, I've done that, I think the move discussion in the page history is useful to have around. There is a pile of deleted history at Draft:The Continental, I don't know if that's of any use to anybody.  Hut 8.5  10:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Key Biodiversity Area
I am not sure exactly why you have not accepted the text I entered for Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) which I am doing on behalf of the KBA Programme and KBA Committee - I head the KBA Secretariat. The information you have is very out of date and doesn't give much information about what KBAs are and I wanted to update it to something more relevant. I have used text from existing KBA literature which I also wrote which may have flagged some copyright issues. Can you e-mail me on aplumptre@keybiodiversityareas.org so we can sort this out. Thanks

Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Plumptre (talk • contribs)
 * (Talk page stalker) Hut, I rolled back another revision (that also indicated copyvio) by the above editor and left a note on their talk page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

109.193.141.130
user:109.193.141.130 is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Straightforward Copyvios
Hi, thanks for dealing with the copyvio I reported on 31 July via Copyright problems. Is there a quicker way of dealing with straightforward copyvios, or is a week of community consideration needed in all cases? TSventon (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Barton Morris, Jr. Comments
Thank you for sharing your comments and feedback regarding the draft article that I created. I realize there are strong rules on Wikipedia regarding the use of materials that are under copyright and I certainly respect those rules. I do have a question though which perhaps you could answer.

If all the materials in the draft article I submitted for consideration were given to me by the actual subject would that constitute full permission of use and thus not be subject to copyright infringement rules on Wikipedia?

If there is any special notices that need to be included with content updates to this regard please let me know and I'll be happy to include them in the article draft.

Thank you. Tsmith47 (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Phone Down (Stefflon Don and Lil Baby song)
Hi. You said this seems to be a mirror of WP, but when I did my carbon dating check, it says it was from October 2012 (which is clearly impossible), but the site only says copyright 2019. How did you discern it was a mirror? My intent is never to make work for other editors, so if I know how you did that, perhaps the next time I can figure it out myself?  Onel 5969  TT me 23:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * if you do a Google search for "under exclusive licence to Universal Music Operations Limited" (a phrase used in your link) on that site you'll find a bunch of similar blurbs which are copied from Wikipedia, e.g. this one is lifted from the lead of Dizzee Rascal and this one is taken from Mumford & Sons. I'm not sure what check you did on the site but it can't be from 2014 because the song was only released this year. The Internet Archive shows one listing from yesterday. While that's not absolutely reliable it does suggest that it hasn't been at this URL for very long at all. The fact the article text here sounds very much like what you'd expect from a Wikipedia article (and not from a piece of marketing material) made me suspicious that it was reverse copyvio.  Hut 8.5  06:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. FYI, I use a link that  pointed me to last year: Carbon Dating.  Onel 5969  TT me 10:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting tool, I hadn't seen that before. Now that tool says it was created in July of this year. Maybe it changes.  Hut 8.5  17:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Rajnish jha
Hu Hut 8.5, you just deleted the article Rajnish jha which I had nominated for speedy deletion. Thank you. The user has immediately recreated it. Any chance you could delete it again, and maybe salt it? Best, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I went offline, but I see someone else has already done it and protected the title.  Hut 8.5  17:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Mr Hut, Please recheck the page Draft:Pranab Kumar Sahoo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashish202 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia is public domain
While New Advent claims a copyright for their transcription, the Catholic Encyclopedia, published in 1913, is completely in the public domain. There was no need to revdel the article Prophecy of Seventy Weeks, and I've redacted the warning issued to good-faith editor. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for spotting that. That copyright claim is invalid, you can't claim copyright for a transcription (at least not in the US).  Hut 8.5  06:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Lavora Barnes
Thank you for your vigilance on deleting entries that might violate copyright. The information you are citing as copyright infringement is not. I have contacted the Michigan Democratic Party and received permission. However, in order to allow this quite relevant page to go forward, I am asking that you please remove your deletion so I may create it with a simple entry so others or yourself may add to it while the Michigan Democratic Party uses their time and resources to submit verification of the creative commons use of biographical information on their site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolandbozz662 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Concern
Pardon my discontent, but I felt that this comment was out-of-place, especially for an admin. First of all, accusing someone else of ad hominem in this particular case seemed a bit too extreme; clearly laid out why the portal maintenance done by NA1k up to now is insufficient, laying out several points that have already been used as precedents for deleting hundreds of portals in the past. Second, I also felt your claim of BHG attacking NA1k was also very extreme and against better judgement; personal attacks are focused on the victim, not their actions, and as far as I can tell, BHG was only calling out NA1k for the quality of their edits to portals, and never once attacked them personally.

