This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Note that if you want to retrospectively alter your signature, retarget a redirect or other trivial change I don't really care. Hut 8.5 19:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

In looking at the Albert Francis Hegenberger page tonight I noticed that quite a bit of essential biographical information which had been on the page had disappeared, apparently as a result of an edit you made on 19 Nov 2011. Since I can't think of any reason why you would've made these deletions (below) intentionally, I must believe they were done accidentally. Would you please replace them? I could do it myself, but I feel it would be better if you made the corrections.

Thanks in advance.

Tom Hayden

— Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
Geezer123v (
talk • 
contribs) 01:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC) 

I've had to remove the text pasted here, it is a copyright violation and we can't host them anywhere on Wikipedia, even on user talk pages. Hut 8.5 20:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

A page you deleted before, Faultless Starch has been recreated. The user Gabegce was warned by a bot on his talk page about possible copyright violations from http://www.faultless.com/history.php and he deleted the notification. Not sure how to handle this. Toasty ( talk) 19:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Hut! Got your message. Thanks! Would it help if I site the history page as a reference also? Gabegce ( talk) 20:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Gabegce

Ok, thanks! Hut, even if I've been given permission by the owner/writer of the source page to post their content here, will I still need to write everything from scratch? Gabegce ( talk) 20:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Gabegce

Hut, per the instructions on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries , if the owner of the content gives me permission to re-post his text, then I should be able to, right? I'm thinking of going through this process. Gabegce ( talk) 21:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Gabegce

Cool! Thanks for confirming! Yeah, for sure the page will be more informative than anything else. Thanks again. Gabegce ( talk) 21:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Gabegce

Got your message! Thanks, Hut for the very helpful info!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.254.147.163 ( talk) 14:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Hut.I wrote an article about "ShiningHub.com" yesterday. Unfortunately, it was deleted for copywriting infringement.Is it because I copied the content for the website www.shininghub.com?

However, actually, I am a staff for ShiningHub Co.,Ltd,www.shininghub.com is our website. We design all the layout and content of the website and I think we are authorized to use those content in wikipedia.

I sincerely hope you can take this matter into consideration and reply me at your earliest convenience.Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laura0816 ( talk • contribs) 01:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. If I did something wrong, can you help me on this? Brazilian Man ( talk) 15:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks friend! Brazilian Man ( talk) 15:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the clause ShiningHub.com is deleted for ambiguous advertising. I just can't figure out what is wrong with the content. Could you tell me which part do you think relates to ambiguous promotion?Then i can change it and make it more objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherrymuxi ( talk • contribs) 09:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The Colombian punk has resumed his stuff, even though i have not directed one word towards him in the last one or two years (not feeding the troll). This was not good (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Always_Learning&diff=510595637&oldid=509697806), but the personal attack on my talkpage was even worse. If you want me to translate (why would you want that? :)), i can.

I thought the (user)page was protected until i asked you otherwise, what gives man? Happy week from Portugal -- AL ( talk) 17:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for helping me out with my offerings at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion. Even though I have been editing Wikipedia for several years now, I still find things that catch me out! ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 14:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much for voting. When we put the RfC together, one thing we were all agreed on was that it should run a week, so that it didn't take too much time away from more central questions ... but we decided not to put that in the RfC, I think because we didn't want to force a cutoff in the middle of a good debate. At this point, I've added that question, if you'd like to vote on that one too. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm generally in favor of dealing with everyone's concerns when that's possible, rather than just ignoring the minority. At the same link, did my "FWIW" and other people's comments address your point? Do you have a suggestion on reframing the question? - Dank ( push to talk) 18:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hut, per the paragraph I just posted at WP:PC2012/RfC_1#Another_argument, are there any ground rules for further discussion that would satisfy you enough to get your participation in further committee work? - Dank ( push to talk) 19:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I understand that my page was deleted due to copyrighted text. Below is permission from the author of Dialogue Institute to use copyrighted text. This was sent to me via email.

Dear Denisa,

We are happy to give you permission to use DI copyrighted material as you need in the setting up of this article. Please call or email me if you have any further questions: 484-459-8456 or rebecca.mays@temple.edu Thanks, Rebecca Mays Director, The Dialogue Institute

Is there anything else you require?

