User talk:Hut 8.5/Archive 8

Note that if you want to retrospectively alter your signature, retarget a redirect or other really trivial change I don't really care. Hut 8.5 10:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

News

Hi Hut 8.5 , in case the news didn't come through, [1], [2], I'll spare you my thoughts on it. Cheers. Mion (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

LoLcat image

Just wanted to let you know you misspelled your LOL rollback image. It's supposed to be haz, not has. :) Soxwon (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Hi, I'm not sure where the appropriate place is to mention this but I wanted to bring this to someone's attention. A user at 67.95.193.122 edited our article on Metastable intermolecular composite to include the material on "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe". [3] I reverted the change. No need to respond on my user page. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the article, you might want to mention it here. Hut 8.5 19:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a feeling something like this might happen so I added it to my watchlist yesterday morning (US time). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Tracking Controlled Demolition 'Scientists'

I now see there are lot of controversial architectural claims about the collapse of wtc buildings.

My colleague claims there are hundreds of scientists officially requested investigation of evidence they claim supports controlled demolition. Although I don't assume his source is something official, I wonder what the truth is. If this is a matter you have insight on, I welcome any leads you may have. I don't want to go to my colleague with cliches (labels) or thin research on such an big question.

Thanks -

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Controlled demolition

Hi Hut, Jehochman suggested I find someone like you to collaborate on a simplified version of the controlled demolition article, which I have posted here. You seem well-informed about this area (having read Clarke, for example) and the next step, if we can agree on the substance, is to source it. I'm not really pro-CD, so I'd like to get someone like Wildbear (who does seem to hold the relevant POV) to approve it also. With consensus across that spectrum, I think you have a solid start to a stable article. I'm topic-banned, and don't have a strong desire to return to editing under the current conditions, but once this idea occurred to me it seemed worth a try. Full disclosure: there is some concern about whether this idea violates my topic-ban.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the current article (I agree with you there). Or my sandbox proposal?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. You're right that I'm not the right person to argue for any particular version. My hope is just to generate common ground. In my view, everyone in this dispute, if they thought about it, would prefer my version to the current article and the inevitable spats it occasions. And it could no doubt be made even better in this regard. But, you're right, let's wait and see what ArbCom says about me.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking [4]. I haven't yet got access to that ref. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Assuming intentions and OR

According to the nutshell, Hut, you are mistaken: OR says "Wikipedia does not publish original thought". My secondary points related to what seemed troubling features of the article and implications for reliability and credibility. My language was directed to editors that might share those concerns and it did not propose those thoughts for publication. Related, my points had support which was their basis. It would be more assuring if the merits were faced rather than imputing what my points were "trying" to do. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

productivity

I notice some of your hard work on WP. It would be good if all CD editors could work on civility, explanation, and less frequently stamping out one line judgments, 'parental' directives, and subject changes. Its a problem not just at CD. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Barack

I would ask you to lift full protection from the Barack redirect. There has been one single instance of anonymous vandalism, more than a year ago. Semiprotection would have been more than sufficient to address this.

It isn't obviuos that Barack should redirect to Barack Obama. Obama is wihtout doubt the most famous bearer of this very common given name, but anyone entering "Barack" is more likely to be looking for information about the name itself than for information about a US president whose surname they cannot recall at the moment. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 08:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for information about how to delete

Thanks for information about how to delete. 86.140.188.36 (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Newman (actor)

Hi. Perhaps I missed it, but why does G7 apply here? ÷seresin 10:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

forremoving that template. Cant believe I still would do that particular mistake DGG (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Robert M. Bowman

It might be productive to add a talk page comment elaborating on your edit summary, about the contentiousness of the information and the specific parts of BLP. It's easy to imagine the information going back into the article. I don't think the problem is so much that the source can't be depended upon to accurately depict what the subject said, but rather how notable what the subject said was: outside of the "9/11 truth movement," probably not very. That said, I suspect there are other sources that could be found to substantiate his beliefs on the subject and publicity surrounding them, though somebody will have to take the initiative to find them. Шизомби (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Шизомби (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Breaking Dawn (2011 film) - Nitpicking