I cordially invite you to discuss your reasons for believing your arguments I mentioned above are valid. ToThAc (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * sorry, I don't agree with that at all. E.g. As you know, both your RFAs were notable for the high number of editors who noted your long track record of bad judgement, and the evience here and n many other recent issues is that your judgement has not improved. What the hell do Northamerica1000's RfAs have to do with the the edits which have been made to the portal, exactly?  Hut 8.5  17:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Topic Ban Request: TakuyaMurata. Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Re: Skoruztech's final copyright warning
Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mobile_phone&diff=prev&oldid=920710568 and https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/smartphone-covers-protect-from-damage.htm - MrOllie (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

"I suggest you contribute to it..." Comment
I hope you can appreciate the absurdity of your advice at DRV. There was a merge discussion that determined where to move it. Perhaps you should have read it.

"I would suggest that the OP either contribute to Orlando, Florida#Culture (which already has the one sentence of prose in the deleted version), start an article about the music scene in Orlando, Florida (which would likely be an encyclopedic topic) or at least write a substantial draft about the subject matter."

Re: "I suggest you contribute to it" Look at this mess. And then be my guest! Orlando,_Florida

Re:"start an article about the music scene in Orlando, Florida" This entire subject does not need to be written by one editor. see: Beacham Theatre, Florida breaks and so on. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make here. Yes, there was a very brief merge discussion which decided to merge it, and the Orlando article does mention the subject. The deleted article was one sentence long so it's not like there's anything more which could be merged anyway. I fail to see how that makes what I've said "absurd" though.  Hut 8.5  16:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I wasn't really trying to make a point other than it's sort of absurd to not read the request that you are being asked to determine the merit of. And then provide an inapplicable response and meritless assessment that is based upon not reading it--apparently common with certain admins (-nothing aimed at you).
 * Absurd is the state of the thing where you want me to put this thing. My contribution would be to get rid of it.


 * I don't mean to harp on your DRV comment or confront you (as that's your opinion) but I expected you would read far enough into the DRV request (or the RfU) to comprehend that this is a not a content dispute with another editor. The nominating editor commented on his own motivations for AfD and they had no basis in policy--which I quoted. His deletion concerns--as he explained them were meritless as were concerns of the WP:MADEUP duo.--But you don't think anybody else will read it either and that's your reason to justify the deletion endorsements.
 * I heard what you are saying, but none of it is WP:OR or a WP:COATRACK The ORL summer of Love was not just AAHZ, there was an underground era that is already covered at Beacham Theatre, then then SOL- which needs an entry because it was it's own notable thing and the eventual material that should go there would not fit into these other topics very well then a new "rave" phase covered at Florida breaks/then Orlando Sound, then festivals, pop influence/commercialization which is already at EDM/pop in the US.   Johnvr4 (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It's a basic fact of internet discussions that if you post something that long (five and a half pages of A4) then people will not read the whole thing, and you shouldn't expect them to. You certainly can't criticise people for not reading it, or argue that responses are not valid just because they didn't read the whole thing. I did skim it. A large part of your comment consists of attacking the nominator for allegedly threatening you, amongst other things, backed up with about 500 words of very extensive quotation of comments they'd made. If you have a complaint about someone else's behaviour then there are various forums for that to be addressed but deletion review is not one of them. It's solely concerned with the merits of deletions and closures of deletion discussions.  Hut 8.5  19:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * My similar observation is in my DRV Req--I think I mentioned editor behavior issues were not for the DRV forum.


 * Was there any actual dispute as to whether the quoted concerns of the AfD nom were meritless WP:AADD concerns?


 * Do you think that the TE-like resistance to the great efforts that I took to understand the motivation of the nominator when he responded, and the confirmation I put forth to show that that there was always a complete lack of legitimate policy-based concern in nominating for AfD (and within AfD) were all irrelevant as to whether AfD followed policy or process?
 * If I'm understanding you correctly, It is your opinion that it is just that there was too much and no one ever weighed the relevance to policies such as WP:AADD (or cares to)?


