User talk:Haemo

Welcome to my Talk Page! You can leave me any questions, comments, or suggestions you have on this page — I don't bite. My reply policy is that I'll try to reply on the page where the first question or comment is made. So, if you leave a message on this page, I'll reply here; and vice versa. If you wish to proceed differently, just leave a note with your response. As always, you can click here to leave me a new message.

Always remember — Non nobis solum.

 

Monetary pol / US

I'm still not quite sure how people manage to read Talk pages when text can be threaded in anywhere. I thought I'd cross-post this to ya:

"Equal" does need to be stricken if I put that in there with reference to the entire money supply. It is good to have such a critical eye on this article. It helps that you are familiar with the workings of the Open Market. If you can tone down my (unintentional!) POV while still retaining the intended meaning, I would be utterly in your debt.

Thanks for any help. The "edit skirmish" was getting ridiculous. BigK HeX (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in looking at your talk page, you seem to be an experienced admin. This Monetary policy article is my first attempt at Wikipedia editing, so I'd find a neutral opinion as helpful. If you ever have time to go through the Talk page and/or edit history (or however you investigate such matters), I'd be curious to know whether a reasonable person would consider my editing as disruptive/tendentious/egregiously inaccurate/etc. I just don't feel comfortable with allowing anyone to take pertinent and verifiable text and either deleting or significantly distorting it as the first recourse. There does seem to be a consensus that my writing is not NPOV, so I wouldn't so much mind restatements of the text, but the deletions seem like censorship to me. But anyways, if my disputes with Gregalton are not rationally justified, then it would be helpful to hear it. BigK HeX (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, it's clear you have a POV on the topic, but that's frankly to be expected from nearly every editor on basically any topic. I'll try and act as a moderating force on the subject since I have some experience moderating, and I have a decent amount of knowledge to share on this subject. --Haemo (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've already been impressed by your familiarity with the subject. I see Gregalton's canvassing has finally drawn Zenwhat in as well. From what I've seen in another article Zen tends to call "crankery" a little hastily, too, but he does also seem reasonably open to reliable sources. I feel the article has finally found a "good family to take care of it." I'm so very relieved. Happy editing. BigK HeX (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, don't worry about Zen — he's a reasonable guy, with a skeptical streak, so overall good to have watching over your articles. --Haemo (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

For the "puhlic good"

Putting it in quotes (see Airquotes) is suggestive of sarcasm.

Dr. Evil: "Lasers."

Removing the quotes, though, is just as bad because it suggests that the Fed actually is good for the public, which is also in dispute. Hence, I thought "for the public" was a suitable revision. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought they were just regular quotes! It was just a short quip, which summarizes the motivations for the founding, so I thought a short quote would be good. I guess it does come off a bit "lasers"-y, IMO. --Haemo (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Brett Hickey

Could you please delete the Brett Hickey page so I can write an article? Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_hickey

http://www.mojohd.com/mojoseries/wallstreetwarriors/warriors/view/brett

http://www.aegiscapitalgroup.com/team.php?teamID=1&v=s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oatmealstout (talk • contribs) 03:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is deleted. --Haemo (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

draft 911 faq

—my comments in italics... — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk)

The main points can be summarized as:

• What about alternate accounts of events? Most concerns include disputes over the roles played by Al Qaeda, George W. Bush, the United States Government, various ethnicities, and other organizations or individuals.

Answer: Wikipedia presents information only based on reputable sources that are widely accepted by scholars, historians, scientists, and other qualified organizations or individuals. The article's account of the attacks is the only one supported by reliable, widely accepted information.

—I strongly disagree: I do not base myself on the opinions of paranoid individuals like Alex Jones or David Icke or Michael Ruppert. I base my opinions on the sources they provide. They have shown me primary sources (witnesses and photo's) and secundary sources (newspaper clippings, which are RS) which have, over several weeks led me to conclude in 2004, that the alternate account is more likely to be correct. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For an explanation of what constitutes reliable and unreliable sources, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:Reliable Sources.

• "Things don't add up..."

