User talk:Haemo/Archive 8

I'm still not quite sure how people manage to read Talk pages when text can be threaded in anywhere. I thought I'd cross-post this to ya:

"Equal" does need to be stricken if I put that in there with reference to the entire money supply. It is good to have such a critical eye on this article. It helps that you are familiar with the workings of the Open Market. If you can tone down my (unintentional!) POV while still retaining the intended meaning, I would be utterly in your debt.

Thanks for any help. The "edit skirmish" was getting ridiculous. BigK HeX (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in looking at your talk page, you seem to be an experienced admin. This Monetary policy article is my first attempt at Wikipedia editing, so I'd find a neutral opinion as helpful. If you ever have time to go through the Talk page and/or edit history (or however you investigate such matters), I'd be curious to know whether a reasonable person would consider my editing as disruptive/tendentious/egregiously inaccurate/etc. I just don't feel comfortable with allowing anyone to take pertinent and verifiable text and either deleting or significantly distorting it as the first recourse. There does seem to be a consensus that my writing is not NPOV, so I wouldn't so much mind restatements of the text, but the deletions seem like censorship to me. But anyways, if my disputes with Gregalton are not rationally justified, then it would be helpful to hear it. BigK HeX (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, it's clear you have a POV on the topic, but that's frankly to be expected from nearly every editor on basically any topic. I'll try and act as a moderating force on the subject since I have some experience moderating, and I have a decent amount of knowledge to share on this subject. --Haemo (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've already been impressed by your familiarity with the subject. I see Gregalton's canvassing has finally drawn Zenwhat in as well. From what I've seen in another article Zen tends to call "crankery" a little hastily, too, but he does also seem reasonably open to reliable sources. I feel the article has finally found a "good family to take care of it." I'm so very relieved. Happy editing. BigK HeX (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, don't worry about Zen — he's a reasonable guy, with a skeptical streak, so overall good to have watching over your articles. --Haemo (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

For the "puhlic good"

Putting it in quotes (see Airquotes) is suggestive of sarcasm.

Dr. Evil: "Lasers."

Removing the quotes, though, is just as bad because it suggests that the Fed actually is good for the public, which is also in dispute. Hence, I thought "for the public" was a suitable revision. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought they were just regular quotes! It was just a short quip, which summarizes the motivations for the founding, so I thought a short quote would be good. I guess it does come off a bit "lasers"-y, IMO. --Haemo (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Brett Hickey

Could you please delete the Brett Hickey page so I can write an article? Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_hickey

http://www.mojohd.com/mojoseries/wallstreetwarriors/warriors/view/brett

http://www.aegiscapitalgroup.com/team.php?teamID=1&v=s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oatmealstout (talk • contribs) 03:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is deleted. --Haemo (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

draft 911 faq

—my comments in italics... — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk)

The main points can be summarized as:

• What about alternate accounts of events? Most concerns include disputes over the roles played by Al Qaeda, George W. Bush, the United States Government, various ethnicities, and other organizations or individuals.

Answer: Wikipedia presents information only based on reputable sources that are widely accepted by scholars, historians, scientists, and other qualified organizations or individuals. The article's account of the attacks is the only one supported by reliable, widely accepted information.

—I strongly disagree: I do not base myself on the opinions of paranoid individuals like Alex Jones or David Icke or Michael Ruppert. I base my opinions on the sources they provide. They have shown me primary sources (witnesses and photo's) and secundary sources (newspaper clippings, which are RS) which have, over several weeks led me to conclude in 2004, that the alternate account is more likely to be correct. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For an explanation of what constitutes reliable and unreliable sources, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:Reliable Sources.

• "Things don't add up..."

Answer: Piecing together a wide array of information and coming to a conclusion is not the purpose of Wikipedia. If this is your intent, please review Wikipedia's No Original Research policy. For an explanation of what constitutes reliable and unreliable sources, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:Reliable Sources.

—For this policy, we may not ourselves conclude "things do not add up", but we may quote notable Americans or leaders as saying so: Michael Meacher, Andreas von Bulow, Charly Sheen... — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Isn't one man's terrorist another's hero? Common concerns over why the article defines the attacks as terrorism.

Answer: The attacks are widely considered "terrorism" by reliable sources, including the United Nations. Therefore, they are defined as "terrorism" in the article. For an explanation of what constitutes reliable and unreliable sources, please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:Reliable Sources.

