User talk:Huon/Archive27

New Year's greetings

--Nevé–selbert — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Request on 14:58:09, 2 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Lubbad85

• Lubbad85 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Greg Koch (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Lubbad85 (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC) Thank you for your review. It is my first attempt at creating a page. I am not connected to the subject but he lives in my state. He has long been considered among the greatest guitar players in the world. So I was stunned that he has no wikipedia page. i will endeavor to clean it up further and erase any blatant promotion along with unacceptable sources. Happy New Year Jim

You've got mail

Hello, Huon. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Ogakratos (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ogakratos: In reply to your email: The second reference in Draft:Andrew Odum, "Tribute to an icon", clearly is not a reliable third-party source. It's published as a "viewpoint" and reads like a hagiography. Possibly Andrew Odum is "humble to a fault", but the author of that piece sings his praises all the more loudly in his stead. The first reference is a broken link and I couldn't recover it, but Deltans.ng describes itself as "Delta State News and Blog" and doesn't seem to be a journalistic website. I see no indication that articles it publishes are subject to meaningful editorial oversight. Huon (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I wish that I could give you a better barnstar.

		The Special Barnstar
		Your contributions to improve WP:LAME and its child pages involved making monotonous edits, so I could give you the The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar, but that barnstar seems too general. I don't want to give you The Half Barnstar because then I'd have to give the other half to myself, and I'm pretty sure that self-awarding barnstarts is at least frowned upon. I couldn't find a barnstar for improving meta pages (That's what pages in the Wikipedia: namespace are called, right?), so I regret that you just get the barnstar for when there is no other barnstar that would feel appropriate. The Nth User I like to use parser functions. Care to differ or discuss? 05:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Should I create a more appropriate barnstar myself? The N^th User I like to use parser functions. Care to differ or discuss? 05:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I just uploaded some images:

The N^th User I like to use parser functions. Care to differ or discuss? 00:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not sure which license to use for the images. I inquired here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nth User (talk • contribs) 01:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, how about this:

		The Right Half of the Barnstar for Making Monotonous Improvements to Meta Pages
		Thanks for that monotonous <noinclude></noinclude> work to finish up my elimination of content forks on WP:LAME. I couldn't have done it without your knowledge of wikicode. The Nth User I like to use parser functions. Care to differ or discuss? 01:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:LAME

Our hard work was undone, so I made a talk page section here. Feel free to comment on it! The N^th User I like to use parser functions. Care to differ or discuss? 18:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your reply to my help request, I really appreciate it. I don't know yet how to respond to your advice on creating a new biography article, but for your reference, I was referring to the 'Socrates' template found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Biography

Overglobe (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

15:50:33, 11 January 2018 review of submission by Arindammitra06

• Arindammitra06 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Arnab Dutta (Singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Huon, I have updated the article removing sections that did not have proper citations. Also there was a recent interview published about Arnab Dutta on 11th Jan, 2017 which details all the citations made. I would request you to re-review the article and share your valuable comments on how and what I can do to improve the article. Please note I am new to this, your guidance is highly appreciated.

http://www.anandabazar.com/entertainment/bengali-singer-arnab-dutta-debuts-in-bollywood-dgtlx-1.738336

Thank You, Arindam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arindammitra06 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Cheers for having patience in me !! Arindammitra06 (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Mrbrklyn

Hi Huon. I've already posted something similar earlier at User talk:Guerillero#Mrbrklyn‎, but Mrbrklyn's latest unblock request only further strengthens my suspicion that this editor is never going to move past WP:NOTTHEM and start editing constructively; so, maybe talk page access should be removed at least until the block expires and they should be asked to use UTRS instead. Maybe this kind of thing isn't done typically in cases other than indefinite blocks, but I think that's the direction this editor is heading based on WP:AAB#Abuse of the unblocking process. Maybe losing the inability to even edit their user talk page will help them disengage from Wikipedia for a bit, cool off, and reassess their behavior, etc. That's a big maybe of course, especially since they seem to have had the same issues since 2016, but anything is possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to update, their talk page access was revoked by The Bushranger, so nothing needs to be done here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

