User talk:Huddsblue

Hello, Huddsblue! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huddsblue! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 2006 Southeast Asian haze page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ankogel.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huddsblue, Thanks for your message, and welcome. I'm quite busy right now and don't have the opportunity to do much editing so I'm not sure how much I can help. I'll have a look at your new Ankogel page and tweak it a bit when I have the chance. Best advice I can give is to look at the coding, style and formatting of other similar pages and follow that. It's what I did when I got started and seems to work fine. You also need to sort out the copyright info for the image. Good luck! Ericoides (talk) 10:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice! I think I've cracked it ;-)

That's great news. (PS Always remember to sign every post on Talk pages with four tildes, so people know who's made the post and when! Colon indents, as here (click the edit tab to see the coding), also help to keep a nice sense of spatial order.) Ericoides (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Chelmsley Wood

added a link pointing to Meriden

Großer Muntanitz

added a link pointing to Tyrol

Watzespitze

added a link pointing to Tyrol

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the improvements to the Stephanie Theobald page - lovely stuff. YellowFratello (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Ball (naturalist) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Among his accomplishments, he was the first to climb a [[Dolomites]] peak [[Monte Pelmo]] in 1857). He also travelled in [[Morocco]] (1871) and South America (1882), and recorded his observations

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Rajesultanpur

added links pointing to ATM and Union Bank

Siege of Syracuse (278 BC)

added a link pointing to Heracleides

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Phnom Penh Crown FC

added links pointing to Young Lions, BBU, Etoile, David Booth, Svay Rieng and Khemara

Santa Cristina Gherdëina

added a link pointing to Ladin

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you often use the {{db}} template with your own invented rationales ({{db|1=insert reason here}}). Please note that the criteria for speedy deletion are very narrowly defined. The use of the non-specific db template should be limited. Instead, use deletion templates that are specific to the particular criteria: {{db-band}} for non-notable bands, {{db-person}} for non-notable persons, {{db-hoax}} for blatant hoaxes, etc. If you are unfamiliar with these templates, you can find them listed under Category:Speedy deletion templates. Please familiarize yourself also with the allowable criteria for speedy deletion. If an article is not eligible for speedy deletion, then do not tag it for such; use one of the other deletion processes. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi Dan61 yes I am trying to learn. I saw someone else use that template and thought it applied to all prop deletion. I will try to follow your advice, so thank you for taking the time to write to me {{Huddsblue (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)}}[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Gran Paradiso page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kitzbüheler Horn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ORF. 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) 08:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Triglav may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ''Triglav'' also include ''Terglau'' in 1612, ''Terglou'' in 1664 and ''Terklou'' around 1778–89). The name is derived from the compound ''*Tri-golvъ'' (literally 'three-head'—that is, 'three

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Citation Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent efforts in adding citations to many mountain related articles. RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 04:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! If I may offer just a couple small tips. Peakbagger has its own ref template Template:Cite peakbagger. It may save you some time to use it, and some of this discussion may be applicable as why you should use it. See here for an example of the template in use. Also note that the comma doesn't affect the displayed elevation and prominence values, so it's not entirely necessary to add it in. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 04:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. When an article is categorized to a sub-category of another category, it is proper to only cat the sub-category and not the parent, lest we defeat the purpose of sub-catting in the first place. I have corrected most all such changes you have made, for example here.Thank you. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 06:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to all the Category:Mountains of Liechtenstein mountains that have been been put in Category:Mountains of the Alps despite the latter already being the parent of the former. I have not fixed these. JMiall₰ 09:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok If I'm going to get reprimanded constantly for added categories that seem logical to me I'll stop. I'm just trying to help and add some consistentcy, and it also gives me a chance to add to or clean up articles as I see fit {Huddsblue (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

Huddsblue, you shouldn't think of it as being reprimanded. On the contrary. You have been doing very well and making a lot of quality edits. Yes, several editors have brought to you a few concerns. It's mostly just minor stuff. but since you have been editing rather heavily in one particular genre, it's worth our time to stop by and help you smooth out the few wrinkles in your editing style. Think of it as the rest of us trying to "quickly bring you up to speed", to use Bermicourt's words below, and I agree that you have quickly brought yourself up to speed!