—There was a time when we removed the word terrorist from the title, using the opposite argument. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• some NPOV question to go here...

Answer...

—Haemo, it makes me sad that I seem to unable to convey my thoughts and feelings to you, whom I deem intelligent, polight and good-faith, and that we should remain quarreling... — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, for the record, I didn't write those sections of the FAQ. However, many of the points you spell out do not address the fact that there are no reliable sources to support them. --Haemo (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Family First New Zealand

I notice that you deleted Family First New Zealand. This lobby group is gaining some attention and I feel it deserves an article. Can you email the deleted article to me so that I can use it as a basis for a new article? Thanks. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 09:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have userfied it here. --Haemo (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ta. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 23:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"Explaining" films

How do you "explain" a film? What kind of explanation of The Money Masters were you expecting? Robert Ham (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The concept would be that you explain the film; what is it about, how it was produced, how it was received, etc. To contrast this with the comment made, an article about a film should not try to explain the topic of the film — which was why I pointed out that the particular comment was not a point in favor of the article. --Haemo (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

People who sell The Money Masters don't seem very notable either

To avoid duplication: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baked ham (talk • contribs) 04:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I prod'd the Bill Still one. --Haemo (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

ongoing 911 debate

I hear your frustration, Haemo. I am responding to queries where I would rather have not done so, because they confuse the issue. If you aim to resolve the matter, my hope is you will respond to my query here: Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks#back_to_the_heart_(2) — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Helping me out

Thankyou for stepping in as I think we all get a little heated in these debates on Wiki. What I would like to do is be able to work with other editors to help make articles much better, some though don;t actually talk about things on my user page or the article in questions' page - is there a set procedure to do this at all? --Gothgirlangel1981 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries! Unfortunately, some people are the strong, silent type and don't like discussing. There isn't very much you can do besides starting a discussion the article's talk page, and requesting that they join in. Continual disruptive editing without discussion can be referred to dispute resolution and ultimately the admins. --Haemo (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion involving a move you made

Hello. Just a heads up, there's a discussion in progress regarding your move of Emo in October 2007 at User talk:Sarah777#Emo. Regards. --Muchness (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Weird. That was like 4 months ago... --Haemo (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of wikipedia policy

You have consistently and flagrantly tried to have people believe that what "reliable sources" call something is a criterion for naming articles according to wikipedia guidelines, despite the fact that it has been pointed out to you many times that this is false. While the occasional mistake can be forgiven, flagrant and reckless misrepresentation of wikipedia policy or guidelines is not acceptable. ireneshusband (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not "misrepresented" anything; what reliable sources call an event, or subject is relevent, since it speaks to the common name which is a guideline for naming. It also speaks to the fact that the name is neutral, since reliable sources with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking use the name in a non-pejorative manner; contrary to your repeated arguments. You have repeatedly misunderstood, or ignored, this point in favor of simply insisting that your selective misreading of sources, and Wikipedia's guidelines is correct. I'm sorry to be harsh, but I don't appreciate being the subject of repeated incivility and personal attacks from you over this incredibly silly dispute. --Haemo (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The policy in question is Wikipedia:Naming conventions. This says nothing about "reliable sources". You cite Wikipedia:Common sense, but it should be pretty obvious even to the most naive editor that Wikipedia:Common sense does not give you license to make up rules to suit yourself. You are an admin. It is utterly beyond belief that you could have failed to be aware of this. Now you have repeated the offense yet again. There is no excuse for this. And please don't try throwing the Wikipedia:Incivility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks at me again. I am well enough acquainted with Wikipedia:Assume good faith to know that I have not said anything out of order.

So let's get this clear: To knowingly misrpresent wikipedia policy is completely unacceptable behaviour, especially for an admin. ireneshusband (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you misunderstand my argument and instead focus your ill-conceived venom upon for the impertinence of disagreement. Your belief is based in the fact that you don't understand my argument, and have instead taken to a vain attempt to brow-beat me, and other editors who disagree with you, into submission. In short, until you cease this incivil and misplaced attempt to claim some kind of highground to which you are not entitled, and instead try to understand what the people who disagree with you are really saying — instead of what you want to believe they are saying — I have nothing more to say to you. --Haemo (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That type of comment is ridiculous and will not be tolerated any longer. I've just given Ireneshusband a final warning for trolling. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrono commando

Hi, I've removed the warning you added to this AfD discussion, since the terms of the injunction clearly don't apply. I presume it was an innocent mistake, but thought it best to notify you anyway. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC).