Thank you,

DialogueInstitute ( talk) 20:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I wrote an article that was deleted due to copyright violation.

I WROTE THE WHOLE ARTICLE ENTIRELY ON WIKIPEDIA FROM SCRATCH!

What do i need to do to get it here? Is the biography of my grand father who is a very well known business man from Mexico.

Any clues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikolobodelag ( talk • contribs) 18:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer.... I did wrote it from scratch. However i wrote both articles!!!! I am the owner of both of them, however the other article is cached from my old geo-cities account which no longer exists and i don't have control of.... BUT I DID WROTE BOTH BIOGRAPHIES... I will re-post it in spanish in the spanish wiki-pedia.

Thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikolobodelag ( talk • contribs) 18:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You were one of two opposers at WP:PC2012/RfC 1#Vote on closure ... any objection to boxing this page up with a {{ discussion top}} template while we wait for The Blade to close? The 11-2 vote suggests to me a consensus to move discussion over to committee work. - Dank ( push to talk) 13:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

	Hello Hut 8.5, Whpq has given you a Roadrunner Award, for blazing speed in the manual clearing of unreferenced Olympic athletes! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Roadrunner Award! Enjoy!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq ( talk • contribs)

should probably be a (protected?) redirect too.  pablo 22:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC) (ps what's up with that roadrunner award, I'm sure I never did that!  pablo 22:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC))

Done the redirect, can't see any particular reason to protect it. The award was given by someone else last week, it seems to have some code in it displaying the name of the user who last edited the section/page/something, I don't know how to fix it. (It now says I gave it, which I suppose is slightly better.) Hut 8.5 09:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The template uses {{{REVISIONUSER}} and should have been substituted; failing that it displays the name of the last person to edit the page. I fix.  pablo 13:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Hut 8.5 13:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I saw that you deleted Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark as a recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. I never saw the originally deleted page, but I put a lot of effort into the latest version trying to make it more complete (e.g., adding sources). As a result, it should have been very different from the previous, so it shouldn't have qualified as a G4.

Additionally, deleting that page breaks a number of navboxes; once that one's gone, there's no way to get from the previous entries to the entries further down the lines of succession.

Can you please reconsider this decision? Thanks, Dori ☾ Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't reverse this. The previous discussion established that the subject is not notable because he doesn't meet the general notability guideline - all sources about him are either unreliable or contain only trivial mentions. Now if you'd come up with some new source which might indicate he's notable then the article would not qualify for G4, but you hadn't. This one was in the original article, so we've established it doesn't demonstrate notability. Even if I ignore the fact that this one is a blog dedicated to pictures of royal hats and thus unreliable, it clearly doesn't constitute significant coverage (all it says is "and a royal hottie in-the-making, Alexia's little brother"). And even if this one is reliable, all it notes is that he exists and who his parents are, which clearly isn't significant coverage either. There wasn't anything that would have given scope for a new AfD. If you're concerned about the navbox then you can either remove the link or recreate the article as a redirect to somewhere else where this person is mentioned (such as Greek Royal Family#Members). If you still want to appeal my deletion you can go to WP:DRV. Hut 8.5 09:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Because the "Yes" section was split between one group in favor of applying protection to all articles and one group in favor of applying protection to articles only when there has been a problem, I have split the section to reflect this difference. Please go back to that page and make sure that your vote is still in the section that most closely reflects your views. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Can you explain to me the reasons why you made this edit [1] and what it is designed to achieve?

Thanks Chaosdruid ( talk) 22:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Your comment comparing adminship to a driver's license is apt and very well put. I may well quote it at some point in the future.

Regards, — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC).

Hi Hut,

I have been waiting over an year waiting to create a page for Voobly. We are suffering due to the actions made by some unknowns. Like you suggested, I have contacted some gaming websites and got some articles written by them. Infact Voobly was mentioned by microsoft as a gaming site to play their game. Infact I have done everything suggested by you till date. More details info can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deepakmdeo#My_response

Please do the needful and help us create a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepakmdeo ( talk • contribs) 21:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Police and Crime Commissioner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bob Jones ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

A few months ago I had my life turned upside down by Bavarian International School's unethical behaviour. It is extremely likely that I'm not the first they have done this to, and nor will I be the last. Also, if you had children you would think twice about trusting people like this to look after them.

