User talk:Haemo/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Barnstar

		The Current Events Barnstar
		For being the voice of reason on the Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder article. I don't know how you've managed to maintain NPOV in an article on such a controversial subject, but you've pretty much done it single-handedly. Nice work! Videmus Omnia 18:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :) --Haemo 21:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

For fixing my screwed-up AfDs - I didn't even notice that I'd messed them up. Videmus Omnia 01:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem; you just forgot to put the name in on a couple. --Haemo 01:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Starfighter Quadrant Wars?

On this article I don't feel that I am vandalizing... This is a game many play and has been deleted by a common player of this game named "Shadow Wolf"... I believe he had a bad day or something... What I am trying to do is to redo what he keeps undoing... His only reason to propose the deletion of this game is "Its not a popular game." I hope you understand that I believe I'm not vandalizing. Please help us make this page better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moo12321 (talk • contribs)

Oh, I definitely don't think you're vandalizing. However, not all things, regardless of their popularity are encyclopedia material. You were totally in the right there -- he added a prod tag, you disagreed and removed it. He shouldn't have tried to re-add it -- he should have nominated it for deletion instead. I did this for him, so that it would stop the edit warring. I hope this doesn't discourage you, since you were doing a good job here. --Haemo 03:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:TWIN...

Hi, your edit comment got cut off. Would you tell me where you were pointing to? — Xiutwel (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's my rollback tool -- WP:TWINKLE. --Haemo 22:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:SCV

First off, you deserve a big thank you for helping out over at WP:SCV. Working to keep Wikipedia copyvio free is largely a thankless job, and there's plenty out there for us to work on. I have a couple of minor suggestions on use of the WP:SCV page. 1) Some of us are nonadmins who can only tag, and others are admins who can also delete. It's customary to note how many remain to be tagged and deleted in the edit summary (or simply "more to tag / more to delete"). We usually only say "EMPTY" when there are none left to either tag or delete, so everybody knows there's no reason to view the page. 2) It's not necessary to sign off on the ones you have tagged. Just adding the "tagged" notation is fine. (Otherwise, the page gets a bit cluttered.) We can tell from the history who is doing what. You'll see from time to time that unusual cases require some discussion, and you can sign those. But again, most importantly, thanks for lending a hand! -- But|seriously|folks  05:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay - will do! Thanks for the heads up. --Haemo 05:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Final Solution Dusty Hare List of minor characters in the StarCraft universe Dusty Wakeman Northern Beaches Christian School L'Via L'Viaquez Sawa Ishige Psionic technology (StarCraft) The Passionate Pilgrim Contact sport Norbury Manor High School for Girls The Rape of Lucrece Ge You Kevin Kennedy (actor) Criterion validity Claude Makélélé Emanuela Orlandi Complete Works of Shakespeare Zeratul

Cleanup Aiur Slim Dusty Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario Merge Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon Dunblane massacre Talematros Add Sources Monomolecular wire Utopia (online game) Xel'Naga Wikify Holy Cross Convent School Post-Keynesian economics Kaldor-Hicks efficiency Expand Measure for Measure York Community High School Student Christian Movement of Canada

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 22:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Craigflower Manor and Schoolhouse

It looks like it already is B-class. I was doing a quick rating of a bunch of articles and it looks like I underestimated that one. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's just hard to get feedback on really specific articles like that one, so I took that as an opportunity to solicit some :) --Haemo 03:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanx

Maraming salamat for telling me about the sig. I have reported God of Slaughter to the offensive usernames for investigation list. I didn't know that GOS did even more vandalism, in only two minutes. I will foix my sig. bibliotheque (Talk) 05:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem; you might want to note, however, that templates in sigs are not allowed by our sig guidelines. --Haemo 05:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe, however, that you can substitute them. --Haemo 05:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Barbaro

Hi Haemo, Thank you for help with the Barbaro family, and I'm looking forward to getting back to where it was. But it is now 3:28 in the morning. I need some sleep. We will continue tomorrow Thanks F550F550 08:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem -- there's no great rush. --Haemo 08:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Amir Taheri

I'm more than happy to seek consensus language on the talk page re: Taheri. If you notice from my comments I have offered that as a resolution on several occasions. However, my suggestions at reconciliation have been to no avail, because the other two "reverters" (Anikimai and Chris Chittleborough) refuse to compromise and allow *any* mere description of allegations against Taheri.

