User talk:ErikHaugen/Archive 9

new question, (almost the) same as the old question
Hello Erik, please call me 74. I'm reasonably familiar with the sources (there are not 130k RS ... but a handful should be enough ... even one is WP:NOTEWORTHY), and pretty deeply familiar with the history of the content-dispute. Your analogy was close, but you missed the boat. The question here is whether we can mention *California* in the article Erik Haugen. Sure, just because Erik Haugen is a resident of california, and there is a Reliable Source which proves it (the government publication known as his driver's license), that does not mean that *California* should mention *Erik* as a Notable resident... until and unless a significant portion of the Reliable Sources about California do so. If we have newspapers saying "Erik Haugen is a Californian and a wikipedian" then we satisfy WP:NOTEWORTHY, open and shut case for "Erik is Californian" being in the Erik Haugen article, right? Well... maybe *not* right, some people say. Now, on the other hand, if there was a wikipedia article called List of People From California, and the consensus for the list was that anybody wikiNotable enough to have a wikipedia page belongs on the list if they are current residents, and Erik is a current resident, then your link would *probably* belong on that list. Some wiggle room, though. Maybe there would be some quibble about the driver's license being a primary source, and there would have to be one of the three in-depth-coverage-sources which justified your article existing, that gave WP:NOTEWORTHY mention of the fact that you live in California. Maybe that would not be enough; maybe we'd want you to be in Who's Who Of California, or something, which is 'okay', because the List is a collection of info *already* in wikipedia elsewhere. With me so far?

The key question here is whether the Erik Haugen article can say with a straight face (i.e. in "wikipedia's voice") that you are a "former Californian" because the governor (Brown or Schwartznegger take your pick) wrote an article in 2006 saying you are not *really* a Californian anymore... though most other Reliable Sources authored by other folks still continue to say otherwise. WP:UNDUE is being (mis-)used to delete WP:NOTEWORTHY Reliable-Sourced-material *entirely* from wikipedia, as opposed to merely moving said info to some more-appropriate article. My grok of WP:UNDUE is that it does *not* permit deletion of material. Sure, factoids can migrate to a more appropriate article, and within the appropriate article the weight of the factoid can be adjusted up and down, but if non-zero RSes justify a sentence, it should never be the case that the sentence is given zero-words of weight by wikipedia, just because some wikipedians don't like the sentence's implication. Yes? No?
 * I think the overall point about UNDUE is a good one: The Donnas are from CA; while we don't say that on California, we say it at The Donnas. But I don't think we would take it quite as far as you suggest; there are plenty of factoids with nonzero RS support that I think we would want to leave out of Wikipedia.  For example; I think I can scrape together some RS to prove that I went to the college I went to, but I don't think I can argue that it should be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 23:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Although it captures the essence of the other issues, the trouble is not just "is a biologist" in the first sentence, versus "former $scientist" in the second sentence. Almost every paragraph of the BLP has the same core issue: reliable sources exist, which give positive coverage to the BLP, but they are kept out of mainspace, because FRINGE. I've done some analysis on the particpants. Only the truly super-dedicated folks are able to keep working on the article. Anybody who is not, gets driven off. The article and especially the talkpage is a classic WP:BATTLEGROUND basket-case. It went to ArbCom, but was dismissed... at that point, grudges were guaranteed, and there are at least half a dozen I already know about personally.

BarleyBannocks/TRPoD is just the tip of the iceberg, here, and wikipedia's reliability is getting a beating series of pointed probing questions in the real-world press. was trying to get some sort of draft-namespace up and running, where maybe mediation would be possible, but that has not happened. I have little doubt that this article will continue to be a thorn in the side of wikiJustice, if we continue on as we are, driving away all but the hyper-dedicated participants at loggerheads with each other. (The exact same trouble happened back in 2007 with this article; and with other battleground-articles in the past by some of the current participants.) But my main point here is that the core dispute is a policy dispute about the meaning of NPOV and RS and UNDUE and GEVAL and other pillar-two questions. 99% of the vast and numerous content-disputes derive from that core WP:SPOV versus WP:NPOV versus MPOV misunderstanding... everybody is convinced *their* interpretation of policy is CORRECT and the other people are therefore idiots/antiWikipedia/incompetent/biased/woolyThinkers/haters/megalomaniacs/whatever. Pillar four violations like that stem from the differing pillar-two interpretations.