Answer: Piecing together a wide array of information and coming to a conclusion is not the purpose of Wikipedia. If this is your intent, please review Wikipedia's No Original Research policy. For an explanation of what constitutes reliable and unreliable sources, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:Reliable Sources.

—For this policy, we may not ourselves conclude "things do not add up", but we may quote notable Americans or leaders as saying so: Michael Meacher, Andreas von Bulow, Charly Sheen... — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Isn't one man's terrorist another's hero? Common concerns over why the article defines the attacks as terrorism.

Answer: The attacks are widely considered "terrorism" by reliable sources, including the United Nations. Therefore, they are defined as "terrorism" in the article. For an explanation of what constitutes reliable and unreliable sources, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:Reliable Sources.

—There was a time when we removed the word terrorist from the title, using the opposite argument. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• some NPOV question to go here...

Answer...

—Haemo, it makes me sad that I seem to unable to convey my thoughts and feelings to you, whom I deem intelligent, polight and good-faith, and that we should remain quarreling... — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, for the record, I didn't write those sections of the FAQ. However, many of the points you spell out do not address the fact that there are no reliable sources to support them. --Haemo (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Family First New Zealand

I notice that you deleted Family First New Zealand. This lobby group is gaining some attention and I feel it deserves an article. Can you email the deleted article to me so that I can use it as a basis for a new article? Thanks. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 09:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have userfied it here. --Haemo (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ta. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 23:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"Explaining" films

How do you "explain" a film? What kind of explanation of The Money Masters were you expecting? Robert Ham (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The concept would be that you explain the film; what is it about, how it was produced, how it was received, etc. To contrast this with the comment made, an article about a film should not try to explain the topic of the film — which was why I pointed out that the particular comment was not a point in favor of the article. --Haemo (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

People who sell The Money Masters don't seem very notable either

To avoid duplication: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baked ham (talk • contribs) 04:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I prod'd the Bill Still one. --Haemo (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

ongoing 911 debate

I hear your frustration, Haemo. I am responding to queries where I would rather have not done so, because they confuse the issue. If you aim to resolve the matter, my hope is you will respond to my query here: Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks#back_to_the_heart_(2) — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Helping me out

Thankyou for stepping in as I think we all get a little heated in these debates on Wiki. What I would like to do is be able to work with other editors to help make articles much better, some though don;t actually talk about things on my user page or the article in questions' page - is there a set procedure to do this at all? --Gothgirlangel1981 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries! Unfortunately, some people are the strong, silent type and don't like discussing. There isn't very much you can do besides starting a discussion the article's talk page, and requesting that they join in. Continual disruptive editing without discussion can be referred to dispute resolution and ultimately the admins. --Haemo (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion involving a move you made

Hello. Just a heads up, there's a discussion in progress regarding your move of Emo in October 2007 at User talk:Sarah777#Emo. Regards. --Muchness (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Weird. That was like 4 months ago... --Haemo (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of wikipedia policy

You have consistently and flagrantly tried to have people believe that what "reliable sources" call something is a criterion for naming articles according to wikipedia guidelines, despite the fact that it has been pointed out to you many times that this is false. While the occasional mistake can be forgiven, flagrant and reckless misrepresentation of wikipedia policy or guidelines is not acceptable. ireneshusband (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not "misrepresented" anything; what reliable sources call an event, or subject is relevent, since it speaks to the common name which is a guideline for naming. It also speaks to the fact that the name is neutral, since reliable sources with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking use the name in a non-pejorative manner; contrary to your repeated arguments. You have repeatedly misunderstood, or ignored, this point in favor of simply insisting that your selective misreading of sources, and Wikipedia's guidelines is correct. I'm sorry to be harsh, but I don't appreciate being the subject of repeated incivility and personal attacks from you over this incredibly silly dispute. --Haemo (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The policy in question is Wikipedia:Naming conventions. This says nothing about "reliable sources". You cite Wikipedia:Common sense, but it should be pretty obvious even to the most naive editor that Wikipedia:Common sense does not give you license to make up rules to suit yourself. You are an admin. It is utterly beyond belief that you could have failed to be aware of this. Now you have repeated the offense yet again. There is no excuse for this. And please don't try throwing the Wikipedia:Incivility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks at me again. I am well enough acquainted with Wikipedia:Assume good faith to know that I have not said anything out of order.

