User talk:Haemo

Welcome to my Talk Page! You can leave me any questions, comments, or suggestions you have on this page — I don't bite. My reply policy is that I'll try to reply on the page where the first question or comment is made. So, if you leave a message on this page, I'll reply here; and vice versa. If you wish to proceed differently, just leave a note with your response. As always, you can click here to leave me a new message.

Always remember — Non nobis solum.

 

Awarding Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Haemo, I read this decision and it certainly seems to duck the core issue: that conspiracy theories do not add to the content, verifiability, or sourcing of the Wikipedia. Any purported fact which requires a coordinated, perfect, and perpetual silence on the part of those who planned, executed, and covered-up the 9/11 attacks is such a conspiracy theory. If the CT floodgates open on the 9/11 pages and you need help, please let me know on my user page. patsw (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: barnstar

Thanks! My first barnstar, much appreciated Haemo! -- Sabre (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You deserve it. Probably more too. --Haemo (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Haemo,

What is the end game for mediation on the Corvette suspension article? Yes, we have agreed to make the article general but that seems to be about it. What outcome should we expect?

I can not see backing down from my position that the article is not “reliable”. I can not see Autostream backing down from his point, which near as I can tell from reading his posting on other boards is simply to slander the car. As such where to next?

ThanksSpringee (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the purpose of mediation is to help disputing parties come to an agreement about what should be done. It's not a "content tribunal", where issues are decided — making that section more general might be the best goal you can come up with. There might be some other things you could look forward too — however, it's clear that neither of you are going to back down on the core issue, so what's left is just to decide how to treat the disagreement in the article. --Haemo (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My Regards

I am very very sorry for confusion or anything I have caused. I wish to apologize and my article "The Truth Behind 9/11 has been removed. I am terribly terribly sorry and I wish to improve my Wikipedia editing skills as soon as possible. I must really apologize to Haemo for the inaccuracy of my article. The only problem is I wish to create articles not to edit others, does anyone have any suggestions? Once again, I apologize. Thank you. Saint.Pierre.Pro (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries! It's tough being new, and Wikipedia is a bit of a, er, maze. Creating articles is tough, since nearly every idea you can think of has one, or isn't important enough to have one. A place I start (and where I've been successful is at Wikipedia:Requested articles. They're categorized by subject area, so take a look. It might also be useful to read over our citation guidelines and the Manual of Style — though you seem to be catching on quick! :) --Haemo (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nick Savoy page

Hi! I didn't write the Nick Savoy page but I worked on it extensively. I noticed that you voted to delete. I'm not sure if this sways your decision (which was made based on 'notability' but he is on the Dr Phil show tomorrow, April 11. I just saw him on TV as the Dr Phil show is promoting him extensively (www.drphil.com/shows). So now I have found:

• Dr Phil
• CBS National Radio
• Fox TV
• Playboy TV
• Brink Magazine
• Globe and Mail magazine (quoting him as an expert)
• Mentioned in other wikipedia pages such as Mystery Method
• As far back as 2006 there was some consensus to include him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seduction_community)

Does the Dr Phil showchange your opinion? If not, what would? I would like to get the page back up; I worked really hard on it. Thanks so much for your time! Camera123456 (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the close defaulted to keep? I don't think it was deleted... --Haemo (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. I'm thinking of another person — is the Dr Phil episode about him? Otherwise that doesn't really address the issue. --Haemo (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Nick Savoy page was ruled to be kept and then disappeared right after. Yes, the Dr Phil episode is about him. He's been on my TV all day. They were running commercials all week for it. It just aired. Is Dr Phil plus CBS news plus Fox TV plus Playboy TV considered notable? It's more than I see for virtually any of the other approved pages in the seduction community —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camera123456 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, other stuff exists and if you believe it doesn't meet guidelines either, then you should probably take it to AFD. --Haemo (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI & arbcom

Hey, thanks for speaking up on my ANI thread. Am I alone in feeling underwhelmed by the arbcom ruling? Essentially they seem to have said "Employ the rules we already have in place," without doing anything to resolve the conflict. Now, if anything the conflict has escalated. Any thoughts on what to do next? // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 03:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was very perfunctory at best. No real attempt to understand the issue, or deal with it. The ruling wasn't even unique — they just cribbed it from other resolutions. Very disappointed. --Haemo (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The Pet Goat

Were you monitering that page or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.200.74 (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was on my watchlist, and I noticed your change and said "Hey, isn't that correct?" So I looked it up, and it turns out it's a widely believed mis-statement due to Michael Moore getting the name wrong. It's also not really a book — it's more like part of a book, which you can buy online. --Haemo (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: your correcting my 9/11 scrolling references

Sorry about that; I actually did search for the policy on that first, since there are a lot of articles I'd think would use a scrollbox if it were accepted. But I now realize I was looking at WP:Footnotes b/c I didn't know about WP:citing sources. Btw, is that the sort of reformat I should first suggest on the talk page? Sorry, I'm obviously still learning. I'm reading up on all the guidelines, but as I'm sure you're aware, there's more than a few.

