User talk:ErikHaugen/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Editor Review

Hello! I've noticed that you are willing to do editor reviews of deleted edits. I'm considering another attempt at RfA, and I'd like to get a picture of how my CSD tagging is (my last one failed because of it). I'd really appreciate it if you could please do a review of my deleted edits. --Slon02 (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that it's been a week since I left the message here. I understand that you're probably busy, but I'd just like to know if you will look over my edits, or if I should look for someone else. If you aren't able to, I understand completely and it won't be a problem. --Slon02 (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; I'll try to look at some of your deleted edits in the next few days. But it wouldn't hurt to ask someone else also! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review!--Slon02 (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

OOP advocacy again ?

Tim Lee research SCRIBD paper removed because it gives some numerical credence to critics who say just how inefficient OOP methodology is compared to, for instance, imperative/procedural paradigms?

Why can't OOP proponents provide their own evidence to show the opposite if they believe in it so fervently? I have not yet heard one convincing argument about any aspect of OOP that is backed up by incontrovertible evidence. I have not yet seen one simple and concrete example that compares their paradigm to others in any meaningful way (Let's say just adding up two binary integers for instance as a starting point (The example given in the current Object (computer science)#Mechanism article for instance is really dumb, since it can be replaced by a static - and potentially immutable - assignment and doesn't show the potential construction of up to three objects, nor code normally required for methods). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.127.235 (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any of this is remotely controversial or mysterious. Different oop languages have different mechanisms for virtual calls, and their performance tradeoffs are all pretty well understood, as far as I know. I can't imagine what a test that adds two integers would prove, but anyway doing demonstrations and tests has nothing to do with Wikipedia; those would be wp:OR. By the way, is the Tim Lee paper peer-reviewed? Is it published in any kind of journal? Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not comparing different OOP language mechanisms, it is comparing OOP mechanisms (in general) to non-OOP mechanisms - surely this is clear enough! Indirect assignments and comparisons for instance are inherently slower than direct assignments and comparisons. The number of separate steps necessary to simply add two integers together is relevant to how efficient a mechanism is during execution (the quantity and "clarity" of source code might also be considered here as another metric, especially considering maintenance and also in relation to the ability to follow the control flow for program walk-through/debugging purposes).

I cannot comment on the validity of Tim Lees paper and it must stand on its own merits. The code is shown in the SCRIBD article and presumably the tests can be repeated without too much difficulty by wikipedia readers to verify the results or otherwise if they doubt the conclusion. You say "doing demonstrations and tests has nothing to do with Wikipedia", but evidence for or against an articles viewpoint is frequently an issue for Wikipedia articles. Tim Lees' article is just one example of this. The problem with OOP is that exaggerated statements are made that are completely unsupported by evidence. Perhaps requesting attribution would be a better alternative to outright censorship of seemingly serious articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.127.235 (talk) 08:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"surely this is clear enough"—it was clear, I wasn't saying otherwise. I was simply noting that some OOP dispatch implementations are more efficient than others, all have costs, all are well-understood. You seem to be describing a systemic bias or misinformation campaign. I'm sorry, I don't know what you are talking about and I'm not even sure what you want me to do about it. thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 12:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Transparency Monitor

OTRS permission received; please see here. – Adrignola talk 19:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion on administrator action

Hey there, Erik. I initiated a a good article reassessment of the song article Wait Your Turn as I believe it does not meet one of the GA criteria. At GAR, the main editor of the article engaged in votestacking and quickly built up false consensus, then managed to persuade an administrator to abbreviate the GAR process because of the consensus. This is disappointing because GAR is normally a month-long process and it seems to me the administrator is rewarding the editor for inappropriate conduct. The administrator has characterized my votestacking charge as "egregious", which makes me wonder whether s/he bothered to look at the user's recent edits. What I'm looking for here is help in convincing the administrator that votestacking has occurred and should not be rewarded in the GAR process. Thanks for your consideration. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 12:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't have much experience with GAN/GAR, so I am probably not the best person to ask for help here. Good luck getting this resolved, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Wenderholm Regional Park

