User talk:Huon/Archive19

According to their talk page, you unblocked When Other Legends Are Forgotten back in October? Well, I've tripped over him recently, and have seen him acting completely uncivilly to other WP editors, at AfD and elsewhere. If you're an admin, you might want to reconsider your decision, because WP was better off without this person's behaviour. I'd like to not have to waste this weekend getting him re-banned by myself. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? Unblocking someone who was not blocked for incivility was bad because they afterwards became uncivil? I was to have expected that? Huon (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought you might want to know, being a responsible admin. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you know Huon? Any page you protect will be the wrong version, anyone you block will be unfair, and any unblock you make will be bad. At least to somebody out there. HighInBC 18:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

82.51.122.195 is her new way to try to edit on Wikipedia, just thought you should know. 94.194.119.150 (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you, and why are you telling me? WP:SPI is the appropriate venue. Huon (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my two proposals to create categories for English, Scottish & Irish politicians by century Discussion of 8 January 2016. Hugo999 (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hugo999: The Categories for Discussion page isn't really meant to discuss the creation of new categories. If you think the old deletion was invalid and should be overturned, WP:DRV would be a better venue (though since someone else already replied, now I'd let the discussion you started run its course). You may want to contact some related WikiProjects for input, maybe WT:WikiProject Ireland and, since that's where many of these people will currently be categorized, maybe WT:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, and have a centralized discussion about how to categorize them. Maybe WT:WikiProject Biography may also be of interest for a general discussion of "people by occupation by century". Huon (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't they about newspapers, which aren't eligible for A7? Adam9007 (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers are organizations and thus eligible, just like any other company. G11 would also apply since the "articles" only serve to promote the digitalization service. Huon (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: I hadn't thought of newspapers as organisations, but I noticed another editor (can't remember who) removing the A7 tags for the same reason. Adam9007 (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, if you think the distinction between newspaper and publisher is important here I'll delete the remaining ones via G11. I think we can agree those pages do not belong on Wikipedia, with no prejudice against the creation of well-sourced articles that actually provide meaningful information on the newspapers (if that's possible). Huon (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon:I can see how one could think of them as organisations, but if it goes on about publishing - I mean how can you publish an organisation? Hence the confusion. Adam9007 (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me give an analogy: "Ford" commonly refers to the Ford Motor Company, which clearly is an organization; at the same time I can rent a Ford and drive it - how can I drive an organization? Anyway, as I said G11 also applied, so discussing whether those articles' subjects were organizations or not is somewhat moot. Huon (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huon, I was wondering if you might have a quick look at the information I added to the talk page of the Bill McDermott article? It describes the CEO's role in the Concur acquisition, and might help better frame his work and strategy at SAP for readers. Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you for any feedback. Harper70 (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Harper70[reply]

Hi Huon, thank you for reviewing these materials. I appreciate your feedback! All the best. Harper70 (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Harper70[reply]