Also, are you essentially a caretaker of the 9/11 page? I like that it requires that, plus its own FAQ. That must be the best example of a page that requires the full force of all the tools and policies Wikipedia can muster.

P.S. Another thing I couldn't find the convention for: is this an ok way to reply to something on my talk page, or should I have just done that under your comment? I just didn't know if you'd actually see that. --Qwerty0 (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, you are forgiven for not being able to navigate the MOnSter — Wikipedia's style manual is notoriously poorly organized and complex. You were right to be bold in making that change — if it weren't for readability issues, no one would object. So, no, simple changes like that are not the sort of thing that usually requires discussion. As to the "caretaker" comment, no I'm not. I have the article on my watchlist, and have edited a fair amount, but I don't make it any sort of duty to ensure that it stays in a particular form. There's a healthy community built around it, so it takes care of itself, mostly. The FAQ issue has been brought up before (there's a draft here if you want to read it) but it's never gained consensus due to intractable disputes over many points in it. Sad, I know :(

Also, as per replying, people have different conventions, so there's no right or wrong way to do it. My style is noted on this page — I will post a comment in one place, then continue the conversation there unless otherwise prompted (such as this!). Other people have different conventions, so find one that works for you. --Haemo (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just saw your reply, and I just wanted to say thanks a lot for being so encouraging and clarifying those things. Qwerty0 (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there

Thank you so very much for responding sir/ma'am. This is Jason Leopold. my email address is jasonleopold@hotmail.com

For me this is a real issue of concern because if someone I happen to work with or someone interested in hiring me google's my name wikipedia is the first thing that pops up.

I have already written my life story, literally, and there are plenty of truths people can draw upon to make their case. However, I do not understand why individuals would stray from the truth I have already written about myself and simply throw in things that are just plain wrong and false.

Kind regards Jason

Hey there Jason; I strongly advise you to take your concerns to our OTRS volunteers. They have some dedicated people there who should help address your concerns. I'm not really experienced in this area, so I'm going to send you over to them. --Haemo (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Disappointment of a week

Hi there hombre, a while back you've stated that 9/11 talkpage will be locked for a day. Yes you did... Well, inaccurate information that one was, was it not? Per as it appears, that pagina had been locked for community as a whole, & that is not acceptable.

All evidence stored in wiki history should, and will be used in court of law.

For we are restraining access at the same time as we're denying ourselves some very basic freedoms, which is despicable! To say the least! Eh? Tachyonbursts (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I said that it has been protected for a day — which was quite true. I'm not the protecting admin, so I don't know when they think it will be appropriate to unprotect. Furthermore, it is only locked for new and unregistered users. Once your account is autoconfirmed (I think it takes a three days to a week, or something) you can edit it. Wikipedia is not a democracy, not a soapbox, and not a venue for free speech — it is an encyclopedia, and it really only wants editors who are here to build one. I hope that you will be one, but I must mention that legal action is taken seriously by Wikipedia. --Haemo (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Cheers for moving my arbcom notice to the right place, i must've missed that.--Jac16888 (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries. :) --Haemo (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not fair from you

You have not being honest here: it is clear that I was asking to not unilaterally make changes from previously estabilished versions of the article without consensus. You also asked the same several times, didn't you? Why do you think you (and your friends) are allowed to ask such thing (and erevert other people claiming violation of policies) while I can't? Please explain.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP is non-negotiable. If there's a BLP violation, it is to be removed with extreme prejudice — if you want to re-add it, you need consensus to do that. Not the other way around. Think about what you're doing when you add that section — you're adding unsourced anonymous rumors that implicate a real person in mass murder. --Haemo (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Return of the Ghostbusters

Why would you delete the page "Return of the Ghostbusters"? It is an actual movie that actually exists, and is quite popular.

Mozepy (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

See this deletion discussion. --Haemo (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Bettina Shaw-Lawrence/artist

Have entered under user: Boselawrence/old two paragraphs which are a total revision of the original text. This is just part of the draft which I don't dare to continue without your advice. Look forward to your comments.Boselawrence (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