Why the hell did you delete this article. It is NOT copyright infringement. I used the information from a particular source, and it has to be deleted now. Please undelete it. -Porch corpter (contribs/public policy) 20:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It is clearly way too close paraphrasing (my comment summarising that), so this isn't really the right way to request that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I deleted it because the source you copied from does not allow copying for commercial purposes; in other words, it is incompatible with the licenses we require. Nearly every sentence in the article was a copy or a close paraphrase. For example, you said "Maori lived close to this park for 1000 years because of the natural resources" and [1] says "Maori lived here for close to 1000 years because of its plentiful natural resources." This is a close paraphrase. I realize this is frustrating. Please feel more than free to recreate the article, but if you do please be sure to write everything in your own words. Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, do you know what. I was writing the entire article all by myself, writing all my own words, and taking information from that source. And there is hardly any sentence copying sentences from that source. And yet you say "Nearly every sentence in the article was a copy or a close paraphrase."? I think all this is all wrong. I would strongly suggest you restore the article. And if you feel any sentence is copyright violation, feel free to cut of those sentences. -Porch corpter (contribs) 04:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you think you were using your own words. But the text you wrote is too close to what is on that article. But please feel free to recreate the article using words, phrasing, and sentence structure that are all your own; nobody wants to stop you from doing that, that would be awesome. Please read WP:PARAPHRASE. Let me know if I can do anything to help. Here's the reference: "Wenderholm". Auckland Council. Retrieved September 1, 2011.. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah alright. So that means I have to write words that are entirely unidentical to the source. -Porch corpter (contribs) 05:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, pretty much, yeah. Please let me know if I can help you with this article. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A comment

I occasionally see comments from you like this and this that give me a strong impression of you as a "defender of the little guy." Regardless of whether I agree with the substance of the comments, I have to admit that it is a trait I admire. Happy editing. 28bytes (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Your "shoots down any sympathy I might have had" comment is coming into play for me as well, in that case, unfortunately. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, fair enough. My comment was quite sincere, but I definitely understand where you're coming from and I respect your position. 28bytes (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry! I was unclear and I think you misread what I meant. I meant to say that I agree with you when you said "shoots down any sympathy I might have had" wrt the editor in question; that's all. While as I said I don't feel anything said at the RFA was disruptive, the editor is getting a little bit nasty elsewhere. I was going to reply to that saying that I would firmly oppose any sanction, but then I realized you were pretty much saying exactly what I was thinking. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I totally misinterpreted that! Thanks for the clarification. 28bytes (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Feliks Kryski

Hi. The current version looks like a request for userfication of the original.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I was about to do it but it looks like she is writing it in place anyway. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, got your message. I've apologised direct to JuliaKruski. I had replaced the afd tag because it had been removed without explanation. Sorry about that. Denisarona (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry that you did not accept my apology. Did you also leave a message for the editor who originally placed the afd? Denisarona (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Beg pardon, I didn't realize you apologized to me, sorry. No need to apologize to me. Yes, I did leave a message for the person who left the A7 (not AfD). ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No problems, but note that Recrocodile wasn't the initiator of the AfD - this was done by the user whose 'symbol' is the Greek letter Sigma - doesn't exist on my keyboard. Denisarona (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Σ's A7 should have been an A3, but whatever; at this point the article is arguably a legitimate candidate for speedy deletion. But this A7, the one that you reinstated after I (logged out, oops) explained why it was bogus, was just ridiculous. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Island fox

FYI (see edit summaries, I'll explain if needed) [2] [3]. WP:BIRD have been adamant on capitalization, I would be glad to convince them otherwise, but until this happens, they will revert edits and page moves. Materialscientist (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I know, I'm not moving any bird articles at this time. But mixing styles within an article is just awful; nobody is suggesting doing that, are they? Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Animals.2C_plants.2C_and_other_organisms says: "Use a consistent style of capitalization for species names in articles covering two or more taxonomic groups". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point, which I'm only happy to follow (sorry, I'm on the run and can't check all details right now; WP:BIRD does indeed say "Note that the convention for capitalisation of names applies primarily to articles about birds, not to the whole encyclopedia."). Materialscientist (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:ACTRIAL