Regarding @JMiall:'s comment above. True Category:Mountains of Liechtenstein is a sub-category of Category:Mountains of the Alps, but since one is geopolitical category and the other a physical geographic category, I feel it's not wrong for a page to be categorized in both because it could be reached from each of two separate paths. Consider K2 is categorized under Category:Mountains of Gilgit-Baltistan and Category:Karakoram. And Mount Everest is categorized under Category:Mountains of Nepal and Category:Himalayas, despite Mountains of Nepal being a sub-category of Himalayas. I guess the logic of our category system eludes me as well.

All the best to you. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 23:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much involved in categorization so can't claim any great expertise but my opinion is that:

1. category diffusion is a very good thing because it enables large categories to be vaguely browsable
2. the use of a vast category such as Mountains of the Alps with potentially thousands of direct members as a means of generating a list of mountains in the Alps is not the way should be going - wikidata or list articles should be able to provide this functionality
3. I was regarding Mountains of Liechtenstein as being a logical way of diffusing Mountains of the Alps as one is entirely a subset of the other. Although I get the geopolitical / physical geographic category distinction so maybe the mountains could be in both categories...
4. ...but then Mountains of the Alps would still need diffusing in a physical geography way and it turns out that we do have categories corresponding to these sub-ranges of the Alps (eg Category:Karwendel, Category:Totes Gebirge and many others) which contain articles on things in these ranges, but these are not just mountains, they could be huts or towns or whatever. Very few of of these divisions have a subcategory of Mountains of x.
5. so I'd suggest that a really useful bit of categorisation would be to create and populate these categories, such as Category:Mountains of the Rätikon, which could be then regarded as diffusable child categories of Mountains of the Alps.

Thoughts? @Racerx11: JMiall₰ 21:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes I didn't realise I was opening up such a can of worms! The reason I have been categorising them as Mountains of the Alps is because A) that's what they are and B) Because so many of the articles are poor quality stubs that I want them all in the same place to make it easier for me to go through each article one-by-one and improve any worthy mountains as I can - it will take over a year but I am prepared to try. And by doing it this way I have already found duplicate articles, which I have fixed, as well as articles with no merit such as a peak with 3m prominence, which should, imo, never been created in the first place and I will just ignore... so what is the harm?{{Huddsblue (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)}}[reply]

The cans of worms are half the fun! (or to put it another way - it's our job as editors to sort out the worms so that the people just reading don't see much wiggling)

Anyway, to some extent there is next to no harm, but equally all pages could be put in the categories that are way up their category trees (all men could be in Category:Men for example) but this isn't the way Wikipedia is put together. Also Wikipedia's category structure shouldn't really be decided in order to create a list for one editor to go through (you could use a subpage in your userspace for this for example, or a talkpage of a wikiproject). It should be decided based on something similar to what already exists so that all the other readers can navigate it and understand it. Have you read WP:CAT (particularly Category tree organization onwards) (there's an interesting discussion on the talkpage there at the moment too)? JMiall₰ 00:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monte di Tremezzo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dom. 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) 08:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Daniel (mountain)

added a link pointing to Tyrol

Trogkofel

added a link pointing to Carinthia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the barnstar, Hudds. It's good to have someone else working on the project! --Bermicourt (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hudds. Thank you for your good-faith edits on this article. However, I just checked the Oxford Dictionary of English and the spelling there is "subdivision". It's the same with "subgroup" and "subregion". The only one I couldn't find was "subrange" which I'm now starting to hyphenate: i.e. "sub-range". Also Wikipedia has some funny rules about headers and titles: they don't normally use title case or the word "The" at the beginning. So a Wiki header would be "Origin of the name" and not "The Origin of the Name". I haven't reverted your edits as I thought you might want the chance to check out what I'm saying first. And of course I'm happy to be corrected! --Bermicourt (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for bringing this to my attention - I'm still a novice at this! I've reverted my grammar changes and just kept the new links! {{Huddsblue (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)}}[reply]

Gosh, I hadn't realised you were such a newcomer! You've certainly got up to speed quickly and made your mark! Well done! Feel free to bounce questions off me. I'm not an expert, but I've been doing this a while and got a feel for how they do things around here, at least in some areas. Much of my work is translating from German Wiki as you'll have gathered. --Bermicourt (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huddsblue. First I would like to say I completely agree with Bermicourt. You have been doing very well for a relatively new editor, and to a large degree, by even seasoned editor standards. Keep up the good work!