So if you can get those guys on board, I'm happy to discuss compromise language. Thanks and have a nice day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyisnotbad (talk • contribs)

Well, the revision they're changing to does include criticism, and only some revision; I'd suggest just talking over the sources with them for the material you want to add. --Haemo 06:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

THE BARBARO PAGE YOU ARE WORKING ON HAS SERIOUS PROBLEMS

Excuse me, This Barbaro page has been vandalized. I was looking at it a month ago, and it was perfectly fine. Someone has replaced a good Barbaro family page with this awful one. I thought that I should report the vandalism that is occurig here. I also noticed that no one can edit back the page. There is something wrong hear. I think that there may be editors at Wikipedia that are involved with this too. I thought that I should report the damage to some one. I don't know if is even Wikipedia editors themselves that are purposely destroying this article. I thought that maybe I should also make an official complaint as well. Please advsise me. I think that there may be some Wikipedia edtors that are envious of this family or maybe want to see them not correctly presented. But I have checked many of those sources and from the sources I checked, it had that info in it. I also don't know why this article is being picked on. I see many wikipedia articles that don't have 1/2 as many sources as well. I thought that I should report what is going on to someone- I think Wikipedia editors themselves may be trying to do something unscrupulous here. I noticed too that the Wikipedia editors are communicating between themselves but have also kept the public out. I think Wikipedia's head should be notified on what is occuring with what was previously a perfectly good article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.154.152 (talk • contribs)

Haemo, please stop conspiring with other editors to keep the general public from contributing to Wikipedia. It's very disruptive. I will replace this message with an appropriate user-warning template for forming a sinister cabal and preventing public editing as soon as I find one. Jouster  (whisper) 13:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Conspiring with other editors to keep the general public from contributing to Wikipedia"? "Forming a sinister cabal and preventing public editing"? Um, Jouster, what the heck are you talking about? Newyorkbrad 13:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps I need to make it a bit more obvious: {{uw-cabal1}} would perhaps be more appropriate here? I'm responding to, in particular, "I noticed too that the Wikipedia editors are communicating between themselves but have also kept the public out." Jouster  (whisper) 14:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. :) As Emily Litella would have said, "Never mind." Newyorkbrad 14:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

TINC --Haemo 21:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is nonsense of keping people out of the procees. I went back in the Barbaro family history and took a look at the article labled as "The True Barbaro ..." that was a great article with lost of information and sources and well organized. What is the problem. If it needs ciations than flag it as such, but don't destroy it. This artcile you are writing now doesn't even make distinctions between different branches, and why so much info on the Curtis family that isn't even the Barbaro family. Isn't this an articel about the BARBARO FAMILY. What is all this gimicky tid bits of info that so far doesn't have anything that focus's on specifically the family in the way the other article did. This article is junk compare to the other one. It's like night and day!

Register an account, and bring it up there; I had nothing to do with the talk page protection, as I am just a regular user. The use of multiple IPs, unverifiable references, assertions of "multiple people" (who all post from the same laptop), frivolous OTRS claims, and related hoaxes edited by those same IPs have all contributed to the problem. I suggest you get a username, and then argue on using that. --Haemo 21:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

9/11 fatalities

I edited the page September 11, 2001 attacks to change the number of deaths listed in the sidebar from 2,994 to 2,993. If there's now an additional recorded fatality, a verifiable source is needed for that to be taken into account, and more needs to be edited than just the sidebar (both the intro and the fatalities section). You mentioned a dust-related death. The citations in the current article give fatalities that add up to 2,993 and don't mention this one particular death. Just am looking for consistency in the article and for the info to meet WP:CITE is all. All the best. Beyazid 21:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If you check down the page, you can see the following section is there:

On May 24, 2007, for the first time a death was linked to the toxic dust caused by the World Trade Center's collapse. Felicia Dunn-Jones died of lung disease five months after Sept. 11. Dunn-Jones will be listed on the Sept. 11 memorial when it opens in 2009. The death of a retired police detective, James Zadroga, who died in January 2006, has been ruled by the New Jersey medical examiner to be "directly related" to his work at ground zero on and after Sept. 11. His name, as of yet, has not been added to the list of the attack victims.