Well, the text looks good and I don't see a lot of problem with it. However, you need to cite more sources — especially when you make claims about what she does, and where she's exhibited. You also need to look at our citation guidelines more closely — what you currently have isn't specific enough in most cases. A good method is to pick the best template from here and then fill it out. For example, see the work I did on a relatively obscure Canadian Historic site at this page. Looks good, though — keep up the good work. --Haemo (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouraging words. Corrected whatever I could detect with regards internal links and giving as many references as possible. It's a very demanding exercise requiring a lot of attention. I hope that proof of her solo exhibitions is consistent with what is required. Next to come: Group exhibitions but very little proof. Should I nevertheless give dates and galleries? This will be followed by Book illustrations (abundant references) and finally portraits of well-known personalities mentioned in Wikipedia. Let me know what you think. Thanks Boselawrence (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence PS I may have deleted by mistake the list of references at the end of my page. How can I re-introduce them?Boselawrence (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing can be very demanding I know. With respect to gallery shows, most high-profile galleries produce a publication to go with a show. This article isn't finished, but the books in the list are examples of those kinds of publications released by a gallery. If you know where the gallery is, you can also search contemporary newspaper or trade publications for announcements of the shows. Those are better to cite than just saying "the gallery show was here at this time". To get a reference list, add {{reflist}} at the bottom of the page. --Haemo (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The artist you are writing about was born in 1967 whereas in Bettina Shaw-Lawrence's case it was in 1921, so references in newspapers etc...are harder to come by. Furthermore, most of the galleries no longer exist except for The Leicester Galleries whose owners have changed. The last part will deal with her book illustrations. I hope you approve and look forward to your comments. Best regards,Boselawrence (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

You're actually probably more likely to find stuff in archives from that decade — most papers ran society columns, which are a huge boon for this kind of research. Try looking for stuff on microfilm at the library. --Haemo (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Haemo, I would have thought that the references I provide prove that the contents of my article are above suspicion. When in New York, I went through the micro films of the New Yorker at the NY library but to no avail. It's like looking for a needle in a haystack as you don't know what you're looking for exactly. The ARTnews mention of her exhibition was found by MoMA's librarian who was most helpful and despite her experience could not find anything further with the exception of the Bodley catalogue. Will finish the article to-morrow which will list her book illustrations and where they can be found but quite frankly I can do no more except phone Wivenhoe townhall to see if they can give me a few leads. By the way I don't live in England but hopefully there will be other contributors once the article has been approved (I cross my fingers) and naturally will go on adding when I come across some verifiable information. I really get the impression that English figurative artists of the immediate Post War period were for the most part overlooked with the exception of Lucian Freud. Best regards,Boselawrence (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

That's a shame; microfilm can definitely be a pain to work with. I'll take a look at your article more in a few days; I'm just heading on vacation. Remember that citing sources should allow the references used to serve as a good starting point for a researcher --Haemo (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Haemo, I agree with you one hundred per cent and that has been my approach all the way since my sources are available in university and museum libraries. Enjoy your holiday and meanwhile will finish the article. Will do my best to supplement it with press articles. Best regards Boselawrence (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

Vancouver Meetup Invite

Vancouver Meetup Please come to an informal gathering of Vancouver Wikipedians, Monday, May 5 at 6:30 pm. It will be at Benny's Bagels, 2505 West Broadway. We'd love to see you there, and please invite others! Watch the Vancouver Meetup page for details.

Regards, Mkdw^talk 21:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikilobby

I have always respected you as an editor and voted for you as an admin - you've seemed a voice of reason, however, your stance regarding the CAMERA incident has troubled me. I am wondering why you don't trust all of the checks and balances put into WP. People are always going to belong to groups and branding them as undesirable simply because they belong should not be the WP way - we don't ban those who belong to one of the 911 truth groups from editing the 911 articles until they become disruptive. Should we ban all AARP members from articles about the elderly or those belonging to PETA from animal rights articles? This subject is of interest to me since I've been more and more disillusioned from editing due to the difficulties on the 911 articles but that is less of a concern than this type of mob behaviour. --PTR (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, my statement on the ArbCom case was really more to encourage ArbCom to take the case. I'm honestly not that familiar with the specifics of the case, so I wasn't really going to urge any specific action. Part of the issue, I think, is that Wikipedia has a problem dealing with concerted lobbying — especially when it is organized, polite, and knows how to abuse Wikipedia's process to prevent it from being stopped. I don't think it's just about belong to a group — what was being advocated there was very organized lobbying for a particular point of view, complete with "voting" accounts and admins who only serve to support a centralized lobby effort. I think that's the opposite of what Wikipedia, as a community and encyclopedia, is about — and that's why I urged ArbCom to accept the case. They need to look at questions like is this a serious issue? Is it a threat to the encyclopedia? Is there anything the community can do about it? Was what occurred in reaction appropriate? On these last few questions I'm honestly not sure — the editors I looked at were, by and large, not that bad. However, I'm not really in a position to judge here and I don't want to pass judgment — which is why I really wanted to convey to the ArbCom that this is a serious issue which they really need to look at closely; get the private evidence out there, talk to the parties, find out what really happened. --Haemo (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I hope ArbCom does take it. I think though that many more groups have organized in this way and there is nothing in the WP rules that disallows it. If someone can be banned for discussing something off wiki but none of their on wiki actions are suspect then this is not a place I want to edit. This would be the proverbial straw. Thanks for your time. --PTR (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be super-dangerous, I agree — and we're already getting to that point is some respects. This, I think, thought was a little bit different which is why it deserves some attention; probably not the attention it got but still, it needs a sober second look. --Haemo (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