"ARM" vs. "Arm"

It has happened again. --Mortense (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:USATF logo 2016.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:USATF logo 2016.jpg. 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) 18:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editing

Hi, you locked the article on Macau passport holders visa requirements after someone tried to insert a line on diplomatic passports of Macau which is obvious nonsense - [1] and the user in question (‎Sheilldd) was blocked but only for 48 hours. However he now moved back to adding the same nonsense to Visa policy of Benin‎ article. This is not a content dispute obviously as Macau or Hong Kong do not issue diplomatic passports, but nevertheless I've tried discussing such non-issue with that user. Of course without success. Is there nothing that can be done about this?--Twofortnights (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Banned by bot

https://bg.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%82_III&action=history

please i was blocked for no good reason, this is not vandalism 79.132.10.200 (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. You're currently on the English Wikipedia, but the block is on the Bulgarian Wikipedia. We can't do anything about that, since the two wikis are technically different from each other and we do not have administrator access on the Bulgarian Wikipedia. You will need to follow the unblock procedures there. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks 79.132.10.200 (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, Lorty...

...I'm going to inch carefully out on a limb and respectfully ask what it will take to get the indef block lifted from User:SNAAAAKE!!? Perhaps a clean start? My rather brief experience with this editor occurred when he was editing as his IP User:94.246.150.68. I can't remember the particulars, but if my memory serves, I was reviewing Merlin (poem) before he really had a chance to expand the article, per this diff. He reverted my edits, but instead of becoming cross with him, I took his comments into consideration, (probably because I really wasn't excited about editing that particular article) and gave him space to improve it. The results were impressive. My next encounter with him was at AfC regarding Daughter_of_Tintagel, and another good article was born. Huon, I've witnessed first-hand, editors who were thought to be beyond redemption who actually came back to the project and became highly productive editors. I think this particular editor has the potential to be highly productive based on my initial experiences with his work. Maybe with a bit of monitoring/mentoring he will prove that he can be the kind of editor we expect to collaborate with in a collegial environment. I'm looking to you for guidance and your consideration in this matter. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not know this user was active in 2017 and recently requested an unblock on his talk page, but I would definitely support his request to unblock as someone who interacted with him during several years. My very best wishes (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

That editor has talk page access. They are welcome to request a review of their block. They have been advised that the standard offer is an option. If they want to work within Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, they know the way forward. Persistent block evasion is not that way, and unless they put up a persuasive unblock request, they won't be unblocked. Huon (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: As has been stated directly to Niemti/Snake many times, he needs to put in an unblock request that isn't a rambling screed or a context-less "plz unblock". To quote myself from his talk page: "...take a deep breath, don't assume the admin that responds knows any context of what you're talking about, and write 2-3 sentences saying plainly that you know not to behave uncivily towards people you disagree with and that you know not to use alternate accounts, that you haven't done either for a while now, and that you'd like to be unblocked so that you can contribute again. That's it. That's all. Just a few sentences that aren't mid-stream of thought in a longer rant against me or other people, put in the unblock template as per the standard process. I don't know if it would work, but I do know that nothing else will.". Niemti has been unable to do that for the past 3 years. I'm not holding my breath that he'll ever figure it out. --PresN 03:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! This is a pretty clear instruction. I do not really know why Niemti did not follow it. My very best wishes (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Huon and Pres. I don't mind helping him work through it all, and I remain cautiously optimistic that the project will benefit once we iron out all the kinks. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be great if you could help him, assuming he will be willing to properly work and communicate with others as "standard offer" requires. But honestly, I am rather pessimistic for the reason explained by PresN. My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Request on 20:49:48, 26 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by DianneWells

• DianneWells (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Lisa Christiansen (actress) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

To Whom it may concern wikipedia,

This is to verify I have not ever nor will I ever be recieving any compensation of monies or any other considerations in short I am not directly or indirectly being compensated for my edits nor am I directly or indirectly being compensated for my contributions.

