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)


I don't really care either way, but the const char* example is correct as written; that operator<<, like the one for std::string, 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 <iostream> #included <string>? 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 | contribs) 23:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Some <iostream> implementations do include <string> ;) 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 | contribs) 16:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Request to delete user page and user talk page[edit]

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 | contribs) 05:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


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 | contribs) 17:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: New helper policy[edit]

Hello member of Category:Wikipedians who use IRC! 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 "#wikipedia-en-help connect" channel in a section titled "New helper policy".

To prevent future mailings about IRC, you may remove your user page from Category:Wikipedians who use IRC.
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 — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc)


I can use a simpler English if you are unable to understand why the article was at AFD. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC) This may be far too advanced but I'll try and show you a little history here. Lazada Philippines and Lazada Malaysia and yet another Lazada Vietnam which are all suprisingly or not so surprisingly owned by Tada Rocket Internet which for the most part have been written by one editor User:Thesentenceformulator. Maybe know a little history or have the decency to do something useful before you prat on about coherence. It's amazing what a person can understand if they act or research and say ask about why they did something. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand why you brought it to AfD. I don't understand this note, though; did you expect a different outcome? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:11, 29 April 2015 (C)
No consensus is clear, my issue [[1]]. That's a pretty rough closure, I don't like saying a reason is not coherent when it has a valid background. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
But there is no reason to delete. None. Not even in your original filing. Nobody has presented a reason to delete. Why does it bother you that I note that fact in my closing when it was deliberate on your part? It seems relevant to explaining the close. If it bothers you, (and even if it doesn't) please stop filing AfDs when you don't even want the article deleted just to force some cleanup issue. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

If I thought it needed cleanup I'd tag it for cleanup we have a reason to delete as it would taken a rewrite to become encyclopedic its a CSD and when this was contested afd was the next step. If you don't like that rationale feel free to change community consensus but it is an recognized community reason for deletion. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Usually a better course of action when a bad G11 is declined is to just remove the offending 2 sentences. WP:AFD says "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD", so no, AfD is not the next step in these cases. G11 is for flagrant cases when there's nothing salvageable and nobody has the time/desire to pursue a fix; other than that, for otherwise notable/etc subjects, there is no such "community reason" for deletion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
[[2]] Two sentences huh? Sure a lot of rewrite there for two sentences, obviously we'll see each other at the next article afd I have no intention of leaving promotional pages uncontested when they need a rewrite. Hopefully if you feel you are unable to understand a deletion rationale you will wait for someone with that ability to understand close the thread. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Are you implying that this does nothing but make the article less promotional? If not, what is your point? If so, please stop filing G11s! Anyway, if someone contests or declines your G11 in the future, I'd suggest just stubbing it out and moving on rather than wasting everyone's time with an AfD, especially when the community has rejected that kind of AfD. I have no intention of leaving promotional pages uncontested when they need a rewrite.—Excellent! Thanks for your hard work on these, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)