I have noticed when you add a reference section heading, you have been formatting it as ===References=== (three equal signs each end). That syntax would be for a sub-section heading. The 'References' section is a primary section, so the heading should be executed as ==References== (two equal signs each end). See MOS:HEADINGS. I think this has been fixed in most every case, here's an example of one of the fixes, so this is just a friendly "from now on please, it would help" sort of advice. Thanks. RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 23:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh I only probably understand about 1% of what it takes to be a proper wikipedia editor! I generally try to copy what others do lol! Atm I have decided to put all my Wikipedia energy into the Alps because it's probably the only area I can manage at the moment - good job for me that there's such a lot of work to be done! Tbh I've no idea how to properly translate articles from other articles and to reference them! Oh and I would also be interested in creating articles about Valleys that are missing on English wiki, but I doubt there is a Valley equivalent to Summitpost! Again, thank you both for your sound and generous advise {Huddsblue (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Großer Rosennock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eisenhut. 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) 08:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alberich Rabensteiner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sulz. 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) 08:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leopold Trattinnick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Austrian. 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) 09:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but lack of references and broken English are not reasons for speedy deletion. The nonsense tag WP:CSD#G1 specifically excludes poor writing, and referencing doesn't come into speedy deletion at all. Although something well referenced may have a more credible claim to significance, lack of references only comes in at WP:PROD and WP:AFD. The referencing only really comes in with blatant hoax as a speedy - if it can be referenced, it's definitely not a blatant hoax (but a lack of reference doesn't mean that it actually is a hoax). Peridon (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another one - schools. You can't use A7 on schools. It actually says 'educational establishments', which is a bit vague - but schools and universities definitely come in. Things like 'martial arts academies' tend to be regarded as not being ed ests. In between, it's anyone's guess - is a Sunday afternoon football 'academy' an educational establishment? Or a School of Beauty? Like above, prod and AfD can be used (but 'high schools' and above tend to have an assumed notability), and of course copyvio and advertising etc can be tagged for. There's a lot to learn in CSD - it's a bit like a theological manual crossed with a railway timetable... Peridon (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Huddsblue. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Angoori Bani Angaara, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to films - consider PROD or AfD. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear! Not very complimentary. In fact the article is not a translation at all but written by me in English and for what it is worth I am English. Must have gone wrong somewhere. Think it best to leave this. Perhaps someone will take the challenge and improve my English text. Weglinde (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Huddsblue. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Shuʿba Ibn al-Ḥajjāj, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. It's been cleared up massively and most definitely passes now Huddsblue (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Adding to what Peridon said above, there is good advice for speedy taggers from a very experienced admin at WP:A7M and WP:10CSD. Keep up the good work! JohnCD (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Huddsblue (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi noticed you disputed neutrality but you left no comments on the article talk page. Please state your concerns clearly so they can be dealt with, Thanks AmyEBHC (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Huddsblue (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"You have reason to believe" is not sufficient and then you slap it with another bigger penalty, quite a welcome for my first page what exactly are your concerns. It is impossible to improve what is not said, it would be great to have constructive and helpful feedback AmyEBHC (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've not slapped it with any kind of penalty. It's now obviously up to the community to decide. Huddsblue (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence has been presented. That's a very serious personal attack. I have removed the tag, even though the tag says that AMY herself can remove it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't my intention to cause offence to Amy or to anyone. How have I attacked her, or anyone else personally? I brought up a concern that the article may not have been totally neutral in tone. After she sent me the message expressing her concern over the neutrality tag I explained to her I then looked at her Wikipedia page and it states very clearly that she does work in that industry. I didn't say she was she was promoting anything, (although others have raised concern about her articles too in her talk page) I said it's up to the community to decide. I'm new to this and am prepared to take advice off experienced editors, as you have seen. I'm only trying to help. I was also under the impression that it was against the rules to undo deletion tags, and I have seen others been warned not to do it, hence why I put it back on.Huddsblue (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Be bold It even says so on your talk page, yet when I try to flag up a concern, Amy takes it to heart and I end up getting accused of making "serious accusations" by you which was not my intention. Huddsblue (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then I'm going to view this as an unintentional thing. The tag states that the article is "written by somebody with a very close tie to the company" (in this case an organization). That's a COI accusation, even if you didn't intend it as such. Amy is connected to ThinkWell, not Evidence Aid. There is a difference. She happens to be a highly skilled and professional subject expert whom we'd like to retain as an editor here. She has done an excellent job, considering it's her first article. Of course it can be improved, and we can all do that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want to jump on the bandwagon here but there are several issues that cause me concern. First an accusation of COI diff is substantial and serious. Such an accusation should only be made with evidence and lacking such evidence should be retracted. (A pointed but acceptable technique used on WP is to ask an editor directly if they have a COI.) Second the assertion that only administrators can remove a template diff, this is absolutely untrue. You should retract the statement you made on a user's talk page. Third the NPOV template states, "Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article. Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies." You have not provided specifics and policy based rationale. For what it is worth, I happen to agree that the article has some serious issues, and I have raised them on the talk page. A more appropriate tag would probably be advert. I hope you come to the talk page of the article with some specific issues and suggestions for improvements. I think the advert like/promotional tone is made worse through excess use of weasel words, the article needs independent, secondary reliable sources and should be fact based, concise and encyclopedic anything you can think of to improve it would be excellent. Pointing out specific phrases, words etc. that need improvement would also be useful. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill I will retract my statement fully on her talk page. The reason why I said "I have a reason to believe" is because, I looked on Amy's Wiki page and she stated she was involved "Evidence-Based Healthcare". I made a direct link in my mind with this and "Evidence Aid". In other words I put 2 and 2 together and got 5. The second mistake I made was obviously writing what I did in the talk page without realising that I was writing without thinking. I'm not aware of an "Advert" tag apart from the one used for Speedies, and I didn't put a Speedy Deletion tag on there because there was enough of a question mark about the article to let the community decide whether it was or not. This was my thinking anyway. The original offence taken by Amy was when I put the Neutrality tag on the article, which was not meant to cause offence at all, it was meant to flag up a concern I had. And then only after I read her user page I read all the marketing words in that including "Evidence-Based Healthcare" hence why the Prod. It wasn't meant as a vendetta against Amy or an offence against her article. Anyway I don't really want to go back to old ground as I don't want to say anything that may lead to another altercation. I'll leave it in the hands of guys like you with far more experience than me. Thank you for your input.Huddsblue (talk) 08:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i wanted to jump on this yesterday - i am late, but hope you all will hear me. For those who don't know me, i work a lot on COI issues here and am very active at WP:COIN. This is a collision of two (!) well intentioned and very promising new editors. It is clear to me that Huddsblue was well-intentioned and it is clear that a) he was tentative in what he wrote: "Also appears to have very close ties to this company. I have reason to believe that this could be a promotional article" and b) owned it: "i have reason to believe". This is very different from harsh and definitive claims I have seen people make, with no subjunctive mood. So.. the criticism of Huddsblue is overly harsh. There are a lot of promo articles created that should not exist, and we need editors scanning new articles to weed out really bad ones.