I guess it's a matter of basically semantics (when is an attack-related death counted as being one of the fatalities from the attack?) but I figure since they're being added to the memorial wall, they should be counted as one of the fatalities. I mean, but for the attacks, they'd be alive. --Haemo 21:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've googled around on this also. Found this CNN article, for example. I'm curious about the phrase in the wikipedia article that says "has not been added to the list of the attack victims". Hasn't been added by who? What's the official list to reference? According to the CNN article, Felicia Dunn-Jones not only will be on the memorial but "has been added to the medical examiner's list of attack victims". That seems like reason enough to add her as 2,994 not only in the sidebar but the intro and fatalities section. Beyazid 21:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we might have to do a bit of re-write surrounding this fact. And that would be the people in charge of the 9/11 memorial, which has, quite honestly, gone through so many hands I've lost track. It's probably some sub-sub-committee of a public trust company attached to a State of New York/Manhattan council joint venture with the Federal government or something by this point. --Haemo

I've added the info to the intro at least. I don't have time at the moment to do a scrub for full consistency throughout the article but it's a start. Beyazid 22:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad I had to leave and come back. I looked into this more and 2,993 number actually already included the dust-related death as far as I can tell. The number was 2,992 until user Top Gun edited the article on May 28 to include Felicia Dunn-Jones in the total. The CNN article I linked to says the WTC death toll stands at 2,750 including Ms. Dunn-Jones. This is what the fatalities table adds up to in the current wikipedia article. 2,750 (wtc) + 125 (arlington) + 59 (arlington) + 40 (shanksville) + 19 (hijackers) = 2993 . Beyazid 01:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Good on you! It's good that you looked this up; looks like we can definitively keep one of the revisions now. --Haemo 02:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

copyvios

Hi, thank you for helping fighting copyvios on wikipedia :). Just as a reminder, that would ve great if you took the time to specifically warn the user using the template provided by the db-g12 tag. Most people that upload copyvios have just no idea they are doing something wrong, and warning them helps starting a discussion on how to comply with our policies. Thanks! -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I usually do, but my Twinkle is acting crazy for some reason and won't always tag pages with templates. It says it does, but then they don't show up. It's really weird, and sometimes I forget to check when I'm in a hurry. I'll make sure I'm more careful in the future. --Haemo 22:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Craigflower Manor and Schoolhouse

On 12 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Craigflower Manor and Schoolhouse, 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.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hurray! --Haemo 01:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

RFA?

I would like to nominate you at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Please reply on my talk page. Administrator tools would help you deal with reports on WP:ANI, a page that you frequent, and you have the requisite experience and temperament to pass an RFA. Shalom ^Hello 13:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sound fine. There is no deadline, so whenever you feel ready, that's the right time to make the request. I prefer to do such things on-wiki because I figure there's really nothing to hide. Certainly your content contributions are improving and should remain your first priority on Wikipedia. Shalom ^Hello 01:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll let you know. --Haemo 01:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist: The Movie question

(Moved here from my Editor Review) May be you can answer a question! Why was an add placed on the Zeitgeist, apparently with the approval of the editors, discouraging people from voting for Zeitgeist. Who approved it and why? I notice it now is off the site, was the poster stopped from posting it again and again? Tim

Because Wikipedia is not a vote. We don't "vote" on things here; we discuss them. In fact, voting is evil and contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia. --Haemo 05:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Article for Deletion

I asked a question on the deletion page to you, and I don't know if it was proper. Its the first time I ever thought something needed to be deleted. While looking for some other pages, I found one called Primarch that is having a fight over conflicting primary sources and no third party sources present. I would add it but it has a delete tag on it already. I think its strange that someone with the name Primarch is so eager to edit a page called Primarch. Anyhoo, it led me to other pages that have the same problem as those I listed: Dark_Angels_%28Warhammer_40%2C000%29, Space_Wolves, Imperial_Fists, Blood_Angels, Iron_Hands, Ultramarines, Salamanders_%28Warhammer_40%2C000%29, Raven_Guard. Is Wikipedia really designed to be a collection of primary source plot summaries of books that don't seem to have any notability? Or if the books have notability, shouldn't the plot summaries stay on a page devoteed to the books as opposed to a new page that is just a collection of fiction? It all seems like clutter to me and I don't know if a merge can help because it would just add more clutter there. Maybe just a series of huge chops and dice it all apart. NobutoraTakeda 07:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not; which is why I've advocated merging all of those (and trimming them) to the main faction page. I'm not a tabletop gamer, but Chaos Space Marines is a whole line of product for one of the most popular tabletop games in the world -- which is why I'm sure there are some reliable sources that talk about it. The cruft-tastic summaries that basically duplicated the various faction codexes are not needed; in that you are right. ---Haemo 07:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please copy-edit Singapore Dreaming