An apology

I would like to apologize for [1] after someone has closed the thread. I hope my revert is enough in this matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry about it. It's not an issue at all. --Haemo (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Bettina Shaw-Lawrence /book illustration section

Had painstakingly typed out illustrations and references but when I tried to save my work, all of it was deleted. What happened? Can it be returned to where it belongs or has it disappeared for ever?Boselawrence (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

I am sorry, but I cannot recover it. It appears to have been lost :( I usually draft big changes in Textpad or another editor first, then add them to Wikipedia; that way, it is much better and less likely to be lost. Sorry to hear about the setback. --Haemo (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This vanishing act of what one has written reminds me of my worst moments on Amstrad. Can one work on Microsoft Word first and then transfer to Wikipedia? More or less finished at long last though in contact with two public libraries which I'm hoping are going to come up with some more verifiable references. What is the next move? You may have noticed that Bettina was known earlier on as Betty which has been the source of confusion. Indeed on Google she appears separately under Betty and Bettina. People don't seem to make the connection so this is why I would like to clarify this point so that Betty and Bettina become one single artist. I would also like to know how to switch the outside links down to the bottom of the page. Thanks for all your adviceBoselawrence (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

Yes, MS Word works, but be very careful. You have to use Wikisyntax exactly, and then double check to make sure it transfers properly. After you are done researching, we can look at what you've got and fix it up so that it looks nice and stuff. I'm not sure what you mean by "outside links" but you probably just have to copy-paste them down the page. --Haemo (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC

Working on MS Words sounds even more daunting so will remain with Wikipedia as I now know what to expect, that is to say save as you go along. Yesterday received an item from a newspaper which proves that the artist had a solo exhibition in 1975 which I think you will approve of. The other library should be coming up with some more information which I should receive today or tomorrow. What I mean by outside links is "external links" which are listed at the top of the page. I hope it doesn't require copy-paste, a manoeuvre I dread. Look forward to us working on the text so that it remains within Wikipedia boundaries and so that its presentation is as attractive as possible. Regards,Boselawrence (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence PS for the moment the only library left has come up with very little except with exhibiton announcements from The Times for the Leicester Galleries and the Hanover Gallery. Do you think they are relevant as I have quite a lot on those two exhibitions? I really think that more research would serve little purpose unless I could get my hands on reviews. I could always come up with it later. Let me know when you are ready. Thanks Boselawrence (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

Exhibition announcements are definitely good, since they can source "X had an exhibition at Y in Z" statements. Reviews are even better, because then you can say things about her style and how well it was received. If you are uncomfortable with copy and pasting things, I can do it for you when we copyedit the page, so don't worry. --Haemo (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It was wishful thinking on my part about the reviews. Nothing has turned up with the Times except the annoucements for the artist's first two exhibitions.Please read my article. It has 19 verifiable references and several external links. I hope that we can now go ahead to the final phase so that the article can appear online in Wikipedia. Best regards,Boselawrence (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

Hmm, that is too bad. Just send me a message when you are ready, and I will Wikify the article draft, then we can talk about it a little more. You might want to read the Manual of Style with respect to tone and organization before :) --Haemo (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm expecting your input at 9/11 attacks 'forum'

Do act, will you? There is nothing wrong with saying things as they are. By doing that we're doing what we're here for. I'm expecting your input at 9/11 attacks forum; you've said that you'd like to build an encyclopedia, did you not? Tachyonbursts (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, Wikipedia is not a forum and should not be approached or treated as such. We're ultimately here to build an encyclopedia, not for anything else. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 15:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, which forum are you referring to? --Haemo (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

memetics

Dear Haemo,

I am doing some research on cognitive psychology, and perhaps you are in a position to recommend some reading on memetics ? I'd appreciate that.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 07:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The book The Selfish Gene (which you can read for free online via Google Books) has a good section on them. The sequel, called The Extended Phenotype is all about them, and might be another place to start. Beyond that, you'd be looking at some psych literature which I only know academically. --Haemo (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Help

Hello, you recently responded to an complaint by User:I Hate CAPTCHAS in which I had also responded here. Unfortunately, this user has become disruptive again despite attempts to communicate productively. The user has had many of his edits reverted and is insistent. He will not accept corrections to bad grammar or diction. He also does not use the talk pages. The user has reverted to being a puppetmaster at one point here. I feel that this user will continue to be disruptive and stubborn. Most of his work is that was not disruptive was copies of my own work. I humbly request that this user be disciplined in some fashion. My desire is for the Wikipedia experience to be an enjoyable and collaborative one for everyone. This user has diminished that. Libro0 (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am on a bit of a break, so I don't have time to devote to this at the moment. Have you tried WP:ANI or WP:DR? --Haemo (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Fantastique

Mm. It seems he's a bit unaware of exactly what's going on here, judging from his latest deletion ...  RGTraynor  07:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user."

