User talk:ErikHaugen/Archive 5

Article on Technozion
Hi,

Previously there was a article on technozion thats the annual fest that we hav in our college NIT warangal (India). Please restore back the article I will provide you newspaper clippings for proof, if this would resolve. Or else please let me know what should I do.

Thanks,

Harish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mallaharish (talk • contribs) 22:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Harish, please read the section here: general notability guideline. Do you feel that Technozion meets those criteria? If so, I'd be happy to restore the article. Let me know, thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

talkback
I replied to your question on WT:RFA. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Steven Kitshoff
Why did you deny the AfD-based speedy with the reason "wrong guy"? According to the AfD, this article is listed and proposed to be deleted. I don't see any statements that refer to deleting only one of the two. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 21:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah; missed that, pardon. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Bio-Armour deletion
You said this article could not be deleted as it had already been proposed for deletion once before. However, the only reason that the first proposal was rejected was because a web search had not been conducted. I made a full web search and found practically no mentions of 'biological armour', even in fictional works. The article is uncited and non-notable; it really doesn't warrant inclusion. Is it really not possible to have it deleted? Michaelmas1957 (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sympathetic, but this is the nature of prods – once declined, articles are essentially immune from further prodding. Please feel more than free to take this article to wp:AfD. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 09:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping with the primate renames, particularly on the lemur articles. I've renamed all that I can, so I appreciate you stepping in with your mighty broom to do the others. –  VisionHolder « talk » 13:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And thank you! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

gashole
Thanks for notification--Navid1366 (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up my TP:LSR/Calibre misnamer
Err, that about covered it. Thanks again :) Moocha (talk) 08:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * sure. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 08:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

New millennium writings
FYI... I restored New millennium writings to New Millennium Writings as a disputed PROD after receiving a request on my talk page. See the reply that I left on the editor's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogo Dodo (talk • contribs) 20:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ok thanks. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Origins of the Urban Crisis
Is it possible to revert the deleted article in my sandbox? Duke Ganote (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you like it in your sandbox or should I just go ahead and restore it? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sandbox, please. It definitely needed some work. Duke Ganote (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I moved it to User:Duke_Ganote/The_Origins_of_the_Urban_Crisis. Thanks!! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
FYI - don't hesitate to chime in. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol
Hi Erik. Thanks for intervening so  quickly. I'm sure the ideas were introduced in good faith, but obviously the user is unaware that initiatives with such  board-wide implications need to go  through  several  layers of  proposal and discussion at  the  VP and RfC. If you haven't  already  nominated the templates for deletion  at  TfD, do  consider going  ahead and doing  so - they should not be left lying around for indiscriminate or 'accidental' use. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Allright, I'll do the TfDs. I didn't have too much else to say on your talk page, I think you covered it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

History merges
Hi Erik. Well you asked for it so here's User:Pichpich/Not so urgent histmerges from userspace. I put it in Category:Candidates for history merging (which may or may not be the optimal solution). Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! That category makes it sort of show up here: CAT:CSD so I'll just link to it from wp:WPHM and try to get to it soon. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Undeletion of Dru Hepkins Page
Hi ErikHaugen,

Thank you very much for your help and I totally understand about the sources. Here are a few URL links to Dru Hepkins including, record label discography. Hopefully this will suffice.

PRESS SI LIVE: http://blog.silive.com/marooned/2007/10/ladies_and_gentlemen_dru_hepki.html

LABEL INFO: http://www.discogs.com/DJ-Disciple-Dru-Hepkins-When-I-Die/release/1797120

http://www.silive.com/entertainment/music/index.ssf/2008/08/dru_hepkins_goes_house.html

http://www.traxsource.com/index.php?act=show&cr=titles&cv=28299&fc=tpage

PRESS WWS MAGAZINE: http://wwsmag.com/updates/dru-hepkins-electric-lady/

PRESS MVREMIX: http://mvremix.com/urban_blogs/2008/03/11/dru-hepkins-sit-and-wait-to-die-video/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockult (talk • contribs) 18:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of these have potential, thanks. Would you like me to put this article in your user space so you can add these, then we can move it back to the main article space? Or if you do a deletion review you could bring these up there? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'd prefer a deletion review and then add them. It will achieve the same result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockult (talk • contribs) 23:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There are 81,500 web references for Dru Hepkins. Just fishing for sufficient ones. Here's a few more.