Thanks for the barnstar, Haemo! Although I Not Stupid's GA nomination passed, Singapore Dreaming's was placed on hold due to prose problems, as you predicted in our Google Talk conversation. To quote reviewer The Rambling Man: "[The] grammar in the Plot summary and Production sections in particular is very poor - the tenses are all over the place and make for difficult reading." Could you help copy-edit Singapore Dreaming, keeping us updated on the talk page, so it will achieve GA status? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I will be happy too. I am away until Friday, but I will get started as soon as possible. --Haemo 22:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hejrat Foundation

Hi, I wrote the article on the Hejrat Foundation which you archived. The secondary source was to support a point in the article about arsonists destroying the cemetery buildings. I didn't know how to make that link a footnote. Thanks. 72.87.188.204 02:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• That's okay; the point was that it didn't have any secondary sources which asserted or supported notability. --Haemo 02:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Internal link brackets

Dear Haemo, in your post at [1], I believe you left out two of the [[ in the later internal link you referenced. Anyway, I thought it better to tell you than to just correct it myself. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• You're speedy; I was just correcting that as I saw your message. --Haemo 00:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I can type over a hundred words a minute and have read so much in graduate school that I've trained my eyes to read rapidly.  :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Railpage Australia

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Railpage Australia meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Railpage Australia. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. FailpageMustGo 03:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from spamming peoples' talk page with this warning. I didn't create this article, and I don't have anything to do with it -- I have no idea why you contacted me about it, and am pretty sure this is canvassing. --Haemo 04:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Christian/Newsom

I reported the anon at the 3RR noticeboard. Just hang on until he buys a block so you don't get sucked into a war. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the plan :) --Haemo 23:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a silly edit anyway - like you said, he might as well say they weren't charged with Grand Theft Auto. Some of the SPAs who hang out there will freak out, but it's not like it's doing any actual WP:BLP damage or anything if the edit stays in for a little while. Is there anyone with a level head besides me and you watching this article? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

PETA

Haemo, I happened to notice you do some editing at the PETA article - do you happen to know if they're willing to release images from their website under free license? Sorry to bug you - thought I'd check with someone who apparently has some knowledge about the organization before I e-mail them. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't have really any experience with them. I've edited a little on that page over an external link cleanup, and I did some digging to remove a trivia section. However, that is about the long and short of my knowledge of them. Oh, and I watched and episode of Bullshit! about them -- that's about it. --Haemo 23:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Great episode! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't remove vital info

It is clear what you are doing from what you are trying to remove. The FBI agent's testimony was left out of the 9/11 Commission Report, the public has a right to know these facts. Stop deleting them and doing playing the same game the 9/11 Commissioners played. Kean, the Chairman of the Commission, ADMITS to the game they played and says why: because commissioners didn't want the policy of US support of Israel to be reassessed. Clearly you are here to play games as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tel555 (talk • contribs)

What? I don't even understand what you're talking about. The section you want returned says this:

FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald answered, "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States."

However, the version I wrote already says the following:

The fatwa also specifically condemns the U.S. for "plundering" the resources of the region, oppressing the people by supporting abusive regimes in the region, and dictating policy to legitimate leaders. ... By a similar token, it decries the continued refusal to address the "occupation of Palestine". The same motivation was shared by the two pilots who flew into the WTC: Mohamed Atta was described by Ralph Bodenstein—who traveled, worked and talked with him—as "most imbued actually about... U.S. protection of these Israeli politics in the region." "When someone asked why he and Atta never laughed, Shehhi retorted,"How can you laugh when people are dying in Palestine?"[41] Abdulaziz al-Omari, a hijacker aboard Flight 11 with Mohammed Atta, said in his video will, "My work is a message those who heard me and to all those who saw me at the same time it is a message to the infidels that you should leave the Arabian peninsula defeated and stop giving a hand of help to the coward Jews in Palestine."

As you can see, it was removed because it was redundant, not because of whatever sinister motives you care to ascribe to me. --Haemo 00:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Haemo, I know this topic well and I have seen people remove downplay whitewash for years. You removed from the motives section the testimony were the vice-Chairman point blank asks what the motive was (the only time it was asked in the 9/11 hearings) and an FBI Special Agent gives him the answer. And you think nothing is wrong with removing that?!? You also removed the statement which the Former in Laden Unit Chief calls Clinton and Bush liars, and you remove that? And I see you then ass wishy washy language that obscures the point of what the motive was. I has seen for years people playing these games. It will be edited back, maybe not tonight but it will. You are not going to suppress KEY statements by FBI and CIA agents about 9/11. The entry has had this wording for A LONG TIME, your edit is from yesterday and it is not honest.

