User talk:Haemo/Archive 2

Comments regarding RfC
Thanks for your comments and for taking the time to explain this. I appreciate your clarification and apologize for my error/mistake. DPeterson talk 21:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem at all! --Haemo 00:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Via Foundation
Hi -

I'm in the process of trying to make the Via Foundation and Via Bona Awards articles you flagged more neutral in tone. If you have any advice on how I can better accomplish this, please let me know!

(After learning how to do so!) I have listed references on the pages, but I am having a hard time finding source material in English (as there just isn't very much). This is actually one of the main reasons that I've written these articles - to provide some information in English about at least one nonprofit organization in the Czech Republic and its activities. I hope to write more entries about other Czech NGOs in the future but can anticipate that I will run into the same COI problems.

Also, I'm not sure how I might "prove" why these articles are important. For example, the Via Bona Awards do not have much source material as this is a cultural difference in the Czech Republic - Czech media outlets typically refuse to write about corporate philanthropy in any way as they see this as free advertising for the corporations.

Again, any help or advice you may offer is really appreciated. Thank you! --Nadacevia 11:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You actually don't have to use English references, if you don't have any English sources - they're just preferred. You can also use translations, or machine translations, of foreign language documents if you want.  Typically, in order to show that the topic of an article is notable, you just have to find some reliable sources which talk about the subject.  The fact that people are talking about the subject in a news, business, or scholarly setting is typically enough to show that a subject is notable.  So, if you're having trouble finding sources in the Czech press, try looking through business magazines and things like that - those are also acceptable sources, and I reckon they probably won't have the same philosophy as the normal press.  Hope this helps! --Haemo 21:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I've listed some 3rd party sources in both the Via Foundation and Via Bona Awards articles. I've run into a new problem in that major Czech media outlets do not provide free searchable databases for archived new articles, so I've given only a few of those sources and while listing other references. I've also change language that could be considered biased in these articles.

What is the next step that I must take so that I may have the COI tag removed from these sites?

Thank you - --Nadacevia 11:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me now, so all you have to do is be bold and remove the tag :) --Haemo 21:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. I was worried I would be violating some written or unwritten rule if I did that... Thanks once again for your help in making these articles better! --Nadacevia 21:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you once again for both your advice and your help! --Nadacevia 12:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage has been vandalized
Just wanted to warn you. -- MrMacMan Talk  21:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reverting it. I appreciate it.  --Haemo 21:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently the user is still attacking you... I just reverted an personal attack on this talk page. MrMacMan Talk  21:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw. I just reported him.  --Haemo 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Guttersnipes (band)
Hi Haemo, I noticed that you tagged the Gutternipes page that I created for Conflict of Interest. I actually created the page as a reference to a notable band, not as any sort of advertisment, and I tried to write the entry in a neutral way and so that it complies with Wikipedia guidelines around musical listings. I originally added some comments to the Talk:Guttersnipes page about this. Any advice as to further edits to remove any perceived conflict of interest would be of great help. Is it possibly that I chose a username that was the same as the first article I was posting?

The page was also recently nominated for vamnispamcruftisment, and the result of the discussion was keep - see Articles_for_deletion/Guttersnipes

I'm not sure if this discussion sheds any light on the article's impartiality and verifiability. Can you please point me in the right direction as to how I would go about contributing to a discussion about the Conflict of Interest? I had a look at the Articles for Deletion page, and as a new Wikipedian, I can't work out how to contribute.

