User talk:ErikHaugen/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2


Hello, ErikHaugen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - UtherSRG (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


Yes check.svg

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons:

Autoblock stopping long-time editor dealt with. Apologies for the inconvenience.

Request handled by: Luna Santin 07:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The Hybrid Lemon

Please follow Wikipedia article on Citron and Etrog and the references linked to there, and you'l have everything clear. You may copy the information and enrich the Lemon article too. CitricAsset (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock Request March 10 2009

Yes check.svg

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock #1346998 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: 01:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request. 01:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


Hey man - just saw a comment you made on the Steve Yegge page. An article does need to establish notability - that is, it needs to say why something is important. You can find out more here: WoodenBuddha (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh. That policy seems wrong - if an article about a notable person does not contain a claim of notability, then it is a poor article and the correct fix is to add the claim, not delete it. That seems straightforward. I guess the point of this policy is to efficiently avoid dealing with silly vanity pages? Policies should have rationales near them, or they will likely be ignored - note that this policy did not appear to apply to the decision on the Yegge article. Note also your summary of the policy is wrong - the policy does _not_ apply to articles in general, only certain kinds of articles. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. See: Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Maglocunus (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The article still doesn't say this, it might be a good thing to include. Any articles about people need to make a case for notability. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Professor is in Poland the highest academic rank. Article say that Chlebowczyk was professor and author of many works. Maglocunus (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Is your initial claim above true? Authoring many works doesn't itself imply notability. I see the claim now in the article that other sources have said Chlebowczyk is "outstanding," so that is probably enough. Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Noorhaidi Hasan

Hello ErikHaugen, it's all right. I thought that it might have been of interest to mention political scientists who work on the much debated issue of Islam and politics. I suppose you are in a better position to appreciate what deserves or not to appear in Wikipedia... Best regards, Humboldt 18:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humboldt (talkcontribs)

Humboldt; I was uncertain or I would have done a speedy deletion wp:CSD; as I understand it the criteria generally used for determining whether academics should have articles in wikipedia has to do with the impact their work has had. I noticed Dr. Hasan wrote a book; was it widely discussed/influential? I don't know. If you know more, please update the AfD discussion. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Noorhaidi_Hasan ErikHaugen (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah when I see at an AFD the word PROF and then again PROF - I turn off and turn away - Indonesian bio articles are not usually ever at the same standards of the wider wikipedia but I honestly could not be bothered trying to explain why at AFD - thanks for your concern about that SatuSuro 08:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain it here? Why Indonesian bio articles have different standards? Heh, at least the WP:PROFs are all linkified for the new folks, but point taken. :) ErikHaugen (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I put this up and I dont think anything has been done - so you tell me? In all honesty only new arts get the afd treatment - simple as that :) SatuSuro 01:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what this has to do with my question. "so you tell me?" - what do you want me to tell you? Sorry, I am missing something. I still don't understand what you mean about Indonesian bios getting different standards. You said you "could not be bothered trying to explain" it, if you'd rather not then I guess that's fine. Anyway, there are simple reasons why new articles might be more likely to get AfDs than old ones, but it doesn't mean the old ones shouldn't get AfDs as well. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies - I guess the tone was not helped by additional text - I would certainly be against any methodical attempts at anyone going into any project and trying to find every possible candidate for afd - most projects could not cope. I am a long standing member of the indonesian project - I see heaps of crap go in and never get challenged - I simply do not have the time to personally cruise the alexbot new arrivals or archive and sort them out all the time - we used to have about 5 active members of the project who shared some responsibilities around - now we are lucky to have 2 who are even interested ... so when I see a question like Why Indonesian bio articles have different standards? - I could go into a very lengthy explanation of ok lets go through the whole issue and spend a vast amount of space and time evaluating the issues: (1) the BLP list at the noticeboard - and the fact that was never followed up by any of the currently active editors (so limited resources to clean a project) (2) Personally I get so tired of having to review (the first and third are classic examples) and no one else does (3) there are many bio stubs of less quality in the WP Indonesia project - and my personal priorites are watching the creation of the new death project and portal - not trying to defend the low quality stubs of the Indonesian project. Please understand I now know of more people who have left wikipedia (or dropped to near zero editing) than are still here - and due to real life issues my editing may well go zilch for a while - but with the issue of standards of any aspect of articles or stubs - Afd process issues including - I do not wish to fully display my explanation of my perception of the issues about what I defend on wiki anymore - they are definitely off wiki comments - thanks SatuSuro 02:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC) If that has not answered your question - sorry - if it seems that way the explanation is why I have not SatuSuro 02:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand -- newbie needs help