Haemo, you're watching the 9/11 article? You are a glutton for punishment - the truthers are stubborn, if nothing else. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have fingers in many rather warm pies. --Haemo 00:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I assumed it had been deleted. Thanks for checking and correcting. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem; FT2 and Cyrius spotted the problem on IRC when I asked because I was confused when it didn't show up in the deletion log. --Haemo 00:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For rewriting the trivia section on the PETA page. I think you did fine job and that the section is much improved. Turtlescrubber 18:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• No problem; I dislike trivia sections. --Haemo 23:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wherebot

Hey, I was just turning to the backlog and noticed you handled most of it. Thanks! Is Wherebot listing all sorts of false positives with no source? It was doing that a few weeks ago, but I think it fixed itself somehow. Let me know on my talk page and I'll let Where know what's going on. Thanks again! -- But|seriously|folks  05:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I was afraid of that. I'll alert Where. -- But|seriously|folks  05:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Jason Kevin Dunn

Why did you close the AfD speedy delete when there was a keep vote? The AfD had only been open for a few hours, it may not have passed in the end.Horrorshowj 20:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the article had been speedily deleted by the time I read the AfD discussion. I don't have nay control over what is, or is not deleted -- I merely reported what had happened. If I had been the closing admin, I wouldn't have deleted it; however, I'm just an editor, and so exercise no control. If you disagree with the decision of the admin who speedily deleted the article, you can always ask for a review. --Haemo

Sorry. I thought you had actually performed the speedy, didn't realize you were just reporting it. Again, sorry for bothering you about it. Horrorshowj 00:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all -- I was wondering if someone was going to ask me about that, since I thought it was a bad deletion at the time. --Haemo 00:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of content

What part of WP:NOT are you invoking when you removed most of the content from The terrorists have won? You say "Wikipedia is not a list of examples," but I do not see that anywhere on that policy page. In the context of a page about a cultural meme it seems only fitting to provide multiple examples of how said meme has worked its way through the culture. If we did not, how could we prove it was a notable meme? A bulleted list may not be the best way to do that, but it hardly justifies a mass removal of content.

You also added needs a cite tags when the sentences which you said needed citation "It is used to warn against changing an otherwise normal behavior because of fear of terrorism" and "The phrase has also been used to satirize the sense of panic that sometimes accompanies discussions of terrorism" were clearly at least partially supported by the examples that you then went on to delete (it would be better to re-word the second sentence given the examples provided, but that is quite easy to do obviously). Adding those tags before deleting sources makes very little sense to me (plus you added a general, top level "This article needs additional references or sources for verification" tag after you deleted all of the sources, of which there were nine or ten, which is even more egregious). I agree that a couple of introductory sentences could be added both to the section "Examples" and to the section "Satire" and have meant to do so for the latter for awhile but have not. That's, again, an easy thing to do though, so why did you not simply work on that (or at least ask someone else to do so and wait for a reply) instead of deleting most of the article?

In the absence of a specific policy based explanation as to why you removed this without prior discussion, and why we cannot leave the content there and work on providing more context, my inclination is to revert your edits which have basically turned this from an interesting article that could use some work to a very uninteresting article with zero sources. If you want to work on providing more context I will help you with that for the satire section. You can reply here to keep it in one place as I'll check back, or if you prefer you can move this to the talk page and we can discuss it there, which is probably easier. I just wanted to make sure I got your attention in case you did not watchlist that page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the examples are not given any context; they are just a list of examples. Making statements like "It is used to warn against changing an otherwise normal behavior because of fear of terrorism." without citing any reliable sources that claim it is used in such a context is original research; specifically, original synthesis. The section of WP:NOT which I removed the content under is WP:IINFO; specifically, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The only thing the examples had in common was the phrase "the terrorists have won", or some variant thereof; this is a very loose connection, in my opinion, since it's just a turn of phrase.

The idea is basically that this should be an article about the phrase "the terrorists have won"; that is, where we include examples, they should be couched in the context of the article — that is, the example should be used to illustrate a usage, or should be specifically discussed in the article. For instance, that's why I kept the Reuter/Oscars example -- it was discussed in the article, and was relevant, so it would make sense to a reader of an encyclopedia. The rest, however, were basically just a collection of people and occasions when it was used. They don't really add anything to the article. Basically, my point is that if examples are to be included, they should be included in the body of the article, to compliment more removed commentary -- they should be not forked off into their own "examples" section, where they become basically a trivia section, and lack context. Personally, I would not be averse to using one or two to illustrate some of the more general statements used — however, I would first like to see some reliable sources discussing the different usages, so that we get out of the WP:SYNTH honeypot. --Haemo 00:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing at WP:IINFO which prohibits the use of examples and I do not interpret it that way. Of course all of the examples contain the phrase "the terrorists have won" (or some variation)--they are there precisely to illustrate how it has been used. Again, this is an article about a meme, so examples of how the meme has manifested itself seem appropriate to me, which is not to say that there should not be more contextual information.

