User talk:ErikHaugen/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Merry Christmas

Thanks for helping out so much with the documentation, testing, and responding to complaints for the new template! Have a blessed and safe Christmas! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Eddie Shepherd

Hi, welcome to the unenvious but very necessary world of New Page Patrol! The BLP you tagged as unreferenced should have had a WP:BLPPROD notice put on it. However, reading further would show that it is a clear cut case for WP:CSD A7, maybe even a possible hoax, but certainly A7. If you are not sure in such cases, do consider not checking them as patrolled, but put the page on your watchlist instead and see how another user handled it. Next time you can do the same :) Happy editing and all the best for 2011. --Kudpung (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! Thanks for the note and the welcome; welcome to you too! Don't worry; I don't mark them as patrolled unless I'm pretty confident that they are or soon will be up to snuff per wp:NPP. It seemed the editor was still working on the page, so I removed the potentially controversial BLP material, tried to let him know that references would be needed, and decided to give him a bit before doing the A7. It looks like Feezo beat me to it by a few minutes, so all is well. I think a {{BLPUnreferenced}} is much more friendly than a {{Prod blp}} when a page is a few minutes old and the editor is obviously still working on the page, I think a {{Prod blp}} would have been inappropriate at that point, don't you? And certainly not a {{Db-hoax}}, that was very plausibly not a hoax. Also, I'm not sure your level 4im warning is very helpful or realistic, honestly. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 08:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Freezo beat me to it too, and I'm sorry if I sounded patronising, it was not my intention. I have no hesitation in applying a BLPPROD, especially if the creator is still on line. I helped develop it and I think it's still much under used. What we have to cope with is that probably less than 10% of new editors don't even read the instructions at the bottom of their very first edit window, let alone follow the links in any welcome messages. One gets to know which newbies will become Wikipedians, and this was not one. Believe me, I save ten times more pages than I delete, and I've nurtured near vandals in the past to getting their first GA. Another problem we have, is that simply tagging and/or passsing as patrolled an article that is clearly a candidate for one of our three deletion methods, can mean that it can go months, or even years before it is picked up in a clean up drive; at the current uBLP backlog, some of the pages are up to five years old. We all have our own thresholds for implementing the 100s of policies, and I too often ask admins for advice - particularly when it concerns BLP even though it's an area I'm very familiar with. I generally work from the bottom of the 30-day NPP pit, it's a totally thankless and unrewarded task and it takes me away from time I would rather spend on improving the really worthwhile articles, or getting my own up to GA and FA, but someone has to do it! Keep up the good work, and again, season's greetings. --Kudpung (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"simply tagging and/or passing as patrolled an article that is clearly a candidate for one of our three deletion methods" - are people seriously doing that? I've never seen it. I guess I haven't really been looking, though. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The situation at NPP is worse than you can imagine. All kinds of errors are encountered. There are dozens of people patrolling new pages, but because it is the traditional haunt of either new, or very young, or generally inexperienced editors the system is generally considered to be broken. It doesn't necessarily mean that each one does a very bad job, but if 12 newbies each do 50 patrolls in a day, and they each misjudge 12 articles, that's 144 articles a day that make a mockery of the system. AFAICS, the only accurate patrolling is being done by some admins, but they probably only do it occasionally to keep the backlog down. These problems are the reasons why I designed and instigated this new process recently. It's still in its infancy, but it appears that the backlog has suddenly cleared dramatically. Either it's because of warnings and/or friendly messages I've been putting on the talk pages of some of the editors, or whether it's because the number of unresolved articles is dropping on its own, I will not be able to tell for another couple of months, but it is to be hoped that more people are now reading the instructions at WP:NPP before engaging in page patrolling. Kudpung (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright infringement/close paraphrasing

Hey there. I recently flagged some articles connected to Her Campus indicating a copyright violation, to which you indicated that the articles did not meet the G12 criteria for deletion. You may not be familiar with the guidelines, so I thought to give you a heads up and let you know that close paraphrasing constitutes a clear copyright violation. No harm; no foul. I did not reinstate the CSD and instead attached maintenance tags. Hopefully, the editor will address the concerns appropriately. Best regards, Cind.amuse 19:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

wp:g12 contains the phrase "where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving", which is why I removed the g12 tags even though there was probably some infringing content. I removed a sentence, also, which I thought was too close to the original text; please do likewise if you feel any other sections are too close. Thanks for your vigilance, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Hi Erik. You may have to ask User:Moonriddengirl for the specific links. She is very helpful with all matters copyright, and is also one of the politest and most helpful editors on wikipedia.

