User talk:ErikHaugen/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I can use a simpler English if you are unable to understand why the article was at AFD.

I understand why you brought it to AfD. I don't understand this note, though; did you expect a different outcome? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:11, 29 April 2015 (C)

No consensus is clear, my issue [[1]]. That's a pretty rough closure, I don't like saying a reason is not coherent when it has a valid background.

talk

) 19:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

But there is no reason to delete. None. Not even in your original filing. Nobody has presented a reason to delete. Why does it bother you that I note that fact in my closing when it was deliberate on your part? It seems relevant to explaining the close. If it bothers you, (and even if it doesn't) please stop filing AfDs when you don't even want the article deleted just to force some cleanup issue. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

If I thought it needed cleanup I'd tag it for cleanup we have a reason to delete as it would taken a rewrite to become encyclopedic its a CSD and when this was contested afd was the next step. If you don't like that rationale feel free to change community consensus but it is an recognized community reason for deletion.

Usually a better course of action when a bad G11 is declined is to just remove the offending 2 sentences.

WP:AFD says "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD", so no, AfD is not the next step in these cases. G11 is for flagrant cases when there's nothing salvageable and nobody has the time/desire to pursue a fix; other than that, for otherwise notable/etc subjects, there is no such "community reason" for deletion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs

) 21:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

[[2]] Two sentences huh? Sure a lot of rewrite there for two sentences, obviously we'll see each other at the next article afd I have no intention of leaving promotional pages uncontested when they need a rewrite. Hopefully if you feel you are unable to understand a deletion rationale you will wait for someone with that ability to understand close the thread.

talk

) 21:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you implying that this does nothing but make the article less promotional? If not, what is your point? If so, please stop filing G11s! Anyway, if someone contests or declines your G11 in the future, I'd suggest just stubbing it out and moving on rather than wasting everyone's time with an AfD, especially when the community has rejected that kind of AfD. I have no intention of leaving promotional pages uncontested when they need a rewrite.—Excellent! Thanks for your hard work on these, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the

In some sense I didn't really comment on this case anywhere. But whatever, it's hard to imagine me taking any administrative actions against those folks in the near future. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA . You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone.

Hi there. I saw you removed my speedy tag on this page. I'm just wondering if you can explain why you did. I'm not doubting you that I shouldn't have placed the tag. But I'd like to learn why I was wrong so that I can better understand the speedy deletion criteria in question. Cheers! Mww113 (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! The description for A3 says "no content whatsoever, or consists only of external links, category tags, a "see also" section, a rephrasing of the title", but this version that you tagged has quite a bit of content. I'm guessing – and please pardon me if I'm wrong – that you thought A3 applied here because the content was all in the form of tables, infoboxes, etc with no prose. The guideline addresses this: "this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox, unless its contents also meet the criteria mentioned here". (

WP:A3) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs

) 16:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi there,

I am reviving the July 2011 proposal to move this article on grounds of both usage and grammatical logic. For more details please see my talk page post.

Kind regards, --

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Two years ago ...

monitoring new articles
... you were recipient no. 752 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hei, Du slettet mitt første forsøk på å lage en engelsk side på dirigenten Terje Mikkelsen. Jeg vil nå gjøre et nytt forsøk, etter å har vært på skriveverksted for Wikimedia og har fått større kjennskap til Wikipedias behov for lenker og referanser. Det er et problem at så mye av hans virksomhet har vært i russisktalende land og Kina, men jeg tror jeg nå har skaffet nok engelsk dokumentsajon til at en artikkel skal bli holdbar. OK? Hilde Holbæk-Hanssen (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, you don't technically need English sources! Although, all else being equal those would be preferable. I want to be really clear: the reason your article was deleted is that it was a copyright infringement. You must not copy text unless it is public domain (or available under a suitable license). Even if you paraphrase everything slightly, that is not OK. It needs to be entirely your own words. Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, I don't actually speak Norwegian, so it is likely that I'll miss some nuance of what you're saying... ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry, you have a very Norwegian name. Hilde Holbæk-Hanssen (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, regrettably the only Norwegian I know is "I Jesu navn går vi til bords...". (Someone should write an article for that...) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Since you participated in a recently closed (no consensus) move discussion for