TLDR: I'm asking you to help me understand the meaning of WP:NPOV.  As you see it, at least. :-)  Seems like it should be simple... except I already *do* believe I firmly and truly understand pillar two.  So do other folks, and  local consensus has been elusive due to generally-poisoned-and-adversarial-battleground-atmosphere.  I'm not asking you to understand the content-dispute.  I'm totally not asking you to read the talkpage back through April, or even read the 997 talkpage messages *just* in December so far (including one from moi).  Either I'm wrong about pillar two, or several of the other participants are wrong, whilst arbcom and now AE have continued to pass the buck.  Maybe you can be the  Harry Truman of 2013?  :-)    Hope this helps; thanks for improving wikipedia. p.s. And yes, please leave me a talkback/whisperback/pingback/whatnot, thanks. &mdash; 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 74; thanks for the note: "missed the boat"—really I was just trying to answer the specific question about BALASPS and why might statements backed by reliable sources be removed from an article. I don't know what I can say specifically about NPOV; I'm pretty confident that you understand it well enough. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 23:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm confident I grok NPOV, but other folks on the talkpage distinctly disagree. :-)    They say that WP:UNDUE means reliably-sourced wp:noteworthy statements specifically about the topic of the article can be removed from wikipedia, based on WP:POLL results on the talkpage.  #1. Is that a-okay, or is that nuts?  We are not talking here, about MOVING the factoids elsewhere in wikipedia, to some other article (cf the  suggestion by SetagayaJ about your SCM sources), we are talking about deleting the factoids from the wikiverse entirely whilst leaving opposing-factoids in mainspace.  X == SCM is creepy.  Y == SCM is innovatively edgy.  Keep both, wikipedia conveys that the ideas are conflicting, because there is controversy in the sources.  Delete both, readership makes up their own mind.  Keep one?  Wikipedians are picking winners & losers amongst the WP:RS.
 * And this isn't just about a factoid here and a factoid there: any factoid which is not " mainstream" by some fuzzy definition thereof, is subject to deletion, it seems.  I would have said that was flat incorrect, and my reading of NPOV and UNDUE and GEVAL (and BALASP for that matter) don't seem to support such actions.  The very definition of NPOV is that we reflect what *all* the reliable sources say, while we ignore blogs/youtube/scribd/imdb/wikia/etc which aren't Reliable Sources due to non-fact-checking or non-peer-reviewed or whatnot... with Journal Of Sasquatch Believers being counted amongst the non-wikiReliable because their "peer review" is not the sort which leads to reliable encyclopedic content.
 * p.s. If your confidence that I understand NPOV well enough, is just a nice way of saying that you're busy, please, just say you're busy.  :-)    I won't be offended, one way or t'other.  If you *are* busy, but have time to say just one single specific binary answer to a question about NPOV, then tell me this.  #2. In a situation where ten RSes say X, and ten other RSes say Y, is it generally okay/notOkay for talkpage discussions to give weight to the personal beliefs (or personal logic or whatever) of the participating editors with regards to "What Is Really True"? ... or should mainspace, when sources conflict like that, have a sentence stating X somewhere, plus also somewhere a sentence stating Y, per my plain-jane intrepretation of WP:YESPOV.
 * I ask, because there are plenty of folks who believe, if the WP:POLL on the talkpage and a majority says Y is truth and X is illogical/fringe/wrong/bad/notEncyclopedic/notMainstream, then mainspace can say Y, and X can be deleted from wikipedia as "misleading". That seems wrong  terrifyingly bad for wikipedia in the long run to me; we should *strive* for mainspace to be true/factual/correct/accurate/reliable/right/etc ... but not if we have to trump WP:RS, which is what guarantees wikipedia stays "neutral", and furthermore keeps battleground-behavior on the content-not-the-contributor (find the sources which back you up), not on achieving victories in the series of WP:POLLs (which is most efficiently accomplished by organizing cliques and driving away opposing viewpoints... not counting socking... which is *already* a huge enough problem with WP:POLL results themselves explicitly never determining outcomes).  Danke.
 * p.p.s. The article your Surveillance Camera Man sources can prolly go into is Sousveillance; but the SCM phenomenon is distinct from the existing subsections on that page.  Steve Mann's personal sousveillance at MIT was/is intended to record *his* experiences... SCM's goal is to record *reactions* to sousveillance.  Suggest a new subsection called "'Reaction-shot' Sousveillance" or perhaps just "Creepy-Anonymous-Guy-In-The-Mall-Who-Later-Uploads-The-Video Sousveillance".  See also Legality_of_recording_by_civilians and Upskirt for related creepy phenomena.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No, as I tried to say, it was more that I didn't know what your question was specifically enough to answer it in more detail. I think both your numbered questions here have more to do with determining consensus; if you have 10 editors insisting that the world is flat and 1 trying to knock some sense into them, then the article is going to say it's flat.  What else can we do?  You can't just count RS for various reasons, I'm not sure if that is what you meant by "ten RSes say X, and ten other RSes say Y".  Fortunately, I think, it usually works out pretty well.  Not always.  Hmm; I wonder if SCM could be mentioned at sousveillance in the context of using sousveillance ironically as a protest against surveillance – it might be a bit of a stretch.  Sousveillance is a clever word. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 09:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello
Hello,

