User talk:Haukurth

• Archive 1 — July 24th 2003 - October 12th 2005
• Archive 2 — October 12th 2005 - November 24th 2005
• Archive 3 — November 22nd 2005 - December 29th 2005
• Archive 4 — January 3rd 2006 - February 25th 2006
• Archive 5 — February 26th 2006 - May 31st 2006
• Archive 6 — June 2nd 2006 - August 10th 2006
• Archive 7 — August 10th 2006 - October 3rd 2006
• Archive 8 — October 5th 2006 - January 4th 2007
• Archive 9 — January 5th 2007 - May 19th 2007
• Archive 10 — May 20th 2007 - August 6th 2007
• Archive 11 — August 8th 2007 - December 5th 2007
• Archive 12

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	This was not as bad of an AN/I report as you made it out to be. I appreciate that you stood up for your convictions while trying to keep the project civil. Obviously, not all blocks are going to be ringers. Please, keep up the good work! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was very sweet. <3 Haukur (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so very glad to have been the catalyst that brought such a nice couple together. EEng 03:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have any joy with your email to the cathedral, drop me a line and I'll buy it and send on to you. Best of luck! ——SerialNumber54129 08:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me and for your generous offer! I just sent them a nice e-mail now, I'll let you know if they reply. Haukur (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't heard back. I guess they could be understaffed this time of year. Haukur (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, is there any way to alienate most of the human race he didn't follow? He's marginal, but on the notable side of marginal (but not for the IMDb listing; heck, I'm in the IMDb), and I have said so. And I'm a SJW, Quaker social democrat and proud friend of lots of GLBT folks, as well as an avid reader and reviewer (ask Toni or Eric) of Baen books. People are complicated. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? You do whatever needs to be done, I'm washing my hands of it. I tried to ask for a simple consensus of what the next step was and even that apparently is too much to ask while someone is coming in accusing me of "targeting conservative authors" or some bullshit they're doing coordinated straight from [1] [2]. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfD can be pretty upsetting and I hope we can come up with some way to make these discussions less confrontational. I do think there are legitimate concerns with the Hoyt article and hopefully people will continue working on it. The article talk page might be the most appropriate venue for now. I had forgotten (or never knew) that according to Wikipedia:Peer_review/guidelines "Articles must be free of major cleanup banners" before being taken there. So the first thing to do would be to see if the cleanup banner that is there now is justified and, if so, what could be done about it. But if you want to take a break from this now that's very understandable. Haukur (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just requested protection for two pages after it looks like Williamson's off-wiki harassment campaign attempted to dishonestly suggest one of them to keep up this "waah they are attacking conservative authors" bullshit. Oh and been called a "dog-fellators at Wikipee" by Williamson today too so there's that. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

<3 Haukur (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok nope, done. [3]. That plus being called a "dog fellator", I quit. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know now, I am saddened to see that you weren't really interested in honest discussions, especially so by your encouraging Edgar181 to cast aspersions at me. [4]. Especially after the numerous slurs that were thrown at me in the AFDs, the fact that someone tried to call my workplace to harass me, and knowing that someone already "investigated" me and I'm no sockpuppet. [5]. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how I encouraged any such thing. I have never called you a sockpuppet or, as far as I can see, said anything negative at all about you. I am saddened to hear about someone calling your workplace. Haukur (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to thank you for not joining the delete bandwagon on at least Michael Z. Williamson, but instead working hard to improve the article. I'm still thoroughly convinced that it was the first of a purge of conservative SF authors, and happy that the article was ultimately kept. I hope that, contrary to the suggestion at the end of the no consensus ruling, that this sleeping dog is finally left to lie. The work you've done goes a long way toward that end. Thanks. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll respond further at your talk page. Haukur (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you even more for the work on Tom Kratman. You have done Wikipedia a great service. My hope is that the flurry of deletions will die down and we can all go back to doing more productive things. Should the occasion ever arise, I owe you a bottle of your favorite potable. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Come visit Iceland and drinks are on me :) Haukur (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see if there is anything you can provide to help resolve this discussion. Thanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read it and added the page to my watchlist but don't think I have anything to add at the moment. I agree with you that the key point for us is what third party reliable sources are doing. Haukur (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Haukurth. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You're amazing! Should I send you my address? Or do you want to make use of this yourself? :) Haukur (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's all yours  :) don't get your hopes up, it's not very big! Yes, please do so. ——SerialNumber54129 12:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you retracted your !Vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosemary Crossley. You should know that at this moment there is no evidence that Rosemary Crossly is notable for anything other than promoting facilitated communication and working with people who use it. One editor keeps making the claim that she is notable for other things, but hasn't backed it up with sources. I don't know if this changes anything, but I thought it was relevant. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My German's a little rusty but I think at this point I'm supposed to challenge you to pistols at dawn. EEng 17:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC) P.S. I would appreciate your not saying I threatened you with guns.[reply]

