User talk:Haemo/Archive 4

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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

RFA

Congratulations! You are close to becoming an administrator. You have a lot of support and little or no opposition!

I did add a question. If you answer this well, this can only help more flock to you and support you! You don't need me to help you answer it but if you really want possible answers, just ask me. WKPDX 02:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; I answered your question and hope it was what you were looking for. --Haemo 03:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Civility

You are, of course, correct. I should have controlled my temper. However, Xenalite/The Outer Limits has used so much bandwidth and user time up by inserting his "barefoot" nonsense into the Tarzan and Jane articles that it drives me nuts. Will attempt to foreswear the four-letter words in the future. Best. Sir Rhosis 07:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries; I don't like this edits either, but when dealing with people like that it's better to not let them get to you, because it seems to just encourage them :) Good luck dealing with this Tarzan-related problem! --Haemo 07:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia

I changed my vote to neutral based on your anti pedophile declaration. Well done and, hey, i am concerned with the issues and not you persionally, SqueakBox 02:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No hard feelings — I understand this is an issue that you feel passionately about, and I strongly support your work with the Pedophile article watch. I can understand where your passion comes from, having been personally affected by this topic. I'm glad you reconsidered your opposition and promise you I will do a good job as an admin. --Haemo 02:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think most of us who feel passionately have been personally affected by this topic. Hope we can collaborratye in the future, SqueakBox 02:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

We actually have in the past; remember the WP:ANI "debate" over whether it was appropriate to have a sexualized image of Wikipedi-tan on the lolicon article? Yeah, we both strongly opposed including that nonsense — I can't believe it went all the way to Jimbo Wales saying "hell no" and deleting it. --Haemo 02:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

I may be slightly early, but allow me to be the first to congratulate you on passing your RfA. Wikipedia will have another fine administrator. Sean William @ 03:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much; your help and advice was invaluable. --Haemo 06:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA was successful!

Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions, feel free to ask! Good luck. --Deskana (banana) 06:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!!! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

YAY! Congratulations on surviving the most brutal RfA I've ever seen... and coming out on top! Best regards, Lara ♥Love 06:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations Haemo, you will make for a fine administrator ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 06:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, you'll make a good one! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations Haemo -- you did a very good job keeping cool in the face of those ridiculous accusations on your RfA, only further proving that you're going to make a great administrator! --Krimpet 06:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone. Your advice and support has been very appreciated. Rather than thanking everyone who commented, I've made this banner using my minimal WikiFormatting skills to put on my page. --Haemo 06:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations Haemo!

^Ariel♥Gold 07:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Woohoo!! Congratulations :) Welcome to hell! - Alison ☺ 09:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Brutal? You blew him out of the water! Congrats!! -- But|seriously|folks 11:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. I admire the cool and grace you showed under the circumstances. Pascal.Tesson 13:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice handling of CSDs out of the gate! Here's one for the history books. Congratulations!! All the best, Eliz81 ^(talk)^(contribs) 14:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for Haemo! --H irohisat ^Talk 16:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! Politics rule 17:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What everybody else already said, but with more enthusiasm!! I haven't been here long enough to know that many names yet, but I can honestly say that I smiled and did a little cheer when I saw your RfA pass. Congratulations, you earned it!! spazure (contribs) 07:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not editing here very much anymore, but if I had known you were up for adminship I would've supported in a heartbeat. Well done, congratulations, etc. etc. You really are an asset to the project and I know you'll be an exceptional admin. AniMate 08:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! You might want to ask someone to blank the oppose section of your RfA, google can be nasty sometimes. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Many congratulations to you. Enjoy the tools. --John 01:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Bolognaola?

Hello.

I am not sure that this is in the right area but I have had a page deleted. Bolognaola. I created this page to inform others on about a slang word that is use in everyday guy talk. I wanted to add this in the vane if Bling Bling and other slang words that hav become everyday speech. Please let me know why mine is any different that a Dirty Sanchez.

Bryan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silverbaxent (talk • contribs) 20:32, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

The article on the above subject did not portray it as a slang term — rather, it was written to describe it as an actual medical "condition" which could be "diagnosed". There was no indication that it was a neologism, so it appeared to be an obvious hoax — and thus speediable as nonsense. If you look at the article on Bling-bling it clearly explains that it is slang. --Haemo 21:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Haha, 1st day on the job and you're already at DRV! :-) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 21 -- But|seriously|folks 21:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And just as quickly off. But welcome to adminship, and do have fun! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Binary numeral system - rating partners