Here from some instructions to administrators:[1]

• Revert back to the last clean revision or remove the infringing text from the article, using an appropriate edit summary. You should also leave a note at the article's talk page cautioning against inadvertent restoration of the copyright infringing material (the template {{cclean}} may be used). The infringing text is removed from the public face of the article, but it may not need to be removed/deleted permanently unless the copyright holder complains via OTRS or unless other contributors persist in restoring it.
• Delete the article, then use the undelete function to restore the untainted versions. (Sometimes it may be better to place deleted versions in a separate location; see Wikipedia:Selective deletion.) If the article has a lengthy page history, it may be time-consuming to delete then undelete thousands of versions of the article. However, it can be useful if the copyrighted text was added over a few edits, recently, and/or if the text is extensive or clearly inappropriate to keep in the article's history. Please note that for licensing compliance you cannot restore creative content contributed by other editors without attributing it. Elements that cannot be copyrighted, such as external links, can be re-added after restoration. If you wish to include creative content added to the article during the time the infringement was present, you may provide specific attribution in edit summary or at the article's talk page. (See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.)
• If the copyvio content is so extensive or significantly interspersed that simple removal of the infringing text becomes difficult, than you can use the salvageable content to start a new article, being sure to give proper attribution. You might start the new article in the temporary subpage linked from the copyvio template on the article. Attribution can be provided in incremental edit summaries or at the article's talk, in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. It can then be moved into place when the copyright violation is deleted.

It's pretty standard on wikipedia to clean copyright violations out of article histories. It appears this may be more directed to when the copyright holder files a ticket. --Kleopatra (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The skinny on removing copyvios

I asked Moonriddengirl, and this is what she has to say about it. --Kleopatra (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

reindeer

I've been trying to find a systematic way of handling them. I first removed a prod as it is redirectable, but I am putting it back, and just making the necessary fixes to the disam pages. Seems simpler and just as useful. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the redirects are useful, since they are not plausible typos or anything. If someone wanted to make a proper article with some legitimately sourced content that is not already at Santa Claus's reindeer, the title should probably be shorter, generally, like just Prancer. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

actually, I agree, and I did not make redirects from such titles as Blitzen (Santa Claus' Reindeer), where i restored the prod tag, but fixed the disam page at Blitizen. The only exception is Rudolph, where there's a song also. I'll keep an eye on them. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Platyhelminth taxonomy

Hi Erik, I notice that you created template:Taxonomy/Trematoda; I'm having some difficulty in reconciling this with the taxoboxes. Your correct cladistic grouping into Rhabditophora is difficult to apply to the other classes. Do you have any ideas as to how we might go about that? The alternative is to use the out-of-date taxonomy currently in the taxoboxes, with Class Turbellaria etc; this might be simpler until things die down and a monophyletic taxonomy is available. I've not really looked into the taxonomy so you are bound to have better ideas than I do!

Thanks! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about flatworms, so I don't offhand have much to add, sorry. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Pity. Well at least you won't be offended if I change from your taxonomy then! (-: Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 23:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I certainly won't! Have at any of "my" taxonomies. thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Anarchy's Daughters

Hi.. I noticed that you keep deleting this page because you claim it is an attack page. I would like to know what that means, so i can edit that part. All i want to do is make a Wikipedia article about my band. I do not see any violent or morally wrong part in that. I would really appreciate it, if you explain to me why the page is deleted, and what does an attack page mean? Thanks, have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danikap4o (talk • contribs) 17:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I only tagged it for deletion one time, and did not actually delete it. But to answer your question, if you say anything negative or potentially controversial about anyone, especially a living person, it is enormously important to have a reliable source to back it up. Really, everything needs a source, but for living people it's obviously extremely important. The policies about biographies of living persons has more. This article wasn't a bio, but most of this applies anyway. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No, see you dont understand. I am a member in the group.. That's why i have written all that stuff about being retarded, etc. I would never disrespect another person on wikipedia. Please understand that i do not write this with an intension to attack a certain individual. I only allow to talk that way because I am talking about myself and my friend. I would not consider this a problem. Please, take a second to think about it, but if it still is against the rules, I understand. Thank you, Eric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.91.150.139 (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah; I see your point, and I appreciate that you would not disrespect someone else on Wikipedia. But in some sense it doesn't matter who you are, since nobody really knows who you are, your identity is not validated. The fact that User:Danikap4o wrote something can not be used generally to verify something. If you were quoted in a reliable source as having said your own music was retarded, or even if a reliable source other than you said that your music was retarded, then we could have a page saying that. But as it was, there was a page with quite a bit of controversial and/or negative material with no reliable sourcing whatsoever; we simply can not have that on Wikipedia, even if the author claims it is a self description. And honestly, the claims of retardation, while tasteless, were not the main problem with the page leading me to tag it for deletion! Also, please read this page about conflict of interest; I would strongly encourage you to not write about yourself on Wikipedia. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