No, I think he's quite aware. --Mr.Fantastique (talk) 09:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Betty / Bettina Shaw-Lawrence

Wrote a few lines under your last comment but once more the text was wiped out. I just want to say that will do my best about tone and organization though hard to edit an article written by oneself. I'm afraid you will still have a lot of work cut out for you to meet Wikipedia requirements. Best regards Boselawrence (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

Have done my very best to improve tone and organization. Ready when you are. Best regards, Boselawrence (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

Okay, I went ahead and Wikified it for you. However, I'm still concerned about your references. Can you use these templates to convert your references into the proper format? The references need as much information as possible, and the templates can help you. --Haemo (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Have still two more references to check so when I get them will let you know. Boselawrence (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

Have filled in the missing references. Hope the extra details help to render the references easier to read. What I would like to know is whether a self portrait by the artist would be a good idea? Best regards Boselawrence (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence PSFilled "Lead goes here" with Bettina (Betty) Shaw-Lawrence. Was that what I had to do? You've been very patient. Thank you. Boselawrence (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

Okay, this might be a little bit complicated, so I'll walk you through it. What the article still needs is twofold:

(1) You need to write a lead. Click the link to see what that entails. Basically, it's like a paragraph which summarizes the article. Take a look at Charles Darwin for an example (yours will probably be much shorter).

(2) Clarify some of the references. If you're stating where a book can be found, say "Catalogue available here" or something. Most of them are much improved, but I'm still a little confused about a couple.

Beyond that, I think you're basically done. --Haemo (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, dear Haemo, the text is ready. The lead is done and have tried to clarify the references by following your advice. RegardsBoselawrence (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

This looks pretty good for a first article on a person of borderline notability. The only questions I have left are (1) do you have any images or pictures? (2) Consider adding Template:Infobox Artist to the article? (3) What categories should she go under? --Haemo (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

1)Yes I do have some pictures of paintings which could be sent. 2)I won't bother about infobox Artist 3)Tried this morning to understand how the categories worked but haven't taken it in. What would your suggestions be? By the way you're a great tutor as you see at a glance where the weaknesses are. Best regards,Boselawrence (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

You have to ensure that the paintings are released under a proper license, though. It's actually really important, for copyright concerns. With respect to the infobox, it's a requirement for the article to get a higher grade under the biography standards, but it's not necessary. For categories, you're probably going to look at one like "American figurative artists", "People born in 1921", "American illustrators"... things like that. --Haemo (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at the Wikipedia article on Lucian Freud. He has several reproductions and from what I gather low resolution images have been used so as to avoid reproductions. Would that be possible? Maybe a self-portrait at least. The photos I have are not very professional anyway as they are at a slight angle resting against a wall or a chair. 2) With regard to categories, the following would seem the most valid: Visual Arts,English printmakers, English painters, Modern painters, Modern printmakers,English illustrators,Portrait artists, Women artists, figurative painting , Trompe-l'Oeil. 3) The Infobox sounds useful, but not sure how to classify her work. I would prefer to leave that to others though my preference would go to surrealism or something to do with metaphysical painting.It's all in the eye of the beholder.Boselawrence (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

Yeah, the problem with pictures is that we have pretty strict fair use policies here, and if you're going to include a painting, you really need to have sourced commentary on that particular painting. I'm not really sure if that's presented here. If you want, I can do the infobox for you, and add the categories. --Haemo (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, I would be most grateful if you could do the infobox and the categories for me. Leave it up to you to decide what is best. As for the photo of a painting , will read Non free content criteria. If it's too complicated, will have to drop it though it seems a shame as the readers would have the one on Bridgeman and Wikpedia's.ThanksBoselawrence (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence PS Have read Fair Use document (non- free-content) which would be suitable for at least one painting: The one entitled "Portrait with a rose" which was previously published by The Listener. The other one is typical of her Italian period but have no idea if it has already been published.The copyright of both theses paintings belong to the artist. The only snag with the Trompe l'Oeil is that it is a bit damaged but at least it illustrates one of the aspects of the article. What do you think?Boselawrence (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

Thanks!

Thanks for closing down the discussion on WP:ANI about Mr.Fantastique, you're right, it had run it's course. It was time to just walk away for everybody. Good call. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries. --Haemo (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Archiving ANI

With respect, the problem appears to go beyond a single editor. Your archiving was unhelpful, but I will accept it. --Relata refero (disp.) 04:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Haemo (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Speedy deletion of Small group research topics

Can you please send me the deleted page "Small group research topics"? Thanx, Susko. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susko (talk • contribs) 12:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have userfied it here. --Haemo (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Mexican-American War

Hi there.