The user:Adsafe you recently blocked was also almost certainly User:李建兴 who was indeff'd last July for the same reason. There was an SPI on him but obviously that's somewhat redundant now. Good work there. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	For keeping your cool with wikibreaking in #wikipedia-en-help, you deserve this. —UY Scuti Talk 11:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your trim of the DIN 1451 article - it definitely needed it. (I've been going through the typeface articles and trying to improve them recently but hadn't got to it yet.) If it's OK, I have put back some of the genuinely notable information in a pared down form (e.g. on FF DIN) and with the promotional language stripped out. Blythwood (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do wonder how reliable blogs and forum comments are as references, but FF DIN seems marginally more notable than the other varieties. Huon (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He asked me for assistance and I referred him back to OTRS as they are best equipped to help him. I don't want to interfere with however you are handling this situation. However, if you need any help dealing with this matter, please let me know. Gamaliel (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think there's anything that needs to be done here beyond the usual editing processes. If Fernandez needs someone to relay messages he should not leave himself (since he's blocked for sockpuppetry, apparently), I'll do that. Just to satisfy my curiosity, in what role do you offer help? Just as an experienced editor, or as ArbCom member? Huon (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, Arbcom has enough drama :) I have this on my watchlist (I think from seeing it on BLPN last year?) and I felt bad leaving it to others and walking away without at least offering assistance. I'm not sure what to do here though, it seems like everyone is digging in their heels and not listening. Gamaliel (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the offer. As I said, I don't think help is necessary here; there's quite a group of editors active on that article and its talk page. Huon (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Huon, thank you for the prompt explanation. I actually have a reference to Maverick Magazine, but I somehow left that sentence out—they reviewed Hilary Scott's latest album and included a cut from it on their October/September 2015 CD. Question: Do I include one reference for the review (online magazine) and another for the CD (included with the print edition)? If the review was also in the print edition, do I use just one reference? Also, there's a No Depression review of her album that I can include and cite. I am in the process of locating more print information from her overseas tours and will look for more information that is not interview-based. However, I think the Roots Music Report is a well-respected source—do I need to find support for that too? For instance, Dale Ann Bradley, Grammy nominee and 5-time IBMA female vocalist of the year, has a release where she thanks them for their ranking. Seems like someone at her level would only do that if the Roots Music Report was important. They collect weekly data from more than 100 radio stations worldwide. In addition, if I list radio stations that have the artist's songs in rotation, how do I support that? Last, it seems important to mention the other Hillary Scott from Lady Antebellum and establish this Hilary Scott's starting point. What is the best source for that? Noting the copyright date of albums? I appreciate your help. I really believe this artist is notable and meets more than one of the criteria that Wikipedia sets out for musicians.

Lincomo (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lincomo: Summarize in your own words what the Maverick Magazine review reports about Scott, cite the review as a reference for your summary. The No Depression review might help, depending on how much information about Scott it provides.

Regarding the Roots Music Report chart, I think that at the very least needs to be qualified. "The rootsmusicreport.com, which collects airplay data from radio stations across the globe ranked Scott's Flowers on Mars as the no. 2 pop album in 2014" - firstly, I do not think rootsmusicreport.com actively collects the data; they take whatever radio stations choose to deliver. That might give them all kinds of selection bias. Secondly, it's not "from radio stations across the globe", which reads as if Flowers on Mars was the second-most played pop album on the planet in 2014, something I don't expect you meant to imply. It's a chart meant only for radio stations that play root music, which will give significantly different results. To support statements on which radio stations played Scott's songs, you would need a third-party source that explicitly discusses her songs in rotation.

Regarding Hillary Scott and "establishing a starting point", I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Billboard says they might be confused, but does not say they actually have been confused, much less that such confusion is common. If by noting the copyright dates you mean to show that Hilary Scott was "first", I don't see how that could be considered relevant unless you can find a secondary source that considers it important enough to write about. Huon (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Huon, first of all, thanks for the unblock. I am quite new to wikipedia as a contributor so maybe you can help me out with a few answers. I am trying to set up a company profile for our business, however it was always deleted by administrators in the last years. Can you tell me what to consider when I set up a company profile? Thanks in advance. (18:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)) L.Stamm (talk)

@L.Stamm: Writing about your business on Wikipedia is discouraged due to the inherent conflict of interest (also, I'd be careful about calling it "our" business - that might be taken as an indication that your account is shared by multiple people, which is prohibited). Unfortunately I had to delete the article once again because there still was no indication that the company is notable or significant in any way (see WP:CSD#A7 for the relevant criterion for speedy deletion). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory; if you want to set up a company profile, LinkedIn may be better suited for your purposes. A Wikipedia article would require the company to have been written about in some detail by reliable third-party sources such as newspapers or reputable magazines (press releases do not count as third-party coverage; entries in business directories such as Bloomberg are not considered significant coverage). If such media coverage exists - and I haven't found any - I'd strongly advise you to use the Article Wizard to write a draft that summarizes what those sources report about the company and to submit that draft for a review by an experienced editor. Since the content of the article you wrote was not based on such sources and would have needed to be rewritten in its entirety, turning it into a draft would not have saved any work. Huon (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: Thanks for the long and helpful explanation. I do understand your point, however I think that Stonebranch has a clear competitive disadvantage since years. All other workload automation software companies have their wikipedia articles, unregardless of their company size and content e.g. Automic, VisualCron, Jams Scheduler,Flux etc. None of these companies provide any academic and/or cited information. I want like to know why do these companies get a chance to write an article and others not. If you have a closer look at the following article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_job_scheduler_software you will see that Stonebranch is the only company that doesnt get the chance to publish any information. This, some sort of "Gatekeeping" of certain information cant be the goal of wikipedia as a platform. I am looking forward to hear from you. Thanks in advance for your help. (L.Stamm (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)) L.Stamm (talk)[reply]

