User talk:HaeB/Archive 2009-2010

Welcome to my talk page :)

In general, I prefer conversations about specific articles to be held on the corresponding article talk pages, so that other editors can follow them too.

If you are referring to a particular edit, it is best to use a diff link.

I usually reply here. I am often working on several things at the same time, so if I haven't answered yet even though I am online and editing elsewhere, please have some patience - if it is really urgent, prod me with a follow-up message.

I can often be reached via IRC, too (HaeB on Freenode).

Archives

Archive 2004-2008

Re:Quantum Mechanics - Theory Section

High on a Tree, I noticed that you reverted my minor edits of the Quantum Mechanics Theory section. Here's the relevant edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Quantum_mechanics&diff=next&oldid=275044825

First, I understand if you don't like or understand the phrase, "To wit" but it is entirely appropriate to use it in the opening sentence of this paragraph. The Wiktionary even has a reference to it that illustrates my point, "Originally that is to wit (that is to know), from Old English witan (verb) (to know, to be aware of)", and "(formal) That is to say; namely; specifically." This is an adverb that can be used both at the beginning, and in the middle of, sentences to specify something, as illustrated in the Wiktionary definition here. (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/to_wit)

Secondly, I'm curious to know why it's not acceptable to refer to the electron states in the note about spherical symmetry. Aren't we writing this for the uneducated reader, and not someone who will already know that implicitly? I have an extensive background in physics, but I am always interested in removing ambiguity from articles by stating some things explicitly.

I'd be interested in your thoughts, as I am somewhat new to the editing side of Wikipedia. Thanks.

Sincerely, Stentor7 Stentor7 (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Stentor7. First, please note that I was mainly concerned with reverting the edits of User:Kroflin, not yours. But since your edit had already happened after those, I had to decide if I wanted to make the little extra effort to keep your edit or not, and mainly because of the "To wit" I didn't see it as an improvement. Let me explain:

I know what "to wit" means and I don't doubt that your use was grammatically correct. However, it always refers to what was said immediately before (the "That" in "That is to say"), and I could not see how the statement There are numerous mathematically equivalent formulations of quantum mechanics is a more specific version of the previous sentence (the last of the Quantum mechanics and classical physics section), which said that the laws of classical “Newtonian” physics still remain accurate in predicting the behavior [of certain objects]. So "To wit" would have implied a relationship which was not there, confusing the reader.

As for the clarification "of the electron", I thought it was obvious that this sentence in brackets was still about the electron example described in the previous sentence - from the language and the use of brackets alone, without knowledge of quantum mechanics. But I don't have a strong opinion about this and if you still feel that this clarification improves the article, I won't object if you re-add it.

Again, I didn't see your edit as very problematic and perhaps I wouldn't even have bothered to revert it if it hadn't been mixed up with the other user's edits already (which I did find quite problematic, but that is another story). Since you say you are new to editing Wikipedia and seem to be a thoughtful and attentive person, I want to encourage you to read the beginning paragraph of Wikipedia:Be bold - if some of your edits get reverted, don't take it personally (it has happened to just about every Wikipedian; as long as you are prepared to listen to other users' objections and work with them toward consensus, you should be fine).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ja Rule discography

About 60.240.30.161 he's been always reverting my edits putting in the wrong chart positions and the wrong sales/certifications. I even left a private note warning him to do so. He doesn't look at the history or pay attention to private notes, he keeps on vandalizing the page. Here's the link for the abuse report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Abuse_reports/60.240.30.161, I'm asking you to investigate on the amount of times he's been vandalizing the page, and he will not stop doing so, even after your previous edit. He should be blocked right now. Hometown Kid (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2009 (ET)

Probably your report didn't get attention because it wasn't listed on Wikipedia:Abuse reports. But that is the wrong page for this kind of request anyway - it is concerned with cases where the ISP of that user should be contacted about abuse, not for simple blocking. For that, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is a more appropriate place.

These fakes seem to be a really common problem especially in hip hop related articles. I recommend reverting all changes and additions of sales/certifications which do not cite a reference - see WP:BURDEN.