Actually, as long as the forked content is not attributed, it IS a copyvio even if the source is wikipedia itself. Any fork or split should be attributed back with, at the minimum, an edit notice pointing towards the original contributor history (and ideally placing the {{Copied}} template on both article's talk page). Redirection sorts it nicely though :) Best, MLauba (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, but it's not worth bothering with in cases like this. Hut 8.5 10:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

September 11 Attacks

Thank you for your comment on my contribution to the September 11 Attacks article. I'm a senior lecturer at a university in the UK. I include a lecture on 9/11 as part of a philosophy course I lead to illustrate the contested and constructed nature of knowledge and truth. I am well aware of the key issues raised by 9/11, and the contested nature of 'truth' on this subject. The current article does not provide balanced coverage of key claims about 9/11. It is the lack of awareness about the contested nature of events on September 11 that makes the current article weak. Many citations in the current article are based on press reports (these are poor quality when compared to peer-reviewed journal articles). My new contributions to the article are based on peer-reviewed journal articles and there cannot, therefore, be any justifiable reason for omitting them from the main article.

The proposed set of changes, therefore, counter bias in the article and ensure that overall it is written from a neutral point of view. The changes were made after preparing for this year's lecture and are not ill-considered. I have not removed any existing material to ensure that existing views remain (I'm not censoring others points of view, even though the press sources used are of low credibility). I've added well-documented perspectives, supported by the work of relevant academics, that challenge some of the claims currently made. This should not be censored. The only neutral course of action in these circumstances is to report the contested nature of claims on this subject.

I assert strongly that there is no 'bias' in reporting that there are court cases and journal articles that question the version of truth presented in the current article. These are matters of fact, not opinion, and it distorts understanding to omit this fact from the article and give the impression that the statements are uncontested. No judgement is made on the which version of the truth is more 'true' - the edits simply make people aware that the events described are contested by credible contributions to the debate about September 11.

I notice that many articles on Wikipedia are flagged for "bias". If there is a further attempt to reverse my contributions, I would like to flag the article for "bias" so other contributors can ensure it is more balanced.

Best wishes Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 19:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Academic Standards

You wrote on my talk page that:

"The account of September 11 as presented in the article is supported by essentially the entire mainstream media and academia, and conspiracy theories have little if any support".

This statement is completely untrue and reveals an extreme republican US bias. Although not a member of any political party or lobby group, I can state with complete confidence that there is a worldwide network of academics regularly contributing to a debate about the truth of 9/11 events. So far as I'm aware, it has hundreds if not thousands of members. The documentaries that you claim are 'marginal' have been banned (or censored by commercial/political interests) in the US, but not elsewhere. This means that US citizens are coping with a situation similar to the USSR on this subject, relying wholly on internet resources to conduct a debate. The documentaries not shows in the US have been shown on national (i.e. mainstream) TV stations across the EU (except the UK). At least one documentary has sufficient international demand to have been translated into 7 languages. Another has been viewed over 40 million times on the internet.

Outside the US, there are substantive questions regarding who are the 'conspiracy theorist'. It is fruitful to refer to the web-page of the journal you disparage. The editors state that the case for falsehood in the official (mass media) version of 9/11 events has been sufficiently well-established that no more articles are being solicited by the 9/11 journal. The editors direct new authors to mainstream journals, and mention articles that have appears in mainstream academic journals. This completely contradicts your claims regarding the 'mainstream'.

It is, therefore, highly misleading for the article to "relegate to a brief mention in the "aftermath" section", views that are widely held. Your comments on the Journal of 9/11 Studies are not warranted, particularly as many citiations from Fox news are deemed worthy of use (Fox News has been subject to court cases establishing that they deliberately falsify news). I'm an academic that has been published in international journals so I understand the peer-review process well. I also review articles for journals. The peer-review process looks at research methodology to check that the conclusions of an article are warranted from the information collected. It is not a process that censors knowledge because it is inconvenience or disliked - the goal is to bring reliable knowledge into the public domain. I've read both published and rejected articles from the 9/11 journal. I see no basis for your comments - the rejected article was indeed academically poor, and those accepted were academically strong.