You really think Binary numeral system - rating partners doesn't warrant speedy deletion? It seems like an obvious troll to me. Not only is the wording surreal to the point of satire, but the remark at the end comes out and states that the author is putting back something that was deleted repeatedly. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I do believe it should be deleted — there's just no criterion for speedy deleting it. It definitely has context, in that I could tell what they were talking about, and I don't think there is any criterion for "made up nonsense". Since I thought it was pretty obvious, I went ahead and prodded it instead. --Haemo 01:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning was: That page doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being kept, so speedy delete it. Don't bother with a longer process, because that's just letting rules get in the way of improving Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I picked {{db-nocontext}} somewhat arbitrarily. Maybe {{db-vand}} would have been better. Or maybe just {{db|WP:SNOW}}. But worrying about the choice of template seems like a waste of everyone's time. Do you disagree? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's why we have procedural deletion ;) — I seriously considered deleting it under WP:CSD#G1, but I opted not to since I'm about as hip as bloomers. You can go ahead and second the prod deletion, though. --Haemo 02:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Request deletion of replacable fairuse images

This are some Images that I uploaded due to my misunderstanding of fairuse, I don't care to have the bots notify me that I can contest the deletion even though I'm the one that tagged them for deletion Image:Myersp.jpg Image:Ida Siconolfi.jpg Image:Eric Lynch 2006 wsop.jpg Image:Shana Hiatt pad.jpg Image:William Chen.jpg ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 02:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

All done! --Haemo 03:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that was fast! you are getting good with those buttons :) ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 03:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-English articles

Regarding that article I tagged for CSD, I guess what I don't understand is how you know if it is not taken from another Wikipedia? For example, one of the CSD criteria is articles not in English copied from another WP project. But that didn't seem to fit, or at least I couldn't confirm it. However, as it is, without translation at all, it didn't have any context, so I thought that would be more appropriate. So, I guess my question is, do we leave all foreign language articles up until translation (or two weeks, as the tag says)? I have seen many new pages in foreign languages get CSD tags (not by me), just on the basis of them not being in English, so that's why I tagged that one article as such. It was just my (assumed) understanding that they'd be deleted until they were translated, and then re-introduced. I'm really sorry if that was the wrong way to go about it. Thank you for fixing it for me. ^Ariel♥Gold 04:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did a quick search to see if was on another Wiki, but none of the text came up. The "other-language Wiki" criterion is related to the "material which has been transwiki'd"; it's not meant to apply to material which someone wrote in another language. Currently, it looks like the policy on non-English pages that were entered here is that we see if anyone will translate them, and then delete them. Honestly, some admins speedy them because 99% are never fixed. However, since this is my first day "on the job" I'm playing this by the books right now — it would, however, help if I didn't forget to list them on the translation page! --Haemo 04:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I left a message here about it Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 04:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Most excellent SiREX, and Haemo, thank you both very much! And Haemo, I think you made the right decision, it was simply one I wasn't previously aware of, and now that I know, I'll be sure and use that, rather than CSD things. I mean, even if only 1 out of 100 articles ends up being translated and helpful, I think that's worth it. Again my thanks to you both! ^Ariel♥Gold 06:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You're Welcome ArielGold, User:Sundar who is an admin wrote on the take page Talk:Hindilisahutya "This sounds like some amateur attempt at writing Hindi poetry. Should be deleted" so it not really notable anyway, hope Haemo doesn't mind the cross talk on his talk page :)▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:54, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Yeah I saw that, and replied to Sundar there. And I have Haemo to thank as well, so its okay I'm sure. ^Ariel♥Gold 07:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries! Talk all you want; my page hasn't gotten this much traffic since, well, never. --Haemo 07:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL Don't tempt me, trust me I've usurped more than one talk page in my day lol. As an aside, Sundar is looking into the translation, and if s/he is an admin, then I can just request that they take care of it if it is a copyright issue, right? ^Ariel♥Gold 07:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that should be fine, or you can tag it yourself if they don't get around to it. --Haemo 07:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hayden5650

You are being duped by phral, Muntuwandi 08:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's super; all I really want to do is for you guys to stop edit warring over this picture and actually discuss it. The relevant discussion petered out 5 days ago with a compromise to include the image along with the source which calls them example of "Negroid" African types. I don't care either way, but if you disagree with the compromise discussion then discuss it and please, please stop edit warring. --Haemo 08:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

there was no compromise, if we are not going to cause offense to any readers then we should take care in the way we use images. To refer to an individual as Negroid is offensive. You have already taken sides why are you supporting phral, his account is recent he is most likely a sock puppet of someone. Muntuwandi 08:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I can only go by the talk page, and it looks like there was a compromise. If you disagree, then make it clear — don't edit war in lieu of discussion. --Haemo 08:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see him complaining about Caucasoid or Mongoloid. Funny that.. --Phral 08:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't treat my talk page as a forum for general grievances. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not convincing in any form. --Haemo 08:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

