User talk:Alice.haugen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
My editing philosophy
MedCom laurel.png This user believes in civility and assuming good faith.
<sum>:1 This user believes that every edit should have a summary.
~~~~ Alice.haugen signs their posts and thinks you should too!
Rod of Asclepius2.svg This user believes that we should do no harm on any biographical article.
Rainbow trout.png In an emergency, this user may be slapped with a trout.


Apology to all and sundry[edit]

Dear folks -

Shortly after my last post in April 2009 a friend and colleague was accused of vile and possibly illegal behavior. Understandably he and I were distraught, and during the investigation that followed I did both his and my work. Soon after that was resolved my father-in-law fell into a decline that ended with his death in mid-May.

The summer that followed was complicated and draining and (perhaps because of the accumulated strains) in late July I had a deep leg thrombosis, from which I am recovering as well as might be hoped. This is all a long way of saying that I apologize for matters left undone, and hope for your forgiveness after a long period of patience.

I have had my work assignment doubled as part of the recession so it is unlikely that I will be as frequent a participant as I was before this concatenation of misfortunes. Alice (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alice, Sorry you've had such a dreadful time, and welcome back to Wikipedia. If you find it fun and satisfying, come and relax here - but if it generates more stress than satisfaction, keep well away! Best wishes, PamD (talk) 06:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi from me too, sorry you've been having a hard time, lets hope things turn round soon - I think you are due some silver linings :) ϢereSpielChequers 10:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey Alice, there's nothing to apologise for, we're all volunteers and its best to give real life priority. Im glad you told us though as now i know to say some extra prayers for you. Hope you'll have more time for editing soon. x FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Y'all are true sweethearts and the kind thoughts and prayers are much appreciated. Silver linings would be very welcome - they may line up to the left. Alice (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)



Hello, Alice.haugen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Rkitko (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi, Alice. Nice to have you with us! I've left a template with a bunch of links above that might be helpful. Wikipedia can be quite the bear to navigate when you're just starting out, so do let me know if you're looking for something but can't quite find it quickly. I'd be glad to offer any assistance. It's also nice to have some experts in the biological fields here on Wikipedia. And even though it isn't a guideline or policy, you may want to read through Wikipedia:Expert editors. I did a quick clean up on Rivulariaceae (bacteria taxoboxes are usually lightgrey, see Wikipedia:Taxobox usage), added a stub template and a category, items that are usually on short articles like that. Hope that helps! And again, welcome! --Rkitko (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I left my main reply on your talk page - was that the right place?
If not next time I'll try to follow common usage. Alice (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Common practice varies. Some people prefer the back and forth messages while others like to keep the whole thread of conversation in one place. Some will even put a bold message at the top of their talk page asking others to follow their preference. I don't have a strong preference, but what I usually do is copy over the comment to where I reply. --Rkitko (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi - It was kind of you to welcome a noobie and the links look very useful (to be digested over time). It seems unfair to this algae person that Ameobozoa and Excavata get their own colors when the beautiful blue-green algae get the bacterial grey foisted off on them, but if that's the usage then my preferences are moot (I don't suppose there's a discussion page for the colors? It would be probably be ferocious to try to correct them all even if I succeeded in persuading people). The reminder to add references is valuable - I don't know that there is enough to say that is specific to Rivulariaceae to expand the article much, though, but having the stub reminder does no harm. Thanks again for a warm welcome. Alice (talk) 04:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I would say the proper place to ask would be Template talk:Taxobox. I believe the colors had been chosen to represent higher taxonomic divisions and were chosen with colorblindness in mind, but I could be wrong about that. You might get some support for it, though. And changing the colors wouldn't been too much of a problem. I don't believe we have too many cyanobacteria articles yet. And I do believe you are Wikipedia's first algologist! Our algae articles are in need of attention. A while ago in the botany and animal realm, Polbot parsed data from the IUCN Redlist and created numerous botany stubs with outdated taxonomy. It took months to clean it up properly. More recently, User:Anybot has collected data from AlgaeBase and created short articles. I honestly don't know algae taxonomy at all, but I wonder how outdated AlgaeBase's is. I also just reported to the user who runs Anybot that all of the cyanobacteria it created parsed the data incorrectly and represented them as Eukaryotic algae! (See here: User:Anybot/bugs#Cyanobacteria, not algae).
Anyway, welcome again. If you're interested in joining other editors in discussion on these types of articles, there are two WikiProjects that overlap a little here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants might be the place to go to discuss the green algae and Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology would be helpful for all other micro topics. Those are good places to find other interested editors and asking for help on specific articles. I frequently need the services of WP:PLANTS when there's something out of my league like Asteraceae taxonomy. Hope this helps! Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted book[edit]


Hello Alice.haugen, I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Acalamari 18:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I appreciate the trust implied and will try to use rollback well. I love Wikipedia at its best, and clearing out vandalism gives me some of the quiet satisfaction I imagine janitors feel looking at a clean floor after a thunderstorm.