I am contributing this Draft:Lisa Christiansen (actress) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lisa_Christiansen_(actress) on my own time from my own research. I would love to continue on future projects as I become more educated on your process. I have public domain rights to images used as well as full permission and a copyright release from the photographer who holds the copyright for images not public domain.

I am new as I have stated before and appreciate all of the help I can get. I am deeply interested in learning more to become a better contributor, I am doing my best to meet your standards which I am certain I fall short of, Thank you for your understanding and help.

Any assistance in making this contribution acceptable is greatly appreciated because I absolutely want to meet your requirements.

My personal email is Dianne.L.Wells@gmail.com

Sincerely, Dianne

DianneWells (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Huon for helping me, I have tremendous respect for your time and help.

Thank you Huon for helping me, I greatly appreciate you and all you are doing to bring this contribution ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lisa_Christiansen_(actress) ) to life and up to standard because I know I must be frustrating to everyone with my severe lack of education on how this works. It is people like you and the outstanding people that have been helping all day that make this process smooth. Again, I appreciate you for your outstanding help and your valuable time spent on my questions. Goodnight, thank you again.

I apologize for being blunt, but I do not think the significant coverage in reliable third-party sources that we'd need to write a meaningful encyclopedia article about Christiansen exists. By now we have looked quite thoroughly. For example, I have seen your Amazon reviews. If there were anything better out there that's available online, I'm pretty sure we'd have found it, and what's currently in the draft is too little. Huon (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

List of unsolved problems in physics (Talkpage)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clubs_of_football_world_champions

Hello Huon, I found and added the sources you asked me; i hope that now the article is ok. :-) you can see in Statistics section ;) See you soon and thanks for your time :-) --Littlepuppyfromchina (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Think of the cat (pictured) as one of the countless editors you've helped bring into Wikipedia through your work on the IRC help channel and elsewhere. Thank you for your work in helping new users understand Wikipedia, and ensuring that vandal users don't edit here.

_{Vermont | reply here} 01:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fontana Adult School

The article Fontana Adult School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rhadow (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Another comment about the To Kill a Mockingbird section

Hello again Houn.

I posted a comment with more source suggestions last week on my TALK page which is marked:  Seckatary (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC).  I have not seen a response since then, so I am thinking maybe I used the wrong page for my previous comment, and perhaps I should use your TALK page.  So that is why this comment appears here.
  

I found another book that may have some text I hope will help make the case we have been discussing. The book is: </ref>Writers and Their Works – Harper Lee: To Kill a Mockingbird. By Andrew Haggerty: Marshall Cavendish, New York; 2010, page 20:</ref> “Lee especially loved the Seckatary Hawkins series written by Robert Schulkers. As a girl, she wrote away for ‘membership’ to the ‘Fair and Square Club’ about which the books‘ plots revolve.” For Lee, Capote, and Carter, these books were not merely to be read, but to be discussed and acted out, just as the children do in To Kill a Mockingbird, where Dill, Capote’s alter ego, is described as ‘a pocket Merlin, whose head teemed with eccentric plans, strange longings, and queer fancies.” Thanks again Huon for your kind help.Seckatary (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Seckatary, I'm sorry I missed your latest messages on your talk page. If you want replies from me, specifically, it's a good idea to notify me of your message, for example by using the code {{ping|Huon}}. It's probably better still to move the discussion to the article's talk page at Talk:To Kill a Mockingbird so that other editors interested in that topic alo have a chance to join in. I'll reply there to the content of your messages. Huon (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Subbotniks