No worries. I must have mis-read the article. Sorry! --Haemo (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

talk: 9/11

Dear Haemo, you may have missed my question in all the discussions which are going around. If you have an answer, I would like to hear it.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 13:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I've replied there. --Haemo (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Eagle Cash

On 21 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eagle Cash, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Great article, Haemo! — Athaenara ✉ 13:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --Haemo (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

re: 9/11

There is no controversy. Alternative theories or just plain "theories" is appropriate.

The Anti-Vandalism King (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's patently not true. Look at the talk page for a previous consensus in favour of the current title, as well has literally hundreds of pages of discussion with no consensus to change it. --Haemo (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't even bother.

They're throwaway IPs; they're being used just long enough to do damage and that's it. You're just wasting your time. HalfShadow (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, perhaps I will not bother then. --Haemo (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been going on all week. If you come across a page that's being hit by lots of random IPs, it's a throwaway attack. HalfShadow (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Article for wikipedia

Thank you for your help ! We have written an article (on word) about a painter,and would like to send it to wikipedia to be printed. How could we transfer this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boselawrence (talk • contribs) 11:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't exactly "print" articles -- however, if you want to make a new article you can follow this helpful guide. --Haemo (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm

Heh. Sorry for essentially claiming your argument as my own, I'm too lazy and yours is pretty smack-dab on what I would say. There’s no need for so many similar arguments. But somehow I feel like I should change my signature to "What Haemo said" :P Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That is fine by me! --Haemo (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Canada page

I assure you that this is about content. I am not being a "jerk"; it is not about my personality. There are serious POV issues on the Canada page as it stands now. Please comment on the specific edits in question and cut the insults. They do not help. --soulscanner (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, play nice with other people and work through them. There's way too much head-butting on the talk page in question, over admittedly trivial problems. --Haemo (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Killian

Dear Haemo, I would have opposed the unblocking of User:CallmeBC had I been aware of the discussion at the time, but I can understand the different viewpoint of editors who might be more forgiving or better at assuming good faith than I. Also, I have been directly involved in conflict with this editor so I didn't think I could view the situation with a truly unbiased or neutral perspective (and maybe therefore it is better that I did not comment at that time). Now, speaking of my personal bias and involvement in this situation, I feel strongly that this editor has already grossly violated the terms under which he was removed from permanent block. I would ask your objective view. It may be that I am the one who is wrong; I often am. But I am getting the same feeling I had just prior to this editor's permanent block, finding every post at that page to be laden with personal invective, and seeing even posts that in my own view are carefully constructed so as to be productive proposals for improving the article met with simple nastiness. Can you take a look and see? And if I am wrong, tell me to relax or find a new hobby or something. I would welcome a third view. Best regards, Kaisershatner (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As it's been more than well demonstrated, I do believe, on the Talk page, Kaisershatner has been obstructing any improvements to the article by chronically and repeatedly violating WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and the provision in WP:CIVIL that goes Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. If I ask something along the lines of, "Yes or No -- pickles are usually green?" I'll get a response along the lines of, "Well, apples are sometimes green." And if I persist in getting an answer to the pickle question, I'll only get the apple answer regardless of however I repeat it or rephrase it. And if I try to reference something like "The Audubon Field Guide to the Color of Pickles," it'll be claimed that this is original research.

The end result is that despite the vast amount of words on the Talk page, the sole, inarguable improvement to the article has come from my pointing out that George Bush was actually a pilot in the Air National Guard and not just a member of the "U.S. National Guard" as the article had it since October. This sort of neglect and obstructive behavior appears to be in violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and it also actively discourages participating in Wikipedia -- who wants to waste enormous amounts of time and effort dealing with this sort of thing? In any case, as I had stated on the Talk page, I'm now abstaining from any more attempts to get a real discussion going and will start with dispute resolution procedures. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys are just engaged in a bit of a strenuous debate, but I think the tone is definitely starting to degrade. The dispute resolution issues might be a good way to get things started and help clear the air — repeated clashes between people, no matter how civil initially tend to create a charged environment. It might be a good idea to try WP:3O for instance. --Haemo (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Canada page

Apology accepted, but not really necessary.

