User talk:Haber

Archives

Thank you

Hello and thank you for the nice welcome! Happy editing :-)

Mediation question

Question for you here, in case you don't have the page watchlisted anymore. Thanks, Armed Blowfish (mail) 16:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWII Infobox

I was looking at the archives for the main allied countries. I don't see how people can be so stubborn, but I wanted to see if you would be willing to give it another try to get the 5 v 3 for the infobox unless you disagree and want something different. --LtWinters 23:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think the 5v3 is the most useful version. Look for me to put it back in every few days or so. The other side is being disruptive, and eventually people will come around to our point of view, as most of the newcomers seem to be doing. Haber 01:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready to launch an editing war. We may be booted, blocked, or who knows what. But I'm ready to face that. We are right, and what we are going to do is going to be for the good of society. If you agree, let me know, and I'll start. By the way, if we do get booted, we could always make a new user name right?--LtWinters 00:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I don't think edit warring is the answer. Slow, patient editing is the way to get this done. Reverting on sight might be the way they operate, but we do not have to descend to their level. Haber 02:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --LtWinters 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of minor edit

This was not a minor edit. Please read up on minor edits and avoid this mistake in the future. Haber 22:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't keep doing this[1]. It makes it difficult for other contributors to follow the history. Haber 20:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're unaware Haber, but I'm an administrator here. When I use the "rollback" function, Wikipedia automatically tags it as a minor edit. Please read up on Wikipedia administrators and avoid making this mistake in the future. Oberiko 00:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on your talk page. Haber 03:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWII

Are you prepared to compromise, yes or no? If yes, in what form? If no, we will go ahead without you and assume that you no longer wish to have any input. All the best, Badgerpatrol 10:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions wanted - Factory farm article

Hi, can you please comment on here. This is to resolve the revert issues to unlock the page. cheers, NathanLee 16:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Transhumanist's RFA

Hey, I noticed you added an oppose, that's fine, but I have a couple of questions, (1) what makes you think we don't need any more admins with so many backlogs (and such a low representation of admins vs editors on en.wikipedia compared with all other Wikipedia's)? (2) what makes you think helping editors understand how to become good admins is such a bad thing? Just interested in your views. All the best. The Rambling Man 22:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning on changing your stance? ~ Anthøny 23:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I don't mind if backlogs get worse, because these processes don't really affect the quality of the encyclopedia. On balance, I think that admins get in the way more than they help, and this particular candidate is unlikely to be an exception. Haber 23:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if backlogs get worse, it does affect the quality of the encyclopedia. Imagine clicking Random article 10 times in a row and half of the articles you get are up for speedy deletion. Perhaps we admins should go on strike for a week, then you'll miss us. :) · AndonicO ^Talk 12:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The persistence of unnecessary articles is not so bad. What would striking admins demand? Haber 19:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've generally agreed to spend time improving WP and reducing bad (or worse - copyright infringements - which threaten the very existence of WP) articles. If admins went on strike, WP would be closed down in weeks, sued to death. Persistence of bad articles in an encyclopaedia is an awful idea. The Rambling Man 21:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe admins should focus on copyright infringements and avoid the leader/educator/cop/parliamentarian roles that they cherish so much. Could 1000 admins handle this? Haber 23:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest changing your comments, take a look at CAT:CSD for example, only very occasionaly has that got less than 150 articles up for speedy, as well as all the image backlogs. Regards — The Sunshine Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 07:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1000 admins helping out with 1.7 million articles and 4 million registered users? You think that's a fair ratio? And all the while admins are encouraged to not forget their article writing... Simple plain fact, we do need more admins. I'm not sure who you're referring to that cherishes the roles you've mentioned, in a lot of cases all of these roles are taken by regular editors. You don't need to be an admin to encourage people to understand the policies, to ensure that WP is developed positively, to suggest to vandals that they aren't helping WP, to discuss the pros and cons of various policies. The only thing admins can do that non-admins can't is delete, protect and block. And these are all covered by policies. The Rambling Man 07:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Factory Farmin archiving