For RIAA certifications, there is a little trick to get a reference link which can be verified directly instead of having to do a new search in their database: After entering album or artist name in the search form, the little link called "First" on the results page will give you a stable link to these search results.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

NYT

Hi Haeb,

long time no see, un jetz hockste bei die Amis? Na aber und wie. Dicken Job gekriegt? Sag mal, du Vaterlandsverräter, könntest du nicht mal den NYT-Artikel helfen aufzupäppeln? In geschichtlicher Hinsicht meine ich. Und in der deutschen WP-Ausgabe. --Bonzo* (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bonzo*, nice to hear from you ;) Mind you, this is the English language Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. Ich bin leider auch kein Experte für die Historie der New York Times, und bin mit anderen Themen genug beschäftigt... vielleicht später einmal! Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Gouryella block

Since you've been dealing with User:Gouryella as well, would you mind commenting at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Gouryella_bad_images? I wonder if an indefinite block was too harsh. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems the matter has already been reviewed and concluded by FisherQueen. Maybe a month would also have been sufficient (as the user did some productive article editing), but on the other hand these copyvio uploads have been going on for more than a year (I myself first warned the user in May 2008) and the optimal time for a mere warning block has long passed. Thanks for taking care of this situation. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Doug McKenzie (magician) article

HaeB, I was wondering why you keep adding the advertisement and 3rd party reference tags to this article. The page isn't selling a product or service and does not attempt to do so. The sources cited in the article are also extremely reliable 3rd party sources. (Broadway's Playbill, IMdB, The Conjuring Arts Research Center - an extremely reputable and celebrated source in the magic world, and The Big Issue Scotland - with weekly readership of 670,000 people in a country with 5,000,000 people.) I don't understand your insistence. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.247.10 (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply at Talk:Doug McKenzie (magician). Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Kim Schmitz

Would you please habe a look at Talk:Kim Schmitz? Thanks. --78.34.4.52 (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Kim Schmitz Talk Page

Dear HaeB,

Further to your comments on Wikipedia entry for Kim Schmitz on 3 April, the content has now been edited section-by-section, input has been received during this process, and this has been taken into account in the version that is currently shown at the bottom of Discussion Page. As there have been no further comments since this version was uploaded, it appears that the editing process is complete. However, I appreciate that Wikipedia place an important emphasis on establishing consensus, so I wonder if there are any remaining steps to be taken prior to uploading the revised version to the main Article Page. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. --Tturner2009 (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review

Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xeno^talk 14:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Further to the above, we would appreciate if you could briefly take the time to place yourself below one of the suggested statements here. If none of these statements represents your current position, please compose your own or simply sign "Not applicable" under "Other quick clarifications". Likewise sign as N/A if you do not want to participate further in this debate. If you choose not to respond then you will likely not be counted with respect to further consensus-determining efforts. –xeno^talk 14:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits on vector page

Sorry, new to editing and I didn't know that you had to explain all of your edits. I read the sources and determined that the information was misrepresented in the article. Learning as I go here, thanks for the advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arfdoggy (talk • contribs) 17:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Carplan T-Cut

Hello HaeB, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Carplan T-Cut has been removed. It was removed by Tetglawson with the following edit summary '(this is only a description which can be checked by the sources)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Tetglawson before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Braunton Burrows

• Thank you for your note about the information that you removed from the above article, however please check before issuing such notes as it certainly was not me that entered the info that you quite correctly removed. Regards Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 16:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I take that back, I've just checked the article and, how I don't know but when I was improving the format of the article which involved spacing around the image of the dunes the paragraph inserted by the anonymous ISP had been reinserted. So my apologies, as I say you were quite correct to remove it.Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 16:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Signpost help

Thanks for expanding the upcoming article on Jimbo/Sanger/Calacanis. I'm not sure I've seen you around the Signpost much (though I'm pretty new myself) but your help is welcome. - Draeco (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad I could help. For a few years now, I have been submitting suggestions to the tip line and editing stories in preparation every now and then, but only in 2009 did I start to write a few stories myself with byline. - About the current article: I was not sure if the story is newsworthy enough to be covered in the Signpost, as there was not much new information about the controversy itself, but Calacanis' "Wikipedia worse than Manhattan" comparison makes it at least entertaining. I still feel a bit uneasy about neutrality here, as we are essentially only presenting the arguments of one side, but perhaps it is safer to err on that side in this case. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Pons7.gif

