Jump to content

User talk:Heimstern/archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Block of school IP 67.198.60.12

Hi, I saw that you blocked the school IP User:67.198.60.12. I mistakenly reported the IP again at WP:AIV after your block, since there isn't a block notice on the IP's talk page. Can you put a notice there? Thanks! • CinchBug • 14:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? Those notices are just a courtesy to the blocked editor, and in the case of a shared IP that's already gotten several of those notices anyway, it's pretty much pointless. People trying to find out if the editor's blocked ought to use the block log (more reliable than a notice, which may be out of date, anyway). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 17:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

re:Mahen Theatre

Hello Heimstern. Thanks for your kind words, I appreciate it. Yes, I can only recommend you to visit Brno, which is "the biggest village" in Czech Rep. Nice people and excellent architecture, particularly functionalist. Leoš Janáček, the greatest Czech composer,[citation needed] has lived there most of his life. Btw, I like your short essay, and I absolutely agree with you. Some of the noticeboards here serve as more sophisticated chat rooms and war fields for ambitious and egoistic people. Luckily, we can avoid those places and work on more important things. Have a nice day. --Vejvančický (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know about Janacek: I actually took a graduate seminar about his music. If I hadn't, I might not even know about Brno, I admit. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Da Rules

Your comments about Da Rules in an ongoing ArbCom case reminded me of the platform I espoused when I ran for ArbCom many moons ago. It didn't seem to be particularly convincing, at least in my hands back in 2007, but I still think you raise valid points. MastCell Talk 17:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, it's a good platform, even if it was unpopular. I honestly wish you'd run again, even though you probably don't want to (and I can't blame you, I don't, either). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
It was kind of eye-opening. I realized a couple of things - first, that even if you took away all of the people who opposed because I was too new, or didn't use IRC (?!?), or even people who just disagreed with my platform on theoretical grounds, there are probably still enough people I've blocked/crossed paths with who retain voting rights that I would be basically unelectable.

I did think twice, especially with the wholesale turnover that occurred last year, but a more important consideration was that I value my pseudonymity. I think most, if not all, Arbs have found it difficult or impossible to maintain their pseudonymity given their high profile on the project. I've turned down opportunities to write articles on Wikipedia in the peer-reviewed scholarly literature because I'm concerned it would compromise my pseudonymity, so it would hardly make sense to run for ArbCom. I don't think I fully appreciated that aspect until after I ran in 2007.

Finally, it just doesn't seem like very much fun. I need some positive reinforcement to keep me going here, and I get it from working on low-profile, uncontroversial articles or from joking around with people I find congenial. I don't think I could do either of those things, because of both time constraints and scrutiny, if I were on ArbCom. If all I did was listen to Wikipedia arguments about things I didn't really care about, I'd go nuts. And actually (although Kirill's resignation was a big loss) I think the Committee is largely staffed by very thoughtful, quality people at the moment, so I'm not sure how much value I have to add anyway. But thanks - I do think it's still a sensible platform, although I'd probably express it a bit differently today. Take care. MastCell Talk 16:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: ArbCom Critique

I recently read your informed critique of the current arbitration procedure, as found on one of your user subpages. While I do not agree with all your findings, I wanted to thank you for the interesting reading. It is obvious that this is something you have given much consideration to, and indeed its future is tied up with the future of the project. —Matheuler 00:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reading it! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

RE

Okay, I'm not paying much attention to the situation anyway. Just thought to tell him he couldn't use his page for articles. Rather do it in a subpage. I probably should have left a message for him instead. In the past, I can't do anything about it now. Thanks for telling me.--WillC 09:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"Elementary" school districts

I am glad to see your recent edit of List of school districts in San Bernardino County, Californiawith comment tag, Remove "elementary" from the names of several districts: Neither the SBD County Superintendent of Schools nor the districts themselves call themselves this." I don't like seeing "Elementary" tagged onto district names just because that's the kind of District they are. If the District doesn't USE the word then it shouldn't be referred to as such in Wikipedia.

I have been working on doing the same, esp. on the CALIFORNIA Schools List at List of school districts in California. As a school teacher I've been trying to place in hidden comments after each district a direct link to the District Web page to Verify the name. Don't know if I should be doing so, but seemed like a good idea a the time! BTW, agree with your comments about Wikipedia. I just too often feel that TRUTH is sacrificed for VERIFIABILITY. I personally would like to see POV if labeled as such.DavidPickett (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

Have a great break!