So let's get this clear: To knowingly misrpresent wikipedia policy is completely unacceptable behaviour, especially for an admin. ireneshusband (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you misunderstand my argument and instead focus your ill-conceived venom upon for the impertinence of disagreement. Your belief is based in the fact that you don't understand my argument, and have instead taken to a vain attempt to brow-beat me, and other editors who disagree with you, into submission. In short, until you cease this incivil and misplaced attempt to claim some kind of highground to which you are not entitled, and instead try to understand what the people who disagree with you are really saying — instead of what you want to believe they are saying — I have nothing more to say to you. --Haemo (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That type of comment is ridiculous and will not be tolerated any longer. I've just given Ireneshusband a final warning for trolling. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrono commando

Hi, I've removed the warning you added to this AfD discussion, since the terms of the injunction clearly don't apply. I presume it was an innocent mistake, but thought it best to notify you anyway. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC).

No worries. I must have mis-read the article. Sorry! --Haemo (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

talk: 9/11

Dear Haemo, you may have missed my question in all the discussions which are going around. If you have an answer, I would like to hear it.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I've replied there. --Haemo (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Eagle Cash

On 21 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eagle Cash, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Great article, Haemo! — Athaenara ✉ 13:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --Haemo (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

re: 9/11

There is no controversy. Alternative theories or just plain "theories" is appropriate.

The Anti-Vandalism King (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's patently not true. Look at the talk page for a previous consensus in favour of the current title, as well has literally hundreds of pages of discussion with no consensus to change it. --Haemo (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't even bother.

They're throwaway IPs; they're being used just long enough to do damage and that's it. You're just wasting your time. HalfShadow (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, perhaps I will not bother then. --Haemo (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been going on all week. If you come across a page that's being hit by lots of random IPs, it's a throwaway attack. HalfShadow (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Article for wikipedia

Thank you for your help ! We have written an article (on word) about a painter,and would like to send it to wikipedia to be printed. How could we transfer this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boselawrence (talk • contribs) 11:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't exactly "print" articles -- however, if you want to make a new article you can follow this helpful guide. --Haemo (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm

Heh. Sorry for essentially claiming your argument as my own, I'm too lazy and yours is pretty smack-dab on what I would say. There’s no need for so many similar arguments. But somehow I feel like I should change my signature to "What Haemo said" :P Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That is fine by me! --Haemo (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Canada page

I assure you that this is about content. I am not being a "jerk"; it is not about my personality. There are serious POV issues on the Canada page as it stands now. Please comment on the specific edits in question and cut the insults. They do not help. --soulscanner (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, play nice with other people and work through them. There's way too much head-butting on the talk page in question, over admittedly trivial problems. --Haemo (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Killian

Dear Haemo, I would have opposed the unblocking of User:CallmeBC had I been aware of the discussion at the time, but I can understand the different viewpoint of editors who might be more forgiving or better at assuming good faith than I. Also, I have been directly involved in conflict with this editor so I didn't think I could view the situation with a truly unbiased or neutral perspective (and maybe therefore it is better that I did not comment at that time). Now, speaking of my personal bias and involvement in this situation, I feel strongly that this editor has already grossly violated the terms under which he was removed from permanent block. I would ask your objective view. It may be that I am the one who is wrong; I often am. But I am getting the same feeling I had just prior to this editor's permanent block, finding every post at that page to be laden with personal invective, and seeing even posts that in my own view are carefully constructed so as to be productive proposals for improving the article met with simple nastiness. Can you take a look and see? And if I am wrong, tell me to relax or find a new hobby or something. I would welcome a third view. Best regards, Kaisershatner (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As it's been more than well demonstrated, I do believe, on the Talk page, Kaisershatner has been obstructing any improvements to the article by chronically and repeatedly violating WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and the provision in WP:CIVIL that goes Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. If I ask something along the lines of, "Yes or No -- pickles are usually green?" I'll get a response along the lines of, "Well, apples are sometimes green." And if I persist in getting an answer to the pickle question, I'll only get the apple answer regardless of however I repeat it or rephrase it. And if I try to reference something like "The Audubon Field Guide to the Color of Pickles," it'll be claimed that this is original research.