That list could do with some pruning; it's not true, however, that all other workload automation software companies have their Wikipedia articles. Of the specific examples you pointed out, I have proposed Automic for deletion; VisualCron, JAMS Scheduler and Flux cited at least some coverage in third-party sources and might be improved (I'm not interested enough in job scheduling software to do the necessary work myself). As an aside, if you consider the lack of a Wikipedia article a significant competitive disadvantage, you may want to reconsider your business model. Huon (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last September you PRODDED You Broadband. I deleted it later that month. Just notifying you that I just got a request to restore the article. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Now at WP:Articles for deletion/You Broadband. Huon (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Huon, thanks for the input concerning the sources. I now have included a lot of reliable sources that are independent of the subject with longer articles about the Lehrerpreis from newspapers such as die Süddeutsche, die Zeit, Berliner MOrgenpost, Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung, Spiegel online, Focus online and radio reports by for example the SWR and Bayrischer Rundfunk and TV reports by the ARD, BR and SWR. Please review it again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Germany's_teacher_of_the_year_award_%28Deutscher_Lehrerpreis%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.67.242.146 (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is correctly submitted for another review. As a matter of principle I do not review the same draft multiple times; it's better to get another pair of eyes to take a look. That said, you seem to cite all those news articles merely for the fact that they exist. For comparison, "Barack Obama is often reported about in the Washington Post,^[12][13] The New York Times,^[14][15][16] Los Angeles Times,^[17][18] and The Guardian.^[19][20]" - would that seem like useful information about Obama to you? Would you expect to read that in our article on Barack Obama? Instead, I'd advise you to summarize (in your own words) what those sources report about the Lehrerpreis and cite them for that summary. That will also allow you to easily determine what the draft should focus on: If despite all that media coverage you have to rely on primary sources for some part of the draft, that part probably is not all that significant and should be removed. Huon (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huon,

thanks for the feedback on my talk page just now! What I meant is that I left a request on the page where you leave requests for pages to be written by other more experienced editors, around 3-4 weeks ago, and guess I was wondering what the lead time was, if a request was successful that is. If that makes any sense!

Best Aung

Aung2015 (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply at your talk page to keep the conversation in one place. Huon (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for deleting the page ,I mistakenly made that( Wiki/RFA:Prompri) :) Promise-Animator,Scout & Participant in Olympiads (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Pokémon Barnstar
		Thanks for deltetion

@Prompri: I have deleted the page. If you have created a page by mistake, you can nominate it for speedy deletion by adding the code {{db-author}} (including the curly brackets) to the page; an admin will then delete it. Happy editing! Huon (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guten tag Huon, thanks for your interest in Elsa Peretti's page. If you see the edit history, you will see that user Ebaybe has done major edits to my contribution. Which is ok, but now I'd like to have the article comply with W's policies so that the alert tags can be removed. Please help in applying any changes necessary to achieve this goal. If not you, then please tell me exactly how to go about doing it myself. Thanks! --NPF-webmaster (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A few days ago I had asked you about an image that I was considering uploading to commons. I understand why you said not to, and I think you're right, but I went back to the M9 (railcar) page and it was actually uploaded a while ago. Should this be allowed? Thanks. RES2773 (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)RES2773[reply]

@RES2773: The image is already tagged for deletion and will be deleted by 12 February if no evidence of an appropriate license can be found. Thanks for letting me know. Huon (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: That's fine then. Should it continue to exist on the M9 Wiki page?