--Guttersnipes 08:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it looks like you've got some good references there. I apologize for tagging your page - I don't know what I was thinking.  Good references are the key to making a good page, and the more the merrier.  --Haemo 08:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Westropp
and probably others. I stopped the speedy on him, but it will probably be deleted by someone else if not written more like a typical WP article. They are undoubtedly Notable, but it needs to be clearly shown with references to something objective about them. Even more important, you said you "uploaded" them. If you copied them from a web site or elsewhere, and it is not  in the public domain, you cannot do that, and you will need to rewrite them entirely in your own words. Since the articles have been questioned, make sure about this. If it is your own original writing, make sure there are sources. DGG 05:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? What's this about.  I have no idea what you're talking about.  --Haemo 07:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably the Thomas Johnson Westropp page. About what he's talking about? I couldn't actually read what he was saying myself. MrMacMan Talk  07:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I know what happened now - I commented on the talk page that the speedy deletion was unwarranted, and fixed one of the tags on the pages. I think he mistook me for the author.  --Haemo 07:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * haha as long as you know whats going on. MrMacMan Talk  07:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Impunity Watch
That is the last time I ever add anything to wikipedia. Thanks for wasting my time.--Impunitywatch 01:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you're upset with me. I didn't have anything to do with your article getting deleted - I was just explaining why it was going to do, and was there to help you with notability concerns.  --Haemo 01:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?
It was not "Vandalism". I wrongly typed the name of the file and got few blank images. I rectified the error the very next second. Let us not dig the grave of one another by using terms like "Vandalism". From next time onwards please be careful in using terms like this.
 * Oh, no worries - sometimes it's just hard to tell. I didn't even add any warning templates to your page because I was confused about what was going on.  Apologies for any grief I've caused you.  --Haemo 20:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

ANI
Any user may post to AN or ANI; administrator status is not required and often the views of non-admins are very helpful. Thank you for your comments. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, cool! --Haemo 22:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm...
I have been a Wikipedian for a year. I created an article for a band linked to Fall Out Boy. Don't patronize me and tell me to use the sandbox though. I'm not saying I'm the most active user ever but I've made over 600 edits... Cnota 00:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha, that's a standard template - it's not meant to be patronizing, and I apologize if I gave you that impression. The problem, I reckon, is that your article doesn't tell us anything about the band, beyond that they had an EP - it also doesn't assert notability, which is a second, but also critical problem.  --Haemo 00:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL!! I seriously thought you were just trying to be a douche bag. No apology needed, I don't ever deal with that aspect of Wikipedia so I didn't know.  I guess the articles I've created have always been "good" enough where that was not a problem. I added a bunch of new information, so let me know if it's enough for now.  The reason I felt it was notable was because they were on Fall Out Boy's first release and they were wiki'ed on FOB's page and it was obviously a dead link. Cnota 00:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem! Looks good now - I just removed the tags.  --Haemo 00:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Argentine Army to the Effort and Abnegation
I deleted the article, but so you know the correct criterion was A2: Not English. No big deal, just letting you know for the future. Happy editing to you! Teke 04:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I honestly couldn't tell - sometimes it's hard to tell! --Haemo 06:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Spite Your Face Productions
Hi, I cant see a strong arguement for the inclusion of the tags on the above mentioned article, those being 'citation of sources' and 'conflict of interest'. The tags themselves have been added with no apparent argument or stated cause on said articles discussion page. The matter of conflict of interest is in open discussion on that page, with various third party contributors arguing for the validity of the article - while the matter of lacking citation is patently false. There are numerous instances of citation, most all of which can be easily be corroborated by following those or other related links on that page.

Untill fair and specific arguement is offered for the two complaints, the tags should not be there?

Please respond within the Spite Your Face Productions discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.253.104.11 (talk • contribs)


 * I've replied there, per your instructions. --Haemo 22:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit on Starcraft 2
I recommend you read wikipedia policy. Nothing I stated was opinionated. It was very carefully worded only stating fact of what was seen in an official blizzard video. DO NOT remove Gameplay Video section; it is entirely relevant and necessary and should be expanded upon.


 * I am perfectly familiar with Wikipedia's policy on original research - you, however, seem to be under the mistaken impression that anything true cannot be original research. This is patently not the case.  I have started a discussion on the talk page, and I suggest you use that, rather than adding unsourced observations to the article.  --Haemo 22:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Host of Family Feud
I corrected the order and you fixed it back to wrong.
 * Actually, the edit I reverted just broke the link; your new one fixes it though! --Haemo 08:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion?
Why does my page keep getting put up for speedy deletion? Its not violating any rules as far as Ive seen and is informal....So why does the speedy deletion tag keep reappearing?
 * I replied on the talk page; and yes, it is breaking some rules. --Haemo 08:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok well then can you at least explain the rule so I can know how to fix it?

my reply on my talk page
Hi. I've replied on my talk page. andrew-the-k 15:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Homoeopathy & bottled water
But surely that's what homoeopathy is? Random active ingredients diluted so much with Evian water than eventually not a single molecule of active ingredient is left.