• Huddsblue you did handle that poorly, and if you are open to it, i will work with you on how to address these concerns better. It is great that you are getting tuned into COI issues in WP and we need savvy and skilled people dealing with that, on the front end. There are much better ways to do it, that are not as alarming to people on the receiving end and are more effective. Let me know.
• AmyEBHC you over-reacted a bit. I acknowledge that Huddsblue handled his concern awkwardly, and I understand it is unhappy to have someone raise these questions, but please understand that Wikipedia is flooded with new articles that about organizations that are written by people connected with them, and are PR efforts, and really do fail our NOTABILITY guideline. Yours did look like that, a bit. It is great that editors are helping you improve it. Amy you should be aware that per your userpage, you are an advocate for the kind of work that EvidenceAid does (please do read WP:ADVOCACY - and your enthusiasm for what they do, is pretty clearly expressed in the article. People come to WP for lots of reasons - most often because they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword - it drives people to contribute, but it does make it hard to be truly NPOV. This is why it is great that we have a community here, so we can all check each other and helo each other. Does that make sense? Nobody is a "bad guy" here, as far as I can see, including you.
• Does that make sense to everybody? Jytdog (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huddsblue and I resolved this conflict/misunderstanding and we look forward to contributing to Wikipedia. I am learning and very thankful for the kindness of editors who are helping to make this page better. I have removed anything that could be construed as promotional as far as I can see, so hopefully in the end it will turn out to be a good page that will help others. Also if there are other things that need to be addressed I am happy to edit until it is right. This gives me a standard to work towards and shows me how not repeat errors in future pages or edits on existing pages. I am an advocate for relief work, open access and healthcare for all and I have seen people suffer in crisis during disasters because no one knew what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmyEBHC (talk • AmyEBHC (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)contribs) 14:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see this come to an amicable resolution. I will echo Jytdog in COI is a valid concern. I hope all involved will continue to contribute. I apologize, I was too strong in my rebuke. I failed to assume good faith and didn't conduct myself in the way I should have encouraged Huddsblue to act. There is no question the original article was written in a non encyclopedic style and there are certainly concerns about COI on WP. In stepping back I look forward to collaborative and constructive work with all involved to improve the encyclopedia. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for helping this to come to an amicable resolution. Huddsblue (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Love on Your Side – The Best of Thompson Twins