Hello HaeB, you removed this image from the Stanley Pons article, saying it was "used without a valid fair use rationale here". Ah, I see what you meant -- this is in fact from a canonical photo capturing the enthusiasm of their original publication; as explained on the newly uploaded image: see Image:Stanley_Pons_cold_fusion_gear.jpg for details. Thanks, +sj+ 22:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

controversy story

I moved it since it seemed like it could stand on its own: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-11-09/German_controversy

I just want to say that this article is nicely written. It makes fun to read it and is filled with links to relevant informations. Both thumbs up :-) --79.193.110.82 (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

great story! were there any pictures from the panel? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 05:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears that none have been uploaded (I asked Pavel from Wikimedia D about this). There was a video stream but I don't know if it was under a free license or if anyone has saved it. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I convinced the video guys to upload a raw recording immediately, however I don't think they did so. --Leon (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

like requested: de:Benutzer:Jan eissfeldt/fhb ;), best regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Read it, thanks! Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please keep your reverts apropos...

Reverting one cite may be OK, but reverting both seems a bit odd. Sukiari (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I explained both in my edit summary. Please make sure that the sources you cite actually support the statement that they are cited for. See also Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Threats_of_violence and be aware that you are already in violation of WP:3RR.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is your problem?

What part of undue weight do you not get? 63.215.29.202 (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You (or The Red Peacock) did not say anything about undue weight, you blanked the whole section and even the whole article without explanation - despite warnings on your talk page by several other users. You should explain your concerns on the talk page of that article.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Dick Morris

I removed that section because the link is dead. Showtime2009 (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean the Globe and Mail link, which is indeed dead (although it seems to have been alive recently - it still turns up as a Google search result). Thanks for catching that one. But The Globe and Mail is a printed newspaper, and a link to an online version is not strictly necessary to quote an printed article. See WP:SOURCEACCESS.

And what's more, the section that you removed cites two other sources which continue to be available online.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ultra Records

Hi HaeB,

Thank you for your note re: Ultra Records. I'm not connected to them. I just started trying to contribute more to the site and figured I'd start with what I know best, which is dance music and, more specifically, their artists. I will definitely take a look at the links you sent over, though I thought any changes made were neutral and reliably sourced.

Regarding the mass add of ultrarecords.com, would it be acceptable to link to the specific artist page on their site rather than just the site in general, as that is one of the more reliably sourced and informative links (usually) for most artists?

Thanks for your time,

Mendle44 Mendle44 (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mendle44,

thanks for your understanding, and you are welcome to improve Wikipedia's dance music coverage.

You may have noticed that another user has already removed most of the links that you mass-added.

But as I said on your talk page: If there is a subpage on ultrarecords.com with a substantial amount of good information about one particular artist, a direct link to that subpage (this is called a deep link) might be appropriate in the article about that artist. It is always preferably to directly add that information to the article though (citing the web page which contains it as a reference, like you already did with the DJ Magazine poll).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Marina 106..

[1]

you comments are required here on account of Marina 106.~

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent Smarandache edit

I agree that removed material requires some explanation, so I agreed with your recent edit. Nonetheless, I reverted it (except the tag) because I think there is good reason to delete this particular material and I gave the reason in my edit summary. Phiwum (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Real Climate

What should I call the blanking of sections of sourced material if not vandalism? Please revert your edits they do appear to be in bad faith to me. (LVAustrian (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC))

Look, of course you have the right to disagree with Stephan Schulz' edit, but to call it vandalism amounts to accusing him of intentionally damaging Wikipedia, instead of merely holding a different opinion than yours. That is not acceptable. See also Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You deleted the critical section. I restored it so the article as equal weight. I think your deletion may have been an accident.(LVAustrian (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC))