@Huon: Hi Huon, in case you forgot about it, in light of the Encyclopedic evidence provided at Talk:Subbotniks#Karaimites will you revert your deletion of the word Karaimites from the article now please? Thanks. 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, how about this [2] as a source? It is not a book but it is an independent publication. What do you think? 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Why would you like to discuss content issues on my talk page instead of the article's? If you have found a reliable source that says Karaite Subbotniks are also called Karaimites, you're welcome to add it to the article. The source you provide here, however, irrespective of its reliability (which I doubt), doesn't talk about Subbotniks at all. Huon (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

In answer to your first Question, because you stopped responding to my comments addressed to you there. Will you move your response there please?

In answer to your second question it gives further details concerning Karaimites in the source. But tell me why you doubt it's reliability? Let's move this back to the Talk:Subbotniks#Karaimites section. You can reply there not here. Also I've pinged you there in the comments you missed. Thanks. Always assume good faith. 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Ceramium

Thank you for your advice. I had been thinking of this and had decided to enter and describe both "species" separately but referred to the other in both cases. I'll see what I can do. This agrees with one of your suggestions (which I will read again). With thanks.Osborne 16:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	I really appreciate you helping me out. Thanks! Kkuchnir (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Patience of a saint!

I don't know how you do it - I like to think I'm pretty patient with new editors, and then you leave us all in the dust. Keep it up! -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me | contribs 18:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Rahat (2nd nomination)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Rahat (2nd nomination). Worldbruce (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

{help me}

What's up with the template and LovelyGirl7?
—usernamekiran(talk) 13:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It's clearly someone who has a lot of questions. If you want them to stop using the template, you should ask them. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

@Primefac: @Usernamekiran: @Huon: I use that template when I have a question and I use WP:Teahouse sometimes as well. —LovelyGirl7 talk 15:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: I dont know the wxact history/guideline behind that template; but personally it feels like it is designed/meant for the users who cant properly edit/ask at teahouse. Asking at teahouse is always a better option as there is a possibility that quite a few editors there dont often check "help me" category. Plus, on the teahouse there would be lot many editors with different expertise resulting a good advise/suggestion. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Exactly where I often go. That and “helpme” are good to use. —LovelyGirl7 talk 16:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: The various help venues - WP:Teahouse, WP:Help desk, {{help me}} and others - all have their uses, and there's no requirement for editors to choose one above the others if they prefer a different one. Personally I'd say the template is best suited to comparatively simple questions that any experienced helper that might get summoned can answer. More complex questions should probably be directed at another forum, maybe even a relevant WikiProject if subject-matter expertise would be beneficial. Huon (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Yup, that makes sense. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Jim Bakker

@Huon: I made changes to the sources in the “Philosophy” section and requested copy editing on the article (which I'm still waiting on). What do you think? LovelyGirl7 talk 16:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: This should probably best be discussed on the article's talk page, but I still don't see any secondary sources discussing Bakker's philosophy in that section. What I do see is a mention of his second wife, who I rather doubt is a philosophical topic. Huon (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Huon: Thank you for telling me where it's best discovered! As for the article, it is under copyediting. As for parts that still needs citations, you may be correct because

Bakker has renounced his past teachings on prosperity theology, saying they were wrong. In his 1996 book, I Was Wrong, he admitted that the first time he actually read the Bible all the way through was while he was in prison, and that it made him realize he had taken certain passages out of context—passages that he had used as "proof texts" to back up his prosperity teachings.

As soon as copyediting on the article is finished, I can resume the article. --LovelyGirl7 talk 02:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

15:50:33, 02 March 2018 review of submission by Pranoyz11

• Pranoyz11 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ajai Vasudev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Huon, I have updated the article adding sections and references that contain proper citations. I would request you to re-review the article and share your valuable comments on how and what I can be done to improve the article. Your guidance is highly appreciated. Kindly ignore my mistakes and help me to go further!