 * I felt fortunate at RdU to have such a back-asswards understanding of WP:CONTN repeatedly put forth in the AfD noms own words. The near-total resistance to naming a policy spoke for itself. Is it your observation that I spent too much space proving accurate my assertions about the lack of merit of the AfD arguments?
 * Did I actually need to spend a ton of space explaining to Admins what every little aspect of WP:AADD includes? I thought that would be unnecessary. However, there seems to be a widespread lack of comprehension by involved admins that these kind of subjective arguments carry no weight in a deletion discussion. WP:AADD is WP policy and WP policy already has consensus. Strong policy-based arguments carry the weight in discussion per WP:NOTAVOTE.
 * The AfD Nom and participants made arguments. I presented counter arguments at DRV. I understood that DRV would determine which arguments had policy-based merit and which arguments were baseless. I thought DRV would take a look at sources too. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The argument for deletion isn't only that the article was short. If you carry on insisting that it is then you aren't going to get very far. WP:AADD is WP policy - actually no, it's an essay page with no formal standing. Your comment at DRV is simply far too long, full stop. Hopefully it hasn't escaped your notice that it's about six times longer than the AfD it is objecting to. If you want people to actually read the entire thing then just cut it down to a paragraph or two. It should be entirely possible to get across your central point. Don't bother linking to huge numbers of policy pages which are tangentially relevant, quoting vast amounts of comments from other people, or dumping loads of sources. Pick a handful of sources (2-3) which you think demonstrate the notability of the subject, people will definitely be willing to read that. Even better write a draft which has a couple of paragraphs of sourced prose which shows the subject is notable (without reference bombing) and link to that.  Hut 8.5  12:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey! No Kidding!! I Know was not deleted for size, or WP:MADEUP or(?). So, What policy was used to delete it?


 * WP:AADD is an essay but WP:DP is a policy! DP has WP:ATD guidance-- which is also policy and it is being ignored. WP:DP "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are each encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy." The Policy already has consensus and no one can just ignore it!


 * I've asked you and others ad nauseam to clarify the exact specific policy reasoning for the Afd and deletion so I can address concerns in something new. I asked the Afd nom, Rdu, Afd, etc.  No One, (including you) will that provide a simple answer-- without a whole host of clear policy violations. The main one seems to be that notability has ZERO to do with Content per WP:CONTN which no editor seems to get...
 * I've told you repeatedly that it was CITEBOMB--and not a REFBOMB.
 * Here is a bit of the available content from half the sources...You can get and Idea of how much substantial information on the subject was in the so-called REFBOMB.
 * Since our WP admins are relying almost entirely on non-policy merits for their arguments in deletion discussions...See for yourself! Here: I temporarily jammed a bunch of longquotes in a draft so other  editors can also realize that the "REFBOMB" complaint is now and always has been a meritless assessment by lazy editors.
 * Now, WP:THREE sources are below plus a ton of relevant content in the other cited sources which I've only got through one half of.




 * The argument for deletion is notability-based, as well as the fact that the article had essentially no meaningful content apart from the excessive number of citations. The fact a source mentions the subject doesn't rebut this. That draft in your sandbox is basically a copyright violation because of the large quotations.  Hut 8.5  06:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * FULL STOP.


 * Anyone that actually read them can see from ANY single one of the AfD noms quotes, that any assertion that the noms argument for deletion was notability based is a blatant WP:LIE. Before you go that route, his understanding of how WP:N is determined against WP:CONTN and other polices is pretty hopeless. Please don't make me rehash those all quotes here.


 * WP:N is determined the 16 published super-RS put forth on the subject per WP:NRV,  Just mentioning the subject in numerous sustained wp:RS and following that mention up in a whole expansive article describing it is in fact criteria for WP:GNG.  Editors hiding behind a wp:Refbomb or WP:THREE complaint in order to never review whether the a source is suitable does to determine WP:N is a direct violation of WP:NEXIST..


 * You've peeked into sand box. GNG concerns--with these any of these reliable sources or the content within them--are not legitimate concerns.