REMIX WITH 50 Cent & LUPE FIASCO: http://www.thisis50.com/video/blow-episode-2-dru-hepkins

http://www.mvremix.com/urban/interviews/dru_hepkins.shtml

http://www.amazon.com/Declamation-of-Useless-Genius-Explicit/dp/B000XP9DM8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockult (talk • contribs) 15:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Incident
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Capitalisation
It looks like you are moving a number of articles with a reason given in the edit summary: "Per WP:CAPS: "The common names of species generally do not have each word capitalized, unless proper nouns appear."

I think you have misapplied WP:CAPS. The text says "generally" and notes a "main exception", which means there are other exceptions. The text also refers to WikiProject_Tree_of_Life, which says "There is currently no common standard, so no particular system should be enforced overall." Can you point to a discussion where consensus was achieved to remove capitalisation from bear articles? Gimmetoo (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. Yeah, I moved a couple bear articles and a crocodile to lowercase recently. The exceptions that CAPS is referring to is birds, possibly moths, up until very recently primates, and maybe a couple more, but I don't think WP:MAMMAL has ever tried to establish an exception, so I don't think there is any exception that applies to bears. The entire quote from the TOL page is "Many of the WikiProjects listed above have defined standards for the capitalization of common names, which should be used when discussing the groups they focus on. There is currently no common standard, so no particular system should be enforced overall." This isn't even true, there aren't very many projects at all with defined standards. Which is probably as it should be, right? I don't think grammar should change too much across various taxa. And like I said, yeah, there is no common standard, since WP:BIRDS is different. I am not renaming bird articles. To sort of answer your other question, there have been a few discussions recently supporting lower case titles for various groups: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Primates for primates, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cetaceans/Archive_4 for whales. Both of these, I think, focused on the point that in scholarly literature and other reliable sources overwhelmingly use lower case. Currently there is a discussion here that you may wish to weigh in at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life, which seems to be focusing on getting some kind of consistency. If you like, I'll stop for now pending the outcome of the TOL discussion going on. Hopefully we can achieve some kind of consistency that is backed by reliable sources, the current state of affairs is kind of embarrassing. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is also this: Naming_conventions_(fauna), which seems consistent with the "lower case except for the exceptions like birds" rule. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sightsavers International
Hi, sorry, can you just tell me why the Sightsavers International page was deleted? Doesn't indicate importance of the subject? It's been on wikipedia for about four years, is linked to by other articles, Sightsavers are one of the biggest international charities in the UK? All I was doing was updating some information so if I've done something wrong can you let me know what?