I've placed my version on the Canada page. You'll probably have to go to the page history to view it, because it will probably be reverted.

This isn't a trivial matter. It's important to state where real executive power lies in Canada: with the monarchy, or with Cabinet. It changes the way the article is written.--soulscanner (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's trivial in the sense that de facto it's one thing, and de jure it's another, and no one disagrees with that. The wording is all that is really in dispute. --Haemo (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fortune Global 500

Hi, I'm not sure who to contact for this, but I thought you'd interested since you're a member of the Economics WikiProject. There is an article called Fortune Global 500. This article is a copy and paste of the list of the 500 largest companies in the world by revenues published by Fortune magazine every year. Fortune magazine lists these companies by countries and cities. They list Shell as being a company from the Netherlands and not a dual company from Britain and the Netherlands (contrary to Unilever). One British Wikipedian doesn't like that and has changed the article, writting that Shell is a dual British/Dutch company, contrary to the source from Fortune magazine. I tried to explain that the article being simply a copy and paste of the Fortune Global 500 list, we have to respect their editorial choices, otherwise it's not the Global Fortune 500 list anymore, it becomes something else. Unfortunately I feel like I'm preaching in the desert, so to speak. If we start changing things from the list based on what we think is right or wrong, then why not also change EADS which Fortune magazine lists as a Dutch company (because it is legally incorporated in the Netherlands for tax reasons), whereas in fact EADS is a Franco-German company with top management in Paris and Munich? As you can see, this could lead to endless changes to the article. I thought on Wikipedia we had to write information that matches with the sources we use. It would be nice to hear from you on this point. Keizuko (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think a short note explaining things which might be confusing in the list, like the Dutch/British problem is probably a good compromise. Just because you are using their list does not mean you can't acknowledge parts which are confusing, or complicated, After all, this is an article about the list — it can do more than just duplicate the list. --Haemo (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

9/11 dispute

Hi, I have been out of commission the last few days and despite attempts to make sense of the mass of different discussions on the 9/11 talk page, I have little clue about what's going on or why the article has been fully protected. Could you possibly summarize things for me, or point me to the relevant dispute? I would appreciate it... Thanks. Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember what the dispute was about before? Take that, and produce a specific example of it — the Mineta testimony. Then through in some generic argument about the wording of CT section, and an attempt to insert two particular people's wording into there. --Haemo (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

At what point does this dispute run into WP:TE territory? It seems like Mineta has come up before, and the OR & SYN arguments haven't changed any... // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 21:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I think it already has. However, unlike some of the other disputes which I have intervened in (like Sri Lanka) everyone here is generally pretty nice and well-behaved, and there's not a lot of edit warring, so I'm not really willing to go forward because I'm getting tired of repeating myself. --Haemo (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for summarizing a few days ago, Haemo. I also believe there is (and have formally warned a certain editor of) WP:TE. I'm a little reluctant to bring this to the admin's notice board, but maybe wikietiquette alerts? The problem is, the editor is editing tendentiously but doing it in a thoughtful and fairly good faith manner without showing signs other disruptions. It's a borderline situation, and I'm not sure there's anything to do. Okiefromokla ^questions? 01:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's already at ANI, to absolutely zero effect. --Haemo (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was talking about this user. Okiefromokla ^questions? 15:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

About Xiutwel: I think I'm ready to take this to the next step. A good-faith editor would accept the repeated efforts of others inform of policy. Instead of accepting consensus and editing other articles, this user has spend 95% of his/her time over the last year repeating arguments for his/her POV incessantly at 9/11-related talk pages, even editing articles regardless of consensus on several occasions. This shows that his/her intent is clearly to include the POV, rather than the betterment of the encyclopedia. While he/she is restraining from full-fledged disruptive editing and stays cool in discussions, he/she has, for months, and despite informal and formal warnings, cluttered 9/11-related talk pages with excessively long and repeated proposals on a more-than daily basis. He/she shows the classic signs of WP:TE:

1. Refusal to adhere to policy when it conflicts with his/her POV
2. Criticism and dismissal of core policies
3. Accusing other editors and all reliable sources of bias and suppressing information
4. Constant attempts at original research and synthesis in light of the lack of reliable sources to back up the desired POV
5. Placing undue weight with insignificant facts to push the POV
6. Repeating policy-breaking arguments without rest for (at least) more than a year.
7. Refusal to accept consensus