@RES2773: Well, the code remnants will need to be removed once the image is deleted, of course. Until then, it doesn't really matter much either way. As an aside, I get notified of edits to my talk page anyway, there's no need to ping me here (it doesn't hurt, though). Huon (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huon,

Thank you for the resources - I'll be sure to review. And big thanks for the warm welcome! Couldn't have come at a better time because it appears I've done something wrong but I'm not quite sure what it is that I've done wrong. I sent a message to support via email and when I came back to Wiki I realized another edit was tagged for possible vandalism. I did make a few errors when adding links but I'm not sure if this triggered the tag. Or perhaps they're tagged for some other reason. To be frank I'm fumbling my way around and I could use some guidance. If you wouldn't mind and if you have a moment could you review my edits and explain why the edits triggered the tag? I want to make sure I don't make the same mistakes going forward. For the time being, I'm going to refrain from making any edits - I don't want to get banned before I truly get started.

Big thanks!

GraceMassaLanglois (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GraceMassaLanglois: Those are automated tags added by edit filters. They are meant to notify human editors who check recent changes of possible issues. When those editors review your contributions they'll find you made helpful changes in good faith (thanks for improving the reference at Revitalise!); the edit filter is not perfect, and these tags are false positives. So there's nothing to worry about. While as an admin I technically have access to the edit filter's code and could look up what those edits were tagged for, it's best to not go into that detail because otherwise the filter would also be easy to evade by the real vandals, making it more difficult to catch that real vandalism. I apologize for the inconvenience, but as long as the false positives are rare enough, we'll have to live with them. Huon (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huon, I received a response from OVH's technical support and they confirmed to me that the IPv6 2001:41d0:fe59:c200::/56 range is owned by OVH Télécom.--Mewp- (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you obviously are able to edit. As an aside, if "owned by OVH Télécom" is supposed to mean "not owned by OVH SAS the webhosting service, I'd be very interested in why the latter shows up on Whois, and what IP range the latter actually uses if not this one. I am not, however, a specialist in determining what is and what isn't a rangeblock; you may want to contact Elockid. Huon (talk) 08:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can edit when I'm at work. The problem is that I can not edit from home. Also, I didn't mean that OVH Télécom was not owned by OVH SAS. I meant that OVH Télécom is not a webhosting service that is owned by a webhosting company. As a client of OVH Télécom, you don't have access to any of their webhosting services. It's just a regular residential internet access service with DSL/VOIP telephony services.Mewp- (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I haven't become any more of an expert on distinguishing between webhosting service IPs and "regular ISP" IPs. Secondly, the WHOIS results for OVH Télécom and OVH SAS obviously differ, with your IP showing the latter. The presumption that the reason for the difference is the different use of IP addresses seems reasonable to me. Huon (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you, along with Mike V and OhNoitsJamie have been doing a lot of work dealing with the socks of banned vandal I Love Bridges. I think I may have caught two more accounts that should be investigated. 166.198.225.68 (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you notify me about one account which is blocked already and was blocked for hours before you tagged them, and one which never edited at all. I'm sure you can explain why you think those accounts might be socks of that blocked editor. Huon (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that the two accounts may be socks of the blocked editor. While I cannot speak for the other user, I've been following the I Love Bridges case from a similar location (hence the similar IP address, just FYI), and the evidence that I would present is that the editor is using one account to attack Wikipedia because he's angry about what has happened, and he created the other account and has not edited because he knows that if he does edit from his normal location, he would be blocked. I wouldn't be surprised if some contributions appeared once he is in a different location. This may be an adequate situation to request CheckUser. 166.197.157.155 (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be blunt for a moment: You are not fooling anybody here. We're just not that stupid. I rather hope both accounts are your socks because accusing random other editors of being you is despicable. Huon (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting to update references until skate Canada confirms details of the city and location Wifey93 (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're telling me. All I did was fix a broken <ref> tag and correct another reference's name. Is there anything I may help you with? Huon (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		I can't thank you enough for taking the time to actual sort through my userpage, and align them as I envisioned. :) Boomer VialHolla 01:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! It worked overnight. [1] Thank you again. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  09:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you recently blocked User:Justice for Alexiulian see his edits history and how much he contribute for Wikipedia, now he has returned as IP (again), could you please block 193.9.21.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? Qed237 (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by Smalljim. Huon (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huon, I updated the entry for Ken Hunzeker and added the citations as you suggested. Can you please review for me? Thank you. Grhynedance (talk) 16:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huon, who do you suspect this guy is? Looks like he reverted your revert, so naturally I'm curious. Thx. Cyphoidbomb (talk)