 * I am well aware of this fact - however, there is an adequate discussion on the page in question. --Haemo 09:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Stalking
Oops! Thanks, I have corrected my statement to say what I had originally intended. Please assume good faith; it was an honest mistake. Jouster (  whisper  ) 09:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, no worries - I'm sure it was; I was just taken aback by it. --Haemo 00:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply from Kliman
Dear Haemo,

Thanks a lot for your answers to my questions. I'm glad my math checks out.

"the definitions in some parts were not perfectly clear." That's probably not your fault. It was not an easy book to write, and it's not perfect. It's hard to be accessible and precise at the same time. I'm not sure exactly which definitions you're referring to, but there are a lot of things defined in chap. 2.

"I also found a paper, when I was poking around on EconLit, that had some criticisms of one of your related papers (I don't remember which, and I think you've since replied to it) that was largely mistaken, but some of the more technical arguments seemed to agree with my impressions."

This may be a reference to a paper by Veneziani, or a paper by Mohun, or ...? I think everything has now been responded to, though the full response to Veneziani is still a working paper. I'd be interested in knowing what technical arguments you're referring to, but don't bother hunting down the paper again. My best guess is that you're referring to Veneziani's discussion of the temporalist MELT, or Laibman's critique of the TSSI refutation of the Okishio theorem. If you want the responses to either of these, please email me at akliman@pace.edu and I'll send it to you.

"I would be very interested in seeing a very technical paper on the subject, too - well, mathematically technical, as opposed to intellectually."

There's a very technical paper by Alan Freeman at the end of Marx and Non-equilibrium Economics. I can send you a 1999 paper I co-authored that's fairly technical about some things, but not so technical on the Okishio theorem, and it doesn't really discuss the MELT. I can also send you a couple of pretty technical things on the temporalist MELT, if you're concerned with the claim that it is "undefined" and/or possibly negative (which would imply that surplus labor is positive but profit is negative), but the gist of this is in my book. Also I can send stuff on the Okishio theorem.

If you're interested in following up on this, I'd suggest consulting my book again and then e-mailing me about specific things that remain unclear or dubious, and I can send the relevant stuff and point you to the exact place you should look, or maybe I'll have to tackle a new problem, or ....

andrew-the-k 06:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the paper in question was by a Veneziani - the name rings a bell - but some of his analysis seemed slightly misplaced, so I didn't really follow it too closely. I did check out Marx and Non-equilibrium Economics at one point, again, it was on recall, and it's simply not possible to get through that much material in such a short time.  Three days, on top of all my other coursework!  Intolerable.  Anyways, I would very much like to reach that paper - my email is jlgraveswiki@gmail.com .  Sorry if I've been a little bit short on details - it's been a while since I studied any of this, and I'm still dredging my deep recall for it.  --Haemo 08:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Binary economics article
Response Talk:Binary_economics -- Janosabel 22:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Editor review
I reviewed you. Yechiel Man 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summary
I don't know whether or not you are aware of this, but when you eliminate the "/*" and "*/ " tabs in edit summaries you deny those people monitering the page a chance to see which section was edited; this also disables direct linking to the given section. There is no policy for or against leaving these tabs in, I just thought you might like to know that it kinda makes checking edit summaries harder since one has to actually go to the page to see what got added (or removed). On an unrelated note, you've done a good job of monitering the StarCraft II article. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 05:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting - didn't know that they did that; I will try to leave them in from now on. Thank you for the tip.  --Haemo 05:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Dominican Republic
Keep up the good fight on the DR article. Great job you're doing! 64.131.205.111 07:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sanchi
I notice you have have started Requests for checkuser/Case/SanchiTachi could I suggest a couple of other IPs? See User talk:4.139.78.169. That user has replied to a comment I actually left on the 75.X user's talk page and there is complete continuity of comments and actions across all three IP addresses continuing on from Sanchi's previous edits, e.g.. Doesn't seem like they are trying to hide it but they are being aggressive/disruptive and already starting an edit war. So basically picking up completely where they left off without any sign they realise they've been banned. I assume the 75.x might be a college address and 4.x a home one (the IP appears to "wander" like those of some IPs). (Emperor 13:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC))