 * You should be competent enough to read them yourself either at RdU and AfD or on my talk page. It's now pretty clear the noms quotes did need to be in the DRV-- where they just can't be ignored-- unless the DRV request itself is purposely ignored.
 * The long quotes in my sandbox draft are only temporary while I scratch it out and are only there so any editors (such as yourself) that even try to put forth that these sources were a refbomb, or were not about this very subject, or there is not enough published material on the subject to expand upon will be proven meritless- very easily.


 * I know you are trying to help but much like the nom, these policy arguments you are trying out on me have been already been covered in previous discussion with the involved admin and shown to be baseless. Your discussion points here are only getting more absurd in ignoring established WP policy--especially since more sources have been presented.


 * I've pointed you to the WP:DP policy. Read it. Now.


 * Show me that you understand these words from WP:DEL-CONTENT re: "no meaningful content" assertions.
 * "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed ... Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum."
 * Show me the actual WP:DEL-REASON for deletion (do try to show me one that has been not been thoroughly disproven already)


 * Show me that the WP:DEL-REASON was not covered by WP:ATD.


 * "No Meaningful content" is AADD as I have explained to you. Per WP:ATD-M, "Too Small" complaints support Merge arguments, not deletion arguments!


 * Per WP:ATD-E, Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user.


 * Per WP:DPAFD These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are each encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution.


 * If there is no policy basis in an argument, Then it carries no weight in a deletion discussion. Johnvr4 (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Enough. This is my spare time and I have no interest in spending it arguing with somebody who insists that I must read something, now, and show to your satisfaction that I understand it, just because you said so in angry bold italics and SHOUTY CAPITALS. Would you behave like that with people in real life? With colleagues? With fellow volunteers at a charity? If not then it has no place here. The fact that someone disagrees with you does not mean they're lying.  Hut 8.5  17:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't come here to be rude or yell. i was mainly trying to emphasize. Please accept my apology. In the face of arguments that are ridiculous/have already been disproved or when one wants to counter-argue when they haven't read your argument...Yes, I get often get frustrated with real people in real life as I do online and have to walk away, cool off, come back, and try again. I did not mean to say it was a purposeful lie (you had complained about the size and relevance of the RdU quotes in the DRV Req but maybe you never read any of the them?). Nevertheless, you can see the AfD noms quotes in comparison to your assertion above and find the non-truth in it. It's sort of like make a MADEUP claim in the face of even one RS that shows it isn't--That is also TE. I assumed reading the things I suggested you do were things that any Admin would have already done or would need to do if they were unfamiliar with the policy or a specific argument being discussed.


 * Since already you looked at the draft with the relevant quotes from each previously used source, could we clear up, A. Whether the subject is notable is cleared up by those sources? and, B. Whether the sources cover subject?
 * That is why I'm at DRV--The only reason--because each of the claims put forth at AfD were unfounded and untrue and quite obviously so. Johnvr4 (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Cartonplast
Hi Hut, can I put the Cartonplast patent's citation? Giovannicaciotta (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd advise against including a large quote from the patent in the article, even though I don't think it's a copyright violation, because it doesn't really fit with the style of an encyclopedia article. Patents aren't written in the same style as encyclopedias.  Hut 8.5  21:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Welp.
103.4.30.79 is harassing NiciVampireHeart on a new IP ;/ --NikkeKatski &#91;Elite&#93; (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * thanks, I've blocked them and put it on my watchlist.  Hut 8.5  06:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
 Happy Adminship Anniversary! Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes,  PA TH  SL OP U  05:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Johnson & Wales page edits
Greetings! ... I have been spending lots of time cleaning up the outdated information on the Johnson & Wales page. Lots of old facts, and timeline errors that I spent updating. My work created a much more factual and accurate description of the University. I am an employee of the University and have written the copy that I added to the page that you have rolled back. It is public domain information that I produced as part of my employment. Is there a process to retrieve the updates that I've done? Thanks for your help --Jomags123 (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