Have a wonderful break!!! KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 02:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Have a good break. Please come back with refreshed eyes. Chillum 02:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/Questions/General/List

I notice that you added some questions to this page. You might have missed the instruction stating that users are limited to asking a single question. In consideration of this, and of the huge burden on candidates to answer questions, please consider removing all but one question from your submission. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Fuck, seriously? Who the fuck had that idea? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I've mentioned this on the talk page. For the time being, no; I am not going to remove any. Indeed I don't anticipate being willing to remove them willingly under any circumstance, but at the least, I'm needing an explanation of how this came to be. Thanks nonetheless for the notice, Stifle. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

General Questions for ArbCom candidates

Hi Heimstern—sorry to see that you're a little disenchanted.

I'm listed as an assistant to the electoral process. We're trying to rationalise the huge number of questions (the rule actually says that one question only is permitted per user). I wonder whether you'd consider cutting 'em back. I see that your first question, on content, is similar to Camaron's third question, and that "conduct" might be otherwise part of "civility", your own third question. Tony (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Tony. Please note that I've asked a question on the talk page here. Specifically, I want to know what consensus there is about this rule of one. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Your comments

Furthermore, I've pointed out ways you could move on and get your restrictions lifted early. I don't care to have the restrictions lifted early, I want them reversed, especially the restrictions number 1 and 3. I have already explained why restriction 3 even makes it impossible to revert for me, since I don't edit 3 hours in row I would have to wait for the next day and in the mean time there care be 4 or 5 other edits on the page and I simply don't know how to do the revert i wanted to do, it's too complicated. As for the 1RR, it's completely unnecessary because I have not reverted more than once. The admins should not issue sanctions which are unnecessary, it's as simple as that. Loosmark (talk) 07:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that not a single admin has come forth in opposition to your restrictions tells me that you are most likely wrong in thinking they were unnecessary. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
No the fact that no admin has come forth in opposition to my restrictions only means that like usual admins protect it each "by default." (that is to say unless they have problem with each other from before). Loosmark (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
That is not even close to true. Admins here make a point of criticizing each others' actions all the time, indeed, we pretty much devour each other alive with "...horribly abusive..."s and "...blatant disregard for policies..."s. If an admin makes an incontestably crappy decision, there'll be no trouble finding another admin on ANI to call it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
You say you want the restrictions reversed. I think it's pretty clear that ain't happening. Both ANI and AE gave you a negative answer; any further attempts would likely lead to an even more negative answer due to forum-shopping. Barring some change at the AE thread, these sanctions appear to be upheld. Getting them lifted early is most likely the best result you're going to get. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to go to eat something now, I will answer this one a bit later. Loosmark (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

ACE2009: AGK's answers

I've answered your first and second; but am still thinking on your third. There is no rush, is there? As we have near enough until voting opens, I figure I can take some time to think. Yours is, curiously, now the only question I have not answered. AGK 01:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No rush. I actually have some good ideas from your answers to Avi's questions about what you think of civility, and the answers you gave to my other two questions were among the best I've read yet. So we're OK for now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you liked them. I've now answered your third as well. Regards, AGK 20:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Block

Reacting to this, I blocked an anon here, failing to notice that you already had a block in place. I didn't mean to step on your toes. Feel free to change the block parameters. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Not too concerned. It's fine either way. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy Report

A summary of the community's comments on our WP:Edit warring policy will be featured in the Policy Report in next Monday's Signpost, and you're invited to participate. Monthly changes to this page are available at WP:Update/1/Conduct policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009, and it may help to look at previous policy surveys at WT:SOCK#Interview for Signpost, WT:CIVILITY#Policy Report for Signpost or WT:U#Signpost Policy Report. There's a little more information at WT:Edit warring#Signpost Policy Report. I'm not watchlisting here, so if you have questions, feel free to ask there or at my talk page. Thanks for your time. - Dank (push to talk) 04:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Belated thanks

Hey Heimstern - sorry I didn't answer your comments earlier. I appreciate your support, and will endeavor, within reason, not to give you cause to regret it. If you ever think I'm losing touch with the community/my election platform/reality, please do let me know. Steve Smith (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Unfortunately, it appears it is I who am no longer in touch with the community (see below). I hope you'll have a great time on the committee, though. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Possibly parting comments

The election results this year show that the community is not interesting in fixing the problems I believe need fixing: at least one user who was the source of one of the problems has been elected to the committee. I think it's a disgrace, but hey, what the hell does my opinion matter? I'm nothing more than a lowly pawn in Wikipedia's cruel chess game. I think it's time for me to be done here. It's been a somewhat good few years, but I don't think I can even view the new committee as legitimate, which leaves me no place in the processes of Wikipedia.

