User talk:Huon/Archive30

Many thanks for your help re. Sandbox and 'Publish' button. --Twirl73 (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Casma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Commodore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out with the problem contributions at Smart highway, Huon. The same user has returned with this edit under a different URL. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Coleraine Grammar School logo 2017.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) 03:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User Horrorhistorian (first edit 28 Oct 2018) appears to be Nickolaus Albert Pacione (NickolausPacione, Np1976, Plagiarismwatcher316, Unclefossil720) who was blocked 14 Oct 2015 by administrations NawlinWiki, Huon and MaxSem after a decade of abuses under different user names. He has been particularly active at Fan fiction and Edison Records. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Naaman Brown: I will take a look if I have the time, but it would be better to list such issues at WP:Sockpuppet investigations. That way, you can be sure they'll be dealt with without having to rely on individual admins that might no longer be as active as they were three years ago. Huon (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Dear Huon, what do you think? His indefinite ban is deserved? He created another user indeed, but only to comment about his situation (it was just a line, a proposition; with his new user he didn't revert just comment on his page, could have done that via IP but maybe he wanted to be hidden). He was blocked for 36 hours or so, even the admin who banned him agreed that he might be unblocked according to the opinions of the others. Holstebro is not a vandal, he was on Wikipedia for years and simply these two handball users didn't agree and they reverted and reverted. Cotillards‎ is also a little bit too aggressive, reporting people for almost nothing.

I don't deny your work and authority (I also talked to BBB123) but Holstebro is here for ŽRK Budućnost Podgorica and loves handball and Wikipedia. He is not a vandal and was blocked for only 36 hours for his first time. The user Cotillards‎ is slightly different than us and wants to have the last word. He also reverted my edits, even after I brought sources, but I agreed with him at the end. They are just two users who don't want to lose. Please look again, his sockpuppet MNEfan111 only has 1 edit (a comment on his talk page, maybe he didn't read the policy of Wikipedia and wanted to defend himself). Can you give him maybe another chance, please? His contribution was still important for a famous handball club.

I talked to him and I am sure he will read the policy of Wikipedia. He didn't even know what's sockpuppetry. He looks just emotional to me, not dangerous and a vandal how he's called now. Can't we just educate him? Regards, Christina--Christina (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christina, I can only echo what Bbb23 said: Holstebro is lashing out instead of taking responsibility for their own conduct. The "You can't prove that it wasn't someone else who intervened in my dispute while sharing my technical data and my editing idiosyncrasies" defense is so old that we have a humorous essay about it. That's not ignorance of Wikipedia's policies, that's deliberate obfuscation. I think an indefinite ban is indeed deserved; "indefinite" doesn't mean "infinite", but with this conduct I do not think the block should be lifted. Huon (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you confirm MNEfan111 is surely his sockpuppet? It's really funny indeed. Although I still believe his indefinite block is too harsh, since the dispute wasn't something incredible. A 2-3 week ban in my opinion would have been necessary and explanation of the Wikipedia policy. You know what will now result: sockpuppetries. Then other reports and so on, other time for the admins. His case simply lacks importance with no real bad intention. Instead of educating them, some admins will create more mess. We all humans after all and Holstebro was really quiet in Wikipedia for years. --Christina (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christina, what would you consider confirmation? I do not have access to the technical evidence, but I see no reason to doubt Bbb23's assessment. Even with the technical evidence, can I absolutely rule out that some other person wrote that message using Holstebro's internet connection (and likely his device)? No, obviously we can't tell what person uses a computer. However, even Holstebro's own account of what happens confirms "meatpuppetry", that is, a second person is editing for the sole purpose of agreeing with Holstebro. Bringing in one's real-life friends to gain numerical superiority in a dispute on Wikipedia is not OK. There are also the discrepancies between Holstebro's account and Bbb23's findings that don't help Holstebro's case.

I have tried to point Holstebro towards how he should have proceeded in case of such a dispute; I don't see any acknowledgement of problems with Holstebro's conduct nor any indication that he wouldn't act in the same way again if unblocked. Thus an indefinite block clearly is preventative and thus warranted. Huon (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't really think Holstebro is right after all of his childess behaviour. Bbbb23 is very experienced admin, I just wanted to be sure he didn't treat the matter superficially (because of lack of time or with speed). I hope Holstebro will have a chance to be unblocked, and just to serve a definite ban. Regards, Christina--Christina (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huon, thank you for responding to my request for help improving a draft article. I posted a follow-up on my talk page, if you are willing to offer more help.Millipede (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huon, I'm not sure about the etiquette of pinging, IRC, etc., nor am I confident I know how to do those things, so I posted a thank-you (and a couple of follow-up questions for you) on the Millipede talk page, when you have time and if you are inclined to keep helping me. Millipede (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Millipede, pinging is easy: When you write a message, add a link to the user page of the user you want to ping (as I did here) and sign the post (pings don't work when your signature isn't added in the same edit). The code should look something like this:

[[User:Example]], I wanted to tell you this... ~~~~

There are some templates that make things look a little nicer, like {{ping|Username}} (where Username should be the name of the user you want to ping), but they just add some formatting to the link to the userpage that's the important part.