I've totally lost the plot here. German? Guns? Haukur (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a deadpan joke. You say something in French, I say, "Sorry, my German's a little rusty". Ha ha ha ha. It's partly a way of diverting attention from the fact that I can't understand a word of French. EEng 03:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see, I probably should have figured. But despite this little hiccup I give us a collective A for this duelling exchange. Very decent "friendly banter don't block" stuff. For what it's worth the Nostradamus quote means "They will be equal in nature but very different in faith." I thought this was apposite but it isn't really that apposite and I let my fondness for this quote lead me astray. I give myself a C+ here at best. Haukur (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But can I assume you will be wearing your breeches of civility? Haukur (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to complement you on that one. EEng 03:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was pretty happy with this one too as a little tribute to your style of humor. Haukur (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of my several styles. You only see the one I use on Wikipedia. EEng 22:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charity[edit]

I'll show some charity when with the RfC ending with six weeks' work by ten editors being restored i.e. this edit [6] is reverted. As far as E.C. goes, search Talk:Moors murders for the word oneupmanship (not oneupsmanship – he spelled it wrong), and also see my posts near the beginning, and the end, of the thread here [7].

BTW, if you want to see my idea of real research and careful sourcing, see Phineas Gage or Widener Library (the latter being, BTW, where I got all the sources). EEng 03:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is like a dispatch from some alternate universe Wikipedia. What mighty sourcerer came up with this system? Haukur (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the format of the reference callouts, like this^[B2]: 5, and the alphabetized bibliography grouped as For general readers etc., that was me and the matchless Mirokado -- see Talk:Phineas_Gage/Archive_7#Together_again!. If you mean the meticulous research and sourcing, that was me. An important topic like M.M.s deserves that level of attention. EEng 00:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the electric chair. It's actually interesting to compare this with the duelling guns. I thought the guns were fine. They're so quaint and cute and remote from any present reality that the message can't be taken as genuinely threatening or distressing. I'm happy to play along and even add more 18th century claptrap. But the chair just feels gross and sad and the image is too graphic for my tastes.

On the other hand, I feel there could be a lot of comedic potential in a routine where I am continually hatching new schemes to get you blocked and you always manage to nimbly escape at the last second. Haukur (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship. Here I wanted to insert an image of The Roadrunner and Wile E. Coyote, but I couldn't find a free one. <BEEP BEEP!> EEng 22:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sent the email. Also, "You are very lucky that this is still here," the librarian told me, "we've been throwing away this sort of thing" - is that sort of material really so unpopular? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I gathered that "just abstracts" were felt to be useless, I don't know. Seemed like a very information dense slab of paper to me.

The University of Iceland is supposedly decent on geology but sadly this was the only one of your requests that I was able to find. Haukur (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Received, thanks. It's probably a problem because an University of Iceland will probably cover Iceland's volcanoes first, not the American ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Far be it from me, as you obviously rank about 1000x higher on the WP food chain than I do, but I agree with Shemtov 613, who inserted the report about President Trump's interest in buying Greenland into the Greenland WP article. According to the WSJ article, the US made two prior attempts to buy the island from Denmark, once in 1867, and the other in the 1950s. I certainly think this is all worth reporting. One paragraph or so relating all that information would make up a tiny percentage of the Greenland article, and I would think that this is certainly relevant information, especially if one includes the part about Denmark apparently tiring of spending significant sums there. Vcuttolo (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel you have to show me deference here but I'd be happy to discuss my thinking on this. By inserting a sentence on Trump's idea into the end of the history section it makes it sound like this is the most significant thing that happened in Greenlandic history for the last 10 years. And it really is not, this is just some little idea that will go nowhere and affect nothing. At this stage it feels to me like WP:NOTNEWS applies, along with WP:UNDUE.