Sightsaversmatt (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

May I ask for a chance to see if it is possible to rescue the Sight Savers? if this is possible please let me know. I do not work for this charity and declare that I perceive no conflict of interest in this matter. MikeBeckett (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure; would you like me to move it to your user space? Thanks!! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
I think it was unwise of you to close the move debate so quickly, although I know you thought you were doing the right thing. Even if the common name argument was stronger than the conventions on naming of queen consorts, there is also the issue that articles on people should be named by the highest title they have every held. In her case, this was Queen, not Queen Mother! Deb (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * But how was it too quick? It was not an early closure. What title do you think is best? Queen Elizabeth has to remain the disambiguation page, I think that is clear. What else? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears that many of those contributing to the debate have not been involved to any great extent in the discussion of royalty articles and their naming. It's a sensitive subject and one that calls for a level of background knowledge that some contributors clearly lack.  I think what may have happened is that people who watch Requested Moves for the purpose of commenting on them have been quick to react, whilst people who have a real interest in the subject have not been aware of the debate.  The names I see in the debate are mostly not those I would have expected to see.  Whether it is a right or wrong move, it certainly goes against two points in the guidelines:
 * 1. "Deceased consorts are referred to by a name by which they are commonly known or (if recently deceased) are expected to become known." Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother is recently deceased, and this was anticipated by wikipedia in using the style that almost all former queen consorts are known by, ie. maiden name.
 * Do you think she'll be most commonly known by her maiden name anytime soon? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2. "Base the article title on the most senior title a person held." I see that someone has added wording to this to say that it "does not always apply" in the case of consorts, but they have not explained this statement.  If this guideline were followed, the article would be named "Queen Elizabeth", which I agree would be wrong - that is the purpose of the maiden name rule. Deb (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's decided that "Queen Elizabeth" is the best title, then it's almost surely going to have disambiguating parenthesis, and be something like Queen Elizabeth (Queen Mother) or Queen Elizabeth (Bowes-Lyon) or something. But, the "however in certain cases it may be done by choosing a different form of the title in order to achieve uniqueness" clause of WP:PRECISION comes in to play, and we might reasonably come up with something along the lines of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. So I think in the end the current title just moved to satisfies the "senior title" rule. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You could of course open a new move request, but I imagine a lot of these same arguments would be made there. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My point is that we only use "Queen Elizabeth" for living consorts. Because of the issues you mention, we use the maiden name for deceased queens consort.  That is what all historians do.  We have gone against guidelines twice in the renaming of this article. Deb (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah; I was confused because you said you "agree that would be wrong" so I thought we were talking about the same thing. In any case, the government site seems to think this is a good title, so I don't think we're too far off, despite what historians might do. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification
Eric, when you said, "I don't think there's any reason to sacrifice consistency for the whims of the specialist publishers", I don't understand. It would only be if the case could be demonstrated that "a strong majority of reliable sources" use a hyphen rather than a dash. That is a bit different from "the whims of specialist publishers". I do not agree with the proposal in a larger frame, since I want the project to be self-consistent. But sometimes, as with Engvar and date formats, guidelines need to give a little for social and cultural reasons: it's just a practicality, don't you think? I fear the alternative would be complete optionality—in other words, use what you want, just article-consistent. That would be an abnegation of the role of the MoS, which is to minimise disputes. Can you imagine the disputes if there were no default and no orderly process for resolving the matter at a local level? Tony  (talk)  02:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Further reading of thread: so does your support hinge on the definition of "specialty texts"? I think it would be hard to draw a line around them, and would prefer to rely on whatever WP's established guidance is for RSs. There's a list at the page, I'm sure. Mexican–American War would probably have gone the way of the hyphen under this proposal (regrettably, but that seems to be the case for that particular usage). Tony   (talk)  03:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, my support would hinge on what the RSs would have to say in order for an exception to be granted. The confusion seemed to be around whether exceptions would be made if RSs used a hyphen or only if they prescribed the use of a hyphen. It seemed to me you meant the former, and you seem to be confirming it here, but there was some confusion at the RfC. I would like to avoid scenarios where a persistent editor establishes a de-facto area-specific guideline essentially based on preference that is different from the rest of the project. It just looks amateurish. So while I appreciate what you are trying to do, I don't want to support this kind of thing; I think we can do better. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We already have this in quite a few ways: one concerns medical areas in which there's a band of editors who have objected to Kwami's addition of hyphens to compound units in medical articles, despite the MoS guidance and that of many other guides. These hyphens, IMO, make it easier for non-experts to parse, but the editors are adamant that they don't use them elsewhere (probably mostly true), and won't bend. I am on Kwami's side in this respect, but it's an unfortunate fact that most writers in English are as bad at typography as they are at writing in general (or couldn't give a toss). This is replicated somewhat on WP. My assumption was a generalised one involving both what external style guides say and how usage plays out. So you would agree only if the strong majority of style guides and other authorities were on side? In the case of Mexican–American War, I suspect that the usage is so strongly on the hyphen side that the case for exemption would go through. In the case of many other instances, it may not be as easy to make a watertight case. Tony   (talk)  11:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We certainly do have it in quite a few ways! I'm hoping we can move away from this. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK; hoping you are able to support the cause of coordinated style guidance at WP to professionalise the text. It would be much appreciated in future. Tony   (talk)  15:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I admit defeat for now. thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Lewis Chambers
Lewis Chambers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lewis_Chambers#Lewis_Chambers)

Hi there can you please delete this page AFTER reading its discussion page? Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.87.249 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not supposed to just go around deleting pages. What do you suggest the grounds be for deletion? (Also, please sign your posts on talk/discussion/nonarticle pages using ~ . Thanks!) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