@Cyphoidbomb: That's a sock of User:Nkapoor21, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nkapoor21/Archive. At Karan Singh Grover unfortunately it's very likely that any new account will be someone's sock. Huon (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, great, thanks, Huon. Yeah, that KSG article is CRAZY attractive. Virtually every name in the last 500 edits is crossed out. Whew! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Huon,
I see you have blocked this editor. I don't know how he came to your attention but I've been dealing with articles and categories that he's created, including his claim that Kumasi International Airport in Ghana was a "spaceport" (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight#Spaceports for their response) and how it was part of Ghana's space program. Check out how he altered the Kumasi article, a city in Ghana but, according to Boqino, to now be "the capital city of city-state Ashanti situated on the semi-island exclave Ashantiland". This is the first time I think it would be appropriate to do a mass revert of his edits but before pushing that button, I wanted to get the opinion of a more experienced administrator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified of this mess via OTRS. Mass revert seems entirely appropriate, but I don't have any experience with that myself. I assume even then this will require an awful lot of manual cleanup. If you can do the mass revert, I'd be glad. Huon (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I pressed the big red button. Delete! I'm sure I'll be getting messages soon if this screwed things up for other editors. Or if someone just found it irritating or unnecessary. Thanks for the support. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Manhyia Palace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asante. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huon, noticed that you kept reverting the correction made to Ensogo page back to the previous version. The information is no longer valid and the Headquarters of Ensogo is trying to update it. Please do no correct it anymore. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.147.98.114 (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Kindly check the talk page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Farman_Nawaz_Khan. Especially the 'References about Farman Nawaz Khan' and 'Distinction of Farman Nawaz Khan' Sneha Hurrain (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at the deletion discussion. Huon (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hello I have improved the thing please tell me new mistakes :) :) :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amer zaffar01 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been reviewed, and the reviewer has left detailed comments. Personally I'd say making sure that the content is based on what the sources report still is an issue. Huon (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You just blocked this user. However, one of the many problem edits he made was this. Considering the defamatory nature of it, perhaps it should be revdel'd? - ^theWOLFchild 09:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oversighted by someone else. Huon (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 21:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, two other editors have quoted the offending comment on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Peyton Manning...again. Should they stand or at least be redacted? - ^theWOLFchild 22:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's just one editor now (see: User talk:Tracescoops#FYI), but the question still stands. - ^theWOLFchild 23:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that needed work, WP:OVERSIGHT would be the way to go. Personally I don't think anything needs to be done there, but I'll ask an oversighter for a second opinion. Huon (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. By the way, this is the outstanding edit I'm referring to. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 00:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...I had another question, (if you don't mind). If a user page looks like a BLP and/or promotional page, should it be reported? And if so, where? Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 23:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the contributions, this looks like a good-faith (though possibly misguided) editor to me. Have you tried leaving a note at their talk page and explaining your concerns? If it's supposed to be a draft, it should be moved into draftspace; otherwise it might be necessary to slap a "This is a userpage, not an article" tag on it. If you think it's entirely unsuitable, there are WP:CSD#U5 and WP:MFD. Huon (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's likely just a good faith mistake. That said, the page is set up as a BLP, but it's about them. Apparently they're a photographer by trade and they're basically advertising that. I mentioned it on their talk page last week, but no change. I then posted it on BLPN, they replied, but still no change. I guess I'll try some of your other suggestions. Cheers. - ^theWOLFchild 00:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might I recommend checking this out, in regards to the Snugglebear sock that was blocked earlier this week. Now it seems three accounts have opened up and it's feeling too much like a ducky situation to me. livelikemusic talk! 04:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May be Mikemikev, see my talk page. Doug Weller talk 15:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huon,