Hello, ErikHaugen. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

"extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion

with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016,

a request for comment

established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at

Hello, ErikHaugen. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

This band is a proper noun and they spell their name as I've changed it, hence why I'm making sure it is fully capitalized based on reputable sources - here, here, here, here, here, and here - just to name a few, all found after spending 10 seconds doing a simple Google search. Just wanted you to know, I'm going to revert your edits given the misunderstanding. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm more confused than ever -

MOS:NAMECAPS - I'm going to revert my reverts until this is sorted out. Garchy (talk

) 18:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point about inconsistency there. I think the point of

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Titles#Capital_letters has this styling advice generally rather than appearing to just be for composition titles. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs

) 19:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Precious three years!

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Hi Erik, When looking for the "In Therapy" page this evening, I saw that it had been deleted by you on 24 January 2017. I see that it was something to do with copyright. I was just wondering what it was that breached copyright, as the format of the page looked like a lot of other similar pages regarding television programmes. - Scaz (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

A lot of the text is copied from the promotional materials, which are copyrighted so we can not use them. The format of the article here on Wikipedia was not the problem; just the text. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

As the rest of it appears to be ok, would it be possible for the page to be undeleted in order for me to change the text so that is no longer word for word as it is in the promotional material? - Scaz (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

You mean like the infobox? Essentially none of the text was usable. Feel free to recreate the article... ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I would love to recreate the article but I can't recall all of the details that had been added to the infobox and wikitables by other contributors as the page has been deleted. Pages for many other TV programmes have been created with a short description of the programme that has not been deemed as infringing copyright. - Scaz (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah; so you just want the infobox restored? Pages for many other TV programmes have been created with a short description of the programme that has not been deemed as infringing copyright – hopefully because they don't infringe copyright law... ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted the old page (with its data) restored and the copyright-infringing text replaced with the following text: "In Therapy is a British television series on Channel 5 in which therapist Mandy Saligari talks with various celebrities." Would that be OK? - Scaz (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

OK done; I've removed the text. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Please feel free to rewrite as you suggest here! (assuming you wrote that yourself, of course :) ) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, written by myself! Thank you. - Scaz (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe it was you that was responsible for deleting the 4 Holi Wikis on AVL. Why did you delete these pages? I believe they are worth billions in educating humanity. If you cannot supply an adequate explanation I will take the matter further.

Since they have been deleted I have gone on to develop Calculus. Effectively you deleted the foundations of Calculus of Computers.NNcNannara (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh this again. Yes, mcnannara.net is a much much better place for that; then you can control precisely the presentation, it will be clear that you are the author, etc. You removed my explanation from your talk page; here is the link to it in case you would like to read it again: here. If you find it lacking please feel free to ask about it. Writing this note to me after I already explained it to you is unproductive; do you see why? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't accept the excuse that it is a self published reference, it is more like a mathematical theorem that has been properly referenced by Doklady and Robert L. Kruse. I also disagree that my personal website is the only forum in which it should be presented. Wikipedia is an ideal forum for the presentation of what is now the 55 year old discovery of the AvL Theorem. Rather than being self-published, I am seeking to get Wikipedia to publish the theorem for the benefit of humanity. If you cannot come up with a better excuse than that, then I intend to contest the deletion.NNcNannara (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I see the Doklady reference at AVL tree? What are you talking about? You seemed to have missed the point, or maybe I simply don't know what you are complaining about. I remember deleting copies of the AVL tree article written using different programming languages and explained why we were unlikely to go with that approach. If there's something else you're asking me, please spell it out. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Erik, I appreciate that there's a lot of text there, but as you alerted me to the issue, I'd be grateful if you could find time to comment at Template talk:Speciesbox#Default number of parent taxa displayed. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't really have much of an opinion about how this works; either way no complaints from me. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Cheers for the close at Ender's Game. Nice to see your username pop up at RM again. Jenks24 (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! Yeah I haven't been terribly active, unfortunately. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, ErikHaugen. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I was asking for the version I uploaded to be deleted. After I uploaded it I could see that it blurry and inferior. Can you please delete my upload of that file. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 19:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