history merges vs. copied
Hi Erik. A few days ago, you decided that my proposed history merge from User:Stephenbloomington/sandbox to Michael O. Fitzgerald was not the best option. I'm not sure I understand the subtlety. Actually, why use history merges at all? Or from my point of view, why should I ever bother you or Anthony or whoever is on histmerge duty? The copied template takes 30 seconds to fill-in, then I redirect the userspace page to the article and voila. Is it just that it's a little sloppy? Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a HM n00b, but here's my understanding. Ideally, all the history should be in one place. It's easier to find attribution, that blame tool works, the history is more clear, etc, etc. In this case, though, history merge isn't going to work all that well, because it's really a merge, not a C&P move. See HM for more. copied actually takes a long time to fill out, at least for me, and history merges really aren't all that hard. I think they're worth doing when possible to do cleanly, but if not, and it will just make the history of the article confusing, then don't bother. This case wouldn't have been that bad, because the separate histories would not have been interleaved, at least. Does that answer your question? AA might have more to say on this. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the clarification. I'll stick to requesting history merges when in doubt. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Whisperback
Mainly for assessing my CSD tags -- Σ ☭ ★  06:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Moratorium on hyphen/dash moves
Good closure at Talk:Carbon-carbon bond. Is there a notice-board listing of these so we can remember to revisit for further/final action them once the moratorium is lifted? DMacks (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that might be a good idea; maybe at WT:AC/N? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Oxford Abstracts Ltd
Hi. You've just deleted my article at Oxford Abstracts Ltd. Why? IMHO there's a credible claim of notability (major clients, claims of wide use, apparently reliable sources), enough to pass A7, so at the worst a prod or AfD would be appropriate. andy (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, forget that. I thought you'd deleted the new version at Oxford Abstracts! It was just the histmerge happening. I'm trigger-happy. Sorry. :) andy (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries! Thanks for working on it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Duke of Wellington move
Wasn't the proposal at the requested move to rename and redirect Duke of Wellington? I can't see any discussion about renaming Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. Barret (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, I really messed that up; thanks. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Lipotyphla
I fixed the parent on the edit you linked to due to a template error. Soricomorpha does not include the hedgehogs (those are placed into Erinaceidae, which is regarded as an unstable, potentially paraphyletic taxon). Since Erinaceidae is Soricomorpha's counterpart, it's been suggested Lipotyphla be retained for now until further evidence surfaces. That said, Soricomorpha only encompasses part of Lipotyphla and is (it seems) a valid taxon, but isn't consistent with hedgehog taxonomy. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 04:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