I know some people like to invoke WP:CRAP when people reference similar articles, but personally I think such references are quite useful so here's one. Take a look at the page Cheese-eating surrender monkeys (which I just came across randomly looking for a different example). I think that article is similar to this one, albeit it is a bit better in terms of functioning as a real article (though not as well sourced). Much of that article simply lists out various points at which the "monkeys" phrase has been used and by whom. The content has not been deleted, rather tags have been added explaining that it needs better sourcing.

The article we are discussing did have sources for the various references, but no over-arching context which, I agree, it needs. My question to you was (and remains), why not work on this, or at least ask others to do so, rather than deleting examples wholesale without prior discussion? It would be great to find secondary sources that provide more analysis of this meme, and that is something we can work on. So do you want to work on it? If you don't want to hang around to improve the article, then all you have done is make an article that needs improvement worse, and for no pressing policy reason that I can see. My inclination remains to revert your edits.

I have one possible temporary proposal regarding the satire section which I'll run by you. We could preface that section with a statement along the lines of "A number of American comedians and satirists have mocked the phrase, sometimes suggesting that individuals use it as a means to justify bad behavior, or that the invocation of the phrase often suggests, falsely, that terrorists are paying attention to Americans' every move, watching for signs of defeatism." The wording of that isn't at all perfect, but you get the idea, which would be to summarize the examples given. Would you be okay with some along those lines (with key qualifiers like "a number" and "sometimes") or would that constitute original research for you? I don't think it would, mainly because it would just be pointing out what some persons (who are themselves prominent, or at least their publications are) have said, but maybe you think there would be a problem with that. Let me know what you think of that proposal, and of the idea of actually working on the article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that cheese-eating surrender monkeys is a better article; I'd like the terrorists have won to look more like that one. Although some of the context is not exactly important, and the sourcing is a little scarce, it at least tries to put it in some kind of context, rather than just compling a list of examples. To a reader, there definitely appears to be some thought and consideration for why an example is included, rather than simply using the phrase.

I mean, we apparently disagree over WP:IINFO; that's okay, it's no big deal, and we both basically have the same idea. My point is that if this is, apparently, a notable meme there should be lots of examples; thus, an "examples" section with no context for why the examples used were included is indiscriminate, in my opinion.

I absolutely would like to work on this, and would note that I didn't delete, or remove the material wholesale -- I sent it to the talk page, so we can keep the examples, and in the future possibly use some in an improved article. I don't really like the idea of keeping either an "example" or "satire" section; my proposal would be to illustrate the statements made in the first part of the article, with a "For example, John Stewart' etc etc. I think that is more encyclopedic. --Haemo 01:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

After this, we should maybe move this over to the article talk page (I can transfer it over there if it's okay with you, or feel free to do it yourself) since the discussion is relevant to the article. I agree that there should not be a section called "examples," rather the material in that section is largely in reference to "serious" (or however we would want to put it) uses of the term (i.e. somehow referring to the idea that if we don't do such and such, the terrorists will win). I think it would be especially useful to have a lead for this section that discussed some comments made about this type of usage--either explaining it's frequency/noting specific examples, or criticism of this kind of rhetoric (or possibly people arguing for it, though that seems less likely, people who are fine with using that kind of "terrorists will win" language probably simply use it without explaining why they think it is appropriate).

I do think there should be a stand alone section on satire (thus maybe the article could proceed intro, origins, "serious usage" (except something better than that), and finally satire). I think it make sense to have sections for this article, rather than one long page. Clearly one of the most notable aspects of this phrase/meme is how much it has been satirized, and I think it thus warrants its own section. Ideally we'll find a source or two that discusses this (or even mentions it briefly), but in the interim I'm wondering how you would feel about a sentence or two along the lines I've what I proposed above ("A number of American comedians...) to open a satire section leading into specific examples. I don't think it would be arbitrary to break out the satirical material into its own section, rather it would better illustrate the varying uses of this term, and I think several specific examples (roughly the number there were in the article before, though we could probably trim down the wordiness) are absolutely necessary.