I would like to know if it would be possible for you to check over my Wikipedia page for " Von Tae' " and let me know what exactly is wrong with everything that I've done. If you don't mind, could you please email me at: contactvontae@yahoo.com.

Thank you.

ItsVonTae (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I won't email you, but I replied on your talk page. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 20:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Why are you deleting Society for Scholarly Publishing?
You note copyright violation as a reason for deleting this page and there is some obvious cut and paste on the page - but for example the 3rd paragraph appears to be unique to wikipedia and would be a suitable replacement for the first two if you blanked those out for the copyright issues. Deletion seems an overly hasty response especially regarding a long-established and somewhat notable organization. SSP is occasionally in the news, for example this lawsuit from last year. Why not just blank out the problematic sections, along with notifying the editor(s) who put them in? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that given the extent of copyright violation, and the fact that the overall tone of the article was far too promotional, deleting it is a fair action to take as long as a stub is re-instated so the article can be built back up, much as User:ErikHaugen has done with the Scholarly Kitchen artice - Lawsonstu (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's the intention (to re-instate) why not just replace the entire article with a suitable stub from the start rather than going through deletion (which removes all history)? ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, Arthur. Lawsonstu's comment pretty much sums up my thinking: I think you're right that there is some non-infringing content at Society for Scholarly Publishing, which is why I didn't delete it (see WP:G12).  But, some of that non-infringing content doesn't even seem appropriate in tone or backed up by sources, eg, the third paragraph about policy positions/uniqueness really needs a reliable, independent source to back it up.  So I think it is probably best to start from scratch here, as Lawsonstu says.  To answer your 2nd post, Arthur, the history itself is problematic since it contains copyrighted material.  I've asked for input about the best way forward; see Copyright_problems/2014_January_8. I'm in no way suggesting that we ought to not have an article about SSP, and I will try to get this resolved quickly. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 21:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok I guess that's reasonable - looking at the edit history the originally created page was almost an exact copy of that about page, so it's never had a "clean" version, though there have been a number of edits by others over time that suggest it's not just copied. On the other hand a lot of the edits seem to be from people involved with the organization (Carol Meyer = Meyercarol presumably) - so I suppose a fresh start from a more neutral perspective would be a good thing. It seems odd to leave the page in its current state for long though. (sorry keep forgetting to sign!) ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% (and see User_talk:Moonriddengirl; I'm trying to figure out the best way forward). I've started and plan to continue working on Draft:Society_for_Scholarly_Publishing; please edit/rewrite as appropriate!  thanks, ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 22:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