NopCommerce

Thought you should know that GFDL has not been a compatible license for importing text since 1 November 2008, so if it wasn't a recreation from here (which in this case it is because wikibin only mirrors deleted Wikipedia articles) it would indeed have been copyvio. You can read Wikipedia:Licensing update for all of the gory details. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying that for me. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Chelonia

Thanks Erik, I'm not sure how to handle this one. Chelonia (order) is just a backend placeholder (figured it was better than Chelonia clade or something) for wherever the taxon ends up in the future. I don't know why incertae sedis is showing up as an Order in the boxes, but Testudines/Chelonia should probably be listed as incertae sedis rather than Anapsida as it's currently controversial. If it is included as an anapsid group, the direct parent should be Pumiliopareiasauria, not Anapsida, either way. But this raises the further issue that Pumiliopareiasauria is nested within a different order, so we may have to pull a Mammaliaformes and dummy it to Anapsida or something. MMartyniuk (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That seems to have worked, sort of. I tried re-ranking Incertae sedis/Reptilia to unranked and now it doesn't display at all. There should be a better way to handle incertae sedis that doesn't force a rank on what it obviously an unranked category. :P MMartyniuk (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Lol

No problem! And heh, I almost corrected Pterodon to say Pteranodon but figured you knew what you were talking about. After reading the whole sentence, it was clear that you did. BOB THE WIKIPEDIAN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

FastCode

"grasping where the boundary is" - yeah, I think it's debatable. I was claiming that this is not really unaffiliated because he is, in a sense, using FastCode's advantages as a way of explaining why his product and work, Delphi 2007, is better.

I see.

Well, the point of FastCode all along was to get the new routines into the Delphi RTL. Steve's post was the culmination/vindication of that effort. Don't be snowed by Steve's positive tone. He may, for all I know, have been one of the ones that were fighting to include it. But I do know that there were some higher up that were against it. It was frustrating for the FC people to not have their work recognized for so long. I guess my point is that it wasn't a sycophantic relationship.

To use your Office example, rather than just a user, consider someone who wrote about how he helped people install and configure Office as a 3rd party consultant and how great Office was; I wouldn't consider this to be an entirely unaffiliated party.

Got it.

We need a third party. I'll have to work on this analogy and post back to the delete discussion when I have something.

Thanks for helping us get up to speed. Much appreciated. Blwhite (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. "We need a third party." Well, those TDM articles sound promising. Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing my !vote, because of the The Delphi Magazine articles. I haven't read them, but if the rumors are true they discuss Fastcode for multiple pages, so the subject likely satisfies wp:GNG.

Have you decided on this yet? Blwhite (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you fill me in on what happened? I thought things were going pretty well. Thanks. Blwhite (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Huh, I'm kind of surprised, honestly. I was just about to respond to your note, saying that I thought those TDM articles were borderline in terms of "significant coverage", so GNG was maybe satisfied depending on how picky one is about these things. I didn't think I had anything else constructive to add to the afd discussion. But the closing admin does not appear to have even seen those sources, or the comments made about them in the discussion. There's always Wikipedia:Deletion review. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Spartaz having dropped out, we are back to this. I can get it started, but if you wouldn't mind jumping in there and fixing up the mess I'm likely to make, I'd appreciate it. 8: -) Blwhite (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel like the Trefethen source is a little too self-published to do much wrt GNG. Can you help me understand this. It looks to me like the self-published restriction is targeted at self-proclaimed experts. But it isn't his blog that establishes him as an expert on his work. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert. So it seems to me that it shouldn't fall under the self-published restriction. Can you clarify for me? Thanks. Blwhite (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Good question, and perhaps I could have made my point in a better way. wp:SELFPUBLISH also says "However, one should take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Sources do two things: most importantly, they help readers verify the material, but additionally they help establish notability(wp:GNG). The main point of wp:SELFPUBLISH is that self-published sources are generally not so good for verification, and I think you're right in arguing that this one is probably credible enough to be used for verification. But, this "however" clause that I quoted speaks specifically toward using them to establish notability. In some sense, this guy is just writing about what he did at work; I could do the same thing and write at erikhaugen.com about translated text at YouTube since I worked on that but it wouldn't help establish YouTube's notability. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you help me understand the process in DelRev? It is now listed under recent discussions, instead of active. The last comment looks like 2/2. But it doesn't look closed or restored. Who does that and how is the decision made? Thanks. Blwhite 16:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's under "Recent discussions" now because the 7 day discussion period has expired. Now we just have to wait for an admin to close it; note that an admin closed one of the other discussions that was opened on the 31st: here. It shouldn't be long. What do you mean by "2/2"? The closing admin is supposed to weigh the discussion and determine what the consensus is, and then either restore the page or whatever is appropriate. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And it's back, an admin has restored FastCode. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Your RfA