Hi Erik. I'm not always sure where you stand on this issue, but I assume from your recent edit summary that NP Zoom won't make much of a dent, that you're as concerned as Snottywong, Blade and myself that our hard work to research and suggest WP:ACTRIAL has been dismissed by the WMF without any proper consideration in favour of solutions of their own making. I've tried hard to understand what they are trying to achieve, and although I'm sure they think they are acting in the best interests of the WMF, if they want to stem the continuing drop in new registrations and appropriate new articles. they are not acting in the best interests of en.Wiki. I'm not sure if I've made myself clear in the various postings I've made everywhere, but if they wish to improve quality, then they need to free up the people who are trying to repair the damage done by the NPPers, so they can spend more time on AfC by helping and encouraging new users. New Page Patrol as a process in its current form is broken beyond repair, and it's time to stop encouraging the vandals and spammers to continue unabated. IMHO, for the zoom feature to do any good It needs to be used in conjunction with a new NPP user right for experienced editors . --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the way ACTRIAL went down was very concerning, yes. My immediate point there about Zoom was that my take on NPP is that there is not much possibility of improvement for tooling. If a process takes 100 units of time, and one part of the process takes 1 of those units, then optimizing that one part, no matter how effective your optimizations are, is only going to bring the whole process down to 99 units. I just don't think it's the low hanging fruit. The idea of the user right seems like it has a lot more potential, but I don't really understand it; I've heard it referred to a lot but never defined. Would it simply be a right so that you can mark pages patrolled? One of the problems with NPPs is repeated and erroneous tagging and harrassing of new article creators. It doesn't seem like a userright would help prevent this. But you've talked a lot about people marking pages as patrolled that are not up to snuff, so I guess it would help with that problem. Do you see the latter as a bigger problem? thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011

RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.

(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.) The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere. A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits. The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments. The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals: Improving the environment that surrounds RfA in order to encourage mature, experienced editors of the right calibre to come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their time to admin tasks. Discouraging, in the nicest way possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to guide them towards the advice pages. The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space. We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus. New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern. Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

A beer for you

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Contact fuse

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

A bad decision, and an even worse timescale for making it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Pardon; is it bad because you feel the F should be capitalized? (Please double-check what exactly the move request that I closed was asking for.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Evidently you paid enough attention to write a comment explaining that you were closing the request, but not enough to either make the useful page move, or to recognise that the issue might be contentious and thus requires further debate. Telling editors "I'm closing this move request, you can always make a new one" is just unhelpfully telling other editors to waste their time going in circles. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"not enough to either make the useful page move"—no consensus for that (yet), see Talk:Contact_fuse#Requested_move this. I might have rightly gotten a trout for that! "recognise that the issue might be contentious and thus requires further debate"—The move request I closed was a debate between Contact Fuse and Contact fuse. That debate is not contentious, as far as I know. Do you prefer Contact Fuse to Contact fuse, if those were your only 2 choices? All I was trying to do was to prevent anyone from wasting time discussing capitalization and prevent a relisting due to an RM with an unclear direction so that we could get to a resolution faster. I suppose I could have started the new RM myself per Wee Curry Monster's request at wp:RM, beg pardon for not doing that. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Cosmo Brown

I would like to appeal the deletion of the Cosmo Brown page. He is an up and coming photographer/artist who lives in my area and I think he deserves credit for that. I was in the process of building a section about his art when the page was deleted, so I would enjoy it if the page would be undeleted. Thank you Dabears7454 (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You can go ahead and appeal it, of course; see here. Do you have any reliable sources about this subject? Those are really important for Wikipedia articles—they help establish notability and help readers verify the information in the article and point them to where they can read more. If subjects are not covered significantly by reliable sources, then articles about them will likely be deleted. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Three fingers