the addition of these images is not done in good faith, its that simple, Nordic crusader tried to add pictures of gorillas to the Negroid article that is why he got blocked , funkynusayri tried repeatedly to add the same images and was blocked. When his block expired the first thing he did was to add the image again, against consensus. Can't you see that these images are just being used to promote a racist agenda. All the editors trying to add images to this article are not doing so in good faith.Muntuwandi 08:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You have sided with phral so you are now involved in this. Muntuwandi 08:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My bad faith sense doesn't work very well, I'm afraid. Again, I refer you to the talk page. They appear to have reached a compromise over the image there, which has stood for 5 days. If you disagree, then discuss it — I'm not a content arbiter. If you really can't discuss it there, then take it to dispute resolution or file a request for comment about the appropriateness of the image. I only reverted your edit because it looked like simple content blanking, without explanation. Suffice to say that I have no interest in whether the image is there or not. Edit warring is not acceptable, and WP:ANI and the admin crew are not here to mediate your disputes. --Haemo 08:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I was blocked so I was not party to any alleged compromise. The only compromise I can accept is either no photo or a photo in which all the established editors agree to. I think this is fair. To side with one editor who has no single contribution on the Talk:Negroid page is unfair. Phral has no single edit on the Talk page. Muntuwandi 09:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Then start discussing! That's the function of a talk page. Here's what I would do if I were you:

Start a new section (==) on the talk page, calling it "Request for Comment".
Outline your arguments against the image in a calm, and clear manner in a section called "===View by User:Muntuwandi===)
File a request for comment about the article.
Let other editors have their says in similar sections.
Add a (===Discussion===) section at the bottom.
Wait to see how the discussion progresses.

I think this is the only way you're going to see anything productive come out of this. --Haemo 09:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Other editors are also calling for a block of phral diff. It is best not to use the image, and we can continue the discussion. Muntuwandi 09:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you continue it on the talk page, and not here, or on WP:ANI. --Haemo 09:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If we truly are to use an image, then it has to come with consensus among the established editors. Currently established editors have rejected the use of images, however every now and then a sockpuppet or a racist appears and unilaterally tries to inject images without even trying to gain a consensus, phral, hayden or whatever your name is you have been wikistalking my edits you don't even care about the article. Muntuwandi 09:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Get your facts straight dawg, it was User:Funkynusayri who inserted the image --Phral 09:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you guys take this discussion to the talk page, as suggested? I've given you all the advice I can. There's really nothing more I can do. --Haemo 09:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Heamo you intervened by reverting my removal, User:Jeeny and I had been removing these photos. You have sided with phral, who is evidently a trouble maker. Unfortunately it is very difficult for me to hold a meaningful discussion with an editor who appears to be promoting more xenophobic views. Muntuwandi 09:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeeny appears to have been okay with the image, as it currently sits. I explained earlier that I only reverted because it seemed like simple content blanking without explanation. If you'd ever decided to explain your edits, I would have not reverted. And anyways, you shouldn't be discussing with me — file your request for comment and get it over with. You want external comments? Then have at it! --Haemo 09:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Uyghur Latin Alphabet CorenSearchBot response & deletion

Please, see User_talk:Coren#ULY for the reasons I put up the article and felt I was not contravening copyright. What follows after my first four tildes below is my suggestion for the page Uyghur Latin Yéziqi written more from scratch. I am dismayed that the article was deleted without response to my posting on User_talk:Coren#ULY. I still think it's strange that the same text can be within copyright on Uyghur_language#Writing_system but against it on Uyghur Latin Yéziqi. Please, explain this to me. Thecurran 15:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Uyghur Latin Yéziqi (ULY) is the recent attempt to make a script for Uyghur language based on the Latin alphabet. Uyghur is primarily written in a script based on the Arabic abjad and sometimes in a script based on the Cyrillic alphabet.

Construction

The ULY project was finalized at Xinjiang University, Ürümchi, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), People's Republic of China) in 2001-July, at the fifth conference of a series held there for that purpose that started in 2000-November. It unified the Uyghur Latin alphabet.

Public Reception

It had a heavy [public relations] (PR) presence on both the Internet and official XUAR media but despite official efforts to play down the sense of a massive reform, ULY has acquired that connotation and the public seems wary of it. The importance of having one-to-one correspondence between both Latin and Arabic is noteworthy.

Thecurran 15:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing to this to my attention. In addition, your article was only speedy deleted — there's nothing barring you from re-writing it as a non-copyright violation, and posting the article again. In fact, that wonderful that you have — so I've re-created it with your proposed text. Thank you for being so studious, and I'm sorry I missed your note on CorenBot's talk page. --Haemo 20:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ta & Hakuna Matata.Thecurran 01:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Jessop listed, delisted, relisted

Hi Haemo,

I see you are an admin. I mentioned this on WP:ANI but thought to drop you a note too. I listed yesterday. It was delisted by Special:Contributions/Alex_Mae. I have relisted on today's AfD, for a full discussion. I would hate for it to accidently get delisted again. Thanks Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you saying that — if he delists it again, then we'll look into doing something about that. It's disruptive. --Haemo 01:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Todd Daring

Please do not vandalise or blank out my talk page. If you would like to expirement, use the sandbox. Todd Daring ^{New replacements} 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You tagged your user-page with a speedy deletion tag that had no reason; so I removed it. That's not vandalism. And don't template the regulars. --Haemo 01:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Shaila_Kibria