On March 30, you applied full protection on the Mexican-American War article for a period of three months.[2] I was wondering why you applied full protection instead of semi-protection. The only thing I saw in the page history is excessive vandalism only by anonymous users and relatively new registered accounts. Under WP:PPOL, without any content dispute or vandalism by long time accounts, full protection for three months is very extreme. Is there anything else that prompted this type of protection? Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I dare-say that would be a mistake. I'm surprised no-one noticed beforehand! Definitely drop it down to semi-protection. --Haemo (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting your input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive

Since you are a member of WikiProject Economics, I would like to direct your attention to Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive. We are currently deciding on an economics-related article to bring to Featured Article status and we would like your input. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Andranikpasha Violated Revert Parole

Hello Haemo, I extended the block on User:Andranikpasha to 2 weeks because I caught them using a sockpuppet account to revert. I just realized upon blocking them that they are involved in an Arbitration case. Could you make a note of it at the case?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Haemo (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that. The article history of Hayasa-Azzi had become incredibly confusing and this is a sockpuppet of another user. I reduced Andranikpasha's block to the original duration and apologized. Please look at the threads at the bottom of their talk page.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Math/Logic/Philosophy

I invite any complete investigation into myself, and the whole math culture. I may be the only one who has done about it. That doesn't make it all about me. I stand by my contributions. If thing turn out differently in the article space, that's wikpolitics, and that's just fine. However, on the talk side, these people need someone to look after the due process, and beyond the mere annoyance level of analysis. I think there are a few who are overzealous. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes happen. You just have to live with them, and no one thinks less of you for having them. I would just not worry about it so much. You might want to read User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal. --Haemo (talk)

Thank you. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

About Bettina Shaw-Lawrence

I left a message on 12 May, but you may not have noticed it. If you can fill in the infobox and the categories I would be most grateful. If you are too busy, I will fill in the categories. With regard to uploading a picture, after much mental convolution, it dawned on me that I had to investigate for myself, which I have done. Naturally it's all quite beyond me, so calling on others to try and help. Will let you know what the results are within a day or two. It's funny the Portrait with a Rose, is much better enlarged.Boselawrence (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

Sorry! I totally missed your message; I will go ahead and do that now. --Haemo (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Panic on board with regard to photo of Portrait with rose. The person who tried to help , got one picture filed under my contributions (Ref: IMG OO20 - JPG) and then tried to add an improved version but failed. So the portrait is the right one but presentation needs vast improvement and colour to be enhanced. Zginder gave me a week to settle matters with regard to copyright issue. If I can't cope would you mind if I dropped the image from the article? Talked to the artist about infobox, but refuses categorically influences one way or the other so had to remove David Kentish and Lucian Freud. As Bettina S-L says, "they had common sources". Can I add a few more categories? ThanksBoselawrence (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

Sorry to hear that; but yes, go ahead and add more categories. Make sure they are "blue" and not "red" when you add them (look in the preview). --Haemo (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Dear Haemo, Thanks about categories, but seem to have a problem: everything is blocked when I try to enter my contributions. ¨Probably once more my fault, as I was in the process of leaving message , left to look up the name of Zginder and then came back to find that somebody had swooped in and so just wiped it out as I wanted to go on with my message.Nothing intentional. Obviously I shouldn't have done it but the picture business is a great disappointment. Can you have my contributions released, if that is why everything is blocked. Would it be possible to have my article released on Wikipedia in the next few days despite image not being available. I'm starting to feel the strain of things particularly as my mother is very sick. Obviously too agitated to handle such a complex tool as Wikipedia. An overwroughtBoselawrence (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

The article is now ready. Have tried hard to transfer picture but beyond my technical competence. There's a logic that escapes me. Is it you Haemo who puts the article online?Boselawrence (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence Ps What about title? I just wanted to add that I did fill in a form when one picture arrived this afternoon, but it doesn't seem to have come to anything.--Boselawrence (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You can do it. Just move the title to her name Bettina Shaw-Lawrence. You can recreate redirects for other names like Betty Shaw-Lawrence after. --Haemo (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2008

(UTC)

Thanks for the work you have done and your reassurance. Will wait a few days, as suggested, before redirecting.And sorry once more about the image. Should I find the right person to help, could I still include the picture? Best regards,--Boselawrence (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. --Haemo (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Haemo, Four labels for changes to be carried out on the article, let me know what I should do. Getting the balance right to satisfy everyone is no easy feat. It's no longer any fun if it goes on like this. Regards, Boselawrence (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence. PS No explanations have been left on the article's talk page to describe what is wrong.Boselawrence (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

Adam Smith has been chosen as the first article in WikiProject Economics' first Featured Article drive