To call senior academics (Drs and Professors) 'conspiracy theorists' reveals that you are seeking to censor the knowledge that they are contributing to the public domain. I have to question your motives. Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 19:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you deleted Alfa-Tsentr

Thank you, that page was previously deleted as a hoax at an afd, but that aside, can you please tell me who created it?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This might interest you

I've just knocked up a graph of the data at User:Hut 8.5/German editing stats - it's here. Shimgray | talk | 22:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone you indef blocked is back on different names

You indef blocked I cant think of a name 994 (talk · contribs) for harassing me. He is still editing as 86.1.207.130 (talk · contribs) and Albsol88t (talk · contribs) and doing much the same thing. Any assistance you can give would be much appreciated. DreamGuy (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

deleted "Pine Academy"

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

   * 11:47, 2 September 2009 Hut 8.5 (talk | contribs) deleted "Pine Academy" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement)"

I am wondering what information stated in there offended the copyright infringement? Correnbotsearch apparently in error, already clrearly stated in the discussion. Please check before delete the page. What evidence shall I provide to prove? Those information displayed are all my company information. Should i attach a copy of my company license, agreements and articulation? Please advice as soon as possible.

Regards, Alan Chong (lipvui) Marketing Director Pine Academy Group Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lipvui (talk • contribs) 13:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For your work at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations. I really appreciate it. :) Theleftorium 21:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletation of "Hussain Muradi".....?

The text in that article is from Humanism.org.uk, but we have permission to post it. Can you please restore it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exmuslims (talk • contribs) 20:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for ConceptDraw PROJECT

An editor has asked for a deletion review of ConceptDraw PROJECT. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Voobly

Hey Hut 8.5,

Sorry, today I was working on our voobly Wikipedia page, and noticed that you had deleted it for "advertising". I work at voobly, and a Wikipedia was requested. Voobly is a new server, and this Wikipedia was intended to help new users go through the transition of IGZones to Voobly. (Same Company, new name). This page was not intended to do anything else but give users information about the new voobly. (It had quite alot)

If you need, I can confirm that I work there, please email me, or register at voobly.com. I cant find the deleted page, is all of my work now gone? Hope to hear a response from you soon, ill be checking Wikipedia everyday.

Apologies if I did violate the code of conduct, however, I hope you re-check. If not, please allow me to get my article back so I may use it somewhere else, I would really hate to lose my work!

Appreciated,

Pico Voobly.com Pico@voobly.net

Entry appeal (not a copyright violation)

This was submitted today to clarify the situation re: wiki/Maya_MacGuineas. I hope it is helpful to you.

Dear Wikipedia Permissions,

The author of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_MacGuineas had my and her permission to reuse language from her staff biography at www.crfb.org. We are happy to provide additional sources on her influential work if you would revive the deleted biographical entry.

As Wikipedia has already noted, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has a long history of providing credible analysis and commentary on national fiscal and budgetary matters. As President of that nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, Ms. MacGuineas is often called upon by national media and the Congress to comment on legislation and national fiscal challenges. She also provides advice to the Obama administration. Just this month Ms. MacGuineas was quoted in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Kaiser Health News, wires, broadcasts and editorials around the country; additionally she was published by Roll Call. (For more see http://crfb.org/news)

Her background is certainly noteworthy to Wikipedia readers and should be available to the public.

Thanks for your attention.

Marc Goldwein

Policy Director, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

Senior Policy Analyst, New America Foundation

(202) 596-3397

Vasinvictor (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

AfD nomination of List of wealthiest historical figures

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of wealthiest historical figures. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wealthiest historical figures (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ray Mears page vandalised

Don't have an account, didn't know what to do/who to tell.

• edit

been sorted now.

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi

Just a quick message to say thanks for your advice about the edit warring at Lauren Branning. I didn't know about WP:AN/3RR. I'll certainly look at those pages and consider whether or not it's worth reporting the other user.