OK is that it? thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, ErikHaugen. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello ErikHaugen,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Xevus11 (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I just did a whole reading of the page move request again and would like to know what had convinced you to believe that "Sadhguru" is a popular honorific.[3] If so, then you must have discovered multiple people using the title "Sadhguru", except this individual and if not, then you must have bought a rather deceptive argument made by a very small bunch of editors who did nothing but badgered entire RM by engaging in petty POV pushing. Who else, other than

Started discussion about your close at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 November#Jaggi Vasudev. Qualitist (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

thanks for the pointer. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It's obviously an alternate spelling of Satguru. Are you suggesting that it is not, and is totally unrelated, any similarity is purely coincidental? If not, I don't understand your question. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Do any relevant academic sources use these two terms "satguru" and "sadhguru" as interchangeable? They dont. One user had also said that we can't see any other individual who is referred as "Sadhguru" on wikipedia. No reliable sources call this individual a "Satguru". Honorifics are supposed to be common, not isolated or limited to one person, otherwise they are not honorific. Qualitist (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  Speak plainly – I asked you a question, and it seems like you are answering in the affirmative – you are actually trying to argue that Sadhguru is not an alternative spelling of Satguru? Is that the point you are trying to support? (Does it mean something else?) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Since reliable sources don't say that it is an alternative spelling, nor this individual is ever referred as "Satguru", answer is that it is not a alternative spelling in this context. Qualitist (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  OK; wow. Well, suffice it to say that I disagree 100%. :) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Good close, surprised by the response of some editors even with no familiarity with India to realize that Sat-guru etc are honorifics. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, there are some really surprising arguments made there. Thanks for the note! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

you please abstain from any further commenting over the MRV? That's one heck of a discussion and you are making the closer's job incredibly tedious by replying to every point made by every user. Any argument from the other-side that has been already (seemingly) voided by you need not be re-rebutted anywhere in the discussion. Thanks,∯WBG^converse 12:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

You've made 38 edits to the page adding a phenomenal 27,068 bytes. Consider my above note as a warning to refrain from further

bludgeoning. As much as I may try to believe that you are rebutting in good-faith; there's some upper bound (which is far below 27,068b) and your's reply is definitely not the best way to exhibit a sign of understanding the raised concerns. ∯WBG^converse

09:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

You seem upset. If that MRV is having this effect on you, I'd suggest ignoring it. Tell you what: if you want you can make a comment on it about the RM, and as long as it doesn't have any direct questions or accusations toward me I promise not to respond to you. Sound good?(side note: usually the threats to haul someone off to AN happen *while* the issue is ongoing, not weeks later.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Sigh....Your's painting me to be upset violates the prohibition against

casting aspersions

and you might wish to be more careful.

Also, your last comment was about 4 days back; not weeks back and given that I mentioned taking you to AN, only in the event that you further indulge in this behaviour; your side-note is a strawman.

Furthermore, I do not have any editorial opinions on the RM and I certainly don't need to listen to a legacy-admin to choose the stuff, I wish to tread on.

Overall, it's frankly mysterious and appalling, that you cannot understand about how your behavior is the textbook example of bludgeoning and utterly disruptive. Any more comment at the MRV, to any user unless being explicitly asked and I will ask for sanctions. ∯WBG^converse 04:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Uh oh, the dramatic sigh. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if my messy request wasn't to clear! But I requested that

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

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)