Thanks a lot for approving my unblock and change username request. Therefore is it possible if I can edit and recreate the Philippines Urban Living Solutions article again? it was tag "This page is protected from creation, so only administrator can create it." Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_Urban_Living_Solutions

Joefertan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joefertan (talk • contribs) 05:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joefertan: I would strongly advise you to stay away from writing about your company. The last three attempts were deleted as spam. That's an indication that due to your conflict of interest you find it too difficult to write neutrally. Huon (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon:Hi Huon, thanks for your reply. This is the first time I am uploading on wikipedia and i wasn't entirely aware of the wiki guidelines, apologies for that. Our company is genuinely trying to comply and we have taken the wiki's comments on board. The story is totally neutral now and I'd sincerely hope you can have a look at the current story and let me know if it meets the wiki requirements. Any suggestions on the story are very welcome. Thanks, Joefer

@Huon:Hi Huon, Can you give us an update?

@Joefertan: I'm sorry, but I cannot tell what I should comment on. There currently does not seem to be a draft that I could take a look at. The latest version that was deleted was still blatantly promotional and a de facto advertisement. If you considered that version totally neutral, that's a strong indication that your conflict of interest is too strong to write about your company on Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huon,

Hope you're well. Since you've been such a reliable editor on the Bill McDermott page, I was wondering if you might glance at the SAP SE page? I've been working with the community to reword the promotional phrasing on the S/4 section. Changes have been accepted/made. However, the banner above the section remains. Would you be inclined to remove the banner -- now that the tone is more objective? If not, which further edits would you recommend or make? Many thanks! Harper70 (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Harper70[reply]

 Done Huon (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help yesterday re Thomas Hopson. Sorry about the carets instead of tildes; a combination of old age, tired eyes, late night and foreign keyboard. Disambiguation page now submitted for review. But I don't understand why even submitting that says that a page titled Thomas Hopson already exists; it doesn't - only Peregrine Hopson does. Macquants (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Macquants: You could have edited the redirect and directly turned it into a disambiguation page without the need to create a draft. I have now accepted the draft and added links so people looking for either "Thomas Hopson" can easily find the relevant article. Huon (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I'm not quite sure how I could have edited directly, since I couldn't find a way to the "Thomas Hopson" page; my attempts to access that to edit it just ended up with Peregrine. But maybe I'll worry about it when I have to do another similar task. Thanks for the help, sorry to take up your time unnecessarily. Macquants (talk) 07:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you get redirected, at the top of the target page you'll find a note that says something along the lines of "Redirected from Thomas Hopson" - following that link will bring you to the redirect page itself. You can try William Clinton as an example; the redirect itself is here and can be edited just like any other article (though I'd ask you not to actually save any changes to the Clinton redirect if you're merely trying it out). Huon (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and BeenAroundaWhile for helping me with this. I felt like nobody was hearing how unfair this situation had become, but you have renewed may optimism. I am working on a new page, and will incorporate only parts of the content determined to be weak. I won't repost until it complies.

In the meantime, I want to investigate how to keep Ktown from doing this again, considering that this is a known pattern of behavior. Any suggestions? Does this rise to the level of administrative intervention? Things are so ugly now, I don't want to make it worse, but we need to protect our page from this kind of suppression.

WayBackHomes (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you blocked 86.138.29.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), most probably for continuing the activities of 81.158.100.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who I had just blocked. It's likely that they'll change IP again, but it's my bedtime. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a rebuttal with more links to support my request. I'm not sure if you are automatically alerted, so I'm sorry if I'm telling you something you already know/saw. I'm new to the whole Wikipedia editor thing and just want to proceed the way I'm supposed to. The rebuttal is on my talk page, please let me know if there's another Avenue I'm supposed to take.