It's true that this is an idea that has been pursued with more seriousness in the past and there would be nothing wrong with writing about that. There's probably even enough material for a separate article on Attempts by the United States to purchase Greenland and it would be fine to deal with Trump's version of this there. Haukur (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've discussed this further elsewhere but for the sake of clarity I wanted to add a note here that Denmark–United States relations seems like a good place for this to me and a separate article probably isn't needed at this stage. Haukur (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thanks. Is there an Icelandic spelling of the word? Bishonen | talk 10:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Sadly, I don't think so! We have hlaðborð but that can also be used for buffet more generally. Haukur (talk) 11:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For julbord we say jólahlaðborð. Haukur (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jólahlaðborð? That's a beautiful word. I hope there's lutfisk on the borð. Or hákarl, perhaps? Bishonen | talk 11:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

There'll certainly be hákarl on the þorrahlaðborð. I'm partial to it myself. For strongly smelling fish around Yule you might have to settle for fermented skate on Thorlac's mass. Haukur (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. As a Harvard freshman I was taught that Yule men stink, and finally I know why. EEng 16:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried hákarl when I hitchhiked in Iceland in my youth (early 19th century). For me, the description sounded quite mouth-watering — I'm very partial to the ammonia flavour of salmiak liquorice and aged gorgonzola. Ammonia's good. But hákarl, disappointingly, I found horrible. 😝 Apparently I'm not as hardcore as I like to think. Bishonen | talk 11:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

The deletion of a Broadway actor's article, even after conducting WP:BEFORE, could be controversial. Please go to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for de-proding it, I think I was moving too quickly here. Haukur (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tutankhamun is an article that receives over one million pageviews per year as a Level 4 Vital Article. Thanks for contributing towards raising this articles rating!

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Tutankhamun to Good Article status.

--Mark Miller (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Haukurth,

Would you like to do as The Rambling Man has suggested and take Tiberius to FA once it passes GA? I think it has a decent shot at passing. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we could do that. While on the subject, I still kind of think we should rename the article since 'David' is used much more by the sources than 'Tiberius'. For a while I liked David Tiberius but I don't think there's any primary source that actually calls him that so maybe that's a bit misleading (as I think you already pointed out). But David (son of Heraclius) might work. Haukur (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, the imperial name always takes priority, even if they only hold the title for a few days. I'm not strongly vested in David vs. Tiberius, but it would break a lot of precedent. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my Stallman edit and cited the reliable sources page. I cited The Verge. The Verge is listed as a reliable source. All 3 other sources I cited were primary sources, ie, direct accounts either from Stallman or his coworkers, and one would think inherently reliable.

Surely, this was a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.39.178 (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that there are or will be secondary sources of adequate quality for Wikipedia to mention this event. But we can't do original research to draw novel conclusions or tie together information from two sources.

As for the Vice source, note how misleading and sensationalist it is: Stallman Described Epstein Victims As 'Entirely Willing'. The actual quote is not on "Epstein Victims" in general but on one particular person. And he wasn't saying that she was actually willing but that "the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing" because of Epstein's coercion. Now, this may still be a dumb thing to say but it's a very different thing than that Vice headline says. Haukur (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Narsaq stick, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Narsaq stick was the first Viking Age runic artifact discovered in Greenland? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Narsaq stick. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Narsaq stick), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to keep this deleted page as a user subpage of User:Mrsmiis / ... (the creator); or mine if I can not request it on behalf of others. It would make it much easier to recreate the page when the notabilty is reached. Thank you. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, does User:Pelmeen10/Max Mata look right? Haukur (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - cheers Pelmeen10 and Haukur! Mrsmiis (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_writers_from_peoples_indigenous_to_the_Americas&curid=363722&diff=917135154&oldid=916789883

I am still a citizen of the federally recognized Cherokee Nation, and I am still an author. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Day_in_North_American_Indian_History

I cannot change it because of Wikipedia's COI.

