User talk:ErikHaugen/Archive 7

San Francisco meetup at WMF headquarters
Hi ErikHaugen,

I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the next wiki-meetup happening in SF. It'll be located at our very own Wikimedia Foundation offices, and we'd love it if some local editors who are new to the meetup scene came and got some free lunch with us :) Please sign up on the meetup page if you're interested in attending, and I hope to see you soon! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW...
sent you an email ... now what did I do with that dang template? :) — Ched : ?  10:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Careful
Asking others to AGF could be used against you as evidence of tendentious editing, or failing to AGF yourself. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Need help with a move request
Hi,

Could you please help in this move discussion. On Sunday I posted this on the requested moves talk page. No admistrator has yet picked it up, maybe because it sounds complicated. But it is not more complicated than other move discussions, maybe it is even simpler than most other move discussions. If you are wondering why u have been chosen - you had answered the entry right under my post, so I thought I'll ask you to see into the matter. If you do not have the time to spare please say where to find an administrator who can help. I really do not know what the procedures are, but when the discussion is stuck at whether or not Sri is an honourific, which has no relevance to choosing the article title, since this King is virtually not refered to without the Sri part in his name, I think it is a waste of time and energy to continue the discussion, without some kind of mediation from the administrators. Google Book searches I have done give 4610 vs 3. Maybe you could do other searches and see if there are any biases in my searches. Hope you can help. SriSuren (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't think there's much I can do at this point. You might try posting at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) so that editors and administrators who know and care especially about the relevant guidelines can weigh in. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. --SriSuren (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Interview?
My apologies for the non-personalized note; I've got several people to contact here. We're looking for administrators who would be willing to be interviewed by students as a part of Wikipedia's WP:United States Education Program. Dr. Jonathan Obar is teaching the course, and it's a study in how Wikipedia is governed and how administrators are selected. If you're not interested, you may either ignore this invitation or remove your name from the list of admins we've contacted. Thanks, Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 20:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Admin Interview
Greetings,

After speaking with some of my colleagues, we will now be offering people the option of participating in interviews over IRC (or perhaps email). With this change, will you be willing to re-add your name to the list?

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks so much. Jaobar (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright; thanks! ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 06:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks so much. --Jaobar (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice concerning an action at ArbCom
A request has been filed for the Arbitration Committee to look at long-term issues with editing in the Article Titles and MOS areas at Arbitration/Requests/Case. I have added your name as a party, since it is clear that you have been involved at RMs, and at pages that are within the scope of the action. N oetica Tea? 05:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Erik, I think you're a party to this action and can post comments in the "parties" sections. Joja lozzo  01:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Article titles and capitalisation case
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Colombiana
Hi Erik,