IRC is a little more complicated; it's a live chat where you can usually find some helper willing to give advice or lend a hand, but if you want to talk to a specific editor, the person you want to talk to may not be around at the time you go looking for them (and many editors don't use IRC at all). There's also no on-wiki record of IRC conversations. WP:IRC explains a little more about IRC.

I'll reply to your main questions on your talk page to keep the conversation in one place. Huon (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I can't move this stadium anymore. The old stadium is now demolished, so it should be only named Stadionul Steaua. [To be renamed Thanks! Christina

And this Stadionul Tudor Vladimirescu (2018) to this please Stadionul Tudor Vladimirescu. Thx

@Cristina neagu: I'm sorry, but I do not think that's a good idea at this time. Stadionul Tudor Vladimirescu (2018) says the stadium was "Inaugurated in 2019", but the sources are from 2015, 2016 and 2017 and thus cannot confirm that claim. Has this stadium really been inaugurated yet? I cannot tell; the news sources I found only spoke of delay after delay and of a lack of funds (e.g. [1]). Is it - after at most a month of use - already so much more significant than the previous stadium that stood for more than 50 years? That seems doubtful. The situation is even worse for Stadionul Steaua (2020) which not only isn't in use yet, but where construction of the foundations hasn't even started yet, while the demolished one served to host many games of the national team. I do not think the stadium that isn't even being built yet is the primary topic. For now the disambiguation pages seem a better solution. If you disagree, you're welcome to start a discussion as explained at WP:Requested moves. Huon (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a very good idea. Tudor Vladimirescu will be 100% inaugurated this year. It's already finished. You have to understand a thing, in Romania all the old stadiums are usually demolished! They don't exist anymore. These teams play at different arenas now, temporary. Could you help me please with this? Thanks a lot Christina (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: See? Demolished] and demolished. The constructions are at the same sites. Christina (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Tudor Vladimirescu Christina (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand that the old stadiums have been demolished. We have plenty of articles on structures that don't exist any more. But are the new ones already in use? The answers that I could find were "not as of September 2018, when they were looking for another 5 million Euro" and "it's not even being built, and they just announced a big design change as of yesterday". So what's the primary topic, a stadium that stood for decades and hosted important games before it was demolished, or one that is still a figment of the architects' imagination? I'd go with the former. For Tudor Vladimirescu the situation is less clear because there construction indeed seems mostly finished - but, again, I could find no evidence that it actually has been inaugurated. If you now say that it "will be inaugurated this year" but hasn't been yet, then the article is currently wrong and should be fixed. It can't hurt to wait until it actually has been inaugurated before moving the pages. Huon (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What if we move only Tudor Vladimirescu? It's finished and the local team will play again on it just in some weeks. The other we will leave this way. The local team anyway isn't playing on the old one anymore since it's demolished. In Romania we keep the same sites, in the US or UK is a little bit different. Christina (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What if we wait for reliable sources that confirm that the new stadium is in use? Huon (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gold, God and glory. Since you had some involvement with the Gold, God and glory redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for your help cleaning up the botched move on Talk:Gender binarism, I had no idea what happened there! SITH (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huon, I just wanted to let you know that the help/protected edit request you answered at Talk:List of government space agencies#Help request was made by a sock puppet of indefinitely blocked editor Shingling334 (talk · contribs). Normally I revert their edits per WP:BMB, unless doing so would damage Wikipedia, to try to discourage further sock puppetry. But since you made the edit, I'm asking if you want to take responsibility for it and let it stand... thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IamNotU, thanks for letting me know; I didn't check the editor's credentials. That said, Turkey has a new space agency. Updating the page thus seems reasonable enough to me; reverting the update would make the page worse. I'm willing to take responsibility for that edit. Huon (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem, just wanted to check it with you... --IamNotU (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Award Edit

Could one of these be used instead of the Marquis press release:

https://wwlifetimeachievement.com/2018/12/12/carol-smallwood

http://momeggreview.com/2019/01/14/currents-announcement-award-for-smallwood/

http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/4122617

Your other objections have been cleared by other volunteers or you; thank you for your clean up help!