ECP query
I humbly request that you choose another page protection for User:Steel1943. WP:ECP does not apply: "Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred". I have zero issue with Full Protection or Standard Page protection. Buffs (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * it looks like the page has been the subject of disruption in the past, the reason it hasn't had any disruptive editing recently is that it's been fully protected for well over a year. I suspect some of the edit history may have been redacted as well e.g. this took place without any actual sockpuppetry visible in the edit history. The protection policy specifies similar language to the bit you've quoted for full and semi-protection, which aren't considered to prevent them from being applied to user pages. Full protection would have the additional drawback that as a non-admin Steel1943 wouldn't be able to edit his/her own user page, which isn't fair.  Hut 8.5  19:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, I can see that. Thanks! Buffs (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Live Ocean page deleted
I opened this page at the request of the Live Ocean charity. You state I had infringed the copyright of Sail-world. This was because Sail-world had used the media release for this new charity word-for-word. I.e the wording was created by Live Ocean not Sail-World. Please can the Live Ocean page be re-opened — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hb26 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Brian P. McGowan
I wrote this entire article from scratch and did not infringe on anyone's copyright, so cannot understand why you deleted it. Can you point out the infringement in the text below?

[redacted]

1 https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2018/08/05/brian-mcgowan-seattles-newest-ceo-has-a-daunting.html 2 https://beltline.org/2017/09/13/atlanta-beltline-inc-welcomes-new-president-and-ceo-brian-mcgowan/ 3 https://caled.org/dentons-adds-brian-p-mcgowan-as-principal-in-atlanta/ 4 https://www.ajc.com/news/exclusive-invest-atlanta-ceo-headed-metro-chamber/d9i6hGav1GFQ8OICZjv7HL/ 5 https://www.ajc.com/blog/investigations/atlanta-beltline-inc-ceo-leave-with-boost-severance-pay/Yka6IrJ6GzEW4EcjjRePaJ/ 6 https://www.eda.gov/archives/2016/news/press-releases/2009/09/15/889.htm 7 https://www.sbc.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/1/c/1c4ce3aa-258a-48d3-9ce0-d16fdb46e84f/577A8F3F427E8282F1E7B130DEF6FF9B.fernandez-testimony.pdf 8 https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-factory23-2009jun23-story.html 9 https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-oct-01-fi-empire1-story.html

Kartikeya Sharma restored
As a courtesy, this is to notify you that an article you supported for deletion in a recent deletion review, Kartikeya Sharma, has been restored to mainspace with new information and sources. You may wish to examine the new version to see if you have any remaining concerns regarding notability. SilkTork (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Could you delete this page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chazz_Michael_Michaels is a page full of nonsense and is just the Navy Seal copypasta translated into Hebrew, it's also spam, have a good day GameEnd (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * sure, done. If you see a page that's pure vandalism or an obvious hoax you can just tag it with db-vandalism and an admin will delete it, you don't need to nominate it for deletion as you did here.  Hut 8.5  21:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Taylor Swift
Hi Hut, could you action this report ? I've warned both editors. Thanx, -  FlightTime Phone  ( open channel ) 18:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * sure, done.  Hut 8.5  18:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you. -  FlightTime Phone  ( open channel ) 19:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Nellie Crockett
Hi, Hut 8.5. You deleted Nellie Crockett and Senior Wrangler on 21 December 2019‎. I request that two pages be restored and hist-merged (WP:RFHM). Sawol (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Deletion log 18:51 Hut 8.5 deleted page Nellie Crockett
 * Deletion log 19:00 Hut 8.5 deleted page Senior Wrangler


 * I've restored a few revisions on the Nellie Crockett article as it seems to have had a cut and paste move a very long time ago. The deleted history of Senior Wrangler entirely consists of redirects to other pages and I don't see any value in restoring it, if anything it would mislead people by implying the page was a redirect when it wasn't.  Hut 8.5  14:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Now I cannot see the histories of Senior Wrangler. Restore old versions to 23:47, 12 December 2004‎ Mpntod 216 bytes as my requests WP:RFHM. Sawol (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year Hut 8.5!
Happy New Year! Hello Hut 8.5: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Cellink
Could you check whether Cellink is speediable via WP:G4? I'm asking because you closed Articles for deletion/Cellink as delete in August 2018. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * don't think so, I'm afraid - the prose has been rewritten to be a bit less spammy and the references aren't the same. Not sure it's actually any better but it is different. Technically it doesn't qualify for PROD because it's been to AfD previously, but I'm not going to object.  Hut 8.5  18:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks for having a look. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft: L.A. Downtown Industrial District
Hey, Hut 8.5.