Hi there, you recently delete the article I created (Shaila Kibria) for a "copyright violation". The content was not copied from the source that you state, but from the person's own website, from which I have permission to use the material. Please get back to me regarding restoration of the article. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frankw (talk • contribs) 16:35, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Well, wherever the text came from originally, it was the same as the site in question. If you have permission to use that material, you need to follow the process outlined here, and specifically forward a request for permission completed by the copyright holder to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org. --Haemo 21:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Adam12901

You declined a request from Adam12901 to speedy his Talk Page. I learned about this while reviewing his request to speedy the archives of his Talk Page. Can you explain why you declined his request? I would have thought that this would be acceptable under the "right to disappear". What am I not understanding?

--Richard 07:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that should be okay -- I was confused because I was trying to figure out which archives to speedy, and which not to. My apologies about that. --Haemo 22:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Because he had like two accounts, and they were both vanishing, and some of the user templates were transcluded — it was a big mess. --Haemo 23:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

London Buses route 1 (2nd nomination)

Hi, on what basis was the result keep? You had some people "voting" keep with no actual reason as to why. Amongst other things. Thenthornthing 08:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the arguments for keeping were pretty weak, and I took that into account when closing. However, there appeared to be a disagreement over whether or not it was a travel guide — while I'm not the arbiter, this, and a number of other reasons for keeping seemed to be the more prevalent consensus. I'm not convinced, however, that a more centralized discussion, and a more complete rationale, which addressed some of the main "keep" concerns, for deletion wouldn't lead to deletion at a later nomination. --Haemo 23:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You have blocked "59.176.106.168" under 3RR. However there is explaination. The 3rr occured because the two users "Muchness" and "EEMeltonIV" ganged up on "59.176.106.168" by deleting his contents. I find it personally offending as "59.176.106.168" is my little brother. As far as my observation is seen "EEMeltonIV" started using "Undo" feature first. Later he stopped after "59.176.106.168" replied to him. However just little later "Muchness" picked up the gaunlet and used 3RR to ban him , while voilating the same rule himself. I request to the give the whole issue a little thought and hopefuuly remove the ban on "59.176.106.168" immidiately. Also requested his taking a note of activities of the two offending users and take appropriate action against them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeetuag (talk • contribs) 02:12, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

There is no excuse for edit warring. The users in question did not "gang up" on 59.176.106.16 — they disagreed with the material he was adding. When this happens, you discuss it on the talk page, not edit war instead. When multiple editors disagree with someone, it should be a check that you might need to discuss the edits. Muchness did not violate the three revert rule on that page. --Haemo 02:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

KotOR II

Hello, thanks for your attention to this article. Given the on-going edit-warring from anonymous accounts, perhaps semi-protection should be considered? --Muchness 02:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think I'm just going to wait to see how things develop in the next day or so. --Haemo 02:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Christian/Newsom photo

Haemo, in regards to the photo above, I remember that the sourcing issues were resolved by specifying the AP as the copyright holder. I thought of this because today I ran across Image talk:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg, which contains a letter from the AP general counsel that states the AP disputes any claim of fair use that we may make on photos which they hold the copyright, a clear WP:NFCC#2 problem. Do you believe this changes the status of this photo? I have doubts that AP actually holds the copyright (unless they got an agreement from the families) but then we're back to having an unknown copyright holder - WP:NFCC#10a. Respectfully - Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know — I'm honestly not sure who holds the copyright to the image; some claim it's the AP, but it's been in multiple places, sometimes unattributed. I also think a blanket fair use rebuttal is specious legal rhetoric, in any case. --Haemo 01:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I put the image up at IfD based on my new concern here. Regards - Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Wingbac22

I'm not certain if you've noticed it but he's been posting crap on his talk page and signing your username to his posts. I've reverted him three times today... — Dave (Talk | contribs) 00:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I've fully protected the page to stop his disruption. --Haemo 00:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Imran Khan

You may dislike it, but Imran Khan is an emerging Taliban, even "Pakistani Bin Laden" in the making. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_Bradford#Imran_Khan_is_a_Taliban_Leader —Preceding unsigned comment added by M12390 (talk • contribs) 05:42, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a content arbiter, but WP:BLP is clear that poorly sourced material should be removed. This definitely qualifies. --Haemo 05:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Negroid

Last time I had stated that phral was not acting in good faith, and you did not believe me instead you cited with User:Phral, who has now been blocked as an abusive sockpuppet with over 10 accounts. I once again find your judgement questionable with regards to the inclusion of the photo in the article. As long as that photo is in there I guarantee to campaign to have it removed. I know why some editors want it in there so I shall not rest. It is better to remove it and there will be no edit wars. Muntuwandi 05:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

How about you discuss it rather than unilaterally imposing your opinion and declaring a "campaign" until you get your way? Continued edit warring is considered disruptive, and is blockable. --Haemo 05:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

As an admin the only thing that is required from you is to not take a sides in disputes. Though you will not openly admit, it is apparent that you favor the inclusion of the photo. The use of photos just causes everyone unnecessary stress. Muntuwandi 05:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, contentious issues cause stress. That doesn't mean we give up on them, since "not causing stress" could be accomplished by either side giving up. --Haemo 06:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Haemo, all the editors pushing for photos have been blocked. Why do you side with their edits. Muntuwandi 06:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And you've been blocked too -- why should I side with your edits? Why does blocking have anything to do with a question of content? --Haemo 23:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And now for something...