The link to my own webpage provides clear evidence of what I have said. So, unless you want to see more people get badly hurt, let people see what the people who run this school get up to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.182.136 ( talk) 15:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Why the page was deleted? Talk page did provide reasons for how big a celebirty he is in India? Greatwords1 ( talk) 18:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Good morning Hut 8.5,

Regarding your recent schoolblock on Worcester college of Technology, I am a student at the college.

FYI, I have notified the college IT administrators regarding the abuse coming from the college IP address involved.

I've also provided a link to the relevant page:

Message I sent is below (I've removed names and addresses for privacy and replaced them with ----):

Good afternoon ----,

I have just noticed that Wikipedia have blocked the college from editing the site again for 6 months due to editing abuse.

There seems to be a long history of abuse from our IP address, a sample of this and the warnings/blocks can be seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:195.195.201.43

it is possible that WP may begin sending abuse reports to college admins (not sure which ones) if the college wishes to investigate. Alternatively, there is an RSS Feed available which details the edits made by students at the college.

I'm not sure that banning access to WP would be the best option, as I think people use it as a starting point for research, but you may wish to consider reminding students that the edits made to WP can be seen by anyone and that WP is not intended for reckless vandals to ruin its content.

Regards,

(----)

Hopefully the college will be able to work with WP to try to resolve the issue at hand, as I agree that the vandalism is not what I'd expect from college sutdents.

Regards,

Usual people in life ( talk) 10:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed contiued vandalism from the same IP.

Thanks for blocking the IP again, I know who is doing the damage.

I've been in contact with college admin to see if they can help.

Regards,

Usual people in life ( talk) 12:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there HUT, AL here,

just a quick magic trick if you please: can you remove the template in my page that shows that i am a WIKI PROJECT FOOTBALL member? I am not anymore, in an attempt to be less active (thus less frustrated), let's see if it works.

Attentively, thank you very much in advance - -- AL ( talk) 02:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hut, I was hoping you could advise me as to the standard practice regarding WP:NAC closures. I have noticed many editors do not add the {{ oldafd}} template to the articles that are closed under WP:WITHDRAWN. Is it advised not to add these templates to withdrawn nominations and only XfD's that have been closed via consensus/no consensus? Also, separately, I've been using "The result was WP:WITHDRAWN." for my NAC's under the withdrawn clause. Should I be using 'Speedy Keep' instead? I thought you'd be the person to ask. Mkdw ^talk 00:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Hut 8.5. You have new messages at Mkdw's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have rewritten the article for the Kandahar Ski Club and would like to post it. This one has no cut and pastes from the website! I had not appreciated that the bots would take exception to it, though in retrospect, I can see why. Please let me know if there is a problem with me doing this. -- Graham Stephen 21:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Hut 8.5,

It seems that an article I worked on, York Digital Library, was removed due to (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: http://www.york.ac.uk/library/collections/yorkdigitallibraryyodl/ and http://www.york.ac.uk/library/collections/yorkdigitallibraryyodl/pastprojects/).

Would it help if the sourced pages had a creative commons attribution like a CC-BY-SA 3.0 License?

Thanks.

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I have replied there, and restored the article. JamesBWatson ( talk) 17:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if you've been following the latest chapter in the Richard A. Norton saga, but I've got a proposed remedy up at his talk page — User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_). Since you've been so closely involved in the work on his CCI case, I was hoping you'd chime in as to whether it satisfies your concerns moving forward. Best regards, —Tim //// Carrite ( talk) 19:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

^[1]

Hello Hut

I understand that the text has to be re-written so it is not the same as another. In the case of an official biography that was past on to others, that comes from the same source, can't it be publish ?

In the case on the citations of the reference, could the citations them selves be published referencing to the citation's description as an URL ?