Haemo, because of these reasons, would you support taking this to wikietiquette alerts or ANI? Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're definitely free to do so, but I'm not sure if it will help. The last ANI thread about this got a gigantic "yawn" and no uninvolved responses. --Haemo (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Ireneshusband thread, or was there a similar complaint against Xiutwel? Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes; there is no similar complaint, to my knowledge. --Haemo (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So two IP adresses with only a few edits prior to this week have suddenly begun actively participating (with dozens of edits) in 9/11 discussions, all arguing in Xiutwel's favor. I think I can add sockpuppetry to the list of complaints aganst this user. I will go ahead and put a notification on WP:ANI asap. Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's probably worth trying a WP:RFCU if you're suspicious. --Haemo (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For keeping a cool head while defending 9/11-related pages from being over-run with conspiracy theory POV. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Steven Plaut

The "Steven Plaut" entry is out of date - please add the updated information from this http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=8431B5B9-9777-4A3D-8218-94679BB9DCF9 --- Borisyy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borisyy (talk • contribs) 14:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that article is currently fully protected, so I'm leery about stepping in. If you want to make an edit, request one by using the {{editprotected}} template on the talk page. --Haemo (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome.

Thanks for the welcome. Alexfox29 (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries. --Haemo (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

talk:9/11

Dear Haemo, I am needing your reply to my 09:07, 9 March 2008 question on Talk:9/11#What was the revert war about?. Thx  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 04:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on the page. --Haemo (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

on discussing

Dear Heamo,

Today I got the strong feeling that we both want to contribute to a good encyclopedia. And we both think it is a waste of our time to have these long discussions where we need to take care not to make any misstep in formulating a sentence and thinking of a new argument to come up with. Does this feel fair and true to you?
I believe you're very good in discussing. I'm feeling satisfaction when I see your contributions because I'm needing clarity and I think it is important that all arguments are carefully put on the table. For me it is clear now we each just have different views, and I'm feeling happy whenever you are contributing in your reasonable and respectful manner and when I can sense your dedication to a good encyclopedia. Would you say that my interpretation of your editing is according with your own percepetion?

What is drawing you to the 9/11 article? What is your drive to work on this relatively so much? We are very curious for your answer.

Xiutwel/Vanja — Sockrates-duet 23:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I first got involved with 9/11 articles basically at random; I think I was trying to fix pictures, and saw the talk page, but I'm not sure. I'm kind of confused who I'm talking to here but just FYI, role accounts are not permitted on English Wikipedia. --Haemo (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Undeletion

Could you please userfy Anacreon Province for me? I'm trying to condense information about the Foundation Trilogy well enough to show what should be sourced and what should be tossed; knowing what was already written I hope will help me. Thanks! —ScouterSig 15:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've userfied it here. -Haemo (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It wasn't any good; no wonder it was deleted. Hopefully I can bring some of the Foundation articles up to snuff. The main article used to be featured, too. :( —ScouterSig 00:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully :) --Haemo (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

request your input in a consensus survey re 9/11

Dear Haemo/Archive 8,

At Talk:9/11#defining consensus I started a survey to get a better picture on how editor's opinions are varying with respect to the following statement:

"The current form of the 9/11 article is at odds with the WP:NPOV policy, and the proposed inclusion of the fact that Michael Meacher alleges the US government of willfully not preventing the attacks, would make the article better, in stead of worse.

I would appreciate it when you could take a look.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

For a change from 9/11 conspiracy theory: Obama's family notability conspiracy

Could you take a look at Madelyn Dunham and Sarah Onyango Obama and give me your opinions? I have found myself receiving a fair bit of resistance in deleting the articles due to reasons as divided as "they raised Obama", "they are related to Obama" or "the people trying to delete this article are attempting an anti/pro-Obama conspiracy". It came up in passing that the relatives of political figures are inherently notable, but not how much of a relative you have to be to be notable which has lead to me being at a loss over the ending conclusions of these debates being another "AfD is not a vote, but the yays have it". –– Lid^(Talk) 07:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, neither are notable. Notability requires "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources. At best, there's trivial coverage in a few. Sometimes, grandparents are very important to a person's life — these people don't seem to be at all. --Haemo (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering Dreams From my Father they are important to Obama's life, but that is more to their relationship than any real notability. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And Madelyn Dunham gets closed by a non-admin, this is a great start. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

FlyArmenia

Hi Haemo,

I was looking through the AfD log for March 10 when I noticed that the article link for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlyArmenia was red--it seems you deleted this page citing housekeeping as the reason prior to the close of the discussion, so I went ahead and closed it. Given the clear consensus, I just figured you forgot or overlooked the actual close--please feel free to revert me/slap me with a trout if this was out of place.