Erik, hi. Was that comment directed to me, at Born2cycle's page? I'm not against analyzing and criticizing my own behavior - quite the contrary, I welcome it. I'm just not sure if that's what you meant. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes; it was, sorry I was vague. You two have recently had many very long, and at times nasty, talk page arguments. It has appeared to be personal and ad-hominem on many occasions, on both sides (not that that part seems to bother either of you). Some of your replies are quite bizarre and inappropriate, such as this one, where it appears that you are biting B2C's head off in reply to an observation; instead of just discussing the point at hand, you attack B2C. I'm sure there was a lot leading up to that and you did not cuss at B2C out of the blue, but come on—"Is this funny to you?" in reply to a relatively harmless-looking comment sure doesn't look good at first blush. You may have a point about B2C being disruptive—although I don't think I agree with a ban at this point—but if anyone should bring B2C to ANI, I really don't think it's you. I don't think I've read every word, but as far as I can tell B2C is trying to get guidelines/etc to reflect and be reflected by what is going on so that a consistent philosophy is applied to article titling rather than the whims of whoever shows up to a particular RM. You seem to think this is hopeless and/or just not how it is done. Or something. Honestly it is kind of hard to tell what you are arguing about, although I have this vague feeling that if you two would talk with each other like normal rational people you would even get to an agreement—B2C does not seem to be particularly tied to any particular version of the guidelines/etc. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this thoughtful reply. Your point about my not being a good person to suggest sanctions against B2C is a good one, and I take that to heart.

He and I have got a strange dynamic going between us, where we argue a lot, and it gets ugly, but we both generally let the ugly parts roll off. I think he really enjoys the "debating club" aspect of this project, which is not to be encouraged, and I think I'm guilty of encouraging him. By trying to convince him not to treat Wikipedia as a debate club, I've totally been satisfying his desire for vigorous debate.

The real issue between myself and B2C is a fundamental philosophical disagreement. He thinks it's important to be sure that our practices are well-documented in consistent and clear guidelines, which anyone can read to find out just what the rules are. I think that's a counter-productive aim, which does not serve the project. His focus on red-tape and rules is directly harmful to the project. His stated goal, of bringing practice and guideline into synchrony, does not satisfy any need that we've been suffering from, and generates considerably more heat than light. It flies in the face of "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy", as well as "Wikipedia does not have firm rules".

In short, I think that Born2cycle is determined to disrupt the project, and rob energy from work that needs to be done, in order to satisfy his bureaucratic desire for precise and consistent rules. Wikipedia only needs precise and consistent rules insofar as they further our goal of providing a free encyclopedia to the world, and only in cases where establishing them does not cause more disruption than it prevents.

That's really all that's going on between him and me, and it manifests itself in different ways. (A) He tendentiously questions and challenges any move decision that doesn't comport with his notion of what the guidelines say, insisting that either the decision change to match the guidelines, or that we drop everything else and change the guidelines to match the decision. This is, in almost all cases, a massive waste of time. (B) He starts long and unproductive threads on guideline pages, starting polls, offering "motions", and trying to get everyone to play legislator with him, and to focus waaaay too much on the exact wording of rules, at the expense of getting real work done.

Born2cycle's participation in this project generates more heat than light, according to my observations. My goal in working in requested moves has always been to simply be a non-disruptive janitor, and to allow moves to take place in line with apparent consensus. For years, I've done this with almost no problem: very few of my closes have been challenged, and every single one that has been challenged, I've taken to AN for review, accepting any necessary correction from the community. Recently, my work has become much more difficult, because I've been plagued by a lawyer, who keeps insisting that I'm screwing up, and harming the project, because I don't either (a) do everything by the book, or (b) spend all my time amending the book to reflect what I do. This is annoying and disruptive, and I want him to stop.