I just wanted to drop by and wish you good luck on your RfA. One comment that caught my attention was SilkTork's oppose based partly on your trying to get the title formatting correct on an article. As luck would have it, I encountered the exact same problem the other day trying to get Time3 to render as Time³. Preview wasn't very helpful since it seems that it doesn't always immediately capture the change(s) made using the DISPLAYTITLE magic word. A previous editor had put in a DISPLAYTITLE, but it was being overridden by the infobox code. I was going to point out at the RfA that this sort of trial-and-error is sometimes a necessary evil when it comes to title-formatting, but I figured I'd already used up both of my "hound and badger" credits on the other opposes, so I'd just mention it here. Anyway, good luck. The project can definitely use clueful people hacking away at the admin backlogs. 28bytes (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note of encouragement! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Good Luck from me as well; it's doing okay now. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 13:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Good Luck!

Hi ErikHaugen! :)

Would just like to wish you goodluck with your RfA. I Hope you get it, as it is obviosly something you have wanted. I (and so far more than 20 others) support your decision. I also would like to apologise for the small dispute we had a few months ago about Westfield Doncaster, note that that is in the past, I have put that behind me. Again Good Luck! Hope you get it! :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

MelbourneStar, thanks for your note and kind words on the RFA. Certainly no need to apologize – just a few editors discussing a section; thanks for all your work on that article! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jennifer Widom

The article Jennifer Widom has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I can find no significant third-party coverage of this person to establish her notability outside of her field (academics).

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 11:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The subject certainly doesn't need to be notable outside of academia for a stand-alone article to be warranted, and easily satisfies WP:PROF. But in any case, I can see that the article is light on independent significant coverage; I'll see what I can do. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If it would help, if you could find some independent third-party coverage of her fellowship, that would satisfy criteria #3 of WP:ACADEMIC, which would be enough to satisfy notability. I wasn't able to, so I prodded it in the hope other editors might be able to find something.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The Winslett interview that I added says "Jennifer is a member of the National Academy of Engineering, is an ACM Fellow, and is a former Guggenheim Fellow" (Winslett, 2006). There was already an independent source verifying NAE membership, which I think clearly satisfies #3, if not #1 and #2 by implication. She also satisfies criteria #5 as she is an endowed professor. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that can be used as a reliable source, but I am having it verifed as reliable at the reliable sources noticeboard, and go from there.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. In any case, the SIGMOD press release can be used for verification of the NAE membership. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the ACM site you cited for the interview is confirmed as a reliable source, so I will go ahead and de-prod the article. Just so you know, I wasn't trying to cause you any undue grief or anything, I was just unfamiliar with the source used, and I brushed up on academic BLP's, since they are a little different than the "normal" BLP articles floating about.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course; the article certainly needs some work. Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Good Luck

Best of luck -- this will be a close one. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you sir! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I too wish you good fortunes, though I was an oppose... As others noted, you conducted yourself well during this ordeal, and I found that impressive. Again, should the 'crat (or 'crats) not decide in your favor, please try again later this year. I do believe you will make a great admin! Jusdafax 02:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, Jusdafax. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 02:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Echoing the words of the others above, and I have also left some comments you requested on my talk page. The rest we'll discuss when we have the outcome.--Kudpung (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, you are now an administrator

A consensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle = (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

well done Erik :) Congrats Calmer Waters 06:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations Erik. It was a close call and I know I opposed, but I will be replying to your message on my talk page in a few moments.Kudpung (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Totally cool. Yay :):):) Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 07:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't usually make comment after a decision is made, but I thought I'd say congratulations and that I was very impressed with the way you handled yourself throughout the process. Although I was wavering early on, your reply to the opposers would have moved me to support if I hadn't already been there. Worm^TT 09:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations ErikHaugen! -- I mean, Administrator ErikHaugen! I and 80+ editors, knew you would be able to come out successful with your RfA...and look at you now! one of the newest admins :) Good Luck with future editing, all us editors are so very proud of you! -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The admins' T-shirt. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RfA, ErikHaugen! Here's the standard clothing for your new role, hope it fits. :) Best. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Congratulations, and welcome on board. I did oppose, but my oppose was a weak and provisional "not just yet" one, rather than an out and out "no". I wish you every success. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Congrats. Regarding this: I didn't see your reply until after your RfA was closed. If you had pinged me, I would have had the chance to look into it further, and possibly strike some or all of my remarks. But I suppose at this stage it doesn't matter. :-) -Atmoz (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the kind words! In lieu of thankspam, please see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/ErikHaugen#Thanks. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, I did oppose, but the community decided otherwise, and hopefully you won't make a mjess of it. Good luck with the backlog, have a go at Wp:huggle when you have a free minute, you might enjoy it!  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Congrats. I looked at lots of your edits when I voted: you've been doing good work and I think you'll make an excellent admin.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful run. While I may have been the first person to offer an opposing vote, the way that you handled yourself throughout the process - although not enough, in the big picture, to get me to change my stance - gave me quite a bit of hope and confidence that you will handle your new role well. Cheers! --Strikerforce (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Blurb on you

Hi, could you check what I wrote at The Signpost? Tony (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that looks fine. You might say "plans to work at History merges" since I haven't started yet, but hopefully by 2/14 I will have done a bit, so maybe it's ok to leave as is. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

History Merge

Can you please perform a history merge on User_talk:Porchcrop and User_talk:Porchcrop/Older version. There was a large discussion on Porchcrop's talk page. You can follow it, but I believe that a history merge should be performed so that his talk page is in one place, you can decide. Thanks -- Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, a user can archive and blank a user talk page, so while this is not optimal, at least we can still find revisions of warnings/etc. I think it's "allowed" per WP:DELTALK. I'll see if Porchcrop will let me merge the histories, though; that would probably be best like you say. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: speedy deletion tags

You seem to have gone a lot further and removed the entire article, which is good. Thank you. Hugahoody (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

History merging deleted edits

Hi Erik, I don't know if you have the main WikiProject History Merge page watchlisted, but see my recent message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History Merge#History merging deleted edits. Graham87 03:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a good point. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI

See User_talk:Porchcrop. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 11:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

torsion field article

Hi, Sorry, but i saw your contribution to torsion field article and i wonder why nobody cant modify the article for years (3years)in a good direction because WikiProject Rational Skepticism mantain it and wont let anybody to change it. How can this links be reliable: 1.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTV_(Russia) 2.http://humanism.al.ru/en/articles.phtml?num=000059 5.http://humanism.al.ru/en/articles.phtml?num=000010 12. http://www.skeptik.net/pseudo/torsion1.htm

We cant supress people knowledge.. humanism.al.ru is a personal page of the man who is acused of harassment .. What can be done, please help (informative77@yahoo.com)213.233.93.182 (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. You can edit it, as far as I know. I don't understand what you want me to do. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

sorry, i thought you are wikipedia administrator...its ok, i will take care of that article.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.93.182 (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am, but I still don't know what you were asking me to do. ok; good luck. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Finafloxacin

Hi,

I am from the www.merlionpharma.com and wanted to put up some writeout on Finafloxacin. Are you able to give me sometime to get all the information in place.

Thanks Guan Kiat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlionpharma (talk • contribs) 05:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Finafloxacin

Hi,

I am from www.merlionpharma.com and wanted share an article on Finafloxacin. Are you able to give me sometime to gather more information on the article. Is there a way to do up a test article before sending for approval?

Thanks Guan Kiat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlionpharma (talk • contribs) 05:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not write about products of the company you work for; this is a conflict of interest. Please see wp:COI for more. thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

HOW CAN I PUT IT AGAIN?