I don't know if you've looked at Talk:Colombiana_(film) lately, but, if you haven't, I was wondering if some of the discussion since you participated might persuade you to change your position. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I suppose. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 19:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply
I forked your comment and my reply into a new thread, because I'm going to archive all that ArbCom legalese crap soon. (Not a fan of process for its own sake!) — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 04:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's Your Mule
Erik, on what grounds did you find consensus to move Here's Your Mule? Two to one is not consensus, and my objections were not addressed. Powers T 15:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I moved it because I thought the argument that the subject of the article is a catchphrase was compelling, not because 2>1. It's true that there is a lot there about songs, but even if the songs were all called "Here's Your Mule" the point remains that the article is about the phrase. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * On a percentage basis, the article is manifestly not about the phrase; it's about the songs. Powers T 03:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Women in development
It seems difficult to get closure on this question. Since you contributed to the discussion on the first move proposal, perhaps you have thoughts on the second proposal. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Eutheria
Ack! Good catch. I meant to list it as a branch. Still used to 1990s cladistic terminology ;) Thanks MMartyniuk (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A branch is any clade defined as all animals closer to x than to y (as opposed to a node, which is a clade of all animals descended from the common ancestor of x and y). Eutheria is defined as all mammals closer to placentals than to marsupials, so it's a branch. I've been using clade types in the taxoboxes since listing all unranked groups as "clades" doesn't really convey any useful information about the group. At least here you can see what kind of group it is when it doesn't have a rank. MMartyniuk (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Erik,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright; great—I'm on the list already. thanks, ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 07:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Template
For you and A. di M. and few others who've been using as a talkpage quotation device, I've created a replacement template,  that does the same thing, but doesn't put the quotation-inappropriate   on it, or cloud the use of. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 01:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will indulge your semantic obsessiveness. :) ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 07:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Corporate finance, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Valuation, OTC and Dilution (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * silly bot. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 00:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Dog breed capitalization
You posted a comment to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. The MOS is for page contents. For capitalisation of article titles see the section Article title format in the AT policy and its guideline WP:CAPS. -- PBS (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll reply there; thanks for the note. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 00:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation closed
An arbitration case regarding article titles and capitalisation has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegiately towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes.
 * 2) Pmanderson is indefinitely prohibited from engaging in discussions and edits relating to the Manual of Style or policy about article titles.
 * 3) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed.
 * 4) Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Taxonomy/Grampus griseus
Hi, I noticed that you have written Template:Taxonomy/Grampus griseus. For some reason it now shows up as having a link to a disambiguation page on Grampus. It is to far from my comfort zone to start fooling around in that template to fix it (if I had known how). Could you take care of this hiccup? Thanks in advance! Night of the Big Wind talk  18:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If I understand what you're saying, this seems to be a weakness of the template viewer page and nothing more. Those are sort of not really part of the encyclopedia per se, so I never get too worked up about them. The templates, both Template:Taxonomy/Grampus and Template:Taxonomy/Grampus griseus, link to Risso's dolphin, as they should, if I understand correctly. Does that sound right? Is anything wrong with the taxoboxes themselves on any pages because of this template? That is the important thing. The template viewer page, that is, what you see when you go to Template:Taxonomy/Grampus_griseus, has a link to the parent taxon's article that it generates in a sloppy way—it gets the link to the parent template and assumes that the parent's taxonomy template name is the same as the name of the Wikipedia article for the parent taxon. It is most of the time. But in cases like this, you get a link to a disambiguation page or something else that isn't right. The viewer probably ought to be fixed, but it would be complicated—to do it right it would have to load the parent's taxonomy template and find the real link to the article. Hmm—probably a better solution would be to just remove the link to the parent's Wikipedia article. In any case, if I understand what you're saying the problem is not with the Grampus griseus template itself, but with the taxonomy template viewer. If you want to ask someone to fix this, you might post the request at Template talk:Automatic taxobox. That is kind of a convoluted reply, please let me know if any of this doesn't make sense! ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 19:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that the page keeps showing up on Templates with disambiguation links. I am unfamiliar with nested templates AND I am unfamiliar with taxonomy. I don't know exactly where the incorrect link can be found. It is clear that "grampus" should link to "grampus (genus)" but where? Night of the Big Wind  talk  22:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "It is clear that "grampus" should link to grampus (genus)"—I'm not sure that what you are saying is clear; currently the template indicates Risso's dolphin, which is fine as far as I know. The problem, as I said earlier, is the template viewing code. In other words, there is no real problem here, the only problem is that the item is showing up at "Templates with disambiguation links", so there appears to be something to do when really nothing needs to be done. Again, the taxonomy template system could be changed to cause it to not show up at "Templates with disambiguation links", but there's nothing to change at Template:Taxonomy/Grampus griseus itself. Maybe the best solution is to fix templates_with_dab_links.php? Maybe it is to cause the taxonomy templates to not link to the parent's article? Maybe it is to fix the link to the parent's article (although that seems like way too much work). ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 22:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made a plea for help here: Template_talk:Automatic_taxobox, but I am not holding my breath. The only other way to solve your particular problem that I can think of is to fix or get someone to fix templates_with_dab_links.php. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 22:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that the toolbox-page is wrong? Just click on grampus in the template and you end on a disambiguation page. It is quite shocking to hear that you are unable to fix your own template... Night of the Big Wind  talk  13:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that the toolbox-page is wrong?—Simply because it is reporting a problem to fix when there isn't one. I would agree, though, that a more satisfying and appropriate solution would be to have the taxonomy template viewer stop linking to the parent taxon's Wikipedia article. If you look at the discussion at the Automatic taxobox talk page, there seem to be some other potential benefits to making that change. Hopefully someone will do it. It is quite shocking to hear that you are unable to fix your own template—There's nothing wrong with "my" template. Taxonomy templates do not contain anything that is meant to be a link to the parent taxon's wikipedia article. Therefore, there is no way to fix any such link. If any of this is still unclear to you please help me understand where you're confused. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 06:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey
Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,