Do you see where I'm coming from? What do you recommend I do? Should I just let him have his way, and let the lawyers take over and ruin Wikipedia? Should I retire from requested moves, because one lawyer won't leave me alone? What should I do? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I certainly see where you are coming from. "his bureaucratic desire for precise and consistent rules"—I would suggest his desire is a uniform approach to titling, and that he sees precise and consistent rules as the best strategy to this end. I find, that in certain cases, oddly named titles look "unprofessional" and in some sense harm the legitimacy of the encyclopedia as a whole, so I can identify with what he is trying to do. But obviously at some point fighting about these things becomes more trouble than it is worth—like you say, "more heat than light". This is why I haven't tried to start a crusade against ENGVAR, by the way. I don't know what the right answer is, which is why I've mostly just been watching in dismay at WT:AT and WT:DISAMBIG recently. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, someone's on a crusade, and crusades are discouraged around here. The crusade is causing lots of heat, and not much light. To me, the solution is clear: Stop the crusader. Let these problems, the small ones that really exist, be dealt with patiently and non-disruptively by editors who aren't on crusades.

We don't tolerate crusades here, for very good reason. Let's stop tolerating this one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This could be seen as a crusade, as well. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"Could be seen" is a pretty weak phrase. What are you saying, Erik? Do you think that I'm on a crusade to maintain the way this site works, against crusaders who would turn it into Robert's Rules of Order? Is opposing a crusade verboten, because the opposition "could be seen" as a crusade, too? What are you really saying? Are you saying we should just let Born2cycle do his thing, no matter how negative the consequences, because opposing his crusade "could be seen" as another crusade? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't think what B2C is doing is as harmful as you seem to think. More immediately, though, I think you are reacting too strongly against the "motions" at WT:AT; a few editors were discussing PRECISION/PRIMARYTOPIC there and how they feel they are taken too far at RMs, and you replied with a tirade about guidelines and lawyers which added very little to the discussion going on. Heat without light. I would have thought you would have appreciated the meat of what they were doing, pushing back against blind and harmful application of those guidelines. You use the phrase "opposing a crusade" here—do you think Tony1 is on a crusade as well now? If not, how does "opposing a crusade" have anything to do with the diff I linked to there? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to back away from all of this for a while. Perspective will do me good. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm totally discouraged from participating in Requested moves anymore. The taste in my mouth is too bad for me to want to have much to do with it. I was trying to be helpful, and to maintain the ways of Wikipedia, as I understand it, but now I'm burned. Oh well, someone else will pick up the slack. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yikes, did something just happen? I sure hope you come back someday. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, something happened. There's lawyers running roughshod over all things titling-related, and people like you defending them. Born2cycle wins; I'm out. What B2C is doing IS as harmful as I seem to think, and nobody cares. I miss the Wikipedia where we all knew we weren't a bureaucracy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Moves

Erik, thanks for doing some cleaning up after the successful RMs I've launched. I don't doubt that you might disagree with some in the past, present, or future, but that's irrelevant to my thanks. Tony (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

And thanks for finding all these! I find myself agreeing with you far more than otherwise, even on issues that are not completely obvious. I'm curious, since you seem to be a man who might have an educated opinion about things like this: what are your thoughts on capitalization of the common names of species? eg, "A Bald Eagle attacked the Gray Wolf." vs "A bald eagle attacked the gray wolf." Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Norman Foster

I know the vote count was pretty evenly split here but I found the 'Opposes' pretty unconvincing (I know I would say that but hey). In particular, saying he is normally known or always known (as two of the opposes said) as Lord Foster without any sort of evidence, and with significant evidence in opposition strikes me as just plain wrong. Most of the other votes were that it went against NCPEER, when my reasoning was that it should be moved in accordance with that guideline. I realise that there can be some debate as to where the line is drawn on "exclusively known" but only one of the opposers engaged in that discussion. I'm not massively surprised to see this as no consensus, but a bit disappointed that most of the oppose votes did not appear to consider any evidence or back up their assertions, yet apparently carried equal weight. Polequant (talk) 07:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that many of the opposers were arguing about the "almost exclusively known" clause even if they didn't use those words. I feel like it sets a pretty high bar, and quite a few examples were given where the subject is referred to as "Lord Norman Foster". The subject's own website, news articles, his bio at Oxford, etc sometimes write it this way. There seemed to me to not be consensus at the move discussion that the bar hadn't been met, and certainly not that it should be ignored for some reason; although feel free to find another person to review this (possibly at ANI?). I'm very sympathetic to the argument that NCPEER shouldn't overrule COMMONNAME, which I sort of feel some supporters like Elekhh were trying to make, but that idea was certainly not carrying the day in the move discussion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I think elekhh said, you are always going to be able to find some examples of the honorific in use, but it's what the proportion is. Hence why I was trying to compare it to the example given in NCPEER. Anyway, thanks for your reply. I reckon an rfc with a listing at CENT may be the way forward (i hadn't realised it was a particularly contentious area but looking in the archives it appears to be, with many of the same people involved as in this move discussion).Polequant (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good; if you do open up any kind of discussion about this please let me know, I'd love to get more insight into these issues. thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Yoghurt". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by May 9, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Caligastia