You're welcome! Acalamari 18:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


That's a code for Speedy deletion. Check WP:CSD, it lists all the criteria for speedy deletion. This is G11. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many ottersOne hammerHELP) 00:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Liliana Dobrescu[edit]

Hi, just to let you know I've declined the speedy deletion of this page as it clearly asserts notability per WP:Athlete. Camw (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. As someone who doesn't much care for some of the cruft here I didn't know what passes as notable for an athlete. Alice (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Notable crashes?[edit]

Hi. I removed the speedy largely because it dind't meet the A7 criteria as an airplane crash is not a real person, orginisation or web content (see WP:CSD#A7) - it was not a comment on its notability. I'm no expert on air crashes but from those I've seem at AfD it would appear that number of fatalities is often a factor with arguements like "that number of deaths must make it notable" in which case this article clearly is notable. This would also seem to tie in with WP:AIRCRASH which although only an essay and so carrying little weight seems to tie in with what I've seen at AfD. Also remember that "Notability is not temporary" (see WP:NTEMP) and although sources may be more difficult to find due to how long ago this was I'm sure enough could be found to meet our notability requirements (one source that is online, from the New York Times, is here. At the moment my take on it is that it is a valid stub. Dpmuk (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'm still learning and your answer was very helpful. Alice (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


Barnstar-atom3.png The E=mc² Barnstar
For tracking down the Muirhead responsible for Muirhead's inequality ϢereSpielChequers 10:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alice, thanks for tracking down both those questions for me. It rather goes against the spirit of the barnstar to award two at the same time, so have a barnstar and a beer instead!

Thanks so much! A star and a beer is even better! I am quite new to much of this; do many folks offer barnstars for specific questions? Alice (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)ϢereSpielChequers 12:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Alice, I think I was unusual in that twist on Barnstars, there's a general description of them here. I think of them as a bit of wiki culture that cynical Brits like me sometimes have difficulty relating to and doing appropriately; that said I'm doing a lot of speedy deletion at the moment and must make some time to give barnstars to the people who are tagging pages correctly, instead of just communicating with the people who tag overenthusiastically. ϢereSpielChequers 15:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Asia Pacific Screen Award for Best Children’s Feature Film[edit]

hello alice
i had supplied all the necessary information that was available on the net and considering its a list article, one cannot provide any further reference than the link to the award site or the award history site, which i had provided, and still you had put an "unreferenced" article tag. anyways, i've reverted your edit. if you have any further queries/arguments/doubts/issues, kindly write on my or the article's discussion page. thank you --Anant Singh (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


Hi Alice, Nice catch on the Baco Sanchez hoax. Tagging an article as a hoax places it in Category:Suspected hoax articles -- that is where I found it. IMHO, the best way to learn about hoaxes is to spend some time patrolling that category. Most hoaxes are pretty blatant, as there are no references and no links to other articles; these are usually "proposed for deletion" in short order. If there's room to doubt the legitimacy of a hoax, or if someone contests a "prod" (proposed deletion) by removing the prod template from the article, nominating the article to "Articles for Deletion" is the way to go. This is also a good route if you tag an article as a hoax and another editor removes that tag without providing evidence that the article is in fact legitimate. The Baco Sanchez hoax was a little more tricky than most hoaxes since it was linked from several other articles, including another hoax article, and since there was more than one editor perpetrating the hoax. So again, kudos on catching it. There's nothing wrong with just tagging an article as a hoax, as that will alert other editors who can form second opinions before proposing the article for deletion, etc. There's also nothing wrong with being WP:BOLD and proposing or nominating an article for deletion at the same time that you tag it as a hoax. I hope this is a help. Welcome! -- Shunpiker (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


Hi, You added this to Linton Alexander but I doubt it was what you intended - see the result here! While I'm here, I think it's conventional to put {{notable}} at top, not bottom, of article - also probably {{unref}}, though there is more variation on that one. The {{article issues}} template can be useful, in putting a batch of messages tidily together at the top of a page. I stub-sort quite a bit so have come across your name several times lately. PamD (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes that did look odd at the time but I am too much of a nooby (I wrote booby the first time, perhaps more accurate) to know the cryptic tag that meant its style should be improved. Thanks for cleaning up and I will try to keep on learning. Alice (talk) 08:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
That template certainly does include just about anything one might want to comment on, but it is very long. Do you know anything like Twinkle that could allow you to choose from a pull down menu for several issues? Thanks! Alice (talk) 08:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Just read this, after adding the bit below. No, I don't use Twinkle, don't know about drop down tagging - sorry, can't help there. You could ask at the Village Pump, or some relevant project. Another couple of tags I've found useful recently are {{whereisit}} and {{technical}}. PamD (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