Erik--Forgive me is this is the wrong way to go about things. I have made changes that you requested. How do I know if they are sufficient and how do I get the tags removed? Thanks!--aperea —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aperea (talkcontribs) 17:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize! The short answer is to go ahead and remove the tags. "Sufficient" is going to be totally subjective; I suppose someone who knows more about the subject could provide an opinion about whether the references are representative enough. WP:N and WP:V have some more on this matter. I appreciate what you've done with the references section, so I'm going to remove the tags myself, although as far as I know anyone who thinks they don't apply can just go ahead and remove them. Thanks for all your work on this article! ErikHaugen (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Erik!

Thanks for your fast response! I'll get the hang of things soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aperea (talkcontribs) 20:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

comparison of programming paradigms

see "discussion" of comparison of programming paradigms where I have commented on your recent OO censorship ken (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The mind of a deletionist

Hi ErikHaugen,

I happened to notice your "nullification" comment on the AfD about my biography. It makes me like your attitude, and not just because it's about me. I just wrote the below–I guess rather rambling–note to another editor. I suppose you can guess who it is, but that's not really important. Mostly, I wonder if you have an insight into what is going on (in a rather bad way) with creeping deletionism on WP. Best. LotLE×talk 23:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I confess that I am really mystified by the growing deletionist "cabal" here on WP. I happened to notice your account because of your lobbying for deletion of the biographical article about me. What's that about?! I mean, a !vote is fine, but arguing with every other !voter out of an apparent animosity? It's a strange urge, I think.

Now I recognize that my notability is borderline (as described on the AfD; where indeed I provided a bunch of possible sources, per Pcap's request there). Some of your comments are weird; people in professional communities do, y'know, talk with each other, so finding some evidence that I've previously interacted with colleagues is hardly the disparagement you try to draw out of it (e.g. yes, I do "know" Danny Yee–in a virtual way–because I wrote him after he reviewed my book, some years ago). But it made me wonder whether this animosity was personal to me in some way. So I took a look at the Academic deletion sorting page (which I've looked at before, but not recently).

On those academic AfD's, I definitely notice a strong deletionist bias in your !votes. It's not unreflective, I readily acknowledge. You !vote both ways, and give reasonable descriptions of your motives. What got me into more active monitoring and participation in deletion discussions in the last weeks or months was having noticed some truly rabid deletionists on software-related articles. The nominator of the bio of me is one (who has had some truly abusive behaviors associated with that deletionist mania--since long before I ever heard of him), and there are a couple others who always !vote "Delete" on anything about software (but especially FOSS). I think I really need to start watching the academic or biography AfDs too, though it becomes time consuming, of course.

What I wonder is wherefore the sentiment that WP should be as small as possible, or not include anything that Brittanica does not? If some academic has published a few books on "good" academic presses, and has moderate amount of cited biographical information, why do we need to delete that article?! Sure, maybe that person is not the "leading figure" in their particular discipline, but disk storage is cheap, and there is some number of readers who might be interested in learning about that person (they encounter them professionally, read those books in obscure corners of knowledge, see them cited in some other work, whatever). Or similarly (but outside your area of interest I think), what's the harm in having a cited article about some software tool used by tens of thousands of people?! Sure, it's probably not a household name, and the user community is a pretty small minority of computer users/developers. But someone finds it useful to research that particular tool, whether to compare it to other tools, evaluate using it, learn about its capabilities or creators, etc.