Belated congratulations on your successful RfA. I figured I would let the dust settle for a few days, before I brought this to you. You have had more than passing familiarity with the cast of characters at TSSI. I wonder if you could keep an eye out on that, and other ME articles? The TSSI article has been unblocked and I think that we achieved some progress on the Marxian economics and David Laibman articles. However, it could go sideways at any moment. Readiness with mop and pail would be most appreciated! Sunray 15:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a mop and pail will help here — these fellows really just need someone to help them keep discussion going. I will, of course, help in this respect. --Haemo 23:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:TharkunColl

Haemo -

I noted that, though you were not the blocking admin, you commented on my breach of 3RR report against User:TharkunColl, essentially advising us both to cease edit warring.

I wanted to expand on this by asking for advice and/or assistance. I well understand that I am party to brief, but frequent, edit wars with TharkunColl - always flirting with 3RR violations myself. But I do not take pride in this fact, and my actual motivation here is to see the conflicts stop.

The problem, from my point of view, is that TharkunColl is an inherently disruptive editor. For more than 18 months I've crossed paths with him on many occasions, as our interests in monarchy seem to overlap, and have constantly faced opposition from him. Of course, every editor is entitled to their motivations and to argue their point in disputes; but with TharkunColl the dispute actually never ceases as argument and presented evidence that contradicts what he sees as right is always simply dismissed by him. When thwarted at one article - after causing undue disturbance - he moves on to another, and another, and another, always pushing the same argument that was defeated elsewhere.

I, along with others, initially attempted to reason with him; early debates, started after his reverting of edits not to his liking, presented him with evidence to contradict his assertions, though his concerns were heard and taken into account in the composition that was eventually decided on. However, time soon showed that nothing but his view, regardless of evidence to the contrary, was apparently the only view acceptable. Further debate - seemingly endless, repetitive debate - and even recent attempts to communicate with him, frankly, about the causes of these never ending disruptions, have proved completely fruitless. Thus, with the route of communication as a dead end, the edit wars now seem necessarily unavoidable.

I am not the only witness to this unfortunate result - TharkunColl has seemingly caused equal disruption at other pages, notably those relating to Muhammad, the English people, the British Isles, the UK's Second City, and so on.

What, if anything, can be done about this? --G2bambino 16:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, you weren't the problem in this respect — if I were you, I would go forward collecting information and evidence for a request for comment on his behavior, and then present it to the community. --Haemo 23:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have looked into RfCs in regard to this; however, I see the required two person minimum as a barrier, at this moment, anyway.

I should also correct myself in that I now see you were the admin who blocked User:TharkunColl in this instance. --G2bambino 15:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure, given his history of editing, that you will be able to find someone else to certify a statement of facts about his behavior. You could also try dispute resolution if you don't feel an RfC would be effective at the moment. --Haemo 17:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. In the absence of anyone I know who would be qualified to offer insight into TharkunColl's behaviour, I've opened a Wikiquette alert in the hopes that someone will formulate their own opinions on his actions and perhaps contact him. If that fails, that person could be the second required for an RfC/U. I suppose I see any canvassing of strangers to help me file an RfC/U as possibly manipulative, thus tainting the process (along with making me feel uneasy). --G2bambino 15:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sean S Conway

Would you mind taking another look at this article, in terms of a possible copyvio? I see I sporked up the URL of the BBC page that I think this was ripped from. I don't know how I managed to mess up copying and pasting a URL, but I clearly managed. Joyous! | Talk 03:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There we go -- good work, so deleted :) --Haemo 03:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Unused redirects

You can keep them if you like, the unused redirects to the bouncing ball, that is. But why? I was just cleaning up a bunch of improper capitalization, after verifying in the refs that lower case is indeed conventional. Dicklyon 05:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry -- I deleted it. I accidentally deleted the wrong page, and had to restore it. I agree with your assessment of the redirect. --Haemo 05:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a better process for this than replacing the redirect with a db-empty tag? Dicklyon 05:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes — WP:CSD#R3 :) --Haemo 05:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Alauran

Thx for the help

No worries, I guess. --Haemo 05:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking off the speedy-delete tag that I had put on Ida Davidsen. It was the first time I had ever put a speedy-delete tag on a new article, and afterwards I realized I wasn't so sure I was right. I was afraid it would get deleted and I wouldn't even have a chance to notify the creator, which I'd forgotten to do. I'll try to be more careful after this. --Coppertwig 15:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries; that's why we have admin review :) --Haemo 00:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Completely Gone Recordings

My page for my record label was deleted, yet the American Nihilist Underground Society remains in wiki? [Removed, WP:BLP] I am very upset by this.