I realized last night that I should have been drafting the artilce for the L.A. Downtown Industrial District in my sandbox as opposed to the Draftspace. The copyrighted material was roughly cut-and-pasted in an an outline to be rewritten and refined into a solid article. Can you please release the draft so I can at least pull all of the infobox research into a sandbox draft? The outline I had was about a day's worth of research I'd rather not have to repeat. Thanks. Ubiquitouslarry (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks for userifying Biografilm Festival. I came across it while working on an article about Diane Weyermann, who won an award there.

Looking at the userified article triggered some concerns for me, which I left on nominator 's talk page.

I added some references, and discarded most of the original text, which may have been translated by someone for whom English was not their first language. I am considering restoring it to article space, and I thought I would see if you were interested in offering your opinion, first.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * from a quick glance I'm not sure how it would go at AfD, the best sources cited look a bit like rewrites of press releases or something like that. But feel free to go ahead.  Hut 8.5  22:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply. I think I'll do a little more work first.  Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyright Deletion
Hey, sorry about it being improperly cited/too similar. This is my first wikipedia contribution and I'm still getting the hang of it. I want to still contribute so i'm going to try and redo that addition properly. Is there any way to check it before uploading? To make sure it conforms with the guidelines?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan36620 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

SSAE No. 18
Regarding SSAE No. 18, I only seek to describe the copyrighted work, the history surrounding it, and its purposes and applications. I have prepared a re-draft. Please see discussion at Talk:SSAE_No._18 and the considerations for fair use. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

iOS Version History
Okay, so I understand why you deleted my iOS 11 and 13.3 release notes, they were pretty much copy-pasted. Thank you for telling me about that. But why was my iOS 13.4 beta section deleted? It wass pretty much the same thing as what I did with iOS 13.3 in it's current state, and that was left as is. It was in my own words, and I didn't copy paste anything, at least not to my knowledge, and I cited the source. Please feel free to look over it, because unlike the two mentioned above, I don't see anything wrong with what I put. Also. can you please explain how I can see what I deleted, because I checked the deletion log, and I didn't see a way to view it. I apologize, and thanks in advance. JdRDMS — Preceding unsigned comment added by JdRDMS (talk • contribs) 20:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I confess I didn't analyse every word of the 14 KB text you'd added to the article, I simply reverted it once I figured out it was stuffed full of copyright violations. If there is a paragraph or two in there that wasn't copied and pasted then feel free to readd it. If you want to see it then I can email you the contents but you'll need to enable email on your account first. If you'd like to avoid this happening in future then don't add copyright violations to articles.  Hut 8.5  22:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I should have enabled my email. I apologize again for making you do that and for adding a copyright violation. Thank you for responding. JdRDMS
 * OK, I've emailed you the contents of the last deleted revision. As I said in the email please don't repost anything which was copied from an external source anywhere on Wikipedia, including in draft or user space.  Hut 8.5  07:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Carquinez Bridge revdel
Would you mind taking a look at Carquinez Bridge? I tagged a batch of articles for RD1 over a month ago and this is the only one that hasn't been resolved. I thought I'd reach out to you since you revdelled a few of the others. –dlthewave ☎ 18:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, done. I think that's getting towards the limits of what it's appropriate to revdel though, it's better for changes which aren't in as many revisions.  Hut 8.5  21:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

hurun report
Dear Hut 8.5

I set up Hurun Report 21 years ago in China, and wanted to create a page on my company on Wikipedia. All the content is original (I wrote it myself today) and I have referenced most of it pretty methodically. Can you let me know why you deleted all the contents of my page?

Any tips or advice much appreciated.

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenracingcar (talk • contribs) 23:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Reversion of Robert Fulghum additions because of "Copyright issues"
[update: It has been several days since I raised this question here and I would appreciate the courtesy of a reply. Thank you.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:4580:ED20:8855:F2DA:75AE:74D0 (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Dear Hut,\ I made those revisions this morning but I do not see what in those revisions could possibly violate copyright since nothing was quoted in the revisions. They were simply additions to the basic biographical information about the author and his works to which I added suitable footnotes. Again, nothing was quoted so I fail to understand why these were reverted.

