User talk:Huon/Archive21

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you so much Huon for your assistance in fixing the graph for the page, HIV/AIDS in New York City! Thank you thank you thank you! BrillLyle (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Letterboxtv

Keeps removing the declined block notice from talk page. I've explained that was one of the few things that couldn't be removed, but he's not having it. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks a lot for your quick help! I will try now to upload the club logo correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bud1977 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request on hold

11 days ago you placed an unblock request at User talk:Lpouzenc on hold, but the blocking administrator (Elockid) has not edited since 6 July. Is it time to decide the matter one way or another now, with or without a response from Elockid? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

JamesBWatson: I'm not quite sure what's the best way forward. Apparently some small parts of that blocked IP range are not used for webhosting, but the larger remainder is. Blocking "around" those small parts would be rather difficult. Huon (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

TeeTylerToe ‎

Please reconsider TTT block. TTT is attempting to delete his talk page. He is obviously trying to hide what has happen from future editors. So he can resume where he left off. He also has taken a shot on User talk:Ohnoitsjamie page.--RAF910 (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, please check your talk page history and read TTT comments which he quickly deleted. TTT should be permanently blocked.--RAF910 (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I expect Ohnoitsjamie can determine on his own whether the comments left on their talk page require action. The self-reverted comment on my own talk page does not. TeeTylerToe is entirely within their rights to remove the old content on their talk page. I told them in no uncertain terms it would be best to move on; the same goes for you. If problems recur, another block may indeed be in order, but let's hope that turns out to be unnecessary. Huon (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank You for your attention.--RAF910 (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• NEW...I'm sorry to say that, TTT has resumed his forum shopping and edit warring in regard to his Assault rifle edits. First on the Talk:Assault rifle & Assault rifle, then on the Stg 44 & Talk:StG 44 pages. And now, on the Comparison of the AK-47 and M16 & Talk:Comparison of the AK-47 and M16 pages. Where he is again trying to push the same narrative. Where he has again removed referenced information and replaced it with unreferenced information, which he piggy-backed on existing references. I have not reverted said edits, as I fear that he is again trying to trick me into and edit war which he will again blame on me. As he attempted the same trick and accusations on User:Starke Hathaway, see Talk:StG 44 page--RAF910 (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANI is a more appropriate place to discuss this issue than my talk page. If you think TeeTylerToe's edits require intervention, please report his conduct there. If you do so, don't forget to notify them of that discussion. Huon (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

You were mentioned at ANI

Hi Huon, just a quick note that Nazcheema has mentioned you on ANI. It's not yet an actionable report -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 08:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

What is and isn't tag teaming?

I inexplicably hadn't heard about this policy before but I noticed that it was being discussed on ani. It got me wondering what is and isn't tag teaming. For instance, say three editors went so far as to declare that they would participate in tag teaming, and then went on to carry out their plan by making 5 reverts on one article in 24 hours. How would that not be tag teaming? Open and shut. To quote the movie zoolander, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Sorry to dig this up again, but what the heck's going on? Do I need someone in a car park to tell me follow the money or something?TeeTylerToe (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Try WP:GANG, WP:CIRCUS, or WP:FACTION. 18:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC) _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@TeeTylerToe: Apparently you think that your lone opinion should be given equal weight to that of multiple other editors: There can be no consensus unless you agree to it, and until you agree the article should not show the content everybody else is ok with. That's not quite how it works. If people were to "declare that they would participate in tag teaming", that would be a serious issue, but I haven't seen the inappropriate collusion you assert. Just because multiple people disagree with you they don't necessarily form a cabal. Huon (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

"your lone opinion... equal weight" That brings up one thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assault_rifle&diff=728574831&oldid=728557889 From July 3 to July 6th I worked to develop consensus with herr gruber. Over time I developed a published book source, an NRA journal, popular mechanics, and 8 other links supporting my position. I also found common ground with Herr Gruber. Ever since then people don't seem to be willing to admit that this happened. Some other things to keep in mind, editors unwilling to allow disputed tags to stay on articles that are actively disputed, who go to extreme measures to remove not only article dispute tags but even dubious tags on sentences in articles.

"If people were to "declare that they would participate in tag teaming", that would be a serious issue, but I haven't seen the inappropriate collusion you assert." That brings us to my question. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Materialscientist&diff=prev&oldid=729395956 That in connection with actions backing up those words wouldn't be concerning in any way? That makes me wonder what would constitute tag teaming? If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck...TeeTylerToe (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You brought up that edit to Materialscientist's talk page before. There's no evidence (or even indication) of inappropriate conduct there. That's one editor announcing what he will do. There's also a prediction of what others will do, but that doesn't make it tag-teaming. If Pete had gone to some other editor's talk page and written something like, "TeeTylerToe needs reverting at this-and-that page, can you help me?", then there would be cause for concern. On the other issue, I don't see that your edit implements what you and Herr Gruber agreed on - at least, not just that. Or where in the talk page discussion did I miss the consensus to remove sources? Huon (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