Thedistinctroom 18:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are upset, but the fact that other stuff exists is not a compelling argument; especially in light of the fact that American Nihilist Underground Society cites multiple reliable sources about the subject. --Haemo 00:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

I looked over the page history and I figure this must be your mess. :D

Feel free to look it over. I've tried a few different ways to tell people to discuss the situation and/or use the dispute resolution procedures, but I don't think anyone's quite getting it yet. No just telling them, no hinting, no tricking them into it, nada...

Maybe we should just take everyone involved, toss them on Votes for Banning and let popularity sort it all out instead?

Why do we even have an article called "negroid" at all? Ugh. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The critical thing that they simply don't want to follow dispute resolution. The only way to fix it is to bring in some mediation, but that's not going to be forthcoming for a while. --Haemo 02:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

DRV

I have initiated a deletion review of an AFD which you were involved in. You may wish to contribute to the discussion. Balancer 04:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

the fast and the furious 4 topic

Hi, I am Azn-Shuffler. i would just like to protest my proposition for the deletion of my topic, The Fast and the Furious 4.

My reasons are below

1. This film is a very popular one, meaning that this article will not be quiet for long. 2. This movie is shedding light as we speak. Newly arriving information is seen at ign.com. 3. This is my very first article, i would like it to stay, but I know its not an excuse. 4. Many information will be added very soon, due to the fact that theres not much right now. So rumors and information about acters/actresses, directors, cars etc will help this article extensively when it comes in.

Please take my points into account and i hope you side with me, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azn-shuffler (talk • contribs) 09:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have some new content, repost the article with new verifiable content and reliable sources. Don't just add the same material which has been deleted before; and that means unsourced rumors and speculation. --Haemo 00:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Blue-Eyes Gold Dragon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Edit conflict at AN3 [1]

We both seem to have dealt with the same violation. I initially counted 4 reverts and blocked but when I went back to check the last revert did not remove the disputed text but simply added additional text, albeit from the previous reverts. I therefore unblocked as the user was discussing on the talk page. In the meantime, while I was reporting this, you blocked for 3 days. Bit of a mess really. I'm not particularly territorial so don't mind what we do. Any suggestions? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I'll stand by your assessment - I had checked manually, but I'm sure I made a mistake. I don't like blocking during discussion anyways. --Haemo 20:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

I am aware of 3RR thanks. And I have opened up a discussion on the talk page - why have you not warned those who keep reverting my valid edit? 217.43.222.47 06:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it's a contentious and controversial edit, which violates our guidelines and which you need consensus for? The other editors are experienced users, who are not single-handedly trying to include such material in an article. --Haemo 06:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Reading

Well, you can read professional literature. Thank you. KP Botany 01:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Which reminds me, I have four more papers to read for Monday/Wednesday. ;) --Haemo 01:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Great, you've proved on Wikipedia what you're about to blow in your brick and mortar world. Most good readers I meet don't have a lick of common sense. KP Botany 01:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The source

No need to remove the source, it still mentions negroid, if you don't agree with the wording we can simply list it as a reference since it does specifically mention the term Negroid. Muntuwandi 01:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, just add it to the bottom of the References section as a link. We can format it properly later. I was just noticing that it's pretty redundant to most of the other references, currently. --Haemo 02:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's go ahead and discuss changes to the article on its talk page, not on user talk pages. Other editors may have opinions about adding links that are used in the article. KP Botany 02:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

can you...

can you inf ban my account? my friend somehow found out my password--Mhart54com 01:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really necessary; just change your password, or scramble it. --Haemo 01:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

well im not going to have the internet for a year or more. so could you please just ban the account?--Mhart54com 01:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Just scramble your password. I'm not inclined to ban your account, since you claim it's already been compromised — thus, I cannot be sure who is making the request. --Haemo 01:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

....that sucks -_- --Mhart54com 04:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Christian Newsom Murder

Did you notice that the pics of the victims have disappeared? This follows the disappearance of the pics of the accused. Is there some way to identify who removed the images? If stuff can be removed without knowing why or by who, it doesn't seem to serve much purpose to try to contribute. Stepnet 21:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

They were both deleted at WP:IFD for not meeting our fair use requirements on Wikipedia. They were tagged as notification, and I argued for their inclusion. I believe the deleting admin was User:Quadell. --Haemo 21:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Is there a record of the discussion to be found somewhere, so that the concerns can be addressed if new images are provided? Stepnet 22:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I found [2], so no problem if you don't answer. Stepnet 22:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. Good work -- and good luck getting permissions from the copyright holders involved. --Haemo 22:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Jogers's RfA