It's not like I don't know that there are silly vanity articles created of strictly-local musicians, or of just-released one-developer software products. Or even of the professor that some student liked, but who never really published or did that much or wide renown. There is some threshold to judge. But compared to 3 years ago, or 6 years ago, this threshold seems to have been pushed upward to to point of absurdity. I really cannot understand the motives for this... including yours (but likewise of dozens of other editors I've seen recently with similar attitude). All the best, LotLE×talk 23:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

LotLE, thanks for the note. I hadn't really noticed a "creeping deletionism," although I haven't been watching for long. As to why delete, there are some answers here: Rationale for Deletionism. Additionally, I think that the mere existence of an article says something, that the subject has some notability. A page of a subject that isn't notable can be misleading. ErikHaugen (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the other thing is that, unfortunately, the guidelines have all changed for the worse in the last year or two, and consistently in this strongly deletionist direction. Both WP:AUTH and WP:PROF have been rewritten to try to exclude almost everyone who was previously included, and had articles about them. It's infuriating and frustrating. LotLE×talk 23:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I kind of like those. I even liked the old wp:school that didn't say secondary schools were automatically notable. ErikHaugen (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep List of other Forbes billionaires

Article: List of non-Forbes billionaires

I guess. But what is so special about Forbes? Why not just make a list of billionaires and reference each appropriately? ErikHaugen (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
You serious? Actually, I made this list because I believe that, though the Forbes list should serve as the base because it is the most well-referenced single source about billionaires, but there are other influential people as well who don't like to get included in the Forbes list, but they still are billionaires anyway (according to other credible sources). That's why I made this article because Wikipedia is supposed to be a FREE encyclopaedia (free as in free speech), isn't it? Thanks & Regards.--Bugnot (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm serious. I realize Forbes is a great source for list of billionaires, but we don't split lists up based on which items are in which sources; there would need to be something substantively different about the other list. Free speech doesn't mean that nobody is going to disagree with you or revisit what you wrote. Just look what happened to my soy nut article. ErikHaugen (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, since you're more experienced, I believe that you need to decide what we've to go ahead with. Regards --Bugnot (talk) 07:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, no, it's a collaborative effort, that will probably be arbitrated by an admin after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of non-Forbes billionaires has run its course. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sanajeh

Updated DYK query On March 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sanajeh, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Bob Barrett

RE: the Bob Barrett Minnesota Politician) page. reason for propsed deletion, it does not meet the guidelines for it's own page, per politician, notability guidelines. However this page meets the criteria

If that page meets the criteria, then why can't mine? If not then can we merge it into this article:,_2010

Michele Lentz Michelelentz (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Levis poker

I sensfan88 would just like to keep my thing on wikipedia because my freinds will like it and that the fact that alot of people who are cadets in the Ontario area (sea cadets mostly) play this game. So I will always be addind stuff to it and adding links and other things and also creating a site for Levis poker. I just want Wikipedia to be a stepping stone for Levis poker. Sensfan88 (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand; unfortunately, wikipedia isn't an appropriate place to do this; it simply isn't what it is for. You might consider blogger, google sites, etc, instead. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand but cna you pealse leave it on and not advertize it? (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, this isn't the place for it. See my reply to lotle above User_talk:ErikHaugen#The_mind_of_a_deletionistErikHaugen (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISL Online

Please take a look at the message I left here on the deletion of the article.

Jure pompe (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: my a7 tag for Hot europa... bogus?