 * I see you've added them - and I tend to agree; if you look at this map you can see they're about a 40 minute drive apart, both in different suburbs of Denver; so it's totally reasonable that they're the same person.  --Haemo 20:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite and copyedit of market failure
I should thank you for the rewrite, since it improved the page. My edits just cleaned up the sorts of small mistakes that are always easier for others to spot. ThAtSo 22:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:StarCraft II
I've looked at the addition; it does seem suspicious at first, but according to Verifiability, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Ceptryn's edits do list sources, and the source he is citing does seem legit; the main page includes links to interviews with Blizzard personel on MSNBC and a link to an interview with Nick Carpenter, a Blizzard employee. Taken togather I think that the addition can stay her so long as it remains more or less in its present form. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it's not a reliable source; it's a fanzine. --Haemo 21:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Dominican Republic Sockpuppet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Memeco YoSoyGuapo 00:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes? I'm not an admin; I can't exactly do anything about that.  --Haemo 00:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

ANI
BTW good to see an active British Columbian on here :) I'm from Perth but went through there a few years ago. Was just going to say I think the Mario guy on ANI is probably *very* young, so I've written a bit on there to try and set him straight (I'm a trainee school teacher, it runs in the blood :). Orderinchaos 02:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I reckoned as much, but it's always difficult to tell when someone is being legitimately confused, or if they're just putting in on for effect. Good on you.  --Haemo 03:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Dominican Republic
A few changes were made to article due to current case against sockpuppet. 64.131.205.111 05:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and? I'm confused about what's going on here.  --Haemo 05:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

rv edits of sockpuppet of memeco and placed your edits back in the page with minor improvements. nothing much else. 64.131.205.111 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you, but it's you should probably note that it's not necessary to revert edits of sock-puppets unless they're disruptive. --Haemo 05:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Edwin Casado Baez
Was blocked for a week for unrelenting personal attacks. 64.131.205.111 05:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's too bad - he seemed like he wanted to contribute. --Haemo 05:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone actually change it back (Dominican Republic page)
When i read it, last night someone did change it back...but right now was move that information to other part of the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avfnx (talk • contribs)


 * I'll take a look at it. --Haemo 21:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk: Angeles City
I had gotten used to AN/I not coming through, and only now noticed how much you put into your Talk page comment. Thanks much for taking this on! / edgarde 04:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, no problem – no promises either, from the looks of things. ;) --Haemo 04:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate it plenty. The article reversion helps &mdash; almost all this edit warfare and Talk page recrimination is over just this two-sentence passage.
 * Generally complaints on this page are dismissed as a POV conflict between and Rodent. Susanbryce has a clumsy way with editing and a strong POV which probably needs to be counterbalanced. However, RodentofDeath is entirely destructive, and sustainedly aggravating enough to drive neutral editors off any article.
 * More difficult is the article Human trafficking in Angeles City, which is retitled from a more inflammatory title by Susanbryce. I'm not certain what ultimate form it will take, but the issues are sufficiently complex that it cannot be reduced to another Prostitution in Asia page, so it's a really hard piece of editing. And edit warfare by RodentofDeath is seriously impeding progress. / edgarde 05:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, edits like this are always really difficult - have you considered making a new section in the article instead, summarizing the entire other page there? That might flow a lot better, since it appears to be a non-trivial issue - but the storm of resulting problems might be difficult to navigate.  --Haemo 05:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The amount of trouble over this modestly-worded sentence has put everyone off trying to create an article section. I don't think a full-fledged sex industry section is warranted in Angeles City &mdash; by way of comparison, there's nothing about the murder rate on Philadelphia, and it's all us natives talk about here. However, Angeles does seem to have a poverty problem that would merit expansion. Again, impossible to do in this article, where Rodent's contingient fights to remove anything perceived as unflattering. / edgarde 05:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it would be a good idea just to get some compromise going, first of all, before attempting anything more rash. --Haemo 05:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD
Thanks. Dalejenkins 19:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