Phil Konstantin (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, part of the inclusion criterion for a list like that will typically be that an article exists. A redirect might not cut it. But I confess I'm not familiar with this particular list. Haukur (talk) 23:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For saying it and saying it well on Fram's RfA2. The only thing missing was some Hans Zimmer background music to you speaking it with passion. DBigXrayᗙ 05:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I love berries! Haukur (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being a voice of reason throughout the recent constitutional crisis and ensuing RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Thank you likewise. Haukur (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your section at the article was accidentally deleted. I would have reverted it back, but another editor replied to the editor that deleted it so I thought it was best just to copy it back in.[8] Can you just check it to make sure I haven't inadvertently changed anything. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thank you! Haukur (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thanks for your participation in the September 2019 GA Backlog drive. Your 2 reviews made a difference, as did your willingness to review a particularly old nomination. The work of editors like you helped bring down the unreviewed backlog by over 35%. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was fun to participate in, thanks for coordinating it! Haukur (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re this Citation bot edit: you should use the WP:CITEBUNDLE format illustrated in the article's Talk page. All these subscription-only and signup-only sources are detrimental to the quality of articles. Wikipedia is intended for use by the general public. Readers should not be forced to spend $ or create user names in order to verify information provided with cited sources. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 13:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do mean to add links to the pdf pages you found, I'm sorry that I haven't gotten around to it yet. Haukur (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haukurth, Pyxis Solitary: Offline sources are usable. Online sources that are not freely available are also usable, and in fact, are often the most reliable. If you have issues to access an academic paper, you can request a copy at WP:RX. Other editors with access to academic databases can send a copy by email. There is also The Wikipedia Library where you can request an account for some databases that have a partnership with Wikipedia. If you have any issue accessing a source, I'm happy to help. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was about to say something similar -- see WP:SOURCEACCESS. EEng 14:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what I can do. What matters is what the general Wikipedia reader can do. You really believe that every Wikipedia reader is aware of WP:RX? I have found many sources that at first come up as unaccessible by digging more for them. That's how I found the uploaded .pdf of the source in question (which is not an academic paper). If a non pay-only or member-only source can be found, we should avoid imposing hurdles upon readers. This isn't an encyclopedia for academics. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 14:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pyxis Solitary: I understand your point and it is a pity that not all reliable sources are freely available online. But if we really followed your suggestion strictly, Wikipedia would not have many of its good and featured articles. Be it a biography such as Fred Keenor or a topic such as Female genital mutilation. Many articles about current events can be sourced from online newspapers, but for many others, it is often not possible to increase the quality of the article without resorting to reliable sources that are not freely available online. In any case, this is a well-established policy (WP:SOURCEACCESS). --MarioGom (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know that medical, scientific, philosophical, technical, educational, economic, or mathematical sources are often found behind a pay wall or "free" membership; but if the article subject is social, cultural, literary, arts, business, or history chances are that there exists an abundance of accessible online sources. It's my belief, and it's how I edit, that making Wikipedia convenient for the average reader is better. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 05:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that sources that are offline or behind subscriptions are okay. But I assume we also agree that it's better to provide an accessible version if one is available. The particular issue here was replacing a ProQuest link with links to openly accessible PDF files. Pyxis Solitary suggested a WP:CITEBUNDLE, which would work, but doing the entire thing in triplicate has its drawbacks. The way I did it just now definitely isn't perfect either.[9] How would you do this, EEng? Haukur (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Traveling, tiny screen. Ping me if I don’t get back to you when I return to civilization in 3 days. EEng 17:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the three separate pdfs for individual pages make for an awkward situation; I don't know of any way to feed those into the cite template machinery, so what you've done already may be the best it's gonna be. Just to be clear, whether a source is available on line or not, or requirs payment or subscription or not, is absolutely irrelevant. In fact, part of Wikipedia's function is to make otherwise inaccessible knowledge freely available, and to deprecate offline or pay sources would work completely contrary to that goal. But once a source has been selected, we should link to any free, legal online copy, if one's available. EEng 08:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it, I appreciate it. And I agree that making inaccessible knowledge available is good, you put it well. Haukur (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course providing an online version is preferable. If offline, it is desirable to add a quote in the reference. Depending on how much of the publication is relevant, maybe you can link only to the relevant page? --MarioGom (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are not interested in a discussion (deleting my comment) I am going to file a formal dispute against you. Carlduff (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is now at WP:ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TRM has been in touch with me offwiki. He's taking a wikibreak at least and is considering retiring altogether. He asked me to let you know that unfortunately he won't be able to help you with your GA review as promised. I haven't done a GA review before but I'm experienced at FA and confident I can read up, so if you'd like me as an inadequate replacement for TRM's expertise, please do ask. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone deserves a break it is TRM. Thanks for offering to help with Tiberius (son of Heraclius), I'd be delighted to work with you on a GA review. Or, if you think the article looks ready for FAC we could take it there directly. Haukur (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious[edit]