Politics rule struck your double !vote. I put in a clarifying comment and decided to notify you just so you know. —AldeBaer 22:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, thanks -- I thought I'd already voted, but I couldn't tell. My mistake! --Haemo 22:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Declined semi-protection of Hong Kong

You declined semi-protection of Hong Kong,[3] citing that "a content dispute between a single IP editor and another user is not a reason to protect the page." What do you recommend we do if the IP editor continues to refuse to discuss the edit and the back-and-forth reversions continue? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Discuss it with them on their talk page. If that fails, start dispute resolution and/or file a request for comment. Page protection is not mean to separate registered users from non-registered; they should be treated equally in content disputes. --Haemo 20:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Then how about full protection? As I've said, the IP editor has refused to participate in discussion so far, so I fail to see how an attempt at DR or RFC will help. A DR request will most likely be rejected because this is a content dispute, and an RFC isn't really going to work without the participation of the IP editor. Maybe full protection will force the IP editor to discuss. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is for content issues. A request for comment on the article can bring in other users to support your contention, and thereby watch over and revert his changes until he decides to discuss. It could also lead to community support for a ban. You could also request full protection, but I don't think that would help you out. --Haemo 20:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I will try filing a full protection request first then. As you are probably aware, DR and RFC take a long time - especially DR, and especially when one party has shown a lack of participation in discussion. In fact, as of the time of this comment, the IP editor has no edit counts in any Talk pages.[4] In the meantime, the reversions will probably continue. There are avenues to explore to come to a consensus, but I am also interested in putting an immediate stop to an edit war to a FA-class article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it for you; I'll also watchlist the page. --Haemo 21:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Omega

Any suggestions in dealing with jrhmdtraum would be welcome.Naraht 19:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest discussing it on the talk page, and reporting them to WP:AN3 without engaging in edit wars; i.e. stick to two or three reverts a day. There is also dispute resolution and requests for comment if you need outside help. --Haemo 19:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I came across your page and believe you to be an experienced wikipedian. I simply was wondering if you can help me out. I've had my share of contributions, but there is one page in particular that I am working on. That being Subnoize Records. My friend made this page as a loop whole becuase it is the nickname of the actual label name, Suburban Noize Records. The reason the original name was not used was becuase this page has been blocked from creating. I personally am struggling on how I can get this page unblocked. I'm hoping to simply move the Subnoize to the proper name. If you don't mind, I'd appreciate the help. Oh and if it's alright by you I'd rather get a reply to my talk page rather than this page. Thank You. --Tris31erlover 23:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand, you want to move Subnoize Records to Subnoize, but currently cannot because there's a redirect at that page. I can help you out with that, but I want to be sure that's what you're trying to do here. --Haemo 18:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I actually was the one to redirect Subnoize to Subnoize Records. The official label name is Suburban Noize Records. If you go to the official name then you'll see a block from creation. The exact words are "This page has been protected to prevent creation." I am just hoping to move the page to it's official name. Hopefully, that is what you cann help me with. --Tris31erlover 16:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently in contact with the deleting admin. I hope to have this all tied up by the end of the day. --Haemo 00:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank You very much for the help. -- --Tris31erlover 17:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There we go; I've unsalted the page, and moved your article to it. Good luck editing. --Haemo 18:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to finish with you having the last word, but I just felt like giving one more; thank you. --Tris31erlover 21:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit to MESA

I didn't understand your deletion of "copyvio txt" from the MESA article. It gutted the article of most of the useful information. As I recall, I did copy the information out of the history article on the successor agency's website but in what sense is that "copyvio text" if it comes from the website of a government agency and is in the public domain? I'm going to rewrite and restore the information but I'd like to understand why you deleted it in the first place. Thank you. --Economy1 12:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to actually attribute the text, not just add a reference. A disclaimer like This article incorporates public domain text from a US Government source is required for GFDL attribution. --Haemo 18:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's cool but wouldn't it have been better for you to just add the attribution rather than delete it? I mean, I might know about some stuff in the real world but I certainly don't understand (or care to understand) all the subtle rules studied and argued by Wikipedia's jealous guardians. Just saying - it seems counterproductive to the purposes of Wikipedia to hack out stuff that you find improperly, but not illegally, attributed. Thanks for explaining the problem you had. --Economy1 23:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for sure, but when I originally removed it, I didn't recognize MESA as a government source. :) --Haemo 07:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Crash titans 4.PNG

Hi. If I'm reading the logs of the above image correctly, you deleted this image yesterday. The thing is, the original uploader has uploaded the exact same image less than 24 hours later, again without a proper fair use rationale (or correct source, I suspect, given the modification). I've tagged it accordingly, but was wondering whether there was something more specific that should be done, since it's a direct recreation of recently deleted material. Cheers. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 20:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll delete it, when the period is up, and then salt the page so it can't be re-uploaded. --Haemo 20:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 20:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey

