This is an archive of past discussions about User:Heimstern. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:SCHOOL
Did you completely miss the "This is a proposal under creation" tag? That's funny because you removed it when adding the failed template. More than one editor believes this guideline to still be a work in progress. I notice you've had no input to the discussion or the guideline itself? That was only from my checking a couple of pages of history. The only edit I see is your reverting mine? Did someone call you? I'll assume good faith, but I'd just like to know how you arrived there please?--StingBuzz Me...00:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I've monitored that discussion for quite some time. I watchlisted it because I was discussing matters of school districts there. No, I was not called. I find it abundantly clear that the current guideline (as well as the most recent other version) have not met consensus, so it makes no sense for the current version to be tagged as proposed (if we started anew, maybe, but not the current one). I don't plan to revert again, since I honestly don't care that much, but it does seem time to step away from the horse, since the current disagreement among participants likely makes it impossible to attain consensus. Heimstern Läufer(talk)00:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, don't worry. I probably let myself get too worked up about it. I don't really understand why I hate those templates so much, but I do, for whatever reason. Go figure. Heimstern Läufer(talk)04:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
Hello Heimstern. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗01:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I meant to include other areas of real-world contention like science/pseudoscience, evolution/creationism, etc. Whenever the stakes "out there" are emotionally high, the behavior on Wikipedia becomes poisonous. Certainly, nationalism is one of those, but religion (directly and indirectly) is just as volatile. — Coren(talk)15:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
I'm sorry I made such a poor job of replying to your question. I have had a filthy cold and a high temperature, since Friday last, and it has cramped my style somewhat, especially when faced with 250+ questions/sub-questions.
OK, looks better now; going to have to keep studying your candidacy. Also, am quite sympathetic to your problems, as I've got a bit of a sniffle, myself. Heimstern Läufer(talk)07:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. It seems like, at the very least, you're thinking through the serious issues we face with the necessary rigour. What with the weekend upon me, I'm hoping to do some research on some of the candidates I don't know as well (though that will have to be balanced with final exams. And not the taking of them, but rather the setting of them!) Heimstern Läufer(talk)01:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering whether my replies have improved to the point where you might reconsider your oppose? The full gory background is to the really crap ones is here :) --ROGER DAVIEStalk12:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't look to me like you really need me to reconsider, you know... But sure, I'll have a look. Oh, and by the way, I think you put five tildes, not four, since your name's missing in that comment up there.Heimstern Läufer(talk)12:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
It's more to satisfy myself that I'm on the right track than anything else. And thanks for indulging me on this. I do appreciate it. --ROGER DAVIEStalk12:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't really suggest making my vote an indicator of right-wrong trackèdness. ;-) Anyway, I'm having a hard time deciding what to do right now, honestly, and I'm having a really hard time placing why. Heimstern Läufer(talk)12:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Just drop it then :) I'm sure there'll be plenty of other opportunities for a bonfire of the vanities :) Thank you for your calm and courteous responses throughout. --ROGER DAVIEStalk12:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
No. I've decided to strike. You may want to check my comments on my subpage. Please accept my premature congratulations/condolences on your excellent results. Heimstern Läufer(talk)13:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
My answers are simply a brain dump of my experiences and thoughts based on what I have seen and experienced. I've seen a bit of nationalistic editing; I've not seen much civility that would consider actionable. Hopefully you can see where I am going; I'll review and revise them in an hour, but if you have questions about them .. feel free to ask as I will be around. John Vandenberg(chat)11:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Back during the infamous omnibus case, some people made comments on this remark by our fearless leader. They suggested that the meme he references had, in fact, already taken hold, and that Jimbo was a bit behind on the times. I couldn't have possibly argued against anything they said then, and even less now. At that time, at least it was largely neglect that made the community resent the ArbCom. Now it's not so much inaction as maddening action that's causing the community not only to resent the ArbCom, but to begin to use civil disobedience against it. A house divided against itself cannot stand, and ArbCom is exacerbating the already vast divides in our community (in fact, if there is any good to be said about their recent behaviour, it's that they've helped the community have one common cause: opposition to the committee. Sometimes it seems these days like the arbs want some sort of strike or revolt from the community.) I have no solution to this problem, as arbitrator recall doesn't exist (and I admit I'm afraid of how that would go down if it did). I'm certainly hoping, yea, begging that the new arbs will turn out to be better than most of the current gang, but I'm hardly sure that will be enough. I'm also far from convinced Jimbo's intervention is likely to solve this problem. I can hope for better to come, but I don't see it coming. Heimstern Läufer(talk)10:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Delivered at 04:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)
