User talk:ErikHaugen

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

Burma Independence Army[edit]

Hi, sorry if my messy request wasn't to clear! But I requested that this article to be renamed into Burma Independence Army, not Burmese, since Burma Independence Army is the common name for them rather than Burmese.
--Havsjö (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

ah right, sorry. I misread your commentary at the bottom of the RM. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Apology[edit]

Erik,

I just wanted to apologize to you for some of the things I said to and about you in the wreck of a discussion at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2018_November#Jaggi_Vasudev. In my head I was just ribbing you in a friendly debate, but I must say when I look back at my words weeks later, I wince. Our fundamental disagreement about that close stands, but you did not deserve to be talked to the way I did. If you ever see me interacting with you or anyone else in such an inappropriate matter, please do not hesitate to bring my attention to it, though I do believe it's highly unlikely to occur again. Please remember I do respect you as an editor and closer, and have no reason to not respect you as a person, no matter how harsh my words may have sounded. I'm sincerely sorry about that.

--В²C 01:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

thanks, no worries. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. One of my faults is that I repeatedly learn and then easily forget that I have this tendency to give people shit assuming they'll take it as the well-meaning collegial ribbing I intend, even though it's often not taken that way at all. I'm hoping openly acknowledging it like this will help me remember. Also, I'm open to suggestions. Thanks again. --В²C 19:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Skip templates[edit]

Hi, if it's not clear from my latest post, can I re-iterate that my comment about you and a skip taxonomy template was intended to be read as "before you (the other editors) start messing about with this, note that the large skip was put there a long time ago by a well established and knowledgeable editor". You were working on automated taxonomies long before I started doing it, and were one of those that managed to keep the system working when the "dinosaur editors" started creating massively deep hierarchies that could not be supported before Lua came along. I assumed that people would recognize your name. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Fixes re Aves[edit]

I'm not sure if you are still working through this, but right now there are still many taxonomy templates with inconsistent ranks, e.g. Template:Taxonomy/Neornithes. Some of those in Category:Taxonomy templates showing anomalous ranks disappear with a null edit, but (again, right now) others don't. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was monitoring it, but I see you are doing things, so I'm worried about stepping on your toes here or something. I was going to add Ornithothoraces/skip or something. I will wait until you are done. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
OK; I see you left my edit in place. There are still a bunch of items in anomalous ranks category, but I think in almost all cases the actual taxobox is improved, and in many cases improved quite a bit. There are probably a couple cases that need to be fixed. I would suggest fixing forward at this point. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
But the consensus is not to show inconsistent ranks in taxoboxes, so either your original edit needs to be reverted, or else skips put in elsewhere to fix them. I'm off-line now, so won't revert your original edit, hoping that you can fix the inconsistent ranks some other way. I'll look again in the (UK) morning. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Right – like I said, there are probably like a handful of actual taxoboxes that need to be fixed. Almost all the items in the anomalous category are just fine in the taxobox. (They're a mess for other reasons, but they don't have that problem.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
OK I count 9 articles – like Protopteryx. I should be able to fix them all within the day. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
And I'm fully on board with your proposal to get rid of these skips :) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that's all the articles. The remaining items in the anomalous category are unused. We might want to a.) use them, and reparent them to Enantiornithes/skip or Euornithes/skip or whatever or b.) delete them. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I removed a couple that seem unused, e.g. jr. synonyms or whatever like Hesperornithiformes. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Actually not all of them were unused, but many were. I blanked those that were unused and moved them to Category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates. (All the entries in this category could usefully be deleted.) I changed the offending rank to "cladus" in the others. As I noted at the relevant WikiProject pages, the change does mean that articles like Gansus now show the "dinosaur taxonomy". I have no view on whether this is correct or not.

