User talk:ErikHaugen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

New Page Patrol survey[edit]


New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello ErikHaugen! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey


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: 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)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

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 trust, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

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

February 2015[edit]

Information icon 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 | contribs) 04:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


well that was informative. :) — Ched :  ?  23:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've always been meaning to work on that. ErikHaugen (talk | 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 | 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[edit]

Hi - Just an FYI that I left a number of comments regarding the Amanda Rosenberg page at the 'Articles for Deletion' discussion: 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 | contribs) 22:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Question re: AE close[edit]

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: 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): [1] (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 [2]. 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. AtsmeConsult 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 | contribs) 04:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, interesting question. See [3] 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. AtsmeConsult 21:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)