"Caligastia" is mentioned just once in The Urantia Book article and the information contained there isn't enough to qualify it as a discussion of it. There is a tremendous amount of information on Caligastia that doesn't necessarily pertain to The Urantia Book so isolating the term to that one source is misleading to readers. I started with four references intending the article to be a stub and eventually adding more references and expanding it. Your grounds on erasing the content of the article I posted and instead redirecting to another article are weak. You should've at least made a target within the article you redirected "Caligastia" to.

(Chartruese (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC))

Well, you can certainly revert my change, or please feel free to add the #History and future of the world to the redirect link (is that what you mean by target?). It seemed like all your sources were Urantia itself? What non-Urantia sources talk about this subject? Is there anything that would qualify as a reliable source? Many of your sources seemed to be self-published or the Urantia book itself. If there are some, then we probably should revert my change. But, if Caligastia is nothing but a character in this book with no significant coverage in reliable, external sources discussing it, then I think it probably ought to stay a redirect. The general notability guideline has more about this and what is required for stand-alone articles. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Yoghurt, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 12:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Twister Mania

I never said I "own" the content. Simply that I wrote it. And I understood Wikipedia as a place to inform the public of anything and everything. That is my intention with this page about Twister Mania. I will do a better job of making it simple, factual and not promotional in nature.

Ejlenard (talk)ejlenard

I know you didn't say that—that's my point, it doesn't matter if you wrote it; I was just answering your question. Wikipedia is not the place to inform the public of anything and everything. It is not the place to post advertisements. But please do not edit this article, you have a conflict of interest. Please. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Renaming Five essentials

About 6 months ago (yes, I know it was a long time ago) you raised conserns about the name of Five essentials, saying that it isn't clear as to what it is without reading the article. I was therefore wondering how you would feel about renaming it to Five essentials of sailing? Please let me know (and could I ask you to leave a talkback tag on my talk page when you reply). Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that is probably reasonable? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll go and move it now, thanks for your help, Oddbodz (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Operation Olive Leaves

Thank you for this. Once I uploaded it, I couldn't figure out how to correct the caps error.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You bet! There's a move button in the pulldown menu next to the search box in the upper-right; if you click on the little triangle it should show up. Some pages can't be moved for various reasons unless you're a sysop, if you ever have trouble please leave a note at wp:RM. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 09:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Compsobuthus werneri

Would you please speedy it? It's more useful red to encourage article creation here: Wikipedia:Requested articles/Images. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You want me to remove the redirect just so there will be a red link at RaI? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. It's no big deal if you can't. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh all right. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. :)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies

I should never have engaged with Black Kite. I've asked him to stop commenting about me before on his talk page, and I made that request a second time today, unfortunately only after participating in that inanity. I did try to hide it for the sake of someone like you, but he reverted that. Check the history. --born2cYcle 06:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yikes. Well, thanks for the note. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Rude

I thought I would just tell you that your message to me about how I have 0 to no chance in being an administrator was very rude and that you should learn how to write in a nicer way. That is all. Learn some manners. Cali4529 (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Beg pardon! I certainly didn't mean to imply that you had no chance of becoming an administrator. Just that there are a lot of people who vote at RfAs who won't vote for someone with fewer than a thousand votes. They would just never do it. I'm not saying its right or wrong, just that's how it is. There are even folks contemplating making it harder/impossible for people with fewer than 2 or 3 thousand edits to even run. I really didn't mean to be rude or put you down, and I'm sorry that it came across that way. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)