The best way to make a choice between the "dinosaur taxonomy" and the classical "bird taxonomy" is to set up a complete separate set of taxonomy templates for the "bird" variant and use those. Skips, as we have discovered, are highly problematic! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think those ones you moved to "clade" are in use. I'm not sure about moving all these to "clade" – don't we want them to show up as "order" if they are widely recognized as an order? This seems like the wrong solution. Anyway, they aren't used, so it doesn't really matter, but maybe we should delete them? I deleted a few more. complete separate set of taxonomy templates for the "bird" variant and use those. – this is more or less what skips are. It might be a failure of imagination, but I can't see a better way to organize the templates, given the system we have today. I'm hoping your proposal for eliding automatically solves this in an easier-to-get-right way :) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm certainly in favour of deleting taxonomy templates that aren't used. Phylogenetic studies have moved on a lot since the early 2010s when many such templates were set up as the automated taxobox system was introduced, so there are quite a few that maybe were once used, but aren't now.
I haven't forgotten the possibility of fixing problematic ranks in some other way, and I will return to it, but I've been doing a lot of work fixing inconsistent extinction status values, and some other kinds of error in taxonomy templates. Whenever we tighten up on the criteria for putting templates or articles into one of the categories in Category:Taxobox cleanup, a whole raft of new errors appear. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Bogus????[edit]

I get it that you don't agree this is spam. But calling it a "bogus" tag is unwarranted. Have a look at the creator's talk page, for example. WP:AGF please. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I assumed that you tagged it in good faith. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Your use of the word "bogus" in your edit summary suggests otherwise. --Randykitty (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
AGF has nothing to do with discussing the merits of an edit entirely on its own. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
If you call my tag "bogus", that is quite a negative thing. You should brush up on your English if you think this does not impugn my motives in placing that tag. --Randykitty (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
It's possible to do something poorly but with the best of intentions. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
That still has not the connotation that "bogus" has. And "poorly"? Really? Did you actually look at the thing? Disagreeing with someone is one thing, we all have our own standards. But calling somebody else's edits "poorly" and "bogus" is discourteous at best. But this discussion is not getting any more productive so I'll leave you to your bad manners. --Randykitty (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
When I see a particularly bad (discourteous, even?) CSD tagging I try to call it out to provide some measure of comfort and reassurance to the article's author. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Just for your information, 5 other articles created by this user today were all CSD tagged or PRODded (A1, A7, G11 - one of the A7s was only PRODded today and not CSD tagged) and subsequently deleted (not by me but by a grand total of 9 other editors/admins). I'm curious to know whether those taggings/deletions also were "bogus", "bad", "poorly", or "discourteous". Oh, and a 10th person just indeffed that editor for promotional editing. It seems to me that you're the odd man out here. --Randykitty (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
    I looked at one of the other G11s; it had problems way beyond the one you tagged. I don't think you can really compare the two. Not sure about the block, but I would like our COI rules to be much stricter than they are, so I'm not going to try to fix it... ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • You should have watchlisted this (Bhavi Chand Jindal). This valuable article was bogus-prodded and now has been bogus-deleted. Unbelievably, they remarked about references being ads for the company, imagine! I guess you'll want to undelete this little gem, so I thought I'd give you a heads-up. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 08:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    Good prod. If nobody wants to properly source an article, let's get rid of it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I understand that it is absolutely impossible for you to admit to even the slightest mistake, but nevertheless I thought you'd like to know that the creator of this article has been blocked for sockpuppetry (confirmed by checkuser) and COI editing. --Randykitty (talk) 07:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
    That was awhile ago, wasn't it? (I usually try to assume people probably aren't socks until I see evidence.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Come and get it[edit]

Badari is the kid that selena gomez made "Come and Get it" for. He is MASSIVE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicalmouse (talkcontribs) 20:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Did you read the page I linked to from your talk page? (Here it is again: WP:GNG) It's all about reliable, independent sources. I could tell you Badari is the dictator of the entire southern hemisphere, but we aren't going to have an article about him or his album without sources. Dancing in a Selena video certainly doesn't mean you and your albums warrant standalone articles. At least, not without sources. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)