I am contacting you because you Supported the decision to choose Adam Smith as the first Featured Article that WikiProject Economics would work on. If you can, please help out and make this goal a reality! A discussion on this has begun at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics#The Featured Article drive is now closed. Thanks for your time! Gary King (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Corvette Leaf Spring mediation

Why did you close this mediation? Your suggested outcome of a third party revision has not happened. How long does one wait before other options are considered? Should the revision materialize and it not be fair and balanced, does one start another mediation? --Autostream (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Autostream, we agreed that the article would be moved to a general rather than Corvette specific discussion of the transverse leaf springs. With that the discussion seemed to have been complete. The MT article would not be included as it was Corvette specific and has now been shown to be based on incorrect assumptions.Springee (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This was my understanding of the outcome, with the agreement that a 3rd party could be used to do any contentious wording. --Haemo (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

pilot

Is AIEEE examination required for becomming a pilot? What should one do along with 11th and 12th to become a pilot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.95.80.237 (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure — my friend is a pilot but I'm not sure what he took. Have you tried asking the reference desk? --Haemo (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you. I saw just a moment ago. Cheers. --Molobo (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I just thought you might want some explanation. --Haemo (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Caesar's soapbox

Hi Haemo, sorry to burden you with this but a user making soapboxing edits keeps popping up on watch list - I've been ignoring this for months but I think it's gone too far to be ignored this time. I believe you're aware of User:Caesarjbsquitti‎'s use of Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks and Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories as soapboxes for his theories on half-truths[3][4][5][6]. He seems to have written a book about "half truth" (The Jesus Christ Code. © The LIGHT: The Rainbow of Truth. to be released spring 2008 - self published) and he's been making posts about his opinions and research on half-truths on a number of pages for a long time - Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks is just the latest.

He was previously blocked for this behaviour in November 2007 after being warned and advised that wikipedia is not a soapbox.[7]

In January 2008 the sysop Lquilter warned him again for soapboxing[8].

And now he is at it again.

I made th original ANI posting in November 2007 after User:Caesarjbsquitti‎ made a series of trolling soapboxing comments to talk:feminism[9]. Since then he has not only repeated the same behaviour but replicated it on a number of articles. He refuses to heed the warnings given and considers them to be "wikistalking" by the political correct "gate-keeper" editors (which is quite an assumption of bad faith).[10]

I'm afraid this is not an isolated incident. This is a list of a few of the incidents of the same beahviour in the last 7 months:

2008

• Talk:Conspiracy_theory[11]
• Talk:Feminism[12]
• Talk:Domestic violence[13][14][15]
• Talk:Violence against women[16]
• Talk:Political correctness[17]
• Talk:Pro-life[18]
• Talk:discrimination[19]
• Talk:Democracy[20]

2007 and earlier

• Talk:Feminism[21][22][23][24][25][26][27]
• Talk:Nazism[28]
• Talk:Lucifer[29]

User page

The use of his user-page is problematic as well. At worst it borders on being as a soapbox about "half truths" and as an ad for his book - see it here

Again I'm really sorry to burden you with all this but User:Caesarjbsquitti has and is continuing to make tendentious posts to talk pages--Cailil ^talk 23:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not uninvolved, so I can't really say much here beyond "I agree with your assessment and think there is an issue with this user". He clearly isn't going to respond to a polite suggestion, so I suggest (1) using the 9/11 ArbCom remedy to warn him and (2) if he persists, start an ANI thread. Yes, that is not a terrific suggestion but the sentiment is definitely changing against tendentious POV pushers at the moment. --02:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion requested

Article apparently written like an ad. and not neutral enough. To please whoever it is, I have deleted some adjectives etc.. as well as two sentences and written to explain why I had chosen to write about B S-L on the talk page concerning the artist. Is that enough and should I worry about anything in particular? Yours,Boselawrence (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

It's okay. That was an older version. I've done a little rewording. You've asked on the talk page for any examples for improving the neutrality; just wait, and if no one comes forward to suggest any after a week or so, then go ahead and remove the tags. --Haemo (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Haemo, Thanks for everything and hope that matters have been definitely settled. What I would like to do in a few months is to add a contribution to the Tambimuttu article. May I come back to you when I've completed my research? Best regardsBoselawrence (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

Absolutely. Good work, by the way. --Haemo (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear haemo, I seem to be caught up in some kind of inextricable web. Orange Mike has asked me to remove peacock words and when I tried to do it, a note came up to announce editing conflict and that any changes carried out would not be saved. What is going on? Best regards,Boselawrence (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

Okay, that's just a technical thing. An edit conflict occurs when you're working on a page, and someone else edits it before you can save your changes. It's a huge pain, but something you just have to live with. It doesn't mean there's any serious issue; you just have to do the edit over again. For that reason, many people put {{inuse}} at the top of the page before they start working. --Haemo (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Haemo, With Wikipedia you really must not lose your nerve. You learn the hard way as it is more or less impossible to take in all the rules. Am trying to figure out how to comply with the numerous tags. Best regards,89.157.191.199 (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

Do you want to adopt me?