Those who think I'm overreacting: Maybe I am, but this really has been awhile in the making. I almost left at the conclusion of ARBMAC2 over that issue, and most likely would have if the committee had not revised its decision toward the end. I've considered it several times again as Wikipedia has just gotten increasingly unpleasant over time. I only had my last enforced wikibreak terminated early so I could vote in the AUSC election, and intended to go on a break after the AC elections were over. These results convince me that break ought to be indefinite. And another factor is just the fact that real life is busier these days and that I really want to invest more time in my friends, as well as my job here in China. I need to stop using Wikipedia and, for that matter, the rest of the internet, as a way to distract me from boredom.

My greatest regret is my failure in all my time to produce any really honestly good content. I've spent loads of time admiring and supporting content contributors like Bishonen, Giano, ChrisO and scores of others, but have never managed to join them in making great content. I still ask myself sometimes why I haven't. I have an M.A. that required a thesis, so clearly I can write. I have a reasonable amount of knowledge. And yet the closest I've ever come to making a great article is Serenade No. 10 (Mozart). And I achieved that only once.

I mean to keep spellchecking articles, but that's about all I envision myself as willing to do. And since I can do that without my account, I'll likely mostly live in IP-land. Keeps me away from the drama. Odds are I'll pop up now and then, so I don't intend to put up the retired template or anything. Like that ever means anything, anyway. (I really wish Wikibreak enforcer could be namespace-specific and keep me out of the Wikipedia space, incidentally.)

Over and out. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom case

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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Your essay "Wikipedia is going to suck sometimes"

Was recently pointed to this, thought it was a good essay, and would like to be able to quote it. So I've gone ahead and made a redirect to it (WP:SUCK) and stuck an essay box on it. It's in your userspace so I'm not sure if that's even appropriate but I thought WP:BOLD would cover me and you can always revert if you object. Thanks for writing something worth quoting. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

S'okay by me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back to 3RR-land

Hello HL. I'm glad to see you taking an interest again by closing this case, particularly after bidding us all adieu here. I've not had much time for 3RR due to the real world, but it's good to see you show up again, especially on a confusing issue. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Ed. Good to talk at you again soon. I wouldn't say this marks any triumphal re-entry into the field, but it doesn't hurt to try something once in a while. These days I don't have a whole heck of a lot of Wikipedia time, either (I like Wikipedia, but it doesn't exactly pay my admittedly really low bills, and when my Indonesians want to hang out, well, they're a lot more fun), so I don't imagine I'll be much of a regular there, still. Not to mention I'm much more willing to make "no action" closes like that one than actually block users. Still, I may turn up now and then. Anyway, thanks for the note. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"However" versus "but"

The only stylistic "problem" with however is that it is three syllables rather than the one you get with but. If you are going to ban the word, you have to ban conversely and similar words as well. Also, you have to chuck out although in favour of though. More to the point, there is nothing objectively wrong or low about using however to begin a sentence, so going about Wikipedia "correcting" its use is bad form. -Rrius (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I see you've reverted yourself, so never mind. To address your edit summary, I don't think there is anything wrong with beginning a sentence with but; however, my point was that other people (wrongly) do, and they would outnumber those saying however is wrong. -Rrius (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I still don't like the current wording. I hold to my assertion that "however" is poor style (not grammar, just style), and Garner's Modern American Usage agrees with me. I continue to believe "but" is better: the fact that more people will support "however" does not make it actually better. I've decided not to have a dispute on the matter, though. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but Garner says the reason is that three syllables make it a "ponderous" way of introducing a contrast. Sometimes, though, you want to linger over the contrast to emphasize it or to slow the reader down for a moment before moving on. In any event, Wikipedia would be boring indeed if we replaced every three-syllable contrasting sentence conjunction with but. -Rrius (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I suppose, but I can't see any reason that would apply in this context; it seems like we ought to keep pressing ahead, as there's a continuous line of thought here. But like I said, I'm done with this issue for now. Adding the comma, as I did, is enough to make the sentence not terrible, and I'm ready to leave it that way. (Incidentally, I kind of would like to combine those two sentences about minority governments and when the election will occur, as I find it a tad bumpy to divide the related ideas into two sentences. But right now I'm not going to do that.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and combined them. They really did belong together. -Rrius (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
At least we can agree on that, eh? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Restraint in bolded part of comments