In hindsight, I should have merely tagged the SK article and not been the one to delete. It was a pretty straightforward g12, but my doing it has caused considerable angst. I should have known it would; that was poor judgment on my part. Apologies. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 01:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If anyone has further questions about the reasoning for your actions, I wrote a blog post last night to address it after I saw people on Twitter getting the wrong idea. - Lawsonstu (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw that; I'm impressed by the detail! I stand behind the deletions (or at least the deleting of the material/histories), but I've bumbled this whole episode quite a bit in a number of ways, giving the impression that I did out of a spirit of retaliation.  In particular, I also regret how long it took to get new versions up.  Part of this was uncertainty around procedure related to complicated copyright cases, part was family/work requirements, but I should have done much better.  If they were up immediately-ish it might have avoided entirely the "your article was deleted" feeling people got; I should have realized that would be an issue.  I have no beef with SK or SSP, consider them to be clearly notable, and want WP to have good articles about them.  I'm sorry about that, everyone. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 08:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scholarly Kitchen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Webby (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) 09:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * oops; fixed. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Ann Buchholtz
Why do you keep deleting Ann Buchholtz page? It is clearly straightforward biographical information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlgorano (talk • contribs) 21:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've explained this to you several times on your talk page. I've replied again on your talk page. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 22:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Precious
  monitoring new articles

Thank you for quality articles such as Sanajeh, for tireless gnomish work, dealing with page moves, articles for deletion, copyright, monitoring new articles, for thinking about "consensus" (and sousveillance), for, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * wow thanks! ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sanction
What exactly did I do to get sanctioned? I have tried to inform this user that his edits are against Wikipedias polices and when I asked him to join a discussion he would not join it and denied that there was even a discussion about him! I have sent this to the ANI, but nobody has responded to me. I have constantly given him many chances to stop, but now seeing that he would rather ban me for no legitimate reason instead of discussing anything I don't see why I should continue any further with my kindness nor see why he should be allowed to edit on Wikipedia. He has even insulted me! AcidSnow (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You aren't sanctioned! At least not that I'm aware of.  No action was taken as a result of the Arbitration Enforcement request that I closed.  All I did was tell you that articles about India, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are under discretionary sanctions.  This doesn't mean you are sanctioned.  It just means you know that everyone is on a short leash on those pages: for example, normal policies about edit warring and dispute resolution—focus on the content, not the editor, etc, yada yada—might be quite strictly enforced. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand now. I will expand the section at ANI so everyone can see his edits and vote on whether he should be banned or be given a # (I have lost track of how many chances I have given him) chance. You can join if you want to. AcidSnow (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why have you not sanctioned the other user? I have told him that his edits are not allowed yet he continues to break them and demand that other users do the same. AcidSnow (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? What sanction did you expect and under what grounds? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC
 * I am sorry I did not mean "sanction" (I was still think of what you said earlier) rather an "indefinite block". See my ANI section on this user (I will expand soon as he is still continuing after being warned). Although I meant blocked, a sanction would still work as he has violated Wikipedia's polices on article relating to Pakistan and India. AcidSnow (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed any behavior warranting an indefinite block. Is there somewhere that you have made this case? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 20:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Explanation of the case
Hi, I just removed my post from AE because it was pretty long. I thought to instead write here to clarify the problem. You can see that post here. You can also see my original request here and I think the problem is explained well there. As I had to cut down my reply, some things is not so clear. But I think the pattern is clear and it is an unacceptable one. --IRISZOOM (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Panda yolos
Hi ErikHaugen. Re this, was it a template issue? I saw the IP's request on the the talk page and I hunted without success for the origin of the vandalism. The page history suggested it had been there a long time but not continuously. Rivertorch (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the vandalism was here. Pardon me, I should have linked to that in my note on the talk page.  Done now. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 20:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, templates tend to confuse me. Thanks for clarifying! Rivertorch (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Elon Musk
Hi, you reverted my revision showing Elon Musk as founder of PayPal, indicating he was not a founder. I am fixing his founding status across the board - I know it's confusing. He was a founder of PayPal. PayPal today is a renamed x.com according to the SEC: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1088143/000095015602000193/ex99_e-i.txt

I am going to put this on the Elon Musk talk page as well. I wanted to reach out to you directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.115.254 (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

closing parts of the bird RfC
Can we please not close parts of the birds RfC until a closer evaluates it? It has happened before that someone has declared consensus before the discussions were finished or closed by an impartial party. If we want people to accept the RfC as impartial, we shouldn't start cutting active parts of the discussion. You were taking a decision (there won't be a second RfC) that should have been taken by the closer of the RfC. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see that as part of the RFC. It was a separate discussion about how to word the RFC, which was no longer relevant; it seemed like a distraction.  But good point: it might be relevant to a different or second RFC; so feel free to unhat what I hatted, which is not part of the current RFC.  Although I don't think it would be the closer of the first RFC who would decide whether to have a second one. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 15:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough case clarified
The arbitration clarification request, either involving you, or in which you participated (Rich Farmbrough) has resulted in a clarification motion by the Arbitration Committee

The Clarification can be found at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough and the complete discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough For the Arbitration Committee,-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

OER inquiry
Hi, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification (Rich Farmbrough bot issue)
An arbitration clarification request(Rich Farmbrough bot issue), either involving you, or in which you participated has been archived, because the bot request has been withdrawn.