Hi Erik, just wanted to say that my tag of a7 on Hot europa was not, as you assert in your edit summary that removes it, "bogus". It was a carefully considered tag. While it is plausible to tag the article under WP:NEO, it was faster and in my view more correct to just delete it as a speedy, since the entry is all of one sentence. It's no biggie, but I'm curious as to your thinking. Best wishes, Jusdafax 23:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Jusdafax, thanks for the note. wp:A7 can only apply to real people, individual animals, organizations, or web content. Hot europa claims to be an astronomy term about moons in other solar systems (see Hot Jupiter for something similar that is most definitely legit), so A7 can not apply. Speedy deletion is supposed to be about hoaxes, vandalism, and obvious human error(G2), etc - deleting pages is a big deal, normally requiring community consensus (wp:AfD) or for snowbally type things proposed deletion. A7 is sort of a reluctant exception to the rule in order to take off some of the load on the AfD process, and it simply isn't meant to be used on pages like Hot europa. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. My problem with your answer is that this means articles can be created for 'Hot' anything - 'Hot Titan', 'Hot Io', etc. etc. and have to go through the longer process of deletion. It's like a free pass to clog up Wikipedia, as I see it. I'm going to mull this over further. Thanks again. Jusdafax 16:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
but a 'Hot Titan' and a 'Hot Io' would be a Hot europa --Demomoer (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this is what would have happened to black holes , chaos theory , or string theory. new ideas are not going to use old terms,if you want to me to change the name give me an idea for the name--Demomoer (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demomoer (talkcontribs)

Well, you're exactly right that if the chaos theory page were created before anyone was using the term or before any papers had been published, I'd propose it for deletion. But that isn't what is happening here. There is already an article for extrasolar moons. Nobody is legitimately questioning the idea of extrasolar moons. The only problem I have with hot europa is that it doesn't seem to be an established term. Please see wp:NEO. Again, to be clear: I am not saying extrasolar moons are silly or anything but fascinating. I'm just saying the term "hot europa" does not appear to have caught on (yet?) and making a wikipedia page sort of asserts that it has, so the page is harmful. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The one reference provided in the 'Hot europa' stub does not even mention the term, or if it does I fail to notice it. Erik, tag aside, we agree that this article is harmful. Wikipedians shouldn't be in the business of coining terms that don't exist. I just googled the term 'Hot europa'. The only mention is in Wikipedia for this article. This article should have been speedy deleted and, if as you say, there is no way to because we have to wait a week under WP:NEO, then there should be a way to. No offense, but let's ask for a further opinion. With best intentions and wishes, Jusdafax 02:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, according to "consensus," it should not have been speedied. When you have a no-brainer delete, you prod it. No offense taken, and yeah, if I was dictating policy around here it would probably be a bit easier to delete hopeless articles than it is. ErikHaugen (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I see it was deleted. Thanks for helping me understand this issue, and I will continue to think over how to improve this policy. Cheers, Jusdafax 17:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

talk about starting off on the wrong foot

Hi, I think I may have been a bit hasty removing your prod and i'm sorry about that. However I thought the point that the article was making was important and too good to lose, I didn't check how long the prod had been on for and so I didn't know how long I might have to incorporate the point into a good article. That was my initial thinking. I did state in my justification on the talk page that I think the title is not really in use but I wasn't completely sure so thought that a redirect could be possible. Either way I don't think AfD is really that painful a thing and since anyone can remove a prod didn't think the action would lead to conflict. I will support the deletion nomination. Actually this would be better anyway because a deleted prodded article can be recreated at anytime. A deleted article that has gone through the AfD process cannot. So that would be better to WP:NEO :)

I also just want to say I prefer to delete posts on my user talk page where I have come into conflict with other users because I like to forget conflict as quickly as possible. I don't like disagreements and try to avoid them where possible but because of my personality I tend to react defensively. But I agree selectively editing your comment was a mistake. But anyway I'm sorry about the misunderstanding we appeared to have with each other and thank you for your contributions to wikipedia. Jdrewitt (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You never know, the AfD process may even get the article deleted quicker than the seven day wait for a prod anyway? Jdrewitt (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, and sorry if I made my case in a tactless way. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverting editors who circumvent the blacklist

Hi! I saw you reverted an editor who used redirect sites to get links to his blacklisted site (diff). May I ask you to immediately report such domains (redirect sites) to m:Talk:Spam-blacklist (redirect sites get globally blacklisted), and consider to report such editors to WP:AIV, even on a first offence? Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Great, keep up the good work! Happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Cover Market Insurance Brokers