I don't know why youre constantly bitching at me but You are in the wrong here. Im trying to keep/add sourced relevant information in the article. But you come bitch at me? How the hell is that fair? Thats bullshit. Go bitch at someone else.BIG Daddy M 15:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And, he's inserted the same material into the Superboy-Prime article three times since coming off the latest block, all without a word on the article's talk page. Pairadox 17:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "bitching" at you; I'm telling you to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and to stop edit warring. Since you don't appear to understand this, you've just earned yourself a lengthy block. --Haemo 18:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Continued personal attack

After you confirmed the block the blocked user continues to personally attack me and the blocking admin. He even compares me to a NAZI. See here and here. What are my options. I have exhausted WP:ANI twice over this editors WP:HARASSment of me and now he is blocked but he is escalating it. Please advice. Thanks Taprobanus 04:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

He's already blocked for personal attacks. If he persists after his block expires, it will quickly escalte indefinitely. In the meantime, I would try not rising to his bait and ignore him. --Haemo 06:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been ignoring him for close to a year now, every time I create an article which I have done many dozens he follows me around. I used to handle it myself but now a wider wikipedia community seems to take interest in what we do hence I feel much easier to deal with the taunts and attacks. As usual I will go on my editing, creation and deletion path but if he follows me around and personally attacks, I will let you know. Thanks Taprobanus 12:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

William Caulfield

Hi Haemo,

I created a page on the above and used information from his web site, with his permission, to create it.

I was told about copyright problems by Wikipedia and I explained on the talk page that it was fully my copyright.

Now it is deleted and I can't get into it to change or add anything.

Can you help? Please.

Austen Lennon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austenlennon (talk • contribs) 17:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is a common question. The problem with Wikipedia is that, though a given work may be your copyright, that doesn't give you permission to post it. You actually have to release your copyright to the material, under a free license like the GFDL. In this sense, you no longer hold absolute copyright to it. In order for us to allow text like that, we have to (1) be sure you are the legal copyright holder and that (2) you actually do release it under a free license. In this respect, simple assertion on the talk page is not enough — you have to contact our permission department, and sign one of these permissions, then email it to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org, with documentation proving you are the owner of the material in question. Anyways, it sounds complicated, since this is a legal matter. Hope this was of some help. --Haemo 17:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC for my block of Iwazaki

An RfC has been opened up in response to my block of Iwazaki which you reviewed and declined to reverse. If you have anything to say about the issue, please do. Lexicon (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for your support at my RfA. Regards, Jogers (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Acts of the Apostles

Hi Haemo, on Acts of the Apostles did you overdo it? +51,000 removed?? Maybe I missed something. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 21:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what happened but it wasn't you...my bad, I am sorry.JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 21:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let me explain my cryptic goobledegook above. The article popped on my watchlist showing that you had deleted over 50KB from it. Of course, I know you and know it wasn't any kind of vandalism so I left the first message. I then went back to the page and thought it was deletion done by an IP just prior to you so I left the second message. I went back a third time and looked closer. It seems that when you deleted the I6 image, somehow the remainder of the article was deleted at the same time. Anyway, I reverted, then deleted the I6 as you intended. So now I am thoroughly confused and hope I haven't confused you too. Anyway, the bottom line is the article is fixed as you intended. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 21:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm; it must be Twinkle malfunctioning. I'll leave a notice for the maintainer. Hope I haven't accidentally deleted anything else! --Haemo 21:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Barneca RfA thank you spam

Haemo, thank you for your support during my RfA. If the concerns that were brought up by other editors gave you second thoughts, rest assured that I'll keep all of the comments in mind in the coming months, and will try again later. In the mean time, if you see me doing something stupid, please let me know. See you around. --barneca (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

CSD G6 request

You closed this HoloNet AfD which now is being cited as a reason to CSD G6 housekeeping speedy delete Sabacc. If you can make sense of this, please take action. Thanks. -- Jreferee T/C 19:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoops; I missed that one in the dual nom. --Haemo 19:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We Are Electrocution!

The above article (an album) was deleted via AfD. Following an AfD where the band that released it was found to be notable, the closing admin restored the album's article; one week later you re-deleted it. I'm requesting that you to restore the article; I'm in the process of cleaning up the band's article, after which I plan to do the same for their records. Your assistance in this matter would be much appreciated. Cheers! Precious Roy 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the restoration was out-of-process, but if you're requesting a copy of the deleted version for the purposes of working on it, I can give you can copy so you can work on it, then move it to the mainspace when you're ready. --Haemo 20:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, that'll work. Thanks. Precious Roy 20:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Give me a target for the page, and I'll move it there. Is User:Precious Roy/We Are Electrocution! acceptable? --Haemo 20:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Perfeck! Precious Roy 21:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

So, anytime you get a chance... Precious Roy 20:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Done! Sorry about that; I didn't see your reply. --Haemo 21:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)