Old Norse and Roman ruler

Thank you for quality articles such as Narsaq stick, Tiberius (son of Heraclius) and Camille Bacon-Smith, performed in collaboration, for reviweing, for service from 2003, and admin services, for a minimal informative usr page, for remembering, - user from Iceland, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2328 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was sweet of you, thank you! Haukur (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you made some substantial edits to Draft:The Weapon (novel) so as a courtesy I'm letting you know it has been deleted under CSD criterion G13. As an admin I'm sure you know how to get it refunded if you want to work on it some more :) --kingboyk (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that! Haukur (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haukurth, it looks like this review may be complete now; Dweller seems to be satisfied with it, and the page move that they requested has been done (from Tiberius, I think it was). As you were the original reviewer, do you feel comfortable closing it now? If not, I'll asked Dweller to do it. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry for neglecting this for so long. I'll try to give it a read-through tomorrow and see if I have anything to add. Thank you for reminding me. Haukur (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's been another couple of weeks. Hope you are well, and able to get to this soon. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haukurth, I saw that you made a brief edit to the article page yesterday. I'm hoping that you can conclude the review right away; we've gotten to the point that the GA nominations page can't handle the sheer number of nominations on it, which is causing transclusion problems. Thank you for the gift of your time. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April–May 2020 GAN Backlog Drive As you have taken part in previous GAN Backlog drives, or are a prolific GAN reviewer, you might be interested to know that the April–May 2020 GAN Backlog Drive starts on April 1, and will continue until the end of May.

Harrias ^talk 06:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Haukurth: regarding removal of authorship information as a wp:undue on following text

" The text is supposed to be derived entirely & only out of Intuition & spiritual experiences and not by logical reasoning as there is no claim of authorship by any writers but the writer always referring to the text as being inspired revelation or via Intuition and beyond, making it very difficult to add a logical flow to the meaning often making the text incomprehensible to understand. "

Regarding authorship "claimed" by Rishis if thats what you meant, they themselves have written they are not the authors of the text but only composers would it be interesting add this also in lead to make it neutral ?

it is not only Aurobindo but also two western authors with similar claims, can it be reworded ?

I know as a Admin you have your handsfull, I would be really happy if we can collaborate in editing this article :)

--Shrikanthv (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me! I would certainly like to work on the article if I can find the time. I suggest we focus discussion on the article talk page. Haukur (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Did you make this edit? That vote was actually left by an impostor, not the real Fish and karate. Adam9007 (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for fixing that. I see I got taken in. Haukur (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly infallible either; I thought you were another sock before I realised that you had genuinely made a mistake! Adam9007 (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was far too hasty - I figured the socking action in that AfD was on the keep side and it didn't occur to me to check for impersonation. Will be more careful next time... Haukur (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the real me confirming it wasn’t me. Fish+Karate 21:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's all right there in the log. I hope the troll at least got a laugh out of my idiocy. Haukur (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're not the only one who fell for it... Adam9007 (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least I'm in good company :P ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Haukur, I’m sorry I can’t add this to the Ref Desk page at the moment, but in case it’s helpful am posting here. Have you thought of looking through Gatschet’s other poor glosses to get a feel for how he mishears Spanish words? So for example, if he tends to hear a /k/ sound in Spanish as a /g/, then a word he clearly spells with g might actually mean a word spelled with q. That would be another angle for figuring out what word he intended here – and might even shed some light on the r-v situation. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That is indeed a sensible approach and I have been trying to get a feel for Gatschet's abilities and working methods. The guy was recording languages at breakneck speed - though apparently he was a shy person whose skills were a better fit for philological work.[10] Anyway, the particular problem I brought up seems to have been solved by Amble's suggestion that the word was 'braguero'. Maybe Gatschet misheard it or maybe there was some local pronunciation without the 'b'. In any case, it's just one letter distant from 'raguero' and it can refer to a strap worn around the loins. Haukur (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, so glad you got a good outcome! I'm sure there's another paper in Gatschet's ability to hear sounds accurately and what that might mean for the accuracy of his Cotoname phonology :) 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw you were the primary author of Ásatrúarfélagið. Since you are both knowledgeable about the subject and know Icelandic, I thought I could try to ask you for help with the article on Jörmundur Ingi Hansen. I've recently expanded it and think it's close to GA level, but it's largely based on sources in Icelandic, a language I have a limited understanding of. I would be very grateful if you could help by taking a look at the sources (they're all online newspaper articles, none is particularly long) and see if I have understood everything correctly. What I'm most unsure of are some terms in "Early life and education" and "Professional career", and the nature of the Reykjavíkurgoðorð splinter group. There may be other errors as well, and if you have some other criticisms that would also be very welcome. And thank you for your work on Ásatrúarfélagið and other articles! Ffranc (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Nice to see :) I'm extremely busy at work this week but I'll see if I can help when I can. Haukur (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. There's no hurry. Ffranc (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a bit curious : you took a picture of the Jacob's Ladder from Bath abbay in 2006 (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Himnastigi.jpg) and named the file "Himnastigi". Is it the icelandic word for Jacob's Ladder ? Or is it a poetic name ? I'm asking because Bára Gísladóttir, an icelandic composer, named one of her musical work like this. Zeroheure (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The word means 'ladder to heaven' and is sometimes used for Jacob's Ladder. Haukur (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Haukurth, Best wishes for 2021. Would you like to write / translate the article of Isabelle de Charrière (Q123386) for the ICELANDIC Wikipedia? Or find someone else to do it? That would be appreciated. Boss-well63 (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Battle of Svolder for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