I generally do not review the same article multiple times in a row; if I were to review it again I'd again decline it for the same reason. The only new source that covers Ajai Vasudev in some detail is Book My Show, which is not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Huon (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Burim Ademi

Thanks for your note on my talk page - I have reponded there. On the same topic, as an admin, can you see whether this article has been prviously deleted? The inclusion of old templates makes it looks very much like a copy-and-paste recreation from an AfD deletion. It will certainly be an AfD or speedy candidate if it ever emerges from a Draft. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   00:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems it was based on an article on Logan Paul and some of the templates were copy-pasted along with the general framework. I have some history merging to do, I think... Huon (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Question

• Hello Huon, Excuse me, I have one question about Wikipedia. Sometimes when I published an article or some minor edits, some words were changed automatically. I mean, words are published incorrectly. Why does it happen? Investigation11111 (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Investigation11111, that very likely is an issue on your end; Wikipedia doesn't change words upon saving. I heard of people who used strange scripts that automatically changed some words they wrote into other words, but that doesn't seem to be the problem either. If this persists, you may want to take screenshots "before saving" and "after saving" and report it as a bug, but as I said, I don't expect there's something wrong on Wikipedia's end. Huon (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Huon Ok, I understand what you mean. But I mean like this I'm afraid it will be a problem for me. I tried to change it twice. When I saw that it was an automated problem, I stopped it. This also seems to be a device-related problem Investigation11111 (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Huon. Appreciate all your help. You were extremely patient and a thorough professional. Would like to especially mention about the amazing volunteers at Wiki and their amazing dedication to this big cause. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinrobinthomas007 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

CU request

FYI: special:diff/829893492 ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Page Edit request turns into personal attack

Huon As someone new to this I posted a Help on my talk page about editing an article and you helped me. I am now convinved the two other editors involved in editing the source page on Bill warner believe myself and Bill warner and any refereces supporting Bill Warner's views are muslim haters. I have been called a liar on the talk page for what I honestly thought was one of them calling me a "muslim hater" when what they actually stated was a refernce I supplied came from "another hater" if they said "another" I thought the "other" referred to me who supplied the reference. I was told this was lying and was nagged to correct the attribution which I did but my being called a liar was not withdrawn. Another admin then suggested I was wasting time with this and my asking if they actually believe i am a muslim hater is also time wasting. The problem I have is, leaving aside than the personal attack on me, if these editors consider that myself and the subject of the page Bill Warner are muslims haters then they have a bias in the editing of this page. I note any positive source I enter is edited out and when I reference articles in peer review magasines citing Warner's work rather than go and examine that work people just call the author a another muslim hater. As an inexperienced novice editor I feel under attack and knowledge of the appeal process and wikipedia being used against me to support a personal bias against warner and anyone who may post anythning positive or factual which at least does not depict Warner in a negitive way. Can you advise how I should proceed? I don't want to give up editing and leave biased articles but if anything I add is edited back out based on personal bias and opinion and not on quality of sources or factual analysis ofthe actual material then I dont know what to do.Isaw (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding "liar", while that's a strong term, you claimed Doug Weller had called you a "Muslim hater" when he hadn't, and for quite some time, when that assertion was challenged, you neither retracted it nor backed it up with evidence. I'd say from Doug Weller's point of view when he made that comment, you maintained a false accusation.

At this point I'd advise you to take a step back and to work on less controversial topics for some time. When tempers have cooled down and you want to return to Warner, dispute resolution may be a way forward. Focus on specific changes that you'd like to see made, and provide reliable sources that explicitly support those changes and/or explain why the current sources do not support the statements you'd like to see changed. Huon (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