added a link pointing to In the Name of Love

Shitala Mata Dham

added a link pointing to Pox

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dear Huddsblue,

please help to translate the Text in this Article. Thank you very much.

I don't speak any German and I'm editing via a mobile device, so sadly I can't even get onto Google Translate Huddsblue (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huddsblue, this was a terrible speedy deletion nomination. A2 should only be used for foreign language articles that are effective copies of existing articles in another language Wikipedia. Articles that are merely not written in English should instead be tagged for translation. If you are unsure what the CSD criteria mean, please ask before using them. You could post to my page, the WP:TEAHOUSE, WT:CSD, or WT:NPP. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for making me aware of that VQuakr. Huddsblue (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Thank you for patrolling new pages. I am slightly concerned at the amount of time that my page was patrolled in though. Patrolling normally takes at least 5 minutes to run through the checklist at WP:NPP. In this case, you have missed a large number off (categories). Please take a moment to read that and please follow it; it improves that quality of Wikipedia. Thanks! TheMagikCow (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MagikCow and thanks for your message. I patrolled it right away as I could tell straight away your article was a good one. I noticed the bare Urls but I find the "Linkrot" tag an awful tag and I never put it on, who wants to be told their article has "rot"?. If I was unsure whether your article was unsuitable for Wikipedia, I would have left it as you can see from my talk page I've made mistakes with tags before. Many thanks Huddsblue (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense now! Thanks and sorry for inconvenience! TheMagikCow (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emailed ;-).♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dharahara, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mughal. 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) 08:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you, much appreciated. Fixing stats is not one of my favourite tasks, but there's a lot of disruption around at the moment. If I had my way, we wouldn't record current stats at all, just provide a nice external link to somewhere the reader could find them. Save an awful lot of aggravation and people could get on with doing something useful instead... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a grand job Struway2. That's the problem with football stats, they change at least every week, yet people want to see the latest stats, me included lol. If you would like any help, please give me a shout, I've been looking for a new challenge since I was discouraged from NPP. Kro Huddsblue (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for the edits on the Tehran article! Well done, bruh. XD :) – Rye-96 (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Much appreciated {Huddsblue (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited East Pacific Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Complete. 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) 10:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fordbridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coleshill. 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) 10:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, I noticed your recent edits where you unlinked a lot of the summits. I think it's more useful to correct links rather than unlink - there's no logic in saying that Hand Lake ( now Hand Lake (hill)) shouldn't be linked because its name is ambiguous, while Linghaw has a red link. The link for Calders already led to an article which had a section about it, but I've now split it out into a separate article. For the others in the Howgills I've added red links, and also made hatnotes or dab page entries at Hand Lake, Brown Moor and Harter Fell (the last I think really useful as seriously ambiguous names like that, multiple English summits, can be so confusing). I haven't gone through the rest of your changes, but will probably do so when I have time unless you have a good argument as to why those hills are better unlinked. There could possibly be a discussion as to whether the less notable summits would be better served by being listed here unlinked, with redirects coming in to the page: that would mean that the reader looking for a hill could find what little info Wikipedia has about it. But while they're all linked, I think the ambiguous ones should be linked with disambiguation rather than just unlinked. PamD 09:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pam and thanks for your message, sorry if my actions caused any confusion or annoyance. The reason I unlinked them is because they were all directing to unrelated pages, apart from the one which was a sub-peak of a major peak, which just redirected to the major peak, whose link was directly above it. I think all of the major peaks in the Yorkshire Dales have articles on them? At least all the peaks with at least 150m of relative height do, which I kept all blue linked. Unless somebody's going to write up articles of every peak with at least 30m of relative height in the future? Huddsblue (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beinn Udlamain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marilyn. 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) 09:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's more my pedantry than anything else. Trying to word this as carefully as I can, it is unlikely that Johnson will be getting another club soon and it was me moving it in-line with other players in similar situations (Ched Evans). Samuel J Walker (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About the Yorkshire project, I won't revert you (pointless project, anybody remotely interested in him will be interested in football as well) but the Boro is in the project too. Teesside is traditionally in North Yorks, even though I always consider it "North East England" instead of Yorkshire. Ho hum. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're correct, although emotions are running high at the moment about it, and logic doesn't always triumph Huddsblue (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give King of Inkland King Body Art The Extreme Ink - Ite a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into King Of Ink Land King Body Art The Extreme Ink - Ite. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Smjg (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please indicate where you got "King Of Ink Land King Body Art The Extreme Ink - Ite" from. It isn't the form given in any of the references. — Smjg (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Answered {Huddsblue (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)}[reply]