Reply at Talk:RealClimate. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:HaeB_-_edit_warring Gerardw (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As LVAustrian's complaint seems to have been declined already, I'll just note here that his accusations of belonging to "administrators and or mediation cabal members", or having been involved for the article for two years, or having it made a "full time job is to watch climate change articles", or having a COI in this matter do not apply to me. I also find his vandalism accusations at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:LVAustrian_reported_by_User:KimDabelsteinPetersen_.28Result:_.29 quite unfortunate given that I had already asked him not to use that term for good-faith edits above. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't see anything there, as I indicated [[2]]. I was just flagging it here because I didn't see evidence LVAustrian had notified you like the WQA instructions ask. Regards. Gerardw (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I know, thanks for the notification! Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

RealClimate

I am quite familiar with weight policy. I will not edit the page again today, but if the concerns remain tomorrow, I will re-add the POV tag until the issues are resolved. There are at least 2 established editors who have aired this concern. My view is this: on the topic of political content of a blog, a Guardian opinion from a climatologist involved in the GW debate carries as much weight as a SA magazine award (which is, after all, an opinion as well). You may not share my opinion, but please do not insinuate that I do not understand policy. ATren (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi ATren, I was referring to your argument "as long as one view is included, we should not exclude the other", which in itself precisely ignores weight policy as it is explained on WP:UNDUE. The "after all, an opinion as well" argument that you are presenting now is also beside the point of that policy - of course they are both opinions in the end, but that doesn't imply that they must carry equal weight.

I disagree with your argument that a one-sentence remark in an opinion article by a former climatologist (who, according to the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy lacks scientific stature and "has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces ...") carries the same weight as the collective opinion [3] of the editors of one of the oldest and most respected science magazines.

But as I indicated in my comment, I will respect the insertion of the tag if it is done with a justification that is at least formally in line with policy.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

HaeB, two points:

1. The text in question is about the political content of a blog. One source gives the opinion that it is objective, the other says it has political overtones. When judging political overtones, there is no special qualification that the editors at SA have over Michaels. In fact, by virtue of Michaels being more involved in this debate, it could be argued that he is more qualified to judge political nuance.
2. You neglect the fact that it was published as an opinion in the Guardian. The editorial board at the Guardian selected, reviewed, and approved this opinion for publication. That gives it weight. It's also worth noting that George Monbiot writes for the Guardian, and his criticism of GW skeptics is frequently quoted in the BLPs of those skeptics, despite Monbiot not being a scientist. I myself have supported the inclusion of Monbiot opinions in GW skeptic BLPs. If non-scientist Monbiot's opinion is sourced throughout multiple skeptic bios, Michaels' opinion should be usable here.

ATren (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, I think most people would see it exactly the other way round - that someone who has been criticized by RealClimate is lashing out at them in retaliation is not surprising. An independent judgement by someone not involved in such a debate is generally regarded as more valuable.

Your second point is a straw man, the issue wasn't if the fact that Michaels had uttered this opinion was reliably sourced, but if it be should given equal weight with that of Nature etc.

It might be worthwhile to re-read WP:WEIGHT and apply your second argument to the example given there, the flat earth concept. There are countless highly reliable sources reporting that view. Take [4], for example - to adapt your argument, "The editorial board at the BBC selected, reviewed, and approved this opinion [that the earth is flat] for publication". Still, that does not justify its inclusion in the article earth.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Global warming is not flat earth. There is a world of difference between scientific consensus and scientific fact, and the fact that pro-AGW editors ^{present company not necessarily included in that classification, but I've seen the flat earth argument from self-acknowledged pro-GW editors in the past -- ATren} continue to bring up flat earth perhaps reveals the root of the problem here. Yes, if this were a flat-earth discussion, I would agree with you on weight and fringe, but it's not. There are at least a half dozen ways I can show beyond reasonable doubt that the earth is curved. The level of validation for the AGW hypothesis, while compelling, does not begin to approach that. We don't see incontrovertible evidence of AGW during a lunar eclipse or in photographs from space. It rather involves incredible amounts of data, analysis and interpretation to conclude AGW. Apply the flat earth weight standard to GW is just as wrong as it would be to start adding extensive flat earth content to the earth article. There are shades of gray in controversial topics such as this, and we need to realize that. ATren (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Another straw man - of course I did not say that "global warming is flat earth". I just pointed out that your second argument above is flawed because it would apply to contemporary flat earth concepts as well. The reason I chose flat earth for comparison was simply that it is the example mentioned in WP:WEIGHT, not that the "pro-AGW editors" cabal told me to.