HuonNot true! to say "and for quite some time, when that assertion was challenged, you neither retracted it nor backed it up with evidence." I responded within the day. It is clearly stated IMMEDIATELY AFTER where Doug Weller says I attributed it to him that he called me a Muslim Hater. I then showed the "another liar" comment two days later. In the meantime I had to go somewhere else. the fact i didn't respond within hours is not really fair. I did respond and I both retracted in my initial response and backesd it up with evidence in my second response. But I would think the second sentence of my first reply where I said " I am happy to say you didnt directly say it to me and I mistakenly thought the phrase "another muslim hater" referred to me as well as the source I quoted." I can not see how you do not consider " I am happy to say you did not directly say "muslim hater " to me" a retraction! And to be fair he did refer to a link I provided as "another hater" which as I explained is WHY I thought he was calling me one. And doug weller had said he didnt call me it and I accepted that. I never however got a reply to my question as to whether he believed I am a muslim hater. Surely that is a simple thing to do?Isaw (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. To be precise, I said that his claim that I called him a Muslim hater was "basically a lie." I was describing his statement, not him. And I said that because he still hadn't withdrawn his accusation at the article talk page despite having admitted on his talk page he was wrong. Doug Weller talk 07:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Doug WellerIt was NOT a lie! I clearly thought you had called me one. and you have since accepted I was not lying. I accept now that when you said "another hater" you may not have been referring to me so by calling someone else I mentioned "another hater" I thought you claimed I was one too. But I accept it can be interpreted that you did not mean that and I have stated that I accept that but in order to clarify I asked you directly whether you think I am a Muslim hater. You have not answered that. Why is it such a problem for you to say whether you believe I hate Muslims? You also called me "anti-Muslim" in a discussion... not my statments but ME. So that doesnt stand up either that you described my statements and not me. I also explained that I came to my own page first and then after that went to the talk page of the article. I have also explained that I was elsewhere. In actual fact, I was in hospital. I don't want to go into my personal medical issues but I find the idea that it took me a day to respond as being slow to retract as silly even if I was not elsewhere because I had to be elsewhere. I have also accepted you have made some positive changes to the article but in the talk you have continued to make personal comments for example suggesting I am "obtuse". Im trying to give Bill Warner a fair hearing. and when I finish with that I will move on to other similar cases who seem to have similar treatment. and I dont want to be name called or personally attacked for highlighting what seems to be bias on the part of editors of these biographies.

I just posted to his talk page saying that I should have called it an untrue or false statement instead, and apologised for being so strong. And told him I'm not answering his questions about what I think about his beliefs. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

And I accepted your apology but I note you have avoided saying whether or not you think I am a muslim hater. It is a simple thing to answer. Anyone reading this can make up their own mind as to what you believe and whether your refusal to answer means anything to them. My concern however is as I move on to other biographies who have got similar treatment I now expect to draw personal attacks from those who decide I am a muslims hater or decide something else negative about me because I want to address the objectivity of these biographies. I am not interested in depicting a baised view including a boias in favour of my own view. My view should not matter. the objectively determined facts should be what we are trying to convey. the problem I have is if people really believe I am racist or a muslim hater or anti Jew or whatever ( or that anyone wo expresses something contrary to the "perceived view") then what can I expect when I point out problems with an article? I dont want to make this an issue about YOU so much as what to do when people personally attack me based on their unexpressed opinion about me Isaw (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

HuonDoug Weller To be fair I re read the exchange and did come across this one comment " I don't know if you're a Muslim hater, but your comments puzzle me." This is at least an admission that Doug does not know so I believe it means he does not actually believe I am a muslim hater although the "comments puzzle me" seems like hedging I am prepared to accept Doug does not believe I am one and give him the benefit of the doubt.Isaw (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I have avoided any edits until today and I accept even if Doug Weller has personal issues regarding his opinion of me he has changed the page to some degree reflecting the points I raised. That is how it should be and I respect anyone who puts attention to the facts above personal attitudes and opinions which they prefer to keep hidden. I have begun to offer some sources to balance the opinion sources on WarnerIsaw (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Air Calédonie logo 2015.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Air Calédonie logo 2015.jpg. 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. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)