sup yo
Hi. I definitely, definitely did not vandalize your info page and write nasty evil stupid things on there. However, I can see that you are really hung up on really stupid things, like I am at times. However, I learn to leave them alone. I have come to terms with my hate for mice and keyboards, and so should you. I encourage you to please, please remove your head from a certain place and use it in a better way, such as banging your head AGAINST a keyboard instead of hating it. Also: pants. 140.192.206.91 09:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about. --Haemo 21:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC on User:Mike18xx
Hi Haemo. As you have participated at the ANI discussion regarding the behaviour of the abovementioned user, i just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on themselves in response to the concerns raised during the discussion at the ANI and their avoidance to solve the issue. The RfC is located here. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  10:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nine dart finish
I've re-wrote some of the article nine dart finish which you tagged with the Buzzword. See if it makes more sense now (I've added links that may explain some of the scoring terms) and let me know. I've removed the tag - not sure if I was supposed to, so sorry if that's incorrect. Seedybob2 12:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me! Thanks for the rewrite.  --Haemo 21:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

JB196
Is he really that bad? b/c everytime i go to AIV or ANB i see a listing about him.. even checkuser.. and there are like ton's of notices about him. 64.131.205.111 01:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, he just constantly re-adds his article; he's not really malicious. However, he is like a one-man spam army; he got his own freaking subpage of the Long-term abuse boards - .  Check out his list of sockpuppets.  --Haemo 01:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed
Almost the entire TNA section is gone on Christian Cage put it back! how is that vandalism do you even look at the edits. 76.189.237.255 03:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I just restored it - apologies, but I saw an abusive edit summary, and a bunch of content being removed, so I opted to revert. --Haemo 03:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment: Response to Sunray question on translations
Dear Haemo,

Please see my reply to user:sunray's query about translations of articles from other language Wikipedias, on his talk page. Comments are welcome and I have suggested to Sunray that these are posted on his talk page - he may have another proposal. I am endeavouring to contact other active editors who might be interested in these proposals and would welcome your suggestions on who these could be. I intend to post this identical message on the user talk pages of andrew-the-k, Haemo, Watchdog07, and M.Posner

Alan XAX Freeman 08:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for radio station logos
Thank you for noticing that Image:WNIO logo.png was missing a fair use rationale. I added one. If you encounter other radio station logos without a fair use rationale, you may want to add a rationale using the one at Image:WNIO logo.png as a starting point. --Eastmain 23:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder
Hey Haemo I figured I would respond here rather than on the     Talk:Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder page since it would have distracted  from the point of the talk page. Having been involved with the article for well over a month, I have seen the edit wars going on concerning the article. Regarding the protection of the Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder article, I know for a fact that it was protected just because of an edit war. After warning all parties concerned about reverts, requesting mediation, getting several administrators involved and finally going to the arbitration committeeIn, I was the one that requested the protection of the page as noted here []. The page had been reverted in excess of 35 times with in an hour! The majority of the reverts were by new users only editing the Talk:Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder. In addition, I was also the one that asked for the page to be unprotected. However, as soon as the protection was lifted, within several minutes, another revert war broke out. Once again, with new users of Wikipedia involved. As to way the page is still protected, I cannot say, other than it looks like the higher-ups are involved at this point. Hope this explains a little better. • ShoesssS Talk
 * I understand that the article was previously protected for edit warring, but as far as I know, the current full protection was based on biographical concerns. It looks to me like the article "calmed down" after the initial full protection, but it looks like the recent protection is just going to make it all flare up again.  It's going to take weeks to get it back to normal :/ --Haemo 06:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to say, you are probably right. I’m viewing it as job security, or more correctly volunteer security.   • ShoesssS Talk