The original discussion can be found here. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Rollback
My self-reverted rollback of your edit was simply a matter of pushing the wrong button, not low-level edit warring, sorry. FWIW, the IOC use Madagascan, although I'm not sure if we can still have a standard world list of names (there seemed to be a suggestion in the discussion that we should go back to the original "variety of English" regional names, such as Great Northern Diver, rather than the IOC's compromise Great Northern Loon)  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks; I was just trying to keep everything consistent, I don't have any objection to moving back to Madagascar. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 06:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Defaultsort
I followed your example but seems it's not correct according to Template talk:DEFAULTSORT. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 11:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow; didn't know that. Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 16:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves (species name decapitalisation)
Thanks for your moves of bird articles! Here are some more uncontroversial requests: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. It would be great if you could help. Coreyemotela (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC).

header for anonymous attack
There is no honor in what you do you act viciously like a Muslim fundamentalist and no like a decent Christian. Also I never hid I'm jungleewang/piachpia accounts. I said it many times that you act like a witch hunter viciously instead to engage in a direct noble and decent debate there is honor in what you do it's not making either rich or noble it makes you turn off people who contribute their time time to edit. I think you are a disaster not only for Wikipedia by depriving it from muggle edits but people like you are disaster for their own families Bcoz you can't fix stupid. You can fix lips and boobs but you can't fix stupidity. Also dude you an embarrassment for google. And an embarrassment for the stars too. I'm a veteran and there is no honor in what you do especiAlly after my effords to contribute to wikipediA which is not your own personal property. Last but not least you are so retarded that I'm not going to waste my time to contribute my time to edit Wikipedia no more but you are a witch hunter and I recommend you read the definitions of paranoia and oppositional defiant disorder Bcoz you got mental problems dude. I'm not offending you I'm simply telling you facts that obvious and I'm trying to help you by improving you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.193.192.149 (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

User:68.70.251.91
Hi! I see you previously blocked User:99.33.211.25 and User:70.193.192.149. Another user User:68.70.251.91 has just appeared and is doing similar edits to same articles. Sorry if this is in the wrong place. I didn't know if any administrator was aware of this and I thought I should let you know. --Barosaurus Lentus (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You might take this up at SPI, but I don't feel to confident taking action at this point, myself. I'll try to keep an eye on it.  Thanks. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 02:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Automatic taxobox
Erik,

There appears to be some quirky bug in the Automatic taxobox. At Taxonomy/Nandiniidae, the parent is listed as "Feliformia", but is showing up in the automatically generated taxonomies as "Felidayayae". Based on the sources I've seen, the former is correct; the latter appears to be some glitch or hoax being perpetrated at Wikipedia. How can we fix this? WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Found and fixed. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Hi Erik, I've just added you to the list of users involved, regarding the Talk: Elon Musk cofounder discussion. Just thought I'd let you know. Doc H e u h 03:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

AE case
The case I filed against Steeletrap is chiefly concerned with BLP discretionary sanctions rather than topic ban violations. I believe the topic ban violations are only an additional cause for action.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Stylization of the "common name"
In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Precious again
  monitoring new articles