Good evening, I was attempting to learn how to do this!! I apologize for getting it wrong. what exactly do i need to do in order to resubmit it properly? i assumed that i did it sort of ok.... hahah well this is what you get for being a Noob!!

sincerely TeddyThesniki5 (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello! If you'd like to work on this article, there are three things I would suggest. The first is stylistic: the article should be in the 3rd person (don't say "our") and shouldn't use overly flowery language or superlatives like you would expect to find in a brochure. See WP:TONE. The second is that you need to establish why the company is notable - wikipedia has certain somewhat strictly defined criteria, based on consensus, for what is notable enough for inclusion. For example, there is no article for Erik Haugen, because he isn't notable per the criteria here: wp:N. Now, if you think Covermarket meets that criteria, it's important to establish notability inside the article, by citing the required reliable sources. Normally there is a somewhat lengthy process for deleting non-notable articles(wp:AfD and wp:PROD if you're curious about it), but for certain categories of subjects, such as people, websites, companies, etc, articles that don't explain why the subject is notable are typically deleted quite quickly simply to avoid overloading the deletion review processes (see wp:A7). Finally, if you're affiliated with covermarket, please see this page on avoiding conflict of interest. Have fun, and let me know if I can help. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Moth and butterfly genera

Could you please not merge species with genera articles and don't remove red links to species on genera pages? I am working on creating species pages for some time now. There are just so many it will take years to add them all, but we will get there eventually. If I need to recreate wikilinks to the species before I can actually make the article this only slows the process down more, not to mention it is frustrating to do the same task for a second time. Wikilinking a list of species in a genus page is the most work, and you are removing the links. If you want to help, you could make articles on species or expand existing ones.. we could really use some extra hands! Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. Even though you opposed me I respect your opinion. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for adding that information to Salanoia; I'm now writing up an article on the new species. Quite interesting :-) Ucucha 19:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Great! There's this tet zoo article if you haven't seen it already: - it might be a good resource for Salanoia durrelli. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, found that too (it's one of the only Google hits for the species at the moment). But I'm now writing from the actual paper, which is generally a better source. Ucucha 20:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply on non-vandalism

I want to say sorry about it. One was I was not aware of; the other one (the school one): I thought that was a bias (not a neutral point of view). However, I'm done for the day, as I have to sleep right now. I've got to do high school orientation tomorrow! Bigtop みんな空の下 (トーク) 07:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it was kind of accidents there. Is there any tips so I can get accurate, maybe such as slowing down? Maybe I'm going a bit too fast... Bigtop みんな空の下 (トーク) 16:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit war?

I don't know, but maybe me along with Tyrol5 (talk) just went ahead. Maybe it was a bit of a bad accident. Sorry about that. Bigtop みんな空の下 (トーク) 19:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, ErikHaugen. You have new messages at Falcon8765's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, ErikHaugen. You have new messages at GorillaWarfare's talk page.
Message added 18:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Spoilers and Reviewing

Moved from shoutbox above, user:Shameless says:
Hey! Next time you accept an edit please make sure its not vandalism or a spoiler as it was on Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 6 by User: thanks. Shameless (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The edit that I reviewed was not vandalism. Regarding spoilers, I think the reviewing process can not be expected to block spoilers; reviewing is the wrong tool for that job. Please see Wikipedia:Reviewing#Purpose_of_reviewing and let me know if you disagree. I'd even go a step further, I think preventing spoilers is not a goal of wikipedia. WP:SPOILER has some thoughts related to this, although I realize that is in a sense about a different kind of spoiler. Events worthy of inclusion are still worthy even if they haven't been aired in every timezone yet. meta:DBAD applies, though, so I don't really disapprove of your reverting the edit in question. An edit summary would probably have been good, though. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page.