Cheers

Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swaterhouse ( talk • contribs) 15:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I had a message on my watchlist from you saying : Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2013-02-05‎; 22:29 . . (+1,391)‎ . . ‎Hut 8.5 (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎2013-02-05 (Suspected copyright violations): tags)

then I check your list of actions, and it says "No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. White paper produced by the US Department of Justice, PD. Hut 8.5 22:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)"

I am a bit confused, though it looks like everything is ok, but the Notification didn't state which page you thought the problem was on, and I still don't know. Is this because it was later determined to be ok, or is it a defect in the program? If I had made any copyright errors I would have tried to address them, but it didn't say where you'd found them. Or does the notification disappear if the article is found to be ok? Just some info on this would be appreciated, as I am trying hard (It's a steep learning curve) to stay within what is allowed while still making contributions. Cheers Ybidzian ( talk) 00:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, now I am even more confused. I have never written any articles on "paper produced by the Department of Justice is specifically referring to the article 020413 DOJ White Paper (the one above my comment). Please don't make edits like this in future - reports aren't meant to be removed from SCV pages, the edit wasn't vandalism, and since you wrote the page in question it ought to be reviewed by someone else. I haven't yet looked at the article you wrote, I will try to do so tomorrow." I think the checker must be confusing me with someone else. I haven't ever written anything involving the Dept of Justice of any country. I think it MIGHT be the section above about Alain Forand, but it's definitely not me. Cheers Ybidzian ( talk) 00:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I see this evening that ArbCom has shifted from 5 votes to accept to 7 votes to accept today in the Richard A. Norton case, which means that formal acceptance is imminent. Fram has noted on his talk page that he will be unavailable from Friday Feb. 8 to Sunday Feb. 17 and asked that someone put up his evidence page in the case if ArbCom accepts within this time window ( User:Fram/RAN_evidence). Would you be kind enough to commit to doing that for him? Please let me know one way or the other. Best regards, —Tim /// Carrite ( talk) 04:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Carrite ( talk) 21:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of my evidence at the RAN case during my absence. It is appreciated. (I haven't looked at the case yet since my return, first wanted to thank you and Carrite for your help). Fram ( talk) 07:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hut, thank you for clearing the rather large file message. I knew it wasn't me, but wasn't sure how to try and explain. Appreciate your comments and understanding on it. Ybidzian ( talk) 11:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. A brief heads-up that I've dropped your name in my evidence article in the Richard Arthur Norton case at ArbCom. While this document is not yet final, I expect it will remain. LINK. Thank you for your work on the case. best, —Tim /// Carrite ( talk) 21:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You deleted Osama Nazir as an "Attack page or negative unsourced BLP". I have come across some references that say Osama Nazir was held in the CIA's network of secret interrogation sites, and that he never reappeared when the CIA's sites were emptied.

Is this essentially what the deleted page said? Can I ask whether User:Sherurcij or I worked on that page? Geo Swan ( talk) 21:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a reminder to all parties as well as to those who have submitted evidence, that the evidence phase of this case closes at 00:00 UTC on 23 February 2013, which is in just over seven hours from now. For the Arbitration Committee -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 16:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, and thanks for your involvement in Wikipedia.

Years ago I wrote an article about Polarity Therapy. Last year, unknown to me because I had neglected to sign up for email notifications and because I am not a frequent active participant, the article was deleted. Months after that the deletion came to my attention and I asked what was happening. I was told that there was a copyright problem, although I wrote the article myself-- someone had copied and pasted all of it on another site. Based on that exchange, the article was restored, then deleted again. I inquired again, and this time I was told that Polarity Therapy is not notable enough to deserve an article. I read the discussion preceding the delete decision and some participants are obviously biased. The discussion was mainly about validity of the concepts (some participants were very scornful about Polarity Therapy's validity), however the criteria are about existence of phenomena, not about judgement of validity.

Polarity Therapy is recognized by name in numerous USA states and Canadian provinces, plus European health care systems such as Switzerland. Polarity Therapy met the requirements of the USA National Association for Certification and is a recognized profession with a national certification exam. Its founder Randolph Stone (1890-1981) wrote seven books, and at least 15 subsequent books have been created subsequently. National professional associations were established in USA and Europe in the mid-1980s, and these continue today, more than thirty years later. Wikipedia itself has 104 appearances of the phrase "Polarity Therapy." A Google search for "Polarity Therapy" yields 1,290,000 hits. On a more personal note, I have been a practitioner for 34 years and served five terms as President of APTA.

I would like to restore this article and have an opportunity to participate in the discussion, how might I do that?

Thanks for your help, John Chitty, RPP, BCST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnchitty ( talk • contribs) 19:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Hydeblake is now complete. Thank you for your assistance in the evaluation of this CCI.

-- Wizardman 17:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)