So a group of editors in premeditated actions operating as a group to circumvent 3rr restrictions is perfectly fine as long as they say "I will participate in this tactic" but it's not OK if they say "I will participate in this tactic, I know other editors will participate in it, and in the past they have participated in it, so even though I know you will participate in it and even though I just stated that your participation is assumed, please participate in this thing that I just said I knew you already would be participating in." That's the line? I was going to tell you that if you had some time and wanted a laugh to ask certain people their definition of what the first of a certain thing was, but I'm not sure they can top that. And, you know, what would violating it in action be? Knowingly and in a premeditated manner violating the policy in action? I guess I just don't understand it. I guess "we didn't explicitly plan it on wikipedia even though we violated the spirit and the word in action." is a perfectly reasonable excuse speaking of course in generalities. The article has at times struck me as being overreferenced, and a lot of the references are stretched beyond breaking, they'll put 5 references saying that the stg-44 uses the 7.92 kurz but nothing else, and they'll use those references for a sentence saying that the 7.92 kurz was a revolutionary cartridge, something not supported by any of the five different references. But in general I don't really care about the references, iirc what I was doing was changing things saying, for instance, "the stg-44 was the first AR, was first used in ww2", so on, and if you're talking about the references I removed in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assault_rifle&diff=728566827&oldid=728521539 I did that because, particularly the the atlantic article didn't support the things that were referenced. I removed the sentence about ARs being first used in WW2 although I'd be fine with a statement saying that whether ARs were first used in ww2 is disputed. Maybe I should have simply done that in the first place. But the atlantic article doesn't support a lot of the things that it was cited as a reference for in the article, in some cases in entirety, in other cases I guess it supports some parts but not others. I think out of the ~13 the atlantic references I removed someone might be able to make an argument that I was wrong on one, and there might be a partial argument on two or three others. Not to mention that generally the atlantic article seems to be a pop history article that says, for instance, that a tilting bolt rifle is a clone of a rotating bolt rifle... although I suppose they could be using a very very very very very loose interpretation of clone, and in general it's more of a broad strokes article. But I do stand by, and I can support I believe a more than comfortable majority of the the atlantic references that I removed. I guess I should have tried to build consensus around that at the time but, at the time, I was more focused on the overall balance of the article.TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Take your very first sentence: "So a group of editors in premeditated actions operating as a group to circumvent 3rr restrictions..." - there is no evidence that has happened. I'd seriously advise you to drop this. Making accusations of that kind without evidence - and I dare predict no one at, say, WP:AN/I would accept the one diff you keep bandying about as evidence for the assertions you make - is considered a personal attack. You're basically spending the time you're topic-banned from the assault rifle article and its talk page to complain about the other editors on my talk page. That's not a good prospect for things to come. If you're unable to assume good faith even of editors who disagree with and revert you, you'll soon find yourself blocked again. Huon (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess I just have to accept that nothing matters as long as it's not explicitly and actively discussed on wikipedia beforehand. Neither actions no intent matter. Working together to circumvent the three revert rule doesn't matter. Ninja editing doesn't matter. Consensus blocking doesn't matter. Working together to circumvent the three revert rule doesn't matter. Reluctance to work towards compromise, or to follow Wikipedia dispute resolution processes doesn't matter. Tag team members will often write affirmations of support for other tag team members in order to make it appear that a community consensus exists doesn't matter. Harassment and intimidation tactics doesn't matter. Pushing a certain point of view in disregard of the neutral point of view policy either by giving too little or too much exposure to a specific viewpoint as determined by applicable Wikipedia policies, or by imposing or blocking edits that advance or suppress particular points of view doesn't matter. A related problem is ownership of articles. In theory, no one editor or group of editors owns an individual Wikipedia article doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if one editor declares their intention to participate in something as a group and the goes on to participate in a group action that might or might not be in contravention of something. I guess it's just that simple even though I still don't quite understand it. Not to mention how much room is there to assume good faith when someone says that they'll work with others to circumvent restrictions on number of reverts? Oh well. Sorry, and thanks for your patience and understanding. That can sometimes be more difficult to find than one might think.TeeTylerToe (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I see no point in continuing this discussion. If you do not want to take my advice and drop the stick, bring it up at WP:AN and see what the wider community thinks of this issue. If I see another post like the above on my talk page without evidence in the forms of diffs backing it up, I'll re-block you for personal attacks. Huon (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. Sorry to have belabored this.TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Duck?