I do have one quick request, though. When you delete pages per XfD discussions in the future, would you mind terribly including a link to the discussion rather than classifying them all as WP:CSD#G6? This is the process described in WP:DELPRO, and providing a direct link to the relevant discussion would make it a lot easier for people to understand why exactly a page was deleted. Thanks! --jonny-mt 14:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot! The talk page was left up, so I tagged it per WP:CSD#G8. Thanks again! --jonny-mt 14:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries; I will go ahead and do that. --Haemo (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review feedback

Hi, I noticed you have a request in at peer review which has not yet received any response besides the semi-automated script. Have you tried requesting a peer review from the volunteers list? Another idea you might want to try is to review someone else's request (particularly one from the list of requests without responses), then ask that they look at your request. Hope these are helpful suggestions and help to get some feedback for your request soon, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I have asked a couple of people for help. --Haemo (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

How did you interpret "merge" from the Articles for deletion/Back to the Future timeline?

I've posted your AfD to WP:DRV. It appears you totally ignored the community's consensus, and came up with a solution of your own. That's not what administrators are supposed to be doing with respect to consensus-building discussions. You have been entrusted with the responsibility to enforce the community's will, not your own. There's also the possibility that you spaced out and closed the discussion this way by mistake. Either way, the mistake needs to be corrected. What was your thought process on this? The Transhumanist 21:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I've replied there — I though this was a sensitive close which accurately reflected the consensus on the discussion page. --Haemo (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have named you as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#9/11 conspiracy theories. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Le sigh. Today is shaping up just wonderfully. --Haemo (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean to pile on. With the end of the mediation case, it seemed like the right time to file the long overdue arbitration request. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK § 19:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Question on contributions

Hi Haemo. I've been here for a while, but I'm still learning policy, so I thought I'd ask your opinion on this. An editor is creating one article after another on small communities in a province here: contribs. For a while he was averaging a new single-line article every couple of minutes. IMO, this amounts to nothing more than a de facto list of many communities where the only claim to notability is that they have a dot on a map. When I asked him about it this was his reply. Does the Wikipedia community accept the addition of such de facto lists? If so, WP:NOTE is way out of control (IMO). Thanks for the info. Cheers. --- Taroaldo (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the general consensus in deletion discussions is that small towns and villages are generally notable — after all, they all reasonably have some notability, and Wikipedia is not paper. However, it might be better, as an editorial decision to make them as a list. Suffice to say that my advice is that it's borderline, but bringing them to WP:AFD probably won't end with a consensus to delete. --Haemo (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. No, I wasn't suggesting they would be candidates for AfD. Once any community has made it into article form, I couldn't see anyone supporting a deletion (it would be quite a slippery slope). I guess I was more or less just venting to a friendly ear. My personal opinion is that WP:NOT really needs strengthening, and that clutter of de facto lists doesn't really serve any useful purpose. But I have no idea what the process is to build a consensus to modify a policy or guideline in Wikipedia, nor do I think I would have the time for such an awesome undertaking. <vent over>. Thanks. --- Taroaldo (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, no worries. Personally, I think there's something to be said for eventualism in cases like this. --Haemo (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's food for thought. I've never been a fan of incrementalism, but I'll try almost anything once! --- Taroaldo (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

checkuser

Hey Haemo, I was recently notified on my talkpage that you ran a checkuser on a number of editors, including me. I am concerned that I'm a part of something that I know nothing about. Why did you do this? I'm not a sockpuppet. This is my second account, however I don't use my first one anymore. I need an explanation. Thank you. --Belinrahs (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry; there was no checkuser run. I pulled your name from the Mediation Cabal list as American editors who shared similar opinions — the idea was that if the checkuser clerk thought there was a behavioral link, they could pull logs for these accounts. However, no check was necessary since there wasn't evidence of any external link from the accounts originally inspected. I didn't mean to imply anything :) --Haemo (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

is there a way i can cancle my account?

wiki sucks- edit waring by liberal morons has just made me subscribe to encarta. can I cancel my account and forget that this site even exists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realtruthspeaker (talk • contribs) 06:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You have a right to vanish. Simply log out and forget about your account. --Haemo (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Haemo, thank you for the help dealing with the socks. :) ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 07:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries. It seemed obvious :) -Haemo (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you adopt me?