Can you please make this clearer for me since I do not see any copyright violations that are implicit in my adds.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:4580:ED20:F91A:938E:E8EC:BF9 (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I did reply here but as your IP address has changed you didn't see it. You might want to consider registering for an account to avoid this.


 * My reply: Well it might be "basic biographical information" but it was still copied from the subject's website or somewhere similar. You can't do that. No, it wasn't formatted as a quotation but it was still copied. If you want to add this text then you need to rewrite it from scratch in your own words.   Hut 8.5  17:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still don't get what is going on here under "Copyright Violations." I've been a magazine editor for over 30 years and was Senior Editor at Houghton Mifflin. I have a pretty clear understanding of Fair Use and Copyright and I don't see how anything in my additions violates copyright. Most of this was adding information from sources such as the New York Times but since your reversions wiped out (I think) the changes I put in I can't be sure of the rest but nothing was even close to violating fair use.,

As for curprev 18:20, 4 March 2020‎ 2601:200:4580:ed20:f91a:938e:e8ec:bf9 talk‎ 7,160 bytes +13‎  →‎Personal life: Inserted village on Crete

being reverted... well, I have been to visit Fulghum in that village at his house and I assure you it is where he lives when in Crete. If you like I can have him send you a note attesting to this. I'm only doing this as a favor to the author (I've been his friend since 1987) and since he is into his 80s he does not understand the arcane rules and codes for bringing his page up to date. And now I can see that such a thing is difficult even for me.

So how, pray tell, do I manage to get the name of the village he lives in on Crete into his wikipedia page?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:4580:ED20:8855:F2DA:75AE:74D0 (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure what else to say here, almost all of your changes were blatantly copied from the subject's personal website or a similar source. If you don't agree with that then here are a few samples:
 * You: Fulghum was a Grammy nominee for the Spoken Word Award, has performed in two television adaptations of his work for PBS, has been a speaker at numerous colleges, conventions, and public events across the United States and Europe, and has authored a nationally-syndicated newspaper column. Source: Robert was a Grammy nominee for the Spoken Word Award, has performed in two television adaptations of his work for PBS, has been a speaker at numerous colleges, conventions, and public events across the United States and Europe, and has authored a nationally-syndicated newspaper column.
 * You (next sentence): He was a featured presenter at the Colors of Ostrava/Melting Pot event in Czechia in the summer of 2017. Source (next sentence): He was a featured presenter at the Colors of Ostrava/Melting Pot event in Czechia in the summer of 2017.
 * You (next sentence): He has appeared onstage with two actors in 89 Czech towns and cities, and now is part of a theater troupe called FULGHUM’S FLOATING FIREWORKS. Source (next paragraph): He has appeared onstage with two actors in 89 Czech towns and cities, and now is part of a theater troupe called FULGHUM’S FLOATING FIREWORKS.
 * I could put similar quotes up for almost all the text you added. This is not justifiable under fair use rules, at least not on Wikipedia. The rules here only allow brief attributed quotations of copyrighted material to illustrate a point. You certainly can't copy large chunks of text from copyrighted sources like that. I suspect most magazines don't look too kindly on wholesale plagiarism from copyrighted sources either. That's the sort of thing that ruins careers.
 * You are welcome to readd the fact that he lives in Crete, those two words don't constitute a copyright violation.  Hut 8.5  18:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Public domain court decisions
Hello user:Hut_8.5, apologies for a lengthy question. A while back you commented on the speedy delete nomination for Moylist Construction Limited v Doheny to the effect that court decisions are public domain in the U.S. I am currently working with Irish law students to write articles on Irish Supreme Court decisions (there were about six before our project began). One issue is that Earwig's Copyvio tool and others consistently flag any quotes from the repository for the case decisions, https://www.bailii.org/ as copyvio. I have taken guidance from WikiProject Law on reducing quotes. However, the faculty from the Department of Law I am working with stress to me that direct quotes from decisions are essential because the exact language is parsed down to the font choice and paraphrasing is often times less preferable because the exact word choice matters so much. Nevertheless, our students are using less quotes now and making sure that any quotes they do use are properly formatted and cited. We're a long way off from moving from sandbox to main space still. I'm formatting, infoboxing, checking Earwig, etc. When the articles are ready I will be contacting New Pages Patrol, Wikiproject Law, and Wikiproject Ireland, to let them know about the articles. I was wondering if you could give me a link to share with NPP about the public domain status of court decisions? Thanks in advance for any help. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:PD used to have a very clear statement of this which seems to have been removed, but it still quotes the US copyright office as saying that As a matter of longstanding public policy, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a government edict that has been issued by any state, local, or territorial government, including legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials. Likewise, the Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties. So you can't register copyright in the US on foreign judicial decisions. I would caution that Wikipedia does sometimes ask that the content must be freely licensed in the country of origin, as well as in the US (although I don't think there's an official requirement). I have no idea what the legal status of Irish court decisions is in Ireland. And yes I'd avoid going overboard on quotes in these articles anyway.
 * If you do run into trouble I'd suggest posting at WT:CP, which is watchlisted by most of the people who regularly do text copyright here (there aren't many). I wouldn't be overly surprised if an NP patroller decides to tag one of these as a copyright violation.  Hut 8.5  18:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually digging a bit deeper it looks like the statement was removed from WP:PD because the question hasn't been tested in an actual court. So it looks like foreign court decisions probably are PD in the US but that's not guaranteed. You could ask at WT:CP if you want an opinion from someone who has a better idea.  Hut 8.5  19:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comprehensive reply! I'll see what I can find out from bailii and the Irish Courts an then I'll reach out to WP:CP.  Best, AugusteBlanqui (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