the wub (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Capitalisation
I see you have renamed the page Pyrenean Brook Salamander to Pyrenean brook salamander. I would in general agree with this action because I agree with the general principle of using lower case for vernacular names, but when I created the page I went along with the capitalisation used in Salamandridae. It would be quite a large task to change the capitalisation of all these species article titles and if you wanted to undertake it, there should be prior discussion on a talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was planning on doing all the salamandrids. There has been tons of discussion on pages like WP:CAPS, some on WT:AAR, etc; the state of things now seems to be that everything except birds (and moths?) should eschew extraneous capitalization. What other talk page do you feel we should discuss this on? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 13:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You could mention it on the Salamandridae talk page but better might be Wikiproject Amphibians and Reptiles' Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what WT:AAR is, someone already ratted me out there: see this. I'll put a note on the family talk page. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 23:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Cuban Missile Crisis
How in the heck can you find that "there doesn't seem to be consensus" about a trend, and yet find that there was a consensus that the page should be moved? No-consensus means no-move. Not to mention the fact that the raw vote totals were 5-3 against. How is that a consensus? Powers T 14:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It was 5-4, but of course we aren't counting votes. I tried to outline my rationale in my closure. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 14:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And I certainly didn't mean to imply that there wasn't consensus to move. I'm considering MOS:CAPS and the fact that there seems to be a pretty convincing majority of lowercase usage in sources. For the trend to outweigh both of those, it would have to be pretty convincing, right? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 14:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
OK thanks for that. I'm not really a bad person, but I do tend to shoot from the hip and reflect later. I not with some interest that my previous six blocks were all me inadvertently blocking myself! Anyway, back to Cley Marshes  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  15:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note! ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization of article names?
Do you believe that capitalization of article names is a dispute that requires consensus to resolve? Hipocrite (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The capitalization of article names is, in some sense, many different disputes: bird species, species in general, dog breeds, legal terms, how to capitalize various phrases when sources are mixed, etc. I do believe consensus should be used to resolve these; both consensus on guidelines and consensus on how to interpret those guidelines in each case. For non-bird animals (mostly) there appears to be pretty firm consensus to lowercase. Birds and dog breeds are much more contentious, but we currently capitalize—this seems to continue to generate some noise, and hopefully it will be resolved soon. Why do you ask? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why you blocked two participants in an editing dispute and then reverted the editing dispute to the version preferred by one of them? Hipocrite (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article was moved to the stable, consensus version that existed before the edit war started. Why do you think this is a problem? Rlendog (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)Well, I blocked them for move warring, in order to stop an endless string of moves. I then moved the articles to upper case because there has been an enormous amount of discussion on this issue, and the tenuous cease-fire at this time is to have them capitalized (I think this is codified in the relevant guidelines). ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Henric Piccardt
Dear Erik Haugen: I'm relatively new at Wikipedia and tried to post an article (Henric Piccardt). Of course, there's a lot for me to learn. But I don't understand why it's been marked as an Autobiography... It's about someone in the seventeenth century... Sorry to make a problem. Thanks for getting back to me. Arjovanderjagt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjovanderjagt (talk • contribs) 21:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about it too much. Sometimes people put these tags on pages so other people will come try to help out with them. I'm not sure what the deal is with the autobiography tag, though; I removed it. I think in general you can feel free to remove tags like that, just explain why in the edit summary when you do it so the tagger knows what you're thinking. If the tagger disagrees, hopefully a productive conversation can take place on the article's talk page: Talk:Henric_Piccardt. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 21:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Erik Haugen. I really appreciate your oversight... I'll try to improve that Henric Piccardt article over time. Now and then I edit corrections in other articles, but this is the first time I've actually written one myself from scratch. Best wishes. Arjovanderjagt
 * thanks, happy editing! ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 21:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Bidgee (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom case note
Did you mean to put this in the section directly below? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 22:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thanks for pointing it out. I've moved it now.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  22:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Suspected mass copyright violations by User:Pedrocampelo
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. Thank you. Location (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears as though you are already aware of this, so I hope I haven't been too hasty with the above. Location (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all; we need more help I don't think I'm going to have time to go through all the contributions. I've started working on replacement verbiage for the weightlifting articles. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 05:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Nature Farming
An article that you have been involved in editing, Nature Farming, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Nirvana2013 (talk) 06:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Nirvana2013 (talk) 06:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