You missed the point of my comment. The talk page was archived due to the huge amount of stuff that was posted there, a lot of it not actually relevant to the content of the article. It is perfectly fine for you to complain about our actions, the problem is that it is off topic to do so on the article talk page and in some cases it will simply perpetuate a running problem by commenting further. The best place to bring this sort of thing up is on the user talk pages and if it is an extreme case, or a long running set of problems, via RFC. So, please don't comment further on editor behaviour on the article talk page but on the talk page of the editor. Thanks, Localzuk^(talk) 13:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animal rights

To put it rather bluntly - no. The issue isn't us, it is the behaviour of many editors we have come across. SlimVirgin has brought dozens of articles to Featured and Good article quality, and I have improved a great number too. You may wish to look through some of the history to the many arguments that have occurred, as they should show that our behaviour has always been good and we have done a lot of good work.-Localzuk^(talk) 00:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Factory farming, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Factory farming.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]}

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

Factory Farming

It helps because the discussion seems to have broken down into one where one editor thinks consensus is the same as a minor majority, where other editors are stating blatantly false things (the term factory farming is 'propaganda'), where personal attacks are being thrown about like no-bodies business (for example your calling my comment 'nerdy') etc... NathanLee's comments still far outdo any comments made by myself, SV or crum - and most of his was repeating himself. Now that we have got to a stage where the prior arguments are simply being ignored I fear that no matter how much or how little is said will mean a swift resolution to this problem.

Also, why ask a question if you don't expect an answer? Anyone can respond to any question, that is the nature of the site.

Now, I would respectfully suggest that we try again in utilising the Mediation process as we can't move anywhere otherwise.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So your excuse is that NathanLee talks too. Very good. Haber 19:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, and your response and accompanying summary are beyond childish. I do not think I shall continue this discussion until you feel you can discuss in an adult manner.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think you're missing the point. I am calling your excuse childish, because you justify junking up a talk page with personal opinion by saying that Nathan does it more than you do. Do I have to separate you two? Haber 21:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, do you just simply pick which bit to read and ignore the rest? Try reading my entire comment before responding. By picking one bit out and then making a childish comment in your edit summary, it really improves my, and probably anyone else reading this, impressions of you as an editor.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by! Haber 04:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YIKES!

I just popped over to the Factory Farming discussion page to see if I could, as someone who's never even stepped on farmland (unless you count the Toronto petting zoo when I was eight), offer some kind of neutral mediation. BUT, after reading just a few paragraphs I realized I wouldn't step into that hornets next for love nor money my friend. Good luck to you! :-) CanadianMist 17:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes glad to see you're still around. This place is wack! Haber 19:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Factory farming RfM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/factory_farming, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Jav43 17:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Haber!

I probably should have thanked you before, since you've been frequently commenting on changes done to the WW2-montage (Image:WW2_TitlePicture_For_Wikipedia_Article.jpg) It's not that I take opinions personal or that I am unwilling to change it, but I actually really think that no suggestions or forced alterations to this point have been improving it - quite the contrary! As it seems you very much agree with me, I thank you Haber, for your encouraging support in defending the idea of it! It has been appreciated! My regards, Dennis Nilsson. --Dna-Dennis^{talk - contribs} 11:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The montage was one of the last good things about that article, and I can tell a lot of work went into it. I guess if you wait a few weeks those dopes will go away and it can be fixed. Haber 14:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from Badgerpatrol

I'm not involved in the WWII article at present and I don't know who you're referring to. Can I ask though as a general principle what you hope to gain by referring to other editors as "dopes"? Badgerpatrol 16:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's cute. You missed me. Sorry, I'm not gay. Haber 17:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed missed the kind of mature and intelligent discourse that your above post exemplifies.... Grow up for goodness' sake. Badgerpatrol 17:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your information

The former WW2 montage has now been replaced with this animated map, due to a long, somewhat heated discussion here. I support the map as a NPOV compromise, even though I think it is less exciting than a montage. Just wanted you to know - I guess you can remove the montage from your watchlist, if it is there, and if you want to. Thanks again, Haber, for all your previous encouraging support! My warm regards, --Dna-Dennis^{talk - contribs} 19:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a nice montage, and really added something to the article. I for one will miss it. See you around. Haber 20:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Per you edits to World War II, please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII. -- Jreferee t/c 06:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Commanders of World War II

The article Commanders of World War II has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unorganized, multiple issues and mostly unsourced without proper scope, most relevant "commanders" can be found on Allied leaders of World War II and Axis leaders of World War II.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]