User talk page archives
I was going to decline the speedy deletion request at User talk:Mr. D. E. Mophon, but you beat me to it. However, I have deleted the archives of those pages, which you had declined to delete. We don't delete user talk pages because we need to keep the record of messages that other editors have posted there, and obviously that applies equally to archives created by moving user talk pages, but in the case of archives created by copying, the history is preserved with the original talk page, so there is no reason not to delete the archived copy. JBW (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

CSD at User_talk:Rich_Smith/cm.js
Hey,

I placed the U1 CSD on the talk page as it doesn't quite work properly on the JS page... I meant for the JS page to be deleted rather then just the talk page, if you would be so kind - - Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 21:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * ah sorry, I thought it was strange for you to create the talk page with a speedy deletion tag, but I have seen people do that before. Done now.  Hut 8.5  21:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Tex Earnhardt
https://www.earnhardtford.com/earnhardt-history.html

Bil Mesa, AZ EoGuy (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * sorry, what?  Hut 8.5  07:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Bad deletetion of Chris Kendall entry
I do not know why you deleted the Chris Kendall entry. Chris Kendall is a well known musician and app creator. There should be a Chris Kendall Wikipedia page. Cegguitar (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

New entry for Tex Earnhardt, Arizona automobile dealer.
I've been trying to get wikipedia to accept my entry for Tex Earnhardt.

I'm afraid so far I haven't been successful.

He is as important as Cal Worthington and his "dog" Spot who has a page.

Bil Mesa, AZ EoGuy (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Hut 8.5
Just curious, what's the meaning of Hut 8.5? Is there a Hut 1.0? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh no, it was originally a reference to Hut 8. Although I was a lot more interested in that stuff when I created the account than I am now.  Hut 8.5  18:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thought it was programming humor. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Alliance C – Christians for Germany
Hi Hut 8.5,

Thanks for your comment here. I'm a bit puzzled, though: the party does not have any MEPs and as far as I can tell has never had an MEP elected to anything -- someone who was at the time an MEP may have been involved in founding it, but then he was not re-elected. Am I missing something? (I am not very experienced with speedy deletion, in case that's not clear, and am trying to develop a better understanding of it as I patrol new pages.)

Thanks, JBL (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * A7 requires that the subject "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant", the rationale being that if the article doesn't do this then the subject is unlikely to be notable. A7 is meant to be a very low bar to meet, and anything that indicates why you should care about the subject should disqualify it from an A7 deletion. Here the article says that "In autumn 2018, MEP Arne Gericke joined Alliance C", so at some point it had an MEP as a member, elected or not. Having an MEP as a member means they must have been playing at least some role in national-level politics, which is a claim of significance.  Hut 8.5  06:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok, thank you very much -- I will recalibrate! --JBL (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)