I've asked four editors here to consider changing the bolded parts of their comments in that RfC. As you are one of those editors, I'm notifying you here so you are aware of the request. If you are prepared to change the bolded comment to just "support" or "oppose", could you please refactor completely, rather than using strike-through. Any emphasis can be moved to the non-bolded part of the comment. To make clear what has happened, you can also re-sign your comment to include the date it was updated, I tend to use the following code: <small>Updated: ~~~~~</small>. The aim here is to reduce the rhetoric and inappropriate emphasis, and to refocus discussion on what needs doing here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is intended for me; I've not taken part in that discussion. Perhaps this is supposed to be for KillerChihuahua? She has a link to my userspace in her sig and we end up getting confused for each other often thanks to CTRL-F searches. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Oops. Thanks for letting me know. I clicked on her sig, ended up at some userspace essay, and then clicked up a level and must have ended up here. I've since discovered that the RfC in question is sort of finished, so I may not bother correcting my mistake here, but thanks for letting me know. Carcharoth (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Lo Wu

[1] Would you consider moving it to Lo Wu Station, or its talk page? 116.49.135.38 (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, do you have a reliable source for it? That'd be the first step toward even considering if it's worth noting (or even demonstrating that it is factual). Remember, you can always bring it to the talk page for discussion, no matter what I think. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Let's move it to Talk:Lo Wu Station first. It takes time and requires input from across the community. 116.49.135.38 (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Malformatting

Could you explain what you meant by "malformatting" on this report? All the links were removed. Thanks! --UltraEdit (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

There were no links to diffs showing edit warring. You need to provide links showing the edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice of ANI Discussion (Fut.Perf's topic ban of Hkwon)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Qwyrxian (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for removing this. I don't even know what the person is upset about as I haven't deleted any articles recently. :) ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually not usually keen on RPA, but this edit seemed just plain disruptive and practically nothing more than vandalism. Anyway, you're welcome. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Gongbei Port

In case you don't already know, Macau has its own control over immigration and customs clearance, as enshrined in its constitution, the Macau Basic Law. The border between Macau and the rest of the People's Republic of China is nothing different from an international border, except that people don't use a Macau passport to go to the other side of the border, and vice versa. For citizens of other countries, leaving Zhuhai for Macau is nothing different from leaving China for, e.g., Russia, Mongolia or Vietnam, and entering Zhuhai from Macau is nothing different from entering China from any other country. SchmuckyTheCat has long been known for playing down the autonomous nature of the special administrative regions of the PRC. 112.118.162.41 (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As I've crossed that border like, ten times, I'm definitely aware of its nature. I'm not really sure why you're bringing this up with me, since I haven't challenged any of your edits, only STC has. He says you are a banned user, and if he can confirm that to me, I'd be ready to take administrative action on the matter. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It's perhaps because of his delusion of persecution. He insists that to present the ports of entry as something between Shenzhen and Hong Kong, or Zhuhai and Macau, and he discussed it with you on his talk page. 112.118.148.29 (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

E-mail

Hey Heimstern, it's RickTommy. Did you get my e-mail? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 23:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC) (aka RickTommy)

Get a clue, would you? DC already told you off of obsessing over me at HRWiki, and now you bring it here? Please leave me alone. I've had it with your constantly pestering me to answer your irrelevant questions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

PD

Re [2] - the PD page, apparently. However, no-one is permitted to add any text to that page saying so, 'cos that would make everyone's life too easy William M. Connolley (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Already self-reverted, anyway. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Just fyi, there's a thread on the question of when there'll be a proposal posted on the proposed decision talk page. It's not going to give you any answers but it's there.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Re. [3]: We currently whine at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision, where you are (I suppose) welcome to join us ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm just tired of this issue constantly coming up on my talk page stalkees' pages. When it even made it to FutPerf's page (who's not generally involved in this type of crap, anyway), I was like, geez. Apparently there's nowhere this dispute can't live. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC

A thought

Arbcom, please post your ^@%$#&$*!# proposed decision on the climate case already. This is boiling out of control and we're sick of it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
This originally was going to go in the thread about WMC's block, but I decided it said nothing about the merits of that block and would go better here.