 * Honestly, I'm just worried about it getting picked up in the blogosphere, and then we'd have a minor disaster on our hands. --Haemo 21:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, some of what's going on has been picked up by the blogosphere, unfortunately. However, the blogger feels as outraged as many of the contributors to the article in regards to the misinformation out there. Here's hoping things will settle down, now that many of the single purpose pointy contributors have realized that this isn't quite the event hyped by so many extremist groups. Still, it's good to know that there are more eyes on it now. For a while there, it was an absolute free for all, and quite possibly the worst display of bad faith I've ever seen. AniMate 23:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not worried about that kind of coverage -- I'm worried about Andrew Schlafly wannabes picking it up and spreading it everywhere. :/ --Haemo 00:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's something we need to worry about too much. I personally think the guys a joke, though he's certainly effective in his own way. I think most of the influential, conservative bloggers are staying away from this since so many of the details were wrong and the white nationalist movement has latched on to it. AniMate 00:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * One small benefit from their involvement, I suppose. --Haemo 00:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder
I did not start any reverting war. I made a valid change, you reverted it.--Ram2006 03:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not revert a "valid change" -- this has been discussed on the talk page; you've decided not to honor that consensus. --Haemo 03:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see my response on Talk:JK Rowling
If you are not in a position to block or ban Libertycookies, can you please find someone who is? I've been fighting this guy's edits for more than a month, and so far no one has come to my aid. I can no longer edit JK Rowling because everything I edit is reverted by him. The longer Wikipedia gives him free reign, the more he rubs my nose in it, because he sees me as some kind of ultraconservative fascist he has the power to crush. Don't ask me to try arbitration, asking for a block or any other forum; I've tried them all. Nothing happened. Serendipodous 01:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not an admin -- but that section is really, really bad. --Haemo 04:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Re: RfC. Should Libertycookies edit again, what should be the next step in this process? Serendipodous 10:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just thought you should know thet Libertycookies re-added all the content on politics which you removed. Time for an RfC I think - personally I'd go for a month-long block... were I an admin... AulaTPN 18:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's time for a RfC -- this guys doesn't seem to understand what's going on here. --Haemo 07:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA
Thanks for your support in my recent, unsuccessful RfA. It's much appreciated. IvoShandor 16:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD
Hello, I did not create those articles, they are fully cited article and written in an encyclopedic manner. Therefore, the CFSD should be removed immedieatly, I am suprised you have claimed me as the author.

Mingybagster


 * That is not the reason; the reason is that they are reposts of previously deleted content. Please refrain from remove deletion templates from articles.  --Haemo 02:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Bennyninty
I see he keeps vandalising and I had just warned him also. --Mikecraig 04:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, I already reported him to intervention. He's not here to write an encyclopedia.  --Haemo 04:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

E-Mail
Dump the E-Mail info., unless you like SPAM. I used to get some really sickening spam. 205.240.144.168 04:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've actually found pretty much all of my email correspondence here to be very functional and pleasant. Plus, I'm not silly enough to use my actual email account, anyways ;) --Haemo 04:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And Then There Were None
Hi, I noticed that recently you made an revert to this article, marked as "minor", with the edit summary "Reverted 2 edits by 65.203.137.90 identified as vandalism to last revision by Accounting4Taste. using TW".

On checking, I don't see anything obviously malicious about the edits you reverted. They seemed to be mainly minor tweaks to wording.

Could you explain how this was vandalism? Or was this an error by you in using Twinkle's rollback features? The latter seems more likely to me. We all make errors so that isn't a big deal if it was. --Tony Sidaway 17:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't remember what happened there...I think I must have gotten mixed up, or hit the wrong button. But, what's odd, is that when I do that I usually  leave them a message explaining what happened.  Very odd.  I will look into this some more.  --Haemo 20:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh snap -- I see what happened now; I actually remember this -- I saw the user editing the Character list to "General Macarthur" as the kind of "false fact" vandalism that I see all the time. Of course, now I notice that he was the previous editor, and he was right.  Now I feel terrible -- what should I do?  --Haemo 20:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I struck my comments and apologized, but I don't think I can restore his revision without deleting a lot of other editing, since it was a while ago. Shoot -- I need to watch my trigger finger in the future.  --Haemo 20:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Super Speeds
Hello Haemo, As put in the talk page this article or the company is not about a person,self promotion and about a group.The company has played a vital role in promoting Indian Motorsports in a big way.It activities has a long history of over 25 years.If you feel any modifications or changes required please feel free to discuss,thats because I feel this article is only a information and not any kind to promotion for commercial purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G27 (talk • contribs)