Thank you

Barnstar of Diligence.png

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for following up on that block so that we could make sure everything was well taken care of! Keep doing what you're doing :] GorillaWarfare talk 22:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Bahram Moshiri

Greetings, there are many many pages of living persons pages which do not have sources included. He does interviews on VOA Persian also from time to time. This man is very popular in Iran but not known very much in the outside, hence why there are no sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IranianPersian (talkcontribs) 18:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Please feel free to place {{subst:Prod blp}} on those pages also, as outlined here, or better yet add sources to those pages! Regarding the Moshiri article, maybe links to those VOA interviews? News articles? Anything reliable to back up the information in the article would be great! If there really are no sources, then unfortunately the article will have to be deleted, because verifiability is extremely important for Wikipedia, especially for biographies of people that are still alive. Thank you for working on this, and please let me know if I can help. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I added reference from his official website, a biography of him in Persian. Also added Persian language wikipedia link of the same article which also uses the same reference. If you be so kind to delete the tag, happy Saturday. --IranianPersian (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This edit is great, but with respect to the tag, these sources aren't "reliable sources" according to the that definition. In particular, these sources aren't independent of the subject, since they are from the subject's website. Per Wikipedia:BLPPROD, we shouldn't remove the tag yet. Also, note that independent reliable sources can help establish notability, which would help prevent the article from being deleted for being not notable. Thanks for working on this, and please let me know if I can help. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well i added another source, from "University of Texas at Austin". I think thats most certainly reliable enough, what do you think? --IranianPersian (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not 100% positive everyone would agree that that source counts, but I went ahead and removed the blpprod. Just so you know, you can always remove the blpprod yourself after you add a source, you don't have to get the editor who added it to do it. Thanks for your work on this article, ErikHaugen (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Erik, yes I know, but I have gone into trouble with many editors before in Wikipedia over this when i edited here long ago, so I know what it could lead to. I made that article before long ago and it was deleted for some reason. Thx again for the cooperation, have a good day. --IranianPersian (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you had some trouble before! Well, it still could get deleted; it isn't real clear to me that this subject meets the general notability guidelines at this point; it could use some more sources to help nail that down. thanks again, ErikHaugen (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing vandalism

This edit does have a summary and was not in error. It was removing vandalism in the form of deliberately erroneous information by Unfortunately I didn't notice the stray "aa" when reverting. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