I had asked Versace1608 a question, and he seems to get peppered by a lot of NN Nigerian artists using WP for self-promo. He got a message from User:DJ Kentalky regarding DJ kentalky, an article that was speedied under the properly-capped title and you blocked its creator User:Patricia marco david here for being a sock. I find it hard to believe that editors on the same NN article aren't related, so I wanted to find out if an SPI was needed here or if DUCK was sufficient to request a block. MSJapan (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Versace1608 has quite a history at Wikipedia, with almost 20,000 edits over a couple of years. Even at a very quick glance I get the impression that his edits are based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as should be expected from an editor of their experience. If there's no other evidence against Versace1608 beyond who edits their talk page, I don't think DUCK applies. Those who patrol NN pages also edit them, and African music seems to be one of Versace1608's areas of interest. Huon (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"Please grab stick by other end." :) Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear - I meant DJ Kentalky is a sock of Patricia marco david because of the article focus. I only happened to find both of them on Versace's page after the fact. MSJapan (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, that makes more sense, sorry about the misunderstanding. Yes, blocked (that's User:Kentalky, though User:DJ Kentalky also exists). Huon (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Purging

Is there a quicker way of getting Category:Wikipedians looking for help to reload? I use an external service to patrol the category, and the distance between the user asking for help and the talk page turning up in the category is often hours.--Launchballer 21:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

There's a bot that provides a list of active help requests in an IRC channel (namely, #wikipedia-en-helpers) every ten minutes, or immediately on request. That's what I use. Huon (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I keep getting redirected to #wikipedia-overflow, what can I do to prevent this?--Launchballer 21:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The helper channel is somewhat restricted to prevent trolls and the like from joining. If you have a Wikipedia cloak, that would help. As an alternative I could try to invite you, but that's not a permanent solution; a channel op may help. Those can be found in #wikimedia-ops. Huon (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I tried it again today and I still keep getting redirected from #wikimedia-ops to #wikipedia-overflow. For step two of "Nickname Registration", where do I put "/msg NickServ REGISTER password youremail@example.com"--Launchballer 11:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

That should work from any channel on Freenode, including #wikipedia-overflow. It will send a private message to NickServ, the automated nickname service built into Freenode. Huon (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, now why is it telling me I am banned? I don't remember doing anything wrong.--Launchballer 09:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Launchballer: Maybe you're running into a throttling mechanism; there was some massive trolling recently, and access was restricted to so-and-so many new chatters per minute. You can simply try again and may succeed on a subsequent attempt. Huon (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I have since been able to get in.--Launchballer 19:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No unblock requests by proxy

Can you point me to the relevant passage in a guideline that discusses this? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The most explicit source I can point to is the template documentation: This template may be used by a blocked user or IP address to request a review of the block... Remember to replace "your reason here" with why you think you should be unblocked. And so on, and so forth. The template clearly is meant to be used by the blocked user, not by others on their behalf. If you think an admin erred in blocking another account, WP:ANI is the appropriate venue to discuss that admin's actions, not the blocked user's talk page. Huon (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking me.

Thanks for unblocking me. Johnsc1277 (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks huon to wikipediaor the tip for sanghamitra bharali , since i m new here i would love iit if someone can help me in getting that article stick to wikipedia Worldnpeace (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cavendish logo 2015.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cavendish logo 2015.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help with the OER repository. In due time let's look again... Imageneer (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Whittier Bridge

Hi. Do you have some objection to having an article about the Whittier Bridge in Massachusetts, or just to its creator(s)? I mean the bridge is there; I drove over it a couple of weeks ago. Refs:

• http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/whittierbridge/ProjectOverview.aspx
• http://www.newburyportnews.com/news/local_news/demolition-of-old-whittier-bridge-begins/article_aefee4bf-d4da-5618-b3a8-680fdcd2f53f.html
• http://www.whav.net/cms/whittier-bridge-lane-opens-second-span-may-be-named-for-garrison/

—WWoods (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I would have less objections if the past few versions hadn't been written by a known hoaxer and hadn't contained unsourced, plausible but wrong information. In a supposedly uncontroversial article such as one on a bridge of little consequence, such deliberate falsifications can linger for years, and I was not in a position to separate truth and lies. If you can write a well-referenced article on the bridge, go ahead. I'd advise you to watchlist it, though. Huon (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Huon. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Huon. You have new messages at VarunFEB2003's talk page.
Message added VarunFEB2003 18:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Still need help.

Okay, I changed it to away like you said to do, but it isn't working. It still says somewhere. Ideas?

Kingstevenrules (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Kumbakonam M Rajappa Iyer

Hello Huon . My page Kumbakonam M.Rajappa Iyer was deleted. The page is not promotional but informational about a great Mridangam guru and Sangeetha Kala Acharya. I would like the page to be un-deleted .Please do let me know the specific sections,if any, that need to be modified. This year is the centenary year of Shri.Rajappa Iyer. Subaark (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Subaark, there were several problems with that page on Kumbakonam M Rajappa Iyer. First of all, it did not cite any references, leaving the content unverifiable by our readers. Some of the phrases clearly were promotional. And to someone who isn't already familiar with Iyer, the article supplied very, very few facts about him; it read, basically, as if he was just a music teacher, plus some hype. Huon (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)