My RfA
I just wanted to take a minute to thank you very much for supporting me in my recent RfA. Even though it was unsuccessful, I appreciate your trust. With much gratitude, jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 02:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: deletion of Southern Australian
Hi Erik, You recently deleted an article about the newspaper the "Southern Australian" because of the guideline G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.samemory.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?c=3946 I am a librarian at the State Library of South Australia, the creator and copyright holder of the SA Memory website, including the page http://www.samemory.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?c=3946 I have been directed to the processes for donating copyright material to Wikipedia and will now follow one of those, so I am going to go ahead and create the page again. kind regards Joannalibrarian (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright; thanks. A lot of times, rewriting – but avoiding close paraphrasing, of course – can be a lot easier than going through all the OTRS stuff. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey
Hello Erik, could you please allow me to have Confirmed access. I would like to use Twinkle and I see a few pages that need to be moved to new, better names.— Croisés Majestic (sur nous mars) 17:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok; done! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...
Haha, I am there trying to request deletion on Carl Albert High School under A7 and then you delete it. I have also requested create protection. — Croisés Majestic (sur nous mars) 21:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think A7's are going to work on high schools; in fact, high schools seem to be presumed notable enough to survive AfDs. This user has added a ton of copyrighted text which I am trying to deal with, that's why I deleted it. Page creation protection seems overkill; I don't have much experience with it though. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Marlborough Move
You have acted in an underhanded and unethical manner concerning the Four Opposed to an assumed Five in Support is not in anyway a consensus for a move and I consider that you have acted in remarkably Bad Faith by declaring and moving the article as you did. Dabbler (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you feel it was bad faith? Do you suspect I have ulterior motives? What do you think they might be? Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus does not equal winning a majority vote, it means that everyone can agree to live with the decision. There was manifestly no agreement on the decision you took unilasterally. That to me demonstrates lack of good faith. I have no knowledge of your motives, I purely judge your actions. Dabbler (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Moves happen all the time that not everyone is happy about, although, interestingly, you seemed to indicate that you could "live with" this move in the discussion. I'm not sure how this demonstrates a lack of good faith; hopefully you will get a chance to read my reply to you here Talk:Marlborough,_Wiltshire and I will be able to convince you that I am not here to do harm. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Iyt is the abuse of process and high handed ignoring of the opposition that upsets and annoys me, not the actual decision that was taken. Dabbler (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Lake Tai
Thanks for the note about the disruptive editing on the requested move at Taihu Lake. Albeit I moved the page, but I did place a note on HXL49's talk page about the matter. Regards, Kilo T 20:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, and for closing all those RMs! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Merger discussion
Hello, I require an un-involved admin to close out a merger discussion, I had done it myself but have been reverted. The discussion is here Thank you for your time. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't think I'm going to have time. Best of luck, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Marlborough, again
Regarding your comment here, "Xyl is a senior member of the WP:D team"; I'm flattered (unless you’re just saying I’m old!) but I think you’ve confused me with someone else; I’ve only made about two dozen edits at WP:D, and the first one was only about two months ago. Also, that was only because of the row at Talk:Corvette, which I got involved with because of my interest at WP:ships (which I have been somewhat involved with for a while). Just to put the record straight, Xyl 54 (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was too lazy to check the archives :) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for deleting User:Nagualdesign/British people. It was beginning to annoy me. :) nagualdesign (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You bet! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Checking myself
I feel that I need to check myself, here. Am I coming across as being completely off the rails, or anything like that? — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 00:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem pretty flustered in a couple comments, but not completely off the rails. :) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, I need a break from the Wikipedia namespace (which is a conclusions that I reached immediately after posting this). This is a hobby for me, you know? I can't work with people who obviously have no desire to cooperate with others. Frustrating. Anyway, sorry to bug ya, and thanks for the feedback. :) — V = IR  (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 20:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Help with Jay Maisel page
Hello Erik, could you provide some editor assistance on the Jay Maisel page (which you previously edited)? There seems to be a new editor (though apparently well-seasoned in WP nomenclature) that's reverted quite a bit of the info about the recent Baio incident. This person's edits seem related to topics that are narrow in scope (ie only related to Maisel, his real estate holdings, etc). Thanks, and I apologize if this is the wrong place to post. I'm still learning about WP protocal. 98.223.203.31 (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yikes, I'm not sure how much I can help. wp:UNDUE is something to keep in mind here. I'll take a look. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Dashes
Please ignore the note before this; it looked like you were reverting two edits. Nevertheless. I do not agree that there is an "overwhelming" consensus for diode–transistor junction; there is certainly signigicant opposition, and to say "should be" when the dash is not usage ignores that opoostion. Bl;ueboar suggests "preference" in such situations; and that seems much more accurate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3c at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting shows something like 25–1. You being the 1. It's overwhelming. The other section had a few people objecting to "requires"—which isn't in this draft anyway—but not many! We can discuss this at the talk page, though, no need to hash it out here as well. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And my objection is to requiring. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Starscream
Hi, I just noticed that when you moved the above article you didn't move the talk page. It still points to Talk:Starscream (Transformers) rather than Talk:Starscream, which is a redirect to the former. I can't move it over the redirect. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yikes, not sure how I messed that up! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

triple-hyphen bond?
Hi,

Is the triple-hyphen bond, as here, different from a H&minus;H bond? Just checking, in case I'm screwing something up. — kwami (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know! sorry, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 02:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's referring to a nonspecific bonding situation or a weaker attraction, not literally a single covalent bond. DMacks (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope
Hello Erik. Earlier today you moved the CFHT article by changing the hyphens of its name to dashes. I think the move is inappropriate because it is not a matter of text, to which the WP manual of style properly applies, but the actual name of a telescope and the corporation that runs it, spelt with hyphens. It isn't WP's business how an organisation should spell its name, only how it does. So I'm requesting that you undo the move to correspond to the telescope's own usage. Thanks, Awien (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but I think we've decided not to treat names of organizations/corporations this way. See Manual of Style (trademarks); the summary reads "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, regardless of the preference of trademark owners." ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The styling of the name is not consistently with hyphens, though that is most common. For example, this paper uses en dashes, as does this one; and this one uses spaces; and this official memo uses spaced hyphens while this official report uses spaces. We should use WP style. Dicklyon (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * How users spell the name of the telescope is irrelevant (but you do in fact admit that the majority use hyphens). What counts is the usage of the corporation itself, which is consistently with hyphens:


 * http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/
 * http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/HawaiianStarlight/trailer.html