The end result is that despite the vast amount of words on the Talk page, the sole, inarguable improvement to the article has come from my pointing out that George Bush was actually a pilot in the Air National Guard and not just a member of the "U.S. National Guard" as the article had it since October. This sort of neglect and obstructive behavior appears to be in violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and it also actively discourages participating in Wikipedia -- who wants to waste enormous amounts of time and effort dealing with this sort of thing? In any case, as I had stated on the Talk page, I'm now abstaining from any more attempts to get a real discussion going and will start with dispute resolution procedures. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys are just engaged in a bit of a strenuous debate, but I think the tone is definitely starting to degrade. The dispute resolution issues might be a good way to get things started and help clear the air — repeated clashes between people, no matter how civil initially tend to create a charged environment. It might be a good idea to try WP:3O for instance. --Haemo (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Canada page

Apology accepted, but not really necessary.

I've placed my version on the Canada page. You'll probably have to go to the page history to view it, because it will probably be reverted.

This isn't a trivial matter. It's important to state where real executive power lies in Canada: with the monarchy, or with Cabinet. It changes the way the article is written.--soulscanner (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's trivial in the sense that de facto it's one thing, and de jure it's another, and no one disagrees with that. The wording is all that is really in dispute. --Haemo (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fortune Global 500

Hi, I'm not sure who to contact for this, but I thought you'd interested since you're a member of the Economics WikiProject. There is an article called Fortune Global 500. This article is a copy and paste of the list of the 500 largest companies in the world by revenues published by Fortune magazine every year. Fortune magazine lists these companies by countries and cities. They list Shell as being a company from the Netherlands and not a dual company from Britain and the Netherlands (contrary to Unilever). One British Wikipedian doesn't like that and has changed the article, writting that Shell is a dual British/Dutch company, contrary to the source from Fortune magazine. I tried to explain that the article being simply a copy and paste of the Fortune Global 500 list, we have to respect their editorial choices, otherwise it's not the Global Fortune 500 list anymore, it becomes something else. Unfortunately I feel like I'm preaching in the desert, so to speak. If we start changing things from the list based on what we think is right or wrong, then why not also change EADS which Fortune magazine lists as a Dutch company (because it is legally incorporated in the Netherlands for tax reasons), whereas in fact EADS is a Franco-German company with top management in Paris and Munich? As you can see, this could lead to endless changes to the article. I thought on Wikipedia we had to write information that matches with the sources we use. It would be nice to hear from you on this point. Keizuko (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think a short note explaining things which might be confusing in the list, like the Dutch/British problem is probably a good compromise. Just because you are using their list does not mean you can't acknowledge parts which are confusing, or complicated, After all, this is an article about the list — it can do more than just duplicate the list. --Haemo (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

9/11 dispute

Hi, I have been out of commission the last few days and despite attempts to make sense of the mass of different discussions on the 9/11 talk page, I have little clue about what's going on or why the article has been fully protected. Could you possibly summarize things for me, or point me to the relevant dispute? I would appreciate it... Thanks. Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember what the dispute was about before? Take that, and produce a specific example of it — the Mineta testimony. Then through in some generic argument about the wording of CT section, and an attempt to insert two particular people's wording into there. --Haemo (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

At what point does this dispute run into WP:TE territory? It seems like Mineta has come up before, and the OR & SYN arguments haven't changed any... // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 21:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I think it already has. However, unlike some of the other disputes which I have intervened in (like Sri Lanka) everyone here is generally pretty nice and well-behaved, and there's not a lot of edit warring, so I'm not really willing to go forward because I'm getting tired of repeating myself. --Haemo (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For keeping a cool head while defending 9/11-related pages from being over-run with conspiracy theory POV. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Steven Plaut" entry is out of date - please add the updated information from this http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=8431B5B9-9777-4A3D-8218-94679BB9DCF9 --- Borisyy