St. Mary Magdalene's Church, Gilsland
Hi! Regarding St. Mary Magdalene's Church, Gilsland, I agreed with your suggestion that we add it to the page St. Mary Magdalene's Church, so I went ahead and did that. (Hopefully I didn't break anything or wake any sleeping dragons). Also, I presume you meant to sign with four tildes (so your username would be displayed)? :-) Cheers, Icy  // ♫ 14:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Great; looks good. (oops!) ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 16:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Pankaj Oswal
Hi there. I noticed that you attended to Pankaj Oswal page last week. Tonight there have been substantial sections of the article removed by another editor. I'm not greatly experienced in editing and this page is my only wikipedia experience thus far, but I know there have been times where the page has had vandalism. Usually this only happens once or twice every couple of months & co-insides with events in the media. It would seem to me that the actions over the past week seem designed to remove the page completely. I can undo these latest edits (which are realy just mass deletions) but my question to you is what other action you might recommend. Previously another moderator recommended posting a comment on a particular wiki site if this sort of stuff re-occurred...of course I've lost my written record of that advice. Your imput would be gratefully received. I could go back to Drmies with this enquiry, but given your very recent visit to this page I thought it might be wise to seek your opinion. Thankyou so much for your time. Best regards A fair go (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The editor who removed the content seems active on the talk page and does not seem interested in deleting the article completely, but rather questioned many of the sources in the article and removed them and the associated content. This is likely in response to this. In any case, I would encourage you to try to discuss this at Talk:Pankaj_Oswal. Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 15:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thankyou dear sir, It is plain how inexperienced I am at editing, given I initally missed the conversation on talk page. Have left a message on talk page, although not really sure if it will have any effect. Time restraints will hamper substantial editing by me at this time. I will respond to the various points raised on talk page, but that must wait until time permits (hopefully soon). In respect to additional reference material I have a substantial quanity so I might just leave an open door on the talk page for requests from other editors if and when they need extra source material. Thankyou so much for your guidance. You have the nicest manner for pointing out the obvious to blind beggars like me who miss the talk page. Promise I'll wear the glasses next time. Best regards A fair go (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working on this article! Yeah, if all you have time for is listing a bunch of references, possibly with a short description of what you think the reference ought to be used for in the article, that would probably be enormously helpful for other editors. Thanks!! ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 19:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2) Your review is required and will be greatly appreciated :)
Hi ErikHaugen ! I have started my second editor review at Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for Adminship. As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Lycaon
I see you removed the band because you had questions on its notability. But what I want to know is what is notable? How can I get notability across? This is the first time I have done anything about music on wiki so I on't get the notability problem.GamingWithStatoke (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Greetings! Thanks so much for working on this. Notability, as we use the word here, is described at this page: WP:NOTABILITY. The basic idea, to save you the trouble of reading that, is that we consider a subject—like a band—to be notable if there is significant coverage of the band in reliable sources. So, not just a mere mention in a reliable source, but significant coverage. And not just significant coverage in my blog, but coverage in a reliable source like a newspaper or Rolling Stone or a published book, etc—something with a reputation for fact-checking, etc.
 * We generally don't have articles about subjects unless they're notable, by that standard, and similarly we usually don't have entries in disambiguation pages either. One important reason for this is that we need sources in the article to help readers verify the information in the article (it's a wiki anyone can edit after all!) and to give readers pointers to where they can read more. If there aren't any sources we can't really have an article with verifiable information in it.
 * Is there anything like that about this band? Are there an article about them published anywhere, that sort of thing? If so let's create this article: Lycaon (band) – and I'll be happy to revert my removal from that disambiguation page! ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 19:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLPPROD removal at B.V. Ramana
I am not seeing anything that could be considered a reliable source attached to that article, which is the one and only condition on which it is ok to remove a BLPPROD. There are only links to IMDB which is explicitly mentioned at WP:USERG as normally not being considered reliable as it is user-generated, and a website called "Cinegoer". I can't find any information there describing what that website is, but it certainly looks like a clearinghouse for regurgitating movie studio press releases and is almost certainly not a reliable source either. You may want to consider either finding at least one actual reliable source or restoring that BLPPROD. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I realize that much of IMDB's content is not considered reliable, but I had thought it was reliable for things like director/cast. Seems I am probably mistaken; thanks! I've deleted the article since, as you say, there don't seem to be any reliable sources. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I did look myself as well, and didn't come up with anything any better, which would be odd if he really was such a famous director. Thanks for reconsidering. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I found more about an author of math books. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 19:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ruminant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macropod (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Please revert the deletion of Psychology in Russia: State of the Art article. I represent the publishers of the journal, the Russian Psychological Society and the Lomonosov Moscow State University, and all the material you refer to as copyrighted is owned by us. If you need any proof, tell me what to send you. I insist on your reerting the deletion and restoring this article. Regards, Dr. Aleksander Veraksa, Foreign Affairs Director of the Russian Psychological Society, associate professor at Faculty of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University
 * "I insist on your reerting the deletion and restoring this article."—Oh, you insist, do you? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Taxon parameter at Mus (Mus)
Although it now works without taxon (it didn't before the latest changes), it isn't a good idea to omit the taxon parameter. Handling the logic of checking the article title increases the expansion depth. At some stage it may be necessary to make the parameter compulsory, if a bot can fix the 2,500 odd articles that omit it. So I'd like to revert your change.