Many thanks! --5 albert square (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Drown (disambiguation)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drown (disambiguation) for a Merge proposal. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for restoring my user page after it was vandalized. I appreciate it. Alanraywiki (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Hut 8.5 20:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

Your change to Matthew Taylor (Labour politician) is basically cosmetic. At least add the {{refimproveBLP}} tag to make clear it needs work. Please source articles properly, don't just paste in a single reference. Surely the aim of this process is to leave behind better articles, not just to remove tags. Fences&Windows 23:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciated your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, which will delete the vast majority of 50,000 articles created by 17,400 editors, most new editors. I had to smile about the Frank Olympian article you mentioned that was deleted with no notice by those who have "utter contempt" for consensus. You may be interested in the WP:Article Rescue Squadron, we sure need more admins there. Ikip 01:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Zhou Guoping

After a bot alerted, me, I fixed this page by adding refs. You can remove from your list of unreferenced biographies.--Dpr (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comments at Phase II

RE: "124 a day is actually quite a few. For comparison there are 576 articles currently proposed for deletion as I write this, which equates to only about 80 a day, and that number would probably have been less before the unsourced BLP controversy got going."

As I wrote:

"When this arbcom started at 21 January 2010, we were at 52,000 unreferenced BLPs, today we are at 45,000. That is 7,000 articles we as a community have referenced in 17 days, and the pace will only increase as more wikiprojects get involved. I can reference 40 articles in a day, 1/3 of the 124 proposed, this is very doable folks."

I would strongly encouarge you to support this proposal. It is very doable.

I am actively working to notify other wikiprojects of several tools, see for example:

User_talk:The-Pope#Your_idea_at_Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FBiographies_of_living_people

As User:The-Pope wrote on my talk page:

"The WP:Australia project had a list of over 2000 names just over 2 weeks ago. It's now under 900. 900 is still fairly unworkable, so we've split them up again into smaller topics. Other lists have popped up, Cricket, Rugby union, India and probably many more. This is all do-able, but it does take time, it does get a bit boring, it can be tempting for some editors to put the first google hit they see on it and remove the tag, but it can work. One other good thing about these lists, is that you can use the related changes link to see all edits to them... great to keep an eye on pages without clogging up your watchlist (almost like having multiple watchlists)."

124 articles a day is very doable. As an editor who strives to save almost all articles for the past 4 years, and who has fought so many policy argument to keep articles, this is a wonderful comprimise, with so much potential, I would hope that you would seriously consider this proposal.

thanks for listening. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 22:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your comments :) I agree. have a great weekend, stay warm. I was out of work today for snow :) Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 23:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Philippines–Romania relations has been nominated for deletion again here

You are being notified because you participated in a previous Afd regarding this article, either at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Argentina–Singapore_relations or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations, and you deserve a chance to weigh in on this article once again. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Books for deletion‎

I've requested speedy deletion of this page because it was created by a banned sock. The CSD tag says "no significant edits by anyone other than the banned user" (something like that), but the page does have other edits. Those edits consist only of "discussion" regarding the proposal though, which would normally have gone on the talk page. Therefore, since the actual proposal was only edited by the banned user, I think it can be speedied. Thanks for considering this. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:33, 11 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews.net

I'd agree with you it provides primary sources rather than secondary, as preferred by wikipedia. The thing is that some of that stuff is pretty hard to get hold of, and nobody else has such a complete archive. The news media locally refer to it as they keep press releases on paper.

Gibraltar is also rather unique in the number of organisations that issue press releases regularly for such a small place (pop 30,000).

I've spent some time this morning trying to answer the points raised, but note that the editor who wanted to ban the site is now asking very silly questions unrelated to the accuracy of the content, which is really the only question.

If you have any suggestions on how the site can be improved, feel free to email me, there is no payment available :) --Gibnews (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP sticky PROD

Hi Hut 8.5/Archive 8!. Every attempt to rescue a Wikipedia article is a noble gesture. However, there may be occasions when, with the best will in the world, it is just not possible to accord even a minimum of notability to an article or stub, or find a proper source for it. Most regrettably, even the most dedicated inclusionists will have to concede that the article may have to go if the creator or major contributors cannot justify their work.
For new and recent unsourced BLPs, some users are now working at WT:BLP PROD TPL on the development of templates that are designed to encourage contributors to source new BLPs, without scaring away the newbies who might not be aware of the rules. This template is certainly not another a licence to kill for the deletionists, in fact the very idea of it is to ensure that you are not fighting a losing battle. It would be great if you could look in at the prgogress and maybe leave a word of encouragement. The workshop page is essentially a template development taskforce, and is not a place to engage in a hefty debate on incusion/deletion policy. See you at WT:BLP PROD TPL?--Kudpung (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)