I think that to continue this discussion, Talk:RealClimate#notable_criticism is a better place, where Apis, Kim D. Petersen, Stephan Schulz and Nigelj have also tried to explain the flaws in your understanding of the weight policy.

Looking over your last 250 edits, it appears that since at least the end of September, your Wikipedia activity has consisted almost exclusively of fighting over climate change related topics. Being constantly involved in such conflicts may have strained your ability to assume good faith, still, I would like to ask you not to make unwarranted assumptions about the motivations behind my edits ("pro-AGW editors").

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've clarified my statement which implied that you were "pro-GW". I've never said my argument should be applied to flat earth, only GW, which is entirely different. Flat earth is the strawman here. WP:Weight may use it as an obvious example of the policy, but it doesn't mean that the principle is always so black and white as with flat earth. Anyway, the discussion continues on talk if you'd like to add input there. ATren (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding my editing statistics, I am more of a depth (as opposed to breadth) person. I don't generally like to get involved in topics until I really feel like I understand them. I've been watching these articles for several years now, learning about GW as I did, and lately I've felt more compelled to get involved with what I perceive to be widespread problems. I have no horse in the GW race; I truly don't care about the debate (though I do care about sustainability, so it's not like I reject the notion of GW. I just don't care about the debate because I'd rather focus on solutions). ATren (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Larry Page birth place

One unregistered editor has twice reverted your change of Page's birth place, putting in Lansing instead of East Lansing. Although when I reverted his change the first time I left a note for him to read the Discussion, he either did not read it or he ignored it without reading it. He then reverted again to Lansing instead of East Lansing, and I again changed it to East Lansing and added a note for him to refer to the Discussion page. Since you have taken a lead in editing this article, I am not going to make any further changes to it, so if the user once again changes it to Lansing without any note or discussion, I will leave it to you to decide what to do. Regards.~~Mack2~~ 01:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody "owns" a Wikipedia article, I just happen to have watchlisted this one. But as I said on the talk page there, I agree that your research looks solid, and it should at least be addressed before making this change again. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

question

(Moved here from [5])

ARE YOU IN BERLIN, GERMANY AT THE CONFERENCE NOW? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.23.147 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Haeb, you can IP check me. This is one of the sock puppet masters of Eugene Kaspersky. I am at 26c3. Would you care to meet? You may reply here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.163.94.24 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean you owned some of these accounts? It would have been great to meet and chat a little ;) Unfortunately, I saw your message only after the Congress was over (you should have left it here on the talk page, or emailed me, instead of writing on the user page). So maybe next time! Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. I hope IRL we could chat freely and friendly and talk about some of the tactics we used to achieve the non-stop attack (private and public VPNs, tor VPN, mobile networks, a private test wiki, etc). I unfortunately missed your talk and despite talking with the Angles, Help Desk, DECT phones, no one knew who you are. On top of this, you have one of like 5 talks that failed to record properly so I couldn't identify you. Also, I was on FreeNode quite a bit in the #26c3 room but never found you online. Perhaps we can meet next year ;) ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.22.105.108 (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreement on Talk:Public/Private Ventures

I agree with what you say at Talk:Public/Private Ventures but I don't know just where to call attention to the problem, beyond the template I already added. I am not rewriting this article, and I am not asking for your help there, either. Any ideas on calling attention? --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Apart from placing a tag, as you already did, I don't know of any good possibilities. In theory a Wikiproject related to the topic might be a way to notify interested and capable editors, but I somehow doubt that the two projects listed on the talk page specialize in the kind of expertise which would be useful here. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 02:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Rinse FM

Please take time to see the article talk page instead of instantly reverting. Rapido (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see consensus for your deletions on that talk page. Anyway, you did not give that discussion as a reason when making these massive deletions of sourced material. Please take time to familiarize yourself with the usage of edit summaries:

It is considered good practice to always provide an edit summary, but it is especially important when reverting the actions of other editors, or if you delete any text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. (WP:FIES)

While we're at it, it is not considered polite to mark the deletion of 85% of an article's content as minor (see Help:Minor_edit#When_not_to_mark_an_edit_as_a_minor_edit).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well previous edits I have made do include edit summaries. Either I'm hassled to include an edit summary when I have discussed on the talk page, or I am hassled to use the talk page when the edit summary suffices. It appears that I am damned if I do, and damned if I don't. As you will see on the talk page, the rationale for the removal of content is that the selective "praising" quotes and someone's pseudonym are not relevant. There is no "consensus" as the only two parties involved are myself and Prezbo. Rapido (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite obviously a false dichotomy, no one has asked you to leave your edit summaries empty. A simple "see talk page" would have sufficed.