 * Hi, it's good to hear from you; the problem is that the article, in its current form, does not clearly explain why Super Speeds is notable. Judging from what you've said here, this should be a relatively easy problem to fix, and you'll have no problems.  I've duplicated this comment on the talk page. --Haemo 10:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Burger Boats
This article meets the guidelines for both WP:N and CORP. You are getting carried away in your tagging. --Kevin Murray 10:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I beat you to it :P --Haemo 10:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks.   --Kevin Murray 10:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry; I hate it when I make mistakes like that, and I try to fix them as soon as possible. I'm kind of paranoid that I'm going to accidentally get good content deleted and Tony's comment up above has made me even moreso; so I kind of flipped when I looked at the refreshed version of your page after I finished tagging it.  Again, my apologies.  --Haemo 10:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

RFA
Just to let you know, I believe I've answered your RFA question to a satisfactory standard. CloudNine 10:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Haemo 22:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Board Candidacy
Hi! I'm leaving you this note because we've had extensive and/or productive interaction over the course of my time on this Wiki. I (yep, little ol' Jouster!) am running for election to the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. I would greatly appreciate it if you would please take a look at my submission of candidacy, and consider endorsing me, as that is a requirement for me to stand for election.

If you have any questions or concerns about this notice, please don't hesitate to poke me on my Talk page. If you object to this solicitation for endorsement, please do not hesitate to remove it from your Talk page with my apologies; it will not appear again.

I look forward to serving you all on the Board! Jouster (  whisper  ) 18:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm just not familiar enough with what the board does, or how it acts, to be involved in this process in this time. I think you're a good editor, and all, but I'm just not really capable of making a decision of any kind.  --Haemo 22:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * At the risk of pressing the issue, as I understand it, endorsements are primarily intended to simply reduce joke and vandal nominations, and they do not commit you to further involvement with the Board elections. Nonetheless, thank you for considering my request.  Jouster  (  whisper  ) 22:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm sorry, but I just don't feel comfortable endorsing, or not endorsing, any given candidate -- so don't feel that I'm "not endorsing you" or something. I just don't have enough experience to comment effectively on position statements, or the endorsement process.  Please accept my apologies.  --Haemo 22:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries at all. Thank you for your consideration.  Jouster  (  whisper  ) 23:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Murder suspects.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Murder suspects.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks BetacommandBot -- I forgot to request that be deleted; there's a better one on the article in question, anyways. --Haemo 06:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

RFA Question...
"What, exactly, do you feel is the rationale behind the Ignore all rules policy, and how do you think it should be applied in cases of (1) editing disputes, (2) blocking users, and (3) fair use material." Is a question you proposed during CloudNine's RFA. It's really a great question, and I was just alerting you that I'm going to use it as well. Just a great question for RFA candidates, really. Best wishes, NSR 77 TC  19:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur! Made me think :) CloudNine 19:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input -- I think it's a good question, because it's not something you can just read off a policy page to answer. --Haemo 22:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You have a talent for dishing out exceptional questions. Regards, NSR 77 TC  02:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Vote on pedophile activism
There is currently a vote on the issue of whether the anti- and pro- pedophile activism articles should be merged into a single "culture war" article. Having noted your participation in previous discussions on this matter, I thought that I'd invite you to vote. 86.131.41.244 21:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, voting is evil, but I guess I could through in my two cents, regardless. --Haemo 22:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There is now a new vote, in which the two articles are listed for merging with pedophilia. Unfortunately, I don't think that my vote would be welcome. 86.131.41.244 23:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I definitely don't like that proposal; a paragraph about pro and anti activism, absolutely -- but a wholesale merge is too large. --Haemo

I Forgot A Message
You know what the warning message is vandalizing userpages are? I seem to have forgotten. -WarthogDemon 01:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I just use the normal vandalism templates, and type out a specific message. You can check WP:TEMPLATES to look at all of them.  --Haemo 02:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Do u suppose I don't need help rescuing Red army crimes category?
What are real issues for help asking? Are they among the rules?--Ttturbo 08:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Help issues are like "How do I do X" or "Is it possible to do Y" -- they're not really for requesting help in "Help me write articles about Z", or "Help me make this new A". This is more like help with editing rather than just generalized help -- leaving your message up like that actively disrupts the help queue.  --Haemo 08:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you "tracking" my user
I am user Havik 7 and i think you are "treacking" me.
 * I'm tracking the new user feed, and you come up a lot, yes. --Haemo 09:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me the truthHavik7 10:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Havik7