Title says it all - my current adopter said that I kind of needed a "better" adopter. If you are intrested, please leave a message on my talk page. --Vinni3 (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you prefer an adopter in Europe. I'm North American; is that a problem? --Haemo (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know; lets give it a shot. Please note I'll only be on at weekends. --Vinni3 (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Just ask me any question you have here, and I'll try to help out. --Haemo (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad call by admin incident

In regards to that incident which you archived. I provided a late suggestion, can you comment on it. I will copy&paste it here "Can a "confirmed tag" be placed by an admin next to the Japanese references to prevent future removals? Moreover, this could be useful to other articles with similar foreign reference problems" could such an action be accetable, and help prevent future removals of foreign references which have been accepted by the RS board? 220.253.148.207 (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's really necessary; it adds a level of "official" standing to a decision which is not standard on Wikipedia. The talk page archives should suffice, but you should suggest it on WT:V as a possible new adaptation. --Haemo (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

JCC SSP

See [30] — Rlevse • Talk • 15:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Editorial conflict

Please look at "Speedy deletion requested" where I have left a note. ThanksBoselawrence (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)boselawrence

I have above. --Haemo (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Haemo, Have reviewed the article once more to increase neutrality. To do so have reduced to a minimum the lead and have also given proof of Bettina's connection with David Kentish and Lucian Freud by citing one of her letters available at the Tate. Have also done much more internal linking. I'm hoping that some of those tags will be removed after all the work I have put in.Maybe I should have done less research. One way and the other it has taken over a year to gather all these references. Regards,Boselawrence (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

Just wait a little while and if no one can substantiate the claims made in the tags, you can remove them. Good work on your first article :) --Haemo (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Haemo, If I dare to remove any one of those tags they will all jump down my throat.Would it be feasible for you to contact those who have put up the tags and see if they are ready to remove them now.If there are things still bothering them to let me know what it is precisely. I have tried to comply with all their requests but I'm not a professional biographer only someone who did a thesis many years ago with a totally different approach. If this is an imposition, let me know. Thanks and best regardsBoselawrence (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

I have done so. You appear to have addressed most of the issue; I left the Wikify tag, because maybe someone can come along and help with some of the reference formatting and categories. --Haemo (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Haemo, Thank you for all efforts and will come back to you about Tambimuttu. I'm returning to the States very shortly because of my mother's health. Yours sincerely,Boselawrence (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)boselawrence

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your reasoned discussion and resolution at WP:AN/I of an issue involving a legal threat, libel, a homophobic attack, and impersonation, which was a horrible combination that could have resulted in more Wikidrama, but for your intervention. Bearian (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Awarding Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humour
		Would like to add that your sense of diplomacy also contributes to your effectivenessBoselawrence (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Boselawrence

Thank you! --Haemo (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wiki templates

Could you please explain to me what Wiki templates are all about. Thanks. --Vinni3 (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've put my reply on User talk:Haemo/reply. If you respond it it, please respond here, otherwise I might not see it.--Haemo (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Controlled Demolition...

Have you considered asking for semi-protection to flush out the IP users (who seem to be the ones responsible for most of the POV pushing right now)? Semi-protection will eliminate Arthur's concerns about Bov editing under IP addresses.

BTW, what happened to your admin bit? Last I recall, you were an admin (I remember supporting your RFA). Did you get tired of the mop? Horologium (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it's pretty clearly just Bov, so there's no real need for semi-protection. And yes, I resigned my bit a little while ago because I didn't really need it. --Haemo (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA questions

Those are some of the toughest questions I've seen! I've answered them for you, let me know here or on my talkpage or wherever you'd like what you think. Very interesting topics. Avruch^T * ^ER 02:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to answer them. I think they're more worthwhile than something you could look up in a guideline. --Haemo (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Kerotan's RFA

Sorry about the all-caps edit summary, but if you look at the Oppose section, the candidate sumbited his withdraw. I would close it, but I've already participated in it. I didn't mean to come off rude in the edit summary, just wanted to make it noticeable to any passer-bys that could close it. :-) --Koji†Dude ^(C) 20:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me close it then. Oh, and no worries about the edit summary. --Haemo (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Assistance

I'm involved in a discussion with a user on [Sean Hannity], User:Docku(talk). I'm not asking you to get involved in the discussion but I'm not sure he understands how RFC works. As a neutral admin who has never edited the page, could you explain it him? --PTR (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of American apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's baaaaaccckkk...

I notice that the article The Money Masters has been re-created by a new user. Famspear (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Correction: The "new" user has been around since September 2007. Famspear (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like it's gone again, so I guess the system works! --Haemo (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)