As I said maybe we should now move this to article talk.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied on the talk page. --Haemo 03:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A Copyeditor's Barnstar from Hildanknight

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your excellent copy-editing of I Not Stupid and Singapore Dreaming, which helped both articles attain GA status. Keep it up, and may your copy-editing skills earn you millions in real life! J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political positions of Michael Bloomberg

The article is not about the campaign of a candidate but his views on issues. This has its own category. The page should not be merged because it would clutter up the Michael Bloomberg page. The information is sourced and encyclopedic it should not be deleted or merged but have its own article. I ask you to please reconsider your vote per Savidan.--Southern Texas 19:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the argument under better here than there is less than convincing. --Haemo 00:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This article was never originally part of the Michael Bloomberg page. I felt that it would disrupt the flow of the article so I made it its own page.--Southern Texas 03:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

But it should be part of the Michael Bloomberg page. Again, better here than there is not a very strong argument to retain something. --Haemo 03:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why should it? Others do the same would you suggest merging them?--Southern Texas 03:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm just pointing that Presidential candidates tend to have "positions" pages, because it outlines the many statements they make during their campaign for President. Possible future candidates simply do not make the same type, or number of statements, and Michael Bloomberg is a possible/maybe candidate. His political views do not need their own page, because they could be adequately expressed on his own page. I don't have any serious objection to this page or anything; I just don't think it needs to be separate quite yet. If and he announces, and starts making position statements en masse, as candidates do then I think a seperate page would be in everyone's best interest. Right now, I don't think that's the case. However, as I've suggested, it might be worthwhile to userfy it in the meantime. --Haemo 03:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Already done, I'll be waiting for him to declare.--Southern Texas 03:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent -- I reckon that the page will probably end up being merged, but I just wanted to say that you did good work in making that page -- even if it isn't ready to be its own article quite yet. --Haemo 03:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

911 talk

• Don't do that; move the discussion there, don't link to it. It's totally unrelated to this page, which is why people keep removing it.

That and a bit of wikistress I reckon. Thanks for your advice, I followed it up. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, haha. It's never good to mention Wikistress to the stressee, after all ;) Shhh! --Haemo 05:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I already removed myself from the CVU list, because I agree that it's inappropriate and should be deprecated. --Haemo 23:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion image dispute

Johnathan, Please consider the argument recently posted for the speedy deletion of the fair use image at Michael Peter Woroniecki. Thanks.

Already did -- I replied on the talk page. --Haemo 06:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

9/11 Resolved

Hi, so then you agree that my edit is good and Mortons wasn't? Thanks. Bmedley Sutler 07:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Aieee! No, I strongly disagree with that edit. However, WP:ANI is not the place to get help about it; admins are just other editors. You want dispute resolution or just a discussion on the talk page. --Haemo 07:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind putting in a word or two on the article's talk page? Pablo Talk | Contributions 17:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which article you're referring to, but since I've already commented on the discussion at WP:ANI's talk, I'll assume you mean 9/11 truth movement; I'll give it a shot. --Haemo 23:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant. Sorry for being unclear. By the way, how would you feel about being put up for RfA? Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been asked previously, and I believe I would accept at this time, if you are offering. However, User:Shalom and User:Hildanknight have both also expressed some degree of interest in being co-nominators, so if you're offering I think they would probably like to hear from you. --Haemo 01:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sherzo

Hi there. as a previous commenter onto the actions of Sherzo, could you please read and comment on this new debate Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sherzo. Many thanks. TorstenGuise 09:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I already saw it; unfortunately, I merely opined that I would watch a particular article where I found his actions disagreeable. I do not have a more general opinion of this user, and am not really free to make more sweeping pronouncements about them, or their actions. --Haemo 16:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with images on Binary economics

Hi!

Rodney is asking for help with some pictures he wants to use in the article. The thread is here. I'm not very experienced with getting pictures from other sites properly licensed but it seems that he has already recieved permission to use them under the GFDL. Could you drop by and help him with this? I have pointed him to the page that describes what needs to be done but the process is not simple so I think someone with more experience in these complicated areas of Wikipedia should be consulted; hence this request. MartinDK 14:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on the talk page with some pointers. --Haemo 23:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