 I invite you to please join the discussion at Talk:Foreman Thuridur.

Hello, I am seeking help with the Foreman Thuridur article, recently translated from is:Þuríður formaður, and the discussion on its talk page. I am writing to you because you are in Category:User is-N and you are either part of WikiProject Iceland, interested in translating, or have been active on the Icelandic or English Wikipedias or other Wikimedia projects.

I realize that some of you are very busy (especially the admins), while others may no longer be editing. Nevertheless, I thought it wise to consult with you.

Thank your for whatever work that you do on Wiki[mp]edia! Peaceray (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I had been running around on wikipedia trying to make some edits and learn how it all works when I came across the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdiagnosis The section "Overdiagnosis bias in survival statistics" presents a putative model that is not backed up by data, and contradicted by easily availible medical sources^{[1] [2]}. In addition the model makes assumptions which are not established to be valid either by the description in the article or by scientific consensus. This is the most glaring flaw but other aspects of the article also make unsubstantiated assumptions or non sequitur claims.

I added a section on the talk page for the article, but Knuthove advised me that I would have to grab the attention of one of the main editors of the page in order to have anything done about it.

Fachidiot (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I remember wikifying some text on that article a long time ago but I'm afraid I know too little of the subject to be of much help. I would encourage you to be bold and try editing the article directly. Haukur (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again, since you welcomed me to wikipedia I will assume that you have also accepted the responsibility of answering all my stupid questions.

1. How do I deal with users like this[11] who blatantly vandalize and where giving 4 warnings obviously isnt going to help? As I understand it I cannot simply rollback their changes again and again because I would be autoblocked for edit warring. Fachidiot (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to roll back blatant vandalism like this as often as needed. Haukur (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Haukurth! The article you nominated, David (son of Heraclius), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 25 November 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 25, 2022, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! I'll do as you suggest. Haukur (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November songs

Thank you today for the article "about David, one of the co-emperors of the Byzantine Empire. Perhaps a perfect example of a victim of Byzantine politics, he was raised to the throne as a child, was the subject of intense dynastic scheming, and was hated as the product of incest. And of course, in the end, he was deposed, mutilated, and then ignored. While in some ways more a receiver of history than a mover of it, he still held the throne during a period of vast controversy in the empire."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Haukurth,

I was wondering if you had any interest in co-nominating Martinus (son of Heraclius) for FAC; while small, it's very well put together, and I think it stands a shot at passing. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iazyges! I appreciate the offer but maybe it's best if you go it alone. I do not feel I contributed so much here. I wish you the best of luck. Haukur (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Three years!

Happy new year! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sources of Norse mythology has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]