I have addressed your concerns on the article talk page - Pitchfork Media and Fact magazine are both appropriate sources for this kind of topic.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I request you refrain from posting to my talk page. Rapido (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Because of this one edit?

To cite Gerardw [6]: "Most signficantly, removing other editor's talk page comments in other locations [than one's own talk page], except under narrow circumstances, is a significant policy breach and, had Rapido not reverted, would have been in my opinion be grounds for referral to more formal Dispute Resolution forums." I.e. you should appreciate that I gave you the opportunity to self-revert - which you did, to your credit. I also note that you received a very similar note from EdJohnston just earlier this month. Are you sure that continuing these controversial actions would help your cause?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

user:Rapido

As Rapido has requested that I not post to his talk page, I've raised the issue at WP:WQA. As a courtesy it might be appropriate if you could please pass that on to him in turn (maybe there's a 'bot?), as I don't wish to breach his non-posting rules. Thanks, Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Before I was able to read your message, Rapido had already noticed that discussion (and, see above, banned me too from his talk page - to my recollection, the first time this happened to me since I have started editing here in 2003...). Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Civitas weblinks

Dear HaeB,

No there isn't a connection. I have been looking at a wide range of social policy texts, which includes many of theirs, and would like to see them listed on more the Wikipedia pages for easier reference/access when I next look them up, so I was starting with those ones, it wasn't for advertising purposes. If I misunderstood the guidelines in any way, sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinkutanku (talk • contribs) 12:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It was just that I had noticed that your first edits had been to the article Civitas (think tank) [7][8] (adding lots of links to their project websites). It seems that the new User:Saidpath has now taken up a similar task.

Note that I don't object to the use of publications by Civitas or affiliated writers per se, especially if they are used as sources to add actual information to article, instead of just links. (In fact, it was myself who added the mention of Furedi's views to the CRB article in the first place [9].)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Dean Karlan article

Hello HaeB,

I was wondering if you could remove the COI tags at the top of the Dean Karlan article which I have edited. I do not think the tone nor the content is objectionable. Please let me know if this is possible.

Thank you,

Shardulkoza (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Shardulkoza, I suggest you ask HelloAnnyong about this, the user who inserted the COI tag. (I did not edit the article at all, as you can see from the version history.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Was looking for you on IRC about Vital Voices, but I see you have it covered thanks Mlpearc MESSAGE 20:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide Article

Can you tell me why you've undid my edit? No one in Turkey ever spent time in jail for such a crime. Almost all cases were filed by the same lawyer but he can't do this anymore as such cases first have to accepted by the Ministry of Justice as of 2008. Even those cases that were finalized, the prison sentence was changed to a fine and even those fines were postponed. No one in Turkey ever paid a fine or spent jail time in Turkey. If you cannot come up with a reasonable answer, I'm sorry but I have to report you. You have edited wrongfully ignoring the discussion for that article. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have overlooked the edit summary, where I already told you the the reason: The claim that you inserted ("no individual or organization have been found guilty") was patently false (see e.g. [10]: "On 7 October 2005, Hrant Dink was given a six-month suspended prison sentence by the Sisli Court of First Instance No. 2 in Istanbul for "denigrating Turkishness" in an article he wrote on Armenian identity"). I appreciate that you haven't repeated this claim in your comment above, but I still fail to see what's wrong with the current wording in the article - it already notes that most cases have been dismissed, and the notable fact is that such a law exists at all and that people have had to defend themselves in lengthy court cases for stating what is the prevailing worldwide scholarly view on the issue.