Redirect
"Could you please explain why you created Jeff Moita as a redirect to Omnipotence?" - You
Because it made sense to me. I worship Jeff Moita and I wanted all his followers to find Omnipotence when they searched Jeff Moita, the creator. Thank you. Fortyniners9999 (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, well it does work that way. And I reckon I am going to bring this up a lot and not forget it. Jeff's followers are angry with what happened. A lot of them were put on suicide watch because you did that. See what you do? Fortyniners9999 (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I'm curious of what to do with the map? The map is validated, UN based, but some users (like Onyxig) have some POV issues to it. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Map is not UN based validated. It's self made, right? Tarnishes the entity just as much as map of attrocities done on Serbs by Mulsims-Croats in Federation would tarnish the Federation right? There are some good UN sources for all the sad unfortunate and sick things that happened by everyone all over the country. Doesn't justify you making a map for it, and on top making it for only one entity instead of whole country, Bosnia. As for the POV you are obviously not a Serb and your intentions are obvious for posting this on a single (other war side) entity.Onyxig (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
My quick question for you Heimstern, is how would one go about marking this nonsense for potential deletion. With the reasons mentioned above. Where would one do that? Fair use image section? I have nothing against Ceha, and really didnt want to get into anything with him, but i'm sick of going back and forth with this map. Onyxig (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Sources are UN based. Example, this is from International Human Rights Law Institute (IHRLI) documentation centre; [2].
As for other side and its crimes I offered multiply times to make another map showing that(as can be seen here [3] and here [4]), but noone answered my calls.--Čeha (razgovor) 20:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, I'd like to ask, what should I do with the map? Map is fine, sources are valid, but some users (like Onyxig) are agaist it... Do someone has the right to hide some data just because it does suit him ?--Čeha (razgovor) 21:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Map is stupid because source is bad. Almost all sources from bosnia during the war have things that are not certain. For example, bosniak government estimations on people killed were considered an accurate source. Well whoops, recent independent investigations show that the actual number is one third of what they said. All reports DURING the war are not accurate, because of the huge influence of propaganda. Therefore it is best to look at reports AFTER the war, not before the war was finished. One flaw in ceha's source is that it says that there was a muslim run camp in serb territory - that's preposterous. (LAz17 (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)).
Exactly Laz17. In adition Ceha, you don't need to offer to make the map. You see how much we are arguing about it, and how often you've been asked why you dont show all sides, so another map would make more sense, and if you didnt get that message before, here it si plain and simple. Obviously that's what we would all agree on as long as sources are not biased, and the map is posted under Bosnia to show everyone's involvement. ThanksOnyxig (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Laz, you something wrong. There is no report of a muslim led camp in the serbian teritory (you can check it on image discussion page)... As I previously said there where territories which changed hands and in wich both sides had war camps. That is the reason why is better to make 2 maps. Thans for the tip Heimstern.--Čeha (razgovor) 13:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
As for Bijeljina, that could be an error in view table, if you look more closely on the data about Bijeljina [6] you can see that there is no mention of Bosniak run camp there ... --Čeha (razgovor) 17:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Guys, could you please take this dispute elsewhere? It doesn't belong on my talk page, and I don't particularly like getting the orange new messages bar for messages having nothing to do with me. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer(talk)02:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Hey Heimstern. I'm Coach z's cool from the HRWiki. I thought of a page that you guys don't have yet. I'd make it myself but I don't know anything about it. It's something called Peppermint Park. I don't know if this was a TV show or what, but here's a link to a clip. I didn't guess there was something like a Request a page page so I'll just post it here. Later! 24.151.249.53 (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk%3AMaking_of_rs.gif&diff=266435183&oldid=265509996){kind=link}