 * Nor is there anything "incorrect" or "non-standard" about hyphens, which can be analysed as linking a triple modifier (cf. blue-green algae). What's going on here is in my view misguided hypercorrection, and the corporation's own usage should be respected. Awien (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In "blue-green", "blue" modifies "green", so a hyphen is correct, I believe. At least according to our manual of style. How is this "hypercorrection"? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, the hyphen is correct in the algae, but would be wrong in "blue–green dichroism", where it signals the different meaning. I agree that "How users spell the name of the telescope is irrelevant"; but further, how the corporation styles their name is irrelevant, according to MOS and trademark guidelines; also, as I thought I showed, that corporation does not in fact use consistent styling of their own name (even their official top-level web site page uses spaces in meta name="Description" content="Welcome to the Canada France Hawaii Telescope Website"; also not very relevant, though).  Dicklyon (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right, blue-green algae was not a good example. But principle 1.3 in the MOS, far ahead of the controversial section on dashes, is "Follow the sources". The usage of the entity in question, a respected university-based corporation, is a reliable source; we're not talking a goofy brand name here. You are jumping the gun in enforcing on it a principle that has yet to be adopted in order to "correct" what is not incorrect (i.e. hypercorrection). What you're doing seems a lot like having an axe to grind, not appropriate. Awien (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's not much controversy on the new dashes section, and quite a bit around PMAnderson's "follow the sources" section, so you've got it backwards. We are using the name of the telescope (and the corporation), but using WP's style; other sources with similar style guides so similarly.  In a style that uses en dashes, hyphens are incorrect; in other styles, they're fine.  There's no conflict there.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a good point; if a particular source uses hyphens for this sort of thing, then they're going to style this and everything else with hyphens. It doesn't mean that this phrase in particular should especially be styled with hyphens. Just that we found it discussed in that source. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Awien, I don't see the "follow the sources" section as applying to things like punctuation; in those cases it is best to maintain a style consistent with ourselves. Consider again how Manual of Style (trademarks) so deliberately does not follow sources wrt things like punctuation or capitalization. Spelling, yes, but not punctuation, I think? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Turns out they don't mind, so I'm dropping it. Awien (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for your contribution to and interest in Wikipedia Tree of Life! Chrisrus (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I had to decline that BLPPROD
Pretty much any link in an article prevents nomination under that tag, sorry about that. I suspect it's going to have to go to AfD. Best, --joe deckertalk to me 17:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I edit conflicted with you; I noticed the EL too late and tried to remove it myself, but you beat me to it. Sorry I had to decline your prod, the article had been prodded before and was therefore ineligible for any more prods. To afd we go. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Crepe
Four opposes and four supports? Weirdest use of the word "consensus" I've ever seen. I'm afraid I think you're very wrong in this closure and I'm mystified as to how you could possibly come to this decision, particularly as it seems likely that it is a UK/US variation (I have noticed on other such move discussions that US editors generally oppose the use of diacritics, whereas UK editors generally support them). -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm an American, and I like diacritics. There was consensus, I think, about the points that I said there was consensus about. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 10:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Necro that your interpretation of "consensus" is faulty. I fail to see how there was consensus to move. The move discussion has reopened. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I think there was consensus about what I said there was consensus about. There wasn't "consensus" there to move, I guess, but wp:LOCALCONSENSUS. Thanks for the heads-up; hopefully it will be constructive. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You severely qualified your statement, and gloss over the fact that perhaps you could have been wrong in closing the move discussion as you did. It was contrived, and wasn't a consensus in any classic sense, and at best a 'no consensus' could have been claimed. Assuming good faith, one could say it was a misjudgement; at worst, one could argue an abuse of process. In view of the huge drama that has exploded there as a result of this mistake, and the fact that long-standing namespace of the article was 'crêpe', the correct thing to do would be to reverse the move and restart the discussion from there. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "glossed over". See my response to Hans, who also claimed it was at best no consensus; he even backed up his claim with reasons. We discussed it at length at Talk:Crepe. Please let me know if there is anything new to add to that discussion. In any case, though, as I told the other editor who asked me to reverse my last closure, I do not see this as an option given the opposition to the move request that is in process. That would be an abuse of process. And I certainly wouldn't do it just because of drama. And I guess we should be careful using the word "drama", it can be seen as offensive. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Erik, now that the RM is closed with reversion to Crêpe, let me thank you for your efforts there. It cannot have been easy. This simple-looking RM turned out to be an ordeal for several editors. There may be something for us all to learn from it; but just what is to be learned is up to each of us individually. My best wishes to you as always. I recognise your integrity, and I look forward to working with you as the opportunity arises. N oetica Tea? 06:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, and thanks for all your work here and elsewhere on Wikipedia. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)