Carol Smallwood (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have made this request in multiple places. To keep the conversation together and in a place where others interested in the article about you will see it, I'll reply at Talk:Carol Smallwood. Huon (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing me with the basics for editing Wikipedia. (I was origionally Frogger 48, but I changed my username.)

ABCD5798 (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Crywryterpr (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:John Imah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Huon,

Thank you for the feedback on the 'Draft: John Imah' page. Everything you mention makes sense, including types of articles referenced, wording, etc. In term of my username, John Imah is not my client at all. Moving forward, I will disclose whether something is related to PR or not when/if I submit something to Wikipedia. Thank you and have a great day/evening! Crywryterpr (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crywryterpr (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you deleted the page City Journal (Thrissur) citing WP:A7. The article was about a daily newspaper published from Thrissur, Kerala, India. The newspaper is notable for being the only English-language newspaper published from the state of Kerala. I would like to have the article undeleted. I will add some details and sources to the page. Thanks. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The daily print newspaper seems to be extinct; at least its web address has been taken over by someone else. There were no independent sources for either that publication or the website that now uses the web address. The only English newspaper that was popular in Kerala was The Hindu. If you have reliable sources, you're welcome to present them here and I'll take a look; otherwise you can opt for WP:Deletion review. I'm not going to undelete the page as-is. Huon (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the newspaper is defunct now. The website started in 2011 is also not functioning any more. City Journal is notable in Kerala's journalism history for being the first and only English newspaper published from the state. I strongly believe this fact makes it notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry. If you are not undeleting the page, okay. But can you do a favour of sharing the contents of what was written in the page? So that I can search for online references? (I guess that is possible for administrators??) FYKI: The Hindu has editions in four Kerala cities but it is based in an published from Madras. Also there are other English language newspapers like The New Indian Express, Deccan Chronicle and The Times of India that has editions in Kerala but is published from elsewhere. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can give you either the last version of the deleted page on the print newspaper (which apparently existed for only a few years) or the more recent content on the website that now uses the same web address. I haven't found a reliable source that confirmed the claim of "first and only English newspaper published from the state". I found that the Western Star was published in Cochin in 1860, though, preceding the City Journal by a century and a half. Huon (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong then in claiming City Journal to be the only English newspaper. I did not think of the possibility that during the British period, naturally there must be a few English newspapers published in the state. And the article you shared rightly mentions about some like Travancore Herald. City Journal if I remember right had a tagline that it is the first English newspaper in the state. They must be right too as the state was formed in 1956 only and by then the British era papers were long gone. Please share the last version of the deleted page that I can see what was being included in it and possibly search for additional sources to establish the notability of the page. Malayala Sahityam (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the page at User:Malayala Sahityam/City Journal (Thrissur). The latest revision about the print newspaper is this. Neither that revision nor the very latest one claim significance, and they don't mention any "first in Kerala" claims. Good luck finding third-party sources that cover the newspaper(s) in any detail. Huon (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.222.212 (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I would like to thank you, you are the best team worker. MalayaliWoman (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're an administrator, right? What must I do to become auto confirmed? Does an administrator like you have to approve me, or do I gain the right automatically to make sure I'm not a spam bot or something? Please, I just want to create an article, I have a lot to learn. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woshiyiweizhongguoren, you can use the Article Wizard to create a draft and submit it for a review by an experienced editor. Your account will become autoconfirmed automatically once you have made ten edits and it's four days old, but for new editors creating their first article I'd still recommend creating a draft and going through the review process; writing a new article is not an easy task, and where a draft reviewer will give feedback, a live article might be tagged for deletion instead. Huon (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! Woshiyiweizhongguoren (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Huon! Thank you for your prompt response for my chat and reviewing my article. I understand your comment on my article that it needs to wait till reviews after the film release. I feel giving accurate information to public is important. And this draft: Avalakki Pavalakki is a regional Kannada film that is going to release soon. I have provided enough references about the film updates and i would like reconsider this article for Submission. I agree that I properly took initiative in enquiring about this film and it's making more sound on Karnataka- India now a days. Susiprasad (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Susiprasad, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or cinema guide. The current sources aren't sufficient to write an encyclopedia article about the film; several didn't seem reliable to me (in fact, some reproduced the same text, a clear indication that they're based on a common source, likely the film crew), and several others merely said "Person X wrote the music". When the film is released better sources may be written that actually provide meaningful information about the film. Huon (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]