I did cteate the page for artist Sevil Soyer by her own wbb site and other sources, actually Sevil Soyer is my wif since 1980 and I wrote her web pages, saatchionline (biography), list of exhibitions, list of articles about her because I did collect them all.

This or that reason you deleted her from Wikipedia which also I created, and now I have to create it again with a new text (specially her biography).

Please let me know ASAP, how can I do this.

Thank you,

Nejat Soyer nsoyer2000@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nejats (talk • contribs) 19:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page: User_talk:Nejats#Sevil Soyer_2. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

torsion field article

Please help the torsion field article, its just not what some want to be! Is not pseudoscience! please help..see discussion page, nobody, nobody helps in any way. The article have not even 1 full reliable link about pseudoscientific concept! THere is no such Academy of Science against torsion field...there are only people who work there..please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.93.182 (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I can help. I'm watching the discussion there, though. thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I`m not sure you are an administrator as your opinions surely implies that regarding torsion field article, you are not respecting any rules, your username should be deleted immediately —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.93.182 (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You can verify by clicking here. I think it's unlikely my username will be deleted, Wikipedia usernames are hardly ever deleted. There are a host of other remedies you can pursue, though. But I'd appreciate it if you would start out by letting me know here what I'm doing wrong; thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Samuel Turner And The German Grail

Hi Erik,

I think you deleted this one: Samuel Turner And The German Grail. Its back and created by a Samuel Turner. Only googles for it are YouTube home vids. Acabashi (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This article clearly has problems, but is probably no longer eligible for speedy deletion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Finafloxacin, COI

Hi Administrator,

In your last reply, you mentioned that the article on Finafloxacin is COI. I have noticed that some article is of similar nature, e.g. Delafloxacin. I hope you can advice on how can I share information on Finafloxacin.

Thanks Kiat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlionpharma (talk • contribs) 02:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Merlionpharma, thanks for the note. Please do not write about your own products on Wikipedia. For getting the word out about your product, I would recommend Google's Adwords, facebook (disclosure: I work or have worked at those two companies), twitter, etc. But I'm no marketing expert. Best wishes; ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

RE: Greek Chest plate

I don't think the spirit of R3 is meant to cover "articles" that originally consisted of "Hello bye done". It would have been a candidate for G2, but since someone else made it into a redirect, that no longer applies. Feezo (Talk) 00:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to make out what was going on with that page originally, but I don't think G2 applies – nor any CSD for that matter. I agree the article is highly problematic, but alas we don't have a {{db-snow}}, and I think that is deliberate. Feel free to prod the redirect or revert the redirect and then prod or whatever. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Orangemike went ahead and deleted it under R3. It may not be exactly according to WP:CSD, but after all, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and I don't think the author is going to miss it. Feezo (Talk) 02:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

""Federal Allies Institute"" ‎ (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

Hello Erik, A7 - we will attempt to provide more information - need anything else? Federal Allies Institute is a new organization. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.131.34 (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

More information might be good, but the real problem with that article is that it did not really explain why the subject was notable; that is, why there should be an encyclopedia article about it. One way to really establish notability is to provide references to third-party, reliable sources that significantly cover the subject. These sources are particularly helpful because in addition to establishing notability, they help the reader verify the information in the article and also help the reader find out more about the subject, sort of acting as a bibliography. I like to say that Wikipedia articles are only as good as their sources, and in fact if there aren't enough sources about your subject then the article is likely to be deleted at some point. Please let me know if I can help you incorporate sources into your article; the syntax can be a bit confusing! Also, no need to put quotes in the title. Thanks for working on this article, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Geoff Adams

Hi there. Sorry about missing the previous PROD. As a result I've started an AfD for the individual at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoff Adams‎. As you asserted in your edit summary that you believe that the individual does or might pass WP:ATHLETE, I figured it'd be courteous to let you know. Regards, —WFC— 18:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Great; thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

'Lob bomb' sources

Hi Erik,

You say 'at least one' of the sources for this article is reliable; I wonder which one you mean? All the sources are dead links apart from the 'democracy now' piece, which only mentions 'lob bombs' in passing.

Ta,

109.224.131.181 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh. You're right, they were pretty much all at least somewhat marginal. The yahoo search, though, had some good results, which I think is what I had in mind when I wrote that comment. I tried to fix that one in the source. In any case, I think the subject meets wp:NEO and wp:GNG; would you agree? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, as far as I'm concerned the subject meets wp:NEO and wp:GNG, and your fix works for me. Cheers! 109.224.131.181 (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)