Please make sure your additions are factually accurate, and are actually supported by the cited sources (I assume that when you added this, you didn't check the cited source: An Independent article published in 2002, three years before Article 301 even came into effect).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

My claim is indeed real. There are no people that have spent jail time or paid a fine. The section in the article make it sound like such a case is widespread and many of the prosecuted writers are spending jail time when in fact all the cases were made by a single lawyer and all of them not carried out even if a sentence was given. So if you can't find a source that say that any writer have been sent to jail in this issue how can you imply in a sentence that people are sent to jail for this? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• The passage in the article is factually accurate (nothing about jail time or fines there).
• You inserted a false claim into the article, which I removed for the reasons explained above.
• If you want to discuss other statements, I suggest you do that on the article's talk page. If you refuse to take responsibility for your own edits, and insist on ascribing statements to me which I did not make, I see no point in continuing this discussion with you.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have seen many people on different Turkish channel pursue the genocide claim and go against the official position of the Turkish government. Majority of them never faced charges. Even Taner Akcam, who is the most openly Turkish "historian" that defends the genocide claims, is not prosecuted. He was charged years ago but the charges were dropped by the court immediately. Since 2008, it's required to get a permit from the Minister of Justice to charge someone under Article 301.Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending this law. I think it should be abolished completely(though I found a very similar law in German Penal Code). I have looked at your article. In all the examples it gives, the charges are either dropped, postponed or still inconclusive. I research online to see if anyone was sent to prison but found that either charges were dropped or if a sentence was given it was postponed not to be executed. I wanted to leave it the original way it was as it makes the best job to portray Turkey as worse as possible but reality begs differ. Even though reality points this I will simply stop pointing out factual errors in this article as it's censored by Armenian members for their own pleasure. Oh also the reason I posted this on here instead of the discussion page is because you ignored the discussion that was already on this topic on that page. Best regards indeed, TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Correction of quotations

Sorry Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem - I recall that when I wrote that article, I had the same impulse to "correct" the typo. But considering who made it, this is a case where the usual convention to preserve the original spelling is especially relevant. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

An SPI case of possible interest

Hey. As one of the users who seem to have dealt with at least two of the suspected socks listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Showtime2009, you might be aware of other accounts fitting the pattern described in the case. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Good work. I noticed some of the same things back in November and now I am feeling a bit guilty because I could have saved you quite some work if I had published my notes back then (and probably prevented a lot of POV edits during the recent months). I have added them now.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Your evidence would definitely have been enough if you had created the SPI. Anyway, good to have another sock listed. Prolog (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have admitted to sockpuppeting but the richard account is not mine. Showtime2009 (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for ITN help

Just a quick note. Thanks for your help at the Signpost's In the News section the last two weeks while I was out of town. - Draeco (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources for Seigenthaler being pissed

Dude, he almost smashed Chase for inserting false information on the page, surely that's enough to assert that he would be pissed because Jimbozo has yet to force the implementation of a safer method of correcting misinformation after 5 years. Cold JJ (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:BURDEN. I am not aware of any comment by Seigenthaler specifically about flagged revisions. And by the way, he (or his case) certainly has caused some changes on Wikipedia (for starters, WP:BLP didn't exist back then), regardless of whether you personally think they are sufficient.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Your problem

is that you have two time clauses in a single sentence causing issues. "After" and "as of". You are trying to resolve them together and constantly reverting to this version is basically edit warring to keep an grammatically incorrect sentence. If what I wrote is missing a fact you see key, insert it without reverting to the mess of the sentence that is there now. Here is your problem: After an early growth phase had been financed by a $10,000 investment from his parents (paid back soon afterwards), the site is supported by advertising links to an online dating service as of March 2010 1st time clause "After an early growth phase had been financed by a $10,000 investment from his parents (paid back soon afterwards)" (and I also don't find the fact that he paid it back quickly to be crucial to this statement). "The site" is the subject. "is supported" is your verb, and the "advertising links to an online dating service" is your object. You then have it followed by another time clause "as of march 2010". You have two independent time clauses modifying the statement. If you'd like to talk about sloppy editing, continually reverting to something instead of trying to fix it is the poster child for that. Separating those statements to make the language less awkward and describe the events clearer makes a lot more sense than insisting on this poor version and making sniping insults. The differences between what you want and what I wrote are trivial and could easily have been fixed without reverting to this version. If you don't want to actually fix it, don't blindly revert.--Crossmr (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I am certainly open to suggestions for improving my writing and as I am always eager to learn more about English grammar, I have read your "two time clauses" theory with interest. Unfortunately I found it a bit confusing. To my understanding a "clause" always contains a verb (predicate), and I couldn't find that in "as of March 2010". Be that as it may, I would have been happy to get out of the way and let your improve what you see as bad style, but I had serious concerns about factual accuracy. Given that I took the time to explain them in detail, it is disappointing that you chose to ignore them in your reply except referring to them as "sniping insults".