And to see the whole range of templates, try Wikipedia:Template_messages or Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup; {{notable}} also has a range of parameters I've only discovered recently - see Template:Notability for info. It can be very difficult to find all the internal info in WP, on topics like this - and sometimes I find a page once and struggle to find it again! Good luck. PamD (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

User page[edit]

Hi Alice, I've just had a look at your user page. Many people prefer to keep their real life ID more obscure on WikiPedia: I started off with my forename and surname, then decided to be a bit less open on realising that there are some seriously weird people around, some of whom take exception to serious editing, vandalism-reverting, etc. With such a clear link between real life and WP, you might find a disgruntled student responding to a poor grade by "wikistalking" you here, or a disgruntled WP vandal being disruptive to your real life. My user page says enough so that anyone I know would recognise me, but not enough to allow strangers to make a connection (or not without a lot of research, anyway). But it's your decision! Best wishes, PamD (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kindly thought. I did a little research on admin names (figuring they are at higher risk than I) and a few use both, but it is clearly rarer. I've done a little light anonymizing on my user page. It would be hard to be much more anonymous without changing my use name - did you have trouble before when you used both? Alice (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't have any trouble, just felt uneasy when I encountered some hostility over something or other (possibly editing local articles about Leeds) and didn't want to be quite so open. The vast majority of people do seem to choose to obscure their identity. The process for a name change is pretty simple - you do it at Wikipedia:Changing username. Some people prefer a gender-free name (some probably deliberately mislead!), though it doesn't worry me. Ugly rows seem to blow up occasionally on the most innocuous topics (as well as predictable ones like whether British Isles should be renamed, or Balkan politics, abortion, etc) ... even just going around as a WP:WikiGnome doing innocent cleanup edits there's a risk of upsetting someone unstable. But no, I've never had any problems at all "off Wiki". PamD (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Your clock says it's 4:16am! Is this a late night, or an early morning, I wonder? I like it, and might nick the idea. PamD (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
A very late night. I am finishing up an exam for my biochemistry students. This is the part of spring I dread, when I have to prepare three exams in five weeks (my course always gets the earliest final slot). Alice (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

POV tag[edit]

Hi, Back again! If you add the {{POV}} tag as on Greenrenaissance you should, as it says, explain on the talk page what you see as the problem. I think that one merits {{wikify}}, as having no links or formatting, and will think about what else to do with it! PamD (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

When I wake up and have a free (coherent) moment I'll try to improve that (unless you get there first!) Alice (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I've PRODded it. Sleep well! PamD (talk)
Many thanks. So far I've kept with the blatant cases; learning the nicer distinctions is on my list to learn. I'll go take a look and broaden myself. Alice (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
And even added a reference to explain why it may violate NPOV [1]. Alice (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

List of former Secks Records artists[edit]

Hi Alice. Just a thought-- G1 might not be the best for this. I recommended that the creator consider making it a category, though my G search turned up little reason to believe it's a notable record label. I'll probably delete it as empty or as A7. For now I'll wait to see if anything useful comes of it. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Edgar181 deleted it as empty. Dlohcierekim 21:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Is the general rule to find the least offensive reason for the delete? I had marked the linked page as a hoax but wasn't sure how far to spread that judgment. Alice (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
With that name and the paucity of G hits-- it could be a hoax, but given the nature of the business, it could be a catchy name. Virgin Records kinda makes some people blush, but there it is. Sometimes you just don't know. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Listen here, SineBot, I was going back to sign that comment! You are too danged fast. Mmmph, mmmph, mmmph. What we need around here are autosignatures, that's what we need, yes, it is! Alice (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Walter Gorton[edit]

I see that you have a userbox on your user page proclaiming that believe in civility and assuming good faith. How do you reconcile that with tagging this article as "blatant vandalism"? There is nothing whatsoever that even suggests that this might be vandalism. The subject is probably not notable, but that's not a reason to make such an uncivil claim. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello - I did not mean to give offense to anyone, but the initial look around to track this person down did not show that the article was authentic and one form of vandalism is posting fake articles. I believe your words on the article are

The medals received by the subject, although indications of diligent service are not enough to show notability. The book listed is a 16-page self-published monograph, so not an indication of notability.