In general, Martin coded the system to make life easy for editors. This would be fine with a normal programming language, but the template language is allowed only an expansion depth of 41, so it's simply not possible to automate some of the "nice to have but not essential" features. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright—makes sense! Thanks for the note! ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 00:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U for Apteva: move to close
I am notifying all participants in Requests for comment/Apteva that Dicklyon has moved to close the RFC/U, with a summary on the talkpage. Editors may now support or oppose the motion, or add comments:


 * Link to the move to close

Please consider adding your signature, so that the matter can be resolved.

Best wishes,

N oetica Tea? 04:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, but unfortunately I fear this RFCU has failed to resolve anything. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 21:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really. I take all criticism seriously. The format was totally bizarre though. Apteva (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, really; this RFC/U has not resolved anything: see this. I'll take your word for it that you take criticism seriously; that isn't really the issue here, though. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 21:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

RM
Hi Erik--I closed an RM review, Move review/Log/2012 December 10, but I saw on another page that there seems to be a special template that collapses the whole thing (and that you've used it). Can you do that for mine as well? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have already done it. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and thanks for the other one as well. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 21:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:Rollback
The reason I reverted was that it was tagged with a "BLP issue or vandalism." United States Man (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That automatic tag is not a reason to use rollback. Please see Rollback if this is unclear. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 21:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for this.--ukexpat (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Freak Out! My Life with Frank Zappa by Pauline Butcher

 * In the note I left on your talk page there are links about donating materials; but since Wikipedia hasn't verified your identity it's not enough to say "I ... hold all the copyright" here like this. I am displeased about copyright law, also. But it is what it is, and Wikipedia doesn't have much choice. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)