Hi Huddsblue, thank you for your efforts copy-editing articles. Telmo Zarra and Hugo Sánchez happen to be on my watchlist and I noticed that you incorrectly replaced dashes with hyphens (1984-85 season, a 6 - 3 win, etc.). Please see MOS:DASH and MOS:HYPHEN for the correct usage of endashes, emdashes and hyphens on Wiki. Thanks again for your work. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Myomorpha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Climbing mouse. 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) 10:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Noto

added a link pointing to Syracuse

Swabian German

added a link pointing to Alemannic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hvítá, Árnessýsla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Selfoss. 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) 10:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited From The Underworld, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Herd. 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) 09:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not blank pages, as you did to The Way She Loves Me, whatever the reason. Somebody will come to Wikipedia, find a blank page and wonder what on earth is going on. If an article is a duplicate of another, then redirect it. If you feel that an article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, then look at the deletion policy. If it indeed meets the criteria for deletion in your judgement, then nominate it as appropriate. Thank you. — Smjg (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for the message. The redirect was done in error, as it was totally unrelated to the page it was redirecting to. I wondered what was going on. I don't know to delete it, would you care how to teach me? I'm passionate about Wikipedia but I am not a brainiac or computer expert so I do mistakes, and sometimes what is plain obvious to some needs explaining in plain terms to others like myself. Huddsblue (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only administrators can delete pages – ordinary users can merely nominate pages for deletion. There are three ways of doing this, depending on the circumstances:

• Speedy deletion, if the page meets one of certain criteria
• Proposed deletion, if the page doesn't meet one of the speedy deletion criteria, but deleting it isn't likely to be controversial
• Articles for deletion, the usual process, whereby one person nominates it and then others comment on whether they agree or not with the deletion (but note that it isn't voting)

But whichever route you're thinking of taking, the deletion policy will help you get started. — Smjg (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hudd could you change the blondie Wikipedia page genre from being a Rock band to a New wave band? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.104.130 (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Huddsblue. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Huddsblue, thanks for creating Bessanèse!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thanks for creating this. It has been tagged as needing its references improved.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello, Huddsblue. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Norton, Stourbridge, Huddsblue!

Wikipedia editor Insertcleverphrasehere just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

The reference system is a bit odd, but other than that this looks like a good addition. Thanks.

To reply, leave a comment on Insertcleverphrasehere's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

— Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 16:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Huddsblue. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Dear Huddsblue, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your recent creation of Beinn Dearg (Blair Atholl). Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 22:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Ruadh-stac Beag.

User:Boothsift while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Keep up the good work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boothsift}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

BoothSift 01:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for adding articles about mountains in Scotland. When you add a feature in Highland (council area), you can categorise it more precisely by adding these lines: {{coord missing|Highland}} {{Highland-geo-stub}}

There are similar codes for other council areas in Scotland.

You could also add articles written in the Scots language to the Scots Wikipedia at https://sco.wikipedia.org

Regards, Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Garbh Bheinn (Ardgour).