Thank you for quality articles such as Sanajeh, for tireless gnomish work, dealing with page moves, articles for deletion, copyright, monitoring new articles, for thinking about "consensus" (and sousveillance), for, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 752nd recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''Actually reading a deletion rationale helps. You can thank User:michig for this template. '' Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I read everything. AGF isn't quite what you want here, I think. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 04:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

concise
well that was informative. :) — Ched : ?  23:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've always been meaning to work on that. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 23:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I just noticed this ... will respond tomorrow. — Ched : ?  01:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Forget it. Suffice to say I disagree. — Ched :  ?  17:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. I guess I think there should be a pretty high bar for an admin getting to unilaterally shut down a discussion. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In general? Yes. I can agree with you Erik. However, in this case I think there's a larger picture here that merits consideration. — Ched :  ?  19:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Amanda Rosenberg
Hi - Just an FYI that I left a number of comments regarding the Amanda Rosenberg page at the 'Articles for Deletion' discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amanda_Rosenberg  I defer to however you think best to handle this page but am concerned about it. Just wanted to make sure you saw them as most of your conversation is in 'Talk' section. Wintertanager (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that AFD. I don't think I can support the AfD.  I'm sympathetic to the "merge with Brin/Glass" idea, but I'm not quite sure.  Although the article seems biased and messy at this point. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 22:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Question re: AE close
Will you please help clear up my confusion regarding your close wherein you stated, "Atsme, the Tea Party topic bans connection here is quite a stretch. Please take some care not to throw around wild accusations like this, it is not appreciated."
 * The TB reads: ...is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. Ok, so the following article covers an event that is hosted by and attended by tea partiers (broadly construed):  (excerpt) "The Boston Globe article on the Tea Party event was bilithely superficial and missed key elements of the story. It was headlined "Spirited get-together thrown by Tea Partiers" and the main speaker, G. Edward Griffin, ....."   In Griffin's BLP under Political advocacy it states the following: Griffin has been a member and officer of the John Birch Society (JBS) for much of his life and a contributing editor to its magazine, The New American.  See .  I'm thoroughly confused as to how you see it as "quite a stretch".  It appears to me that Griffin's BLP would fall under "pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed."  I just want to get my head wrapped around the TB program and what it actually entails.  I look forward to your response and helping me understand the concept.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  15:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think a Tea Party topic ban means you can't discuss the cancer treatment views of someone who happens to have a "right wing" opinion about something. Do you think it should?  Maybe I'm way off. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 04:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, interesting question.  See  with particular attention to the section at the end titled After Thoughts by Anthony Wile.  He explains the connection.  Perhaps the WP article, Tea Party movement, will also prove helpful.  And Erik, thank you for taking the time to respond to my question.   Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  21:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

ADL
I don't really care either way, but the  example is correct as written; that , like the one for  , is a non-member and must be found via ADL. T. Canens (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is that C++ doesn't need ADL to get the old example to work; ostream could just have members taking the builtins. No big deal.  Packaging overrides for other types with those other types is much more compelling: can you imagine if #included ?  yuck.  I think it's more compelling to have an example of the kind of thing that drove ADL's inclusion rather than one that didn't/wouldn't have. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 23:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Some implementations do include ;) and while we are in hypothetical library design territory, strings are sufficiently basic that a member operator<< for std::string doesn't sound inconceivable. How about std::bitset for the example? T. Canens (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's gross. But sure, go for it. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 16:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Request to delete user page and user talk page
I was going through Right to vanish and noticed you can change your username and delete your user talk page and user page if you want to disassociate with a previous account (which this is). I would like to do that. They suggested I contact an administrator, and you were on a list of active administrators. Can you delete my user page and user talk page? Is that possible? GambitMG (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pardon the delay; I was away for awhile. I'm assuming this has been dealt with? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 05:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Warning
This is your final warning. If you continue to facilitate sock puppetry, I presume you will be considered as bad as the sockmaster. Please ameliorate your behaviour. RGloucester — ☎ 17:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll leave the SPI to the experts. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: New helper policy
Hello member of ! You are invited to join an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help aimed at defining a policy for prerequisites to being a helper in the "" channel in a section titled "New helper policy".

To prevent future mailings about IRC, you may remove your user page from. Assistance is available upon request if you can't figure out where it is being added to your user page. This message has been sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC) on behalf of —

Interview
Hi, my name is Pedro Rodriguez. I am a student at Michigan State University, working on an exploration of the Wikipedia adminship process under Jonathan Obar. You had previously showed interest in being a interviewee for our study. I can conduct the interview via Skype or email, whichever you prefer. I can be contacted at my email: rodri397@msu.edu to set up a time to Skype or, if you wish, to obtain your email to conduct the interview that way. Thank you for your participation in our study. SirGuybrush (talk)