OK, mm goi, but it doesn't answer some important questions... Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Common names

I'm getting a little confused as to your exact point over at the UN names discussion Heimstern. Do you then agree that Ireland is more a common name in en than Republic of Ireland? Ditto China rather than People's Republic of China? I know both are wrapped around with all sorts of other debates, but on the common name point? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Ireland is the more common name, as is China. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the clarification. I guess the next question is how to get them there. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
In the case of Ireland, that's going to be completely impossible per AC ruling. The problem with common names is that we also have to deal with disambiguation, which comes into play for both of countries. Sometimes the most common name is ambiguous and we have to do something to clarify what exactly it is we're talking about. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes. I understand about Ireland, I was really just saying I realise it would be very difficult. On China, I feel the disambig has gone the wrong way pretty clearly - the general international usage common short name in English, "China", invariably means both the modern PRC state and the historic entity(ies) - I think this one in particular calls for revision given it's centrality in the listings as the largest populated nation, etc. Would one way to approach this be some sort of reference document citing all principle media and organisational labellings of how China is used? I still, possibly naively given the way things are often conducted in Wikipedia, believe in evidence. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2

Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34#Does WP:NOTMYSPACE apply to secret pages?, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Orange Bar of Death ;)

Sorry I got bitey, I had gotten pretty badly smeared by the IP and pals on Commons, and overreacted to you. Thanks for keeping balance.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. Sorry about your bad experience. I did notice that that IP was being pretty thoroughly unpleasant (I found his/her description of you as "violent" inappropriate, though kind of amusing in how absurd it was), which contributed to my willingness to block him/her. Anyway, just stay away from edit warring in the future and we'll be fine. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
The only thing this user has done since being unblocked ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/210.165.133.93 ) is to edit war on my talkpage. What recourse do I have at this point? I don't need more trouble, but I don't need badgered either.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I am very sorry to be unpleasant to you, Heimstern, mainly because I do not know the reason. If you think that calling someone retard is not a violent action, for sure is not a kind one, and Kintetsubuffalo did that on me. I was just trying to remove an useless file from this wiki, and you can check the comments of the DR in Commons to confirm that. Kintetsubuffalo is alone on this, and my recent adds are just for restore the warning message he got in his discussion about his edit warring. He just erased it. You can check the original one in the message of 3RR that led him blocked. --210.165.133.93 (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Anon, I sense that you are perhaps a non-native speaker of English? If so, OK, I understand; I'm an EFL teacher. Still, you need to realize that describing a person as "violent" means they act in a physically damaging way, and it's a serious accusation that should never be thrown around without actual physical acts to back it up. True, when applied not directly to a person, it can be non-physical, e.g., a "violent outburst" might simply mean a loud and hostile one, but when applied to a person, it cannot reasonably have this metaphorical sense. Furthermore, users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page. Do not re-add it; it is edit warring.
Kintetsbuffalo: You are exempt from edit warring restrictions such as 3RR in your own userspace except for adding blatantly disallowed content such as libel or copyright violations, so it's OK to revert the anon. If he continues, report him for edit warring. Feel free to talk to me about it, though note that I'm about to head for work. The edit warring noticeboard might be a better place to go. Hope that helps. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
You are right, English is not my language. Everyday I learn new things, like that I must stop no matter I was right in the edit warring, or that warning messages can be deleted from your own discussion. Also your explanation clarifies about the term violent. Maybe more appropriate will be intimidating behaviour or harassment? That user used on me these words:
  • retard
  • blow me
  • should be obvious to anyone with half a brain why the rename was done
  • His original snotty post was unsatisfactory, I don't need his vomit on my talkpage.
By the way, as an EFL teacher maybe you can help me with a question. The sentence How is this spam? is correct? --210.165.133.93 (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
uh? --210.165.133.93 (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
"How is this spam?" is fine in English as long as what you're asking is in what way something constitutes spam. Sorry about the late reply; went on vacation. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, it does help.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand

I said, in my statement, that I did things wrong, I apologized and I promised not to let that reoccur (I elaborate on that more in the "Response to Offliner", so if you have not read it, please do). What else can I do? A 10-page length essay in which I tear my clothes, salt and feather myself? Rather than amuse the crowds with self-humiliation, I prefer to propose solutions.

Regarding the topic ban, please note that I have already been allowed to contribute one EE article by proxy (it has reached GA thanks to my edits), and edit the WT:POLAND page (like those or those), all not only without any controversy, but my WT:POLAND activity has led to several editors expressing their support. I have also been active in EE areas on other projects (pl wiki, Commons), nowhere any controversy was raised.

Regarding the fine line, well, no topic ban has a perfect line, current included. But if the topic ban is narrowed (in a fashion similar to this one) it would be obvious to me that while I could edit NC article with regards to most of its areas, I should stay away from the nationality section (and frankly, I'd prefer to stay away from the entire article, in any case - I am fed up with battlegrounds like that and do not with to even get close to them again).

Regarding oversight, as you can see, there is a lot of editors who are happily monitoring my activities for every small