User:Onel5969 while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Please be careful of simply pasting material from other sources onto WP. WP is very serious about copyright violations, see WP:COPYVIO.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}</nowiki>. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

@Onel5969:

Hi it was just a redirect from the page Garbh Bheinn. It's not my article, and has been up for years, but I was glad I was able to bring the problems with it to your attention Huddsblue (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huddsblue

Thanks for you various tweaks to Welsh hills and mountains. All good except I'd have to take issue with you over Blorenge not being prominent. You say it isn't but are you just taking the mountain tables use of the word here i.e elevational differences with nearby summits? I know the mountain is prominent - I live near it and it is one of those mountains around here that dominates the entry into the Usk valley and indeed the entry on the A40 or A465 for most visitors to the national park - it rears above the valley and is certainly very prominent. I'd thought simply to revert your change but decided to take a more discursive approach in the hope you'd change our mind. best wishes Geopersona (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Geopersona: Hi Geopersona, and thanks for the message. Yeah, I was talking about Topographic prominence, Blorenge only has 14 metres of drop from Coity Mountain, which is only slightly higher but has a great deal of prominence in the geographical sense. Would it be Okay to state that it dominates the entrance to the Usk Valley instead, for clarity? Many thanks Huddsblue (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - yes, find a form of words by all means - it's arguably more prominent than Coity Mountain in the generally understood sense of the word 'prominent', even if in the narrower 'topographical prominence' sense it might be the other way around! Geopersona (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Geopersona: Error located (it was in the infobox) and fixed. Thanks for bringing it to my attention Huddsblue (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

2003 Roger Federer tennis season (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Félix Mantilla and James Blake

Roger Federer's early career (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Jiří Vaněk and Wayne Arthurs

2005 Roger Federer tennis season (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to James Blake

2006 Roger Federer tennis season (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to James Blake

2007 Roger Federer tennis season (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to James Blake

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at Druim Fada (Loch Hourn) for which you give the ref NG894681 and hillbagging gives NG 89468 08327 ... and Beinn Dearg Mhor (Sligachan) for which you gave the grid ref NG520353 and hill-bagging specifies NG 52035 28483 ... in both cases, the last 3 digits of your refs are wrong.

Please take a look and assess whether there is an issue here, and if so, can you fix it across all occurrences? thx. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and []

@Tagishsimon:

Not to my knowledge, although I may be wrong. Please feel free to correct any errors in any of my articles yourself Huddsblue (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also finding ALL your grid refs are wrong. Please don't add more grid refs until you can do so reliably.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shantavira: If you're certain that ALL my articles are wrong then there's nothing stopping you correcting them all yourself. It'd surely be better than barracking me over it Huddsblue (talk)