which shows more knowledge of the specifics. At least two of the links in the article do not appear to refer to the subject of the article, though. Thank you for improving the critique. Alice (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009[edit]

I don't remember which comment was yours but I did delete a comment about signing. My guess is that >95% of my posts are signed but I probably slip the occasional time or two, and didn't think that particular comment was memorable. Since I was changing my own talk page in my own userspace I didn't think a summary was needed. I've seen comments on some user talk pages where the user says they routinely delete most messages after a particular time so deleting one did not seem out of bounds - sorry if you thought I didn't take it seriously. Btw, is the bulk of that comment from a template or gadget? If so which one? Alice (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it was from Twinkle. And I added that comment since I wanted you to follow Wikipedia's guidelines. But when you deleted it, I had to add a {{uw-delete1}} template. And that edit summary part was from TW. Pmlinediter  Talk 14:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree signing is important but it would seem more worthwhile to leave messages about it on new users' pages - even experienced ones will occasionally forget and the time is better spent trying to educate those who don't know yet than to remind those who are human and generally do sign. You didn't specifically answer my question about the freedom of a user to edit their own talk page but I thought that as long as I don't misrepresent other people I am free to edit my own pages. Alice (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I know you can remove content from your own talk page. And thanks to WereSpielChequers for his so kind advice. I am withdrawing my warning. Happy all of you?Pmlinediter  Talk 08:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

International Monetary Systems[edit]

I guess this is ready if you still want to nominate it. It will be interesting to see if the article survives attention from experienced editors without major changes, i think its compliant with policy , but im quite new here. Thanks again for your kind words. x FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear from you! I think what I'll do is drop a query with two or three other people to get their feedback and then go forward formally. Would you like to hear about it in progress, or just the end result? Alice (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Alice and Feyd, it looks good to me, though I'm not familiar with the Good Article standard, but I do reviews at wp:FAC and its better written than many I've seen there. I do wonder at the relatively late historic start to this as at least in Europe I thought that there were earlier defacto standards, but it may just need a sentence that the first global financial standards emerged when they did. Also I'd expect to see something about the relative numbers of countries/currencies as particularly in the early twentieth century that created defacto currency unions across large parts of the planet. PS if you want a co-nominator who understands the GA and FA processes and would help navigate this through them I can probably find one for you. ϢereSpielChequers 12:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that very helpful feedback. I also thought it looked almost like a featured article but thought that aiming for Good article was more incremental. If you can suggest someone for a co-nominator that would be great! Thanks for the suggestion and feedback. Alice (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Its great to encounter such friendly and helpful wikkipeadians! Alice I have the article on my watchlist so hopefully I'll know about any queries, but youre always welcome to message me for whatever reason, including if you think i can help you with anything else. Chequers , yes I guess there's been de facto systems in operation ever since we've had cross border monetary trade and for sure much of the globe had de facto unions involving colonial powers and their colonies, but i dont yet know enough about those points to add them to the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
WereSpielChequers sent me. I think that a co-nom would be a bit too much, considering that you guys have done all the work. However I'd be glad to watch over the FAC if you wish to submit it, or the GAN for that matter. Ceranllama chat post 21:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kindly thoughts (I thought it was time to head to the edge again). GAN is good article nomination, I believe, but what is a FAC? Featured Article XXX?? Alice (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alice, wp:FAC = Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Its the step above Good Article, ultimately all FA articles should spend a day on the mainpage, which is why the average FA article has been edited 800 times. I'd suggest going through GA first until you've written at least a couple of FAs, some of the quirks of complying with wp:MOS can be quirkiness personified. PS to answer Feyd's question, completeness is one of the criteria for a featured article, perhaps Ceran can tell us if it comes up at GA? ϢereSpielChequers 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

GA criteria are at Wikipedia:Good article criteria - and include "Broad coverage" (3) though not "Complete". But they also include 1(a) correct grammar and 6(b) captioned images, so this article in its present state would fail. PamD (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Those kinds of details are the sort that are especially helpful - thanks! Alice (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thanks again for your attention on this Alice, id never have spotted all those issues! FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

International Monetary Systems[edit]

Hi Alice, sorry for the delay. This sort of thing is way out of my league and I haven't brought an article to GA since Utricularia inflata. I agree with most of the comments PamD made on the articles talk page. Further comments include:

  • The title - does it need to be plural? The naming convention guidelines prefer singular article titles.
  • Some important information is left unreferenced, e.g. "Accordingly, this era saw mostly steady growth and a relatively low level of financial crises." There's no reference after that paragraph, but it could be possible that there is a reference, perhaps the one immediately above it, but it was just omitted. Otherwise, such a statement could be synthesis original research, though I'm sure that statement has been made before. We just need to know where.

And that's about all I can add to PamD's comments. There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance and possibly some related WikiProjects that could lend a hand in bringing it to GA status. But like I said, way out of my realm of knowledge. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A nice little kitten![edit]

Have recently discovered these capable characters , thought you might like one to watch over your page while youre busy. PS , this isn't to encourage you re the IMS GA process, Im ambivalent wherever that goes ahead, I just like giving folk kittens! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Tis the season[edit]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)