prematurely deleted image

The Michael Peter Woroniecki image was slated for deletion after August 19, yet it is only August 13 and someone got happy with their delete key tonight. That wasn't you was it, Haemo? 72.84.75.27 08:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Nay, I don't have that power -- but I talked with the deleting admin, ZScout370 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and he's going to restore it after you forward the permission request to OTRS. --Haemo 16:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonathan. But I learned that won't be necessary. A copyright owner of an image I contacted last night has agreed to give permission to Wikipedia for free use of his image of Woroniecki at UNO in 2006. It's not as close to his face as the last image, but at least it will be free use and complicit with Wiki's policies. Thomas Anderson 19:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Superb, I'm glad to hear that. --Haemo 06:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Good luck! Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I know this accusation of "pro-pedophilia POV" is pure nonsense bordering on WP:NPA, but I think if you answer my question it will dispel any future worries. There is already one user who has parroted his baseless cry of wolf, so to speak. VanTucky ^(talk) 03:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous is the word for it, and I've replied to that effect. --Haemo 06:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you've responded in a commendable fashion, it speaks to the quality of your character that you maintained an air of calm over such an inflammatory accusation. VanTucky ^(talk) 06:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know you, our paths have not crossed (as far as I recall) until I !voted in your RfA. However, I would like to apologize to you for what your RfA became. I can't speak for the project as a whole, but I feel like that was totally ridiculous. RfAs are notoriously harsh, but that was over the line. I don't even know what else to say. I hope (and believe) that this RfA will be successful. Best regards, Lara♥Love 14:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I !voted to support your RFA before I got this vandalism to my talk page [2] . I was shocked after reading that and the further discussion on your RFA. You have responded quite admirably, perfectly befitting a Sysop, and I am now strongly in support of you. I must agree with LaraLove's and VanTucky's comments above. Best of luck! Bearian 18:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think User:Mattbroon may be a sockpuppet of the other editor who has been defaming you. Bearian 18:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Thank you all for your comments and support. I hope my RfA will be successful, but I think that User:Mattbroon is just a disruptive troll account, not a sockpuppet; he's made other silly comments on other RfA and been generally disruptive -- and has been so-blocked. --Haemo 18:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Like many readers, I am disgusted by the character assassination that is going on. Don't let it get you down. Best wishes. Axl 14:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		To Haemo, for maintaining civil discussion in extreme circumstances. Axl 14:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support; I was unaware this barnstar even existed! --Haemo 20:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

9/11 FAQ

Hope you don't mind that I added some sources to the FAQ. [3] Basically recycling my comments from previous discussions. --Aude (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; I actually encourage people to add to that FAQ — I'm only keeping it in userspace because I don't want to give it any sheen of "official" merit. I have removed some things, earlier, because they were too much based on content, and not about the article. But this looks excellent. --Haemo 19:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with removing those things. FAQs regarding 9/11 in general are covered by other websites, such as 911myths.com and debunking911. Another good site is Links for 9/11 Research by Mark Roberts (he created Loose Change guide). Won't list it here, but have my own site where I'm collecting FAQ-type material that builds upon discussions that happen on talk pages here. Though, haven't had much time lately to work on it, nor on 9/11 pages here. --Aude (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Pluralism in economics article

Hi, Haemo. You may be interested in helping to resolve a disagreement concerning the Pluralism in economics article. Please see my comment on the talk page and Watchdog07's subsequent change in the article.

Did you ever receive the articles I sent?

andrew-the-k 01:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I would be pleased to, however, I'm currently in the middle of a request for adminship which has turned a little bit nasty (see the above comments) and I'm not exactly sure I want to take on anything too time-consuming at the moment until this is resolved. I'll weigh in on the talk page, but I'm not sure how much time I'll have to commit to this until it's finished; should be about a week.

Oh, and I did get those articles; thank you, and I apologize for not replying. I'm currently in the middle of working my way through the summer, so the "economics" side of my brain is distinctly off — which might be a good thing, from a certain perspective ;) I'm planning to look them over as preliminary study for my honours thesis to decide what I want to write about - again, thanks for your help in this. --Haemo 04:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Purple Star
		I award you, Haemo, this star for the personal attacks on your good character that unnecessarily hurt you during your RfA. You handled yourself gallantly. Lara♥Love 15:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to thank you for this! Thank you! --Haemo 07:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Linup_AP.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Linup_AP.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 16:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

mistake

And the President later said he made a mistake when he said "saw". [Talk:9/11 August 7]

Dear Haemo, do you have a source for that? If "saw" was the mistake, I am curious what he would like to have said if he had not made this mistake. Have you yourself heard him speak about it? (I can point you to a video if you haven't) Thx — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall where I saw that particular fact; it might have been on a CBC program about this topic, but I'm honestly not sure. I'm sure you could Google it up, if you were so inclined. And I'm pretty sure the phrasing was "mis-spoke"; i.e. he said something stupid off the top of his head, and didn't want to sound like an idiot. --Haemo 23:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)