Hi Huddsblue - I didn't get the sense that Shantavira was 'barracking' you over it, but was concerned that what appears to be a systematic error is removed from the edits in what are a host of worthwhile article stubs you have created (I was surprised that some of them hadn't existed before in fact). It would be a shame to introduce any more errant grid refs because someone - whether it is Shantavira, you, me or someone else - could do with correcting them. I note that Shantavira has indeed corrected a number of them but there are many more to do – I’ll have a go at some myself. I'd add that I’ve managed to introduce incorrect grid refs into articles myself before now and other editors have either fixed them or pointed them out for me to fix. Thanks and best wishes, Geopersona (talk) 07:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Geopersona: Well it's obvious that the hounds have been sent out on me for a heinous crime lol. Seriously though, anybody's free to correct me if and when I make mistakes, of course, but it's also about tone. There's a way talking to people, and telling me that the 150 + articles that I put a lot of effort into researching and writing over the summer in order to fill in some significant gaps are "ALL" wrong in the tone that Shantavira did is likely to cause annoyance. At least you are being genuinely polite about it (you're the first person that has), and I thank you for that and shall bear your words in mind Huddsblue (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have fixed them all now - of course I may have introduced errors of my own! thanks Geopersona (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to the article Aiguille Noire de Peuterey ‎. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. Kuru (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Eighth Day (Hazel O'Connor song requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into You Do Something to Me (Cole Porter song). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 20:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees: Thanks for bringing this to my attention Moneytrees. I have indeed done it this way on other articles as I couldn't see another way of doing it. (I'm not a tech wizard like so many on here! :-)) I'm still unsure how to do it but I shall try and fix them over the next day or so. If I get stuck, can I give you a bell? Huddsblue (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll gladly help if you need any :). The option to move the page should appear when under the "More" tab, like in this picture.Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 22:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to make you aware that the reason some of your article creations are being redirected or deleted is that they consist of little more than a UK chart placing, which in itself is not enough to warrant an article if it doesn't contain some background text about the song itself. And the limited back ground text you are adding is usually from Songfacts – this doesn't count as a reliable source because it's been added by users to the site, and there is no way of knowing what they have added is true. Please try and avoid using "facts" from this source... it's better if they can be confirmed from a music magazine or book. Yes, I know it's not easy to get hold of copies of the NME from 1980 to be able to confirm details about Hazel O'Connor singles... that's why they never had articles in the first place. As a Brit who grew up during this era I totally sympathise with the feeling that there aren't enough articles about British songs and albums from the pre-internet era – I know this is an area of music that is poorly covered by Wikipedia, and I try and get to the British Library whenever I can to try and improve articles, but it's a long and slow process. Thank you. Richard3120 (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: Hi Richard and thank you for your detailed explanation of the criteria for song inclusion. Yes you are right that the online coverage for even classic songs (unless they are by someone like The Beatles or The Stones) from the pre-internet age is often poor and yes the stubs are short but I thought they can always be added to by other editors over time. Wikipedia does encourage people to "be bold" after all. Unfortunately the chances of me making the 400 mile round trip from my home to the British Library anytime soon is virtually zero but appreciate the suggestion anyway. Is there any chance of loosening the criteria around oldies to reflect the difficulty of sourcing information for songs say pre-2000 to reflect this difficulty and the fact that many big songs are missed out as a result? Songfacts seems to be run by people who genuinely know their stuff so it seems a shame to discount it as a resource.

Many thanks Huddsblue (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant me going to the British Library – I'm a member. But I'm currently 5,500 miles away from it, so it's even less likely that I'll be visiting anytime soon. I doubt very much that other editors would allow leeway for older material just because online sources aren't available, because then everyone else would be asking for special dispensation for their articles in other fields as well. In the case of "Will You?", I was surprised that it was redirected given it was a big hit in the UK – I'm having a look to see if I can get enough together to retrieve it, because it was a top ten hit in Ireland as well, but I'm struggling to find any other information... even the music magazine cuttings from 1981 on Hazel's own website don't mention it at all, disappointingly, so perhaps a trip to the BL will be fruitless anyway. The brief information on SongFacts seems to have been taken from her own autobiography Uncovered Plus anyway, so it would be better to cite that rather than the website. Richard3120 (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Richard. I would personally say that it's notable enough for inclusion. I only wrote articles for her two biggest hits, with 'Will You' being the best remembered today, so it was a bit of a shock to find out it had being erased for a redirect. But I guess that anyone who isn't familiar with British music from that era wouldn't have known. Thanks for your efforts btw. Huddsblue (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, I think it's notable as well, seeing as it was a top ten hit in two countries. I'm just trying to get some more information to add as sources so that nobody has a good excuse to redirect it again if I revert it. Richard3120 (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten and restored the article with additional sources... I think it will be hard for someone to argue now that it doesn't meet notability requirements. By the way, the song does appear in the film, albeit very briefly... at 33 minutes in, O'Connor is sat at a piano in her house and plays the opening riff and sings the first two lines, before smashing her hands down on the keys and slamming the piano lid shut in frustration. Richard3120 (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: apparently I'm wrong... see below. But we'll see what happens at the AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Richard. I've just seen the article, you've obviously put a lot of effort into improving it. Can't see anything wrong with it myself Huddsblue (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Will You? (Hazel O'Connor song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will You? (Hazel O'Connor song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huddsblue . I noticed that you used thefamouspeople .com as a source for biographical information in Christian Eriksen [1]. Please note that the general consensus as expressed at WP:RSN is that it does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. I've gone ahead and removed it. If you disagree, let's discuss it. You may want to check WP:RSP and WP:RSN to help determine if a source is reliable. Thanks.

Please double-check the remaining references, or (ideally) find better ones. Such prominence should be easily verifiable, and the use of thefamouspeople.com suggests that it might not be so. --Hipal (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Demographics of the Dominican Republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page European.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]