Regarding this edit, none of the reasons presented apply in a case like this. "Crustacea" will always redirect to crustacean (or, conceivably, vice versa), and there is no way that a separate article could be made by splitting the two concepts, since they are identical by definition. There is no disambiguation term to worry about; neither name represents a subtopic of the other. As I tried to communicate in the limited space of an edit summary, your approach is also rather inconsistent. In the same taxobox, we have (following my edit) links to [[Animal]]ia, [[Arthropod]]a and [[Copepod]]a. The consistent approach would be to link to "Animalia", "Arthropoda" and "Copepoda" (and, indeed, to propagate that approach across the crustaceans, or even across Tree of Life). However, that would not only be pointless, it would also be a waste of editors' time and effort and a tiny waste of Wikimedia resources. I really cannot understand why this bothers you so much. Is there some hidden agenda that I don't know about? Thousands of articles are piped in this way, and it really isn't a problem. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I do not have a hidden agenda :). I don't have any new or exciting things to say that aren't on WP:NOTBROKEN; you've responded to some of the issues there, but not to "Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form" or "there are no good reasons to pipe links solely to avoid redirects" (ie why does it bother you so much?) or "Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool." [[Animal]]ia is different, since there is no pipe. Obviously I prefer [[Animalia]] - I wrote it that way initially - but I can see it was important to you (why?) and [[Animal]]ia doesn't seem to have all the drawbacks that piped links have so I left it alone. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
[[Animal]]ia is only different in terms of wiki markup, not in its implementation. In both cases a link is created with one piece of text visible and a different one being linked to. In answer to "why does it bother you so much?", I must point out that it was you who edited the article solely to make such a change. My original edit was much wider in scope, including fixing typos, fixing the categorisation, adding boldface to the lead, and so on. It was you who insisted on making the change. The reason I reverted it was in case you thought this was a general principle, and were about to embark on a large-scale effort to remove it (such things do happen). The remaining points, as I have said before, only apply to other kinds of redirect. Contrary to your suggestion, it is in no way useful to separate those articles which link to [[Crustacean|Crustacea]] in a taxobox from those which link to [[Crustacea]] in a taxobox; that's not what WP:NOTBROKEN is referring to, as its examples make clear. (It also doesn't seem to be the principle you care about, since you are happy with [[Animal]]ia.) Likewise, "there are no good reasons to pipe links solely to avoid redirects" is not only an oversimplification (unprintworthy redirects should indeed be avoided, for instance), it is also not applicable here. I should add that just as there is no reason to change a link to point at the ultimate target rather than the redirect, there is equally no point in changing a link to go through a redirect when it could point at the ultimate target. As a final, minor, point, let me add that edit summaries such as this one might be seen as uncivil. I am not offended, but others in a similar situation might. Anyway, having said all that, if I haven't convinced you, I'm sure I won't be able to, so I won't be returning to this argument. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Apologies; I certainly didn't mean anything bad by it and I see what you're saying, I just thought it was funny that we were having a big discussion here about something so trivial. Sort of self-deprecation that I made this edit in the first place. Please don't try to gauge how important things are to me by looking at how large my edits are, it isn't how I edit. "[[Animal]]ia is only different in terms of wiki markup, not in its implementation." - indeed, but the markup is the point: the source is easier to read than piped redirects. And that is the reason why I only reverted Crustacea and not Animalia/etc - an additional argument for leaving the redirect applied in that one instance, so I weighed that against your preference for avoiding redirects and only decided to revert in that one case. If you reconsider returning, would you mind explaining why you removed {{Plankton}}? Just curious. Thanks!! ErikHaugen (talk)
Well, since you asked... Navigation boxes like {{Plankton}} are meant to help readers move among groups of related articles. I take that to mean that they should, generally, only be placed on articles they list. (I haven't checked to see if there's a guideline that also supports this view.) This meant either adding Phaennidae to the template (which implies adding all copepod families, at which point the template becomes massively unwieldy), or removing the template. I chose the latter. Oh, and sorry for jumping to conclusions about the edit summary! --Stemonitis (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I see; that makes sense, thanks. And you were right I should not have used that edit summary; the word usually has negative connotations even if I didn't mean it that way - no apology needed. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to add that there is one further advantage of piping the link, which I had overlooked before (and was not therefore in my mind when I edited the article). If all the crustacean articles, say, link to the real article and not the redirect, then it becomes much easier to spot vandalism using a link such as this, rather than having to do something similar for each redirect. For categories such as Category:Crustaceans, which have quite a few nested categories, that can make a big difference. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. Well, I won't change it back. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What the crap

Dont go deleting my pages. I wasnt attacking anyone, that was my brother so i dont think you have the right to tell me what he is or isnt like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watsuke (talkcontribs) 22:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't actually delete it, User_talk:WOSlinker did. You can ask that editor to reinstate it if you like. But it does not matter that it is your brother; please read the article on biographies of living persons, you'll need to find some reliable sources to back up what you say on the article, or it will probably get deleted again. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Microhyla nepenthicola

RlevseTalk 12:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Inka 888's Request for Rollback

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Virginia Haussegger

The website used as the source for the information are not opponents of VH. There are no anti-Virginia Haussegger websites that I know of. The Australians for Constitutional Monarchy website was merely reporting what was said by VH at a public forum. I have no idea why you think that VH's own testimony of these events is more impartial than ACM's testimony. In fact her's is much less impartial. VH undoubtedly wants to protect her own reputation while ACM has no beef with VH per se. I can't use my own testimony as a source, why do you accept VH's? If I said, "I was at the forum and heard Virginia Haussegger say, "I am ashamed to be an Australian"", would that be accepted by Wikipedia? Why then should Wikipedia accept VH's claims about what happened and not ACM's (or for that matter, mine)? Is this another example of the left-bias that Wikipedia is so famous for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think it is more impartial. Why do you say that? Did you interpret something I wrote to mean I thought we ought to use a particular source in this article? ErikHaugen (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks spam

Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)