I also can't help noticing that another user is not at all convinced of the stylistic superiority of your rewording.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

for all your hard work on the Signpost lately. I liked your commentary on the O'Neil article.

		The Signpost Barnstar
		For outstanding contributions to The Wikipedia Signpost, I award HaeB The Signpost Barnstar.--ragesoss (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Very kind, I appreciate it, and my involvement in this week's issue has also made me appreciate even more the huge amount of work you have been doing as editor so far ;)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice

I's Kay Kiljae Lee and I made some correction. you can find me by kiljae lee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Kiljae Lee (talk • contribs) 03:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: please explain the deletions | Vertrue

Hallo Hoch auf dem Baum... der grund fuer das loeschen des FreeScore.com absatzes ist, da Freescore nicht zur Vertrue firma gehoert - es ist eine eigenstaendige LLC. Ich werde in den naechsten tagen einen artikel nur fuer Freescore aufsetzen, da dieses thema auf einer eignen seite diskutiert werden sollte. Was denkst du? --Webmasterstk (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, somehow I didn't get around to looking into this. But at least thanks at least for the explanation, that was my main concern. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sanger coverage

I hope it's okay that I moved your coverage of the Sanger stuff to a separate article. If you object, let me know and/or move it back. I'm going to publish shortly.--ragesoss (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, it surely makes sense.

I am done with writing for this week. Maybe some thoughts about deadlines are in order ;) Like in previous weeks, I sort of waited if somebody else would jump in to cover some the most important topics. A hard deadline - e.g. by publishing the current issue automatically via a time variable - would have obvious disadvantages, but perhaps also some benefits.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was much better about enforcing deadlines last year, when I was also more proactive about making sure stuff got covered. In recent months, I haven't been able to devote as much time to it because I have an infant now. But I guess that's no excuse. I'll try to push things back to a regular Monday publication date and encourage writers to meet the deadline.--ragesoss (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Vert

My apologies; I mistakenly thought I was reverting earlier vandalism, which you had already taken care of. There was no intent to undo your edit. Cheers, 99.156.68.203 (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

thank you!

per the above barnstar & discussion... thank you! for doing such a great job on the signpost the last few weeks. I am sorry I've disappeared :( this weekend I was actually out of town at the M&W workshop but forgot to update the newsroom to say so. Anyway, your articles this week were great, good job. And yes, let's try & get back to monday publication! It works fine for me to have a Monday deadline since I can edit on the weekend. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Fox News article about Sanger's child porn accusation

Just saw your edit summary here. I read the Fox News article and thought it was worth discussing, until I noticed that the AFP article trumpeted by Sanger[11] was only picked up by a handful of news sites. It's best to wait another week or so to see if the story develops. Ottre 18:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that it will, but yes, I think coverage in next week's Signpost might still be justified. Unfortunately, it looks like I won't get around to do it this time though (as I discovered during the first story three weeks ago, summarizing Sanger's copious publications about the intricate details of his opinions and positions can be quite time-consuming).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

RIAA

The section i changed is true. I work with the RIAA and we are trying to ge it up on our website and a reliable source i know why you changed it i undid it and it will be up and running soon (RIAAcertification(talk)

Good. You are welcome to re-add the information when a reliable source becomes available. Until then, please stop edit-warring to insert a statement that claims that the cited source says something that it does not.

Please also note Wikipedia:Username_policy#Company/group_names.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Small problem we have had some problems with our website and our reliable source and we lost it on our website and we can't get it back for some reason, so can you please take the edit-warning. We will try to get the information back and post it as soon as possible. Regards RIAA certification. PS: My boss told me to edit the page