I just wrote a letter explaining why I required adoption. The proof is in the pudding since I pressed on Edit this page and my request disppeared . Instead should have pressed on Save Page. Though Hoof Hearted has been most helpful my understanding of the twists and turns of Wikipedia are still beyond my reach.

Anyway to cut a long story short I need someone to tell me if I am correct in assuming that when I typed for the second time an article on Bettina (Betty) Shaw-Lawrence, I did so on a page which was still blocked. Is that right? I'm hoping that the reqirements of the free encyclopedia have been met the second time round, but as no-one has explained I am still in the dark as to the future of this article. Look forward to hearing from you. An ex-Amstrad userBoselawrence (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

It appears that your article was deleted per WP:CSD#A7. It might be a good idea if you write a draft of your article here first. Then, when you're ready, we can look it over and I can give you pointers. Does that sound like a plan? --Haemo (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What a relief to hear from you. Your idea of a draft sounds like a great plan. I will type it out to-morrow if I can but you won't be hearing from me till my return around 20th April from the States as my mother is seriously ill. Will try to find out what WP: CSD#A7 means so as to avoid whatever mistakes it covers. Thanks a lot.Boselawrence (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

You can click on the blue link to read more about it. --Haemo (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Unwittingly it is possible that I have opted out of automatic signing. Is that a nuisance ?

Before going any further, I would like to know which article we are referring to. Is it the first one which indeed lacked objectivity or the second one which was totally revised to ensure that it was as neutral as possible? Yours, Boselawrence (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

Would it be possible for you to copy the text so that it lands up in my sandbox to make the required improvements in a temporary area of Wikipedia. Let me know if this is a good idea. Otherwise, when I come back I could type again what was deleted the second time and this would enable you to check if we are talking about the same text. Thanks. Boselawrence (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

Sure; actually, both were deleted for the same reason. In any case, I've moved the text of the second revision to User:Boselawrence/old --Haemo (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What appears under Boselawrence/old is the 1st draft. The second revision is much more neutral and I think more in keeping with what is required. Maybe I could delete part of the 1st draft and replace it by what had been typed the 2nd time. Would that be suitable? Best regards, Boselawrence (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)boselawrence

Will you please adopt me? Rohit Reddy (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Troll/Thanks

Thanks. I probably should drop it. I just don't take threats well, and I really feel like he was threatening me. --Tarage (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

re: "Hey, I would just walk away from the whole subject for a while, like we discussed. It's not worth getting hot under the collar over. Go write some articles or something :P --Haemo (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)"

We discussed leaving if you violate the agreement, not if someone keeps calling me a troll. I'm not "hot under the collar" and I would appreciate you not trying to analyze my state of mind, it feels almost as if you are trying to provoke me. I haven't acted in a way that should cause a reasonable person in a reasonable state of mind to assume that I am hot under the collar. I have been very civil, patient in the face of undue personal attacks. I am owed an apology, as I have repeatedly requested that Tarage not call me a troll. Even after agreeing to remain civil and assume good faith, Tarage has again called me a troll. I'm unwilling to excuse this continual bad behavior without either an apology or a penalty. Either Tarage or I am in the wrong here, and I don't think it's me. I do edit articles. Tarage however, just calls me a troll and does nothing with regard to actual editing. He just throws his weight around on talk:911 but I have not yet seen one productive actual edit from him. I have thousands of good edits. I'm not a troll and I resent his flagrant violation of what is a clear and basic policy. User:Pedant (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I was talking to Tarage, as he understood. I was not talking to you, and I apologize if I gave you that impression. Also, this message appears to have been overlooked, so I apologize for that too. --Haemo (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

9/11 - a lighter note

If you haven't seen it already take a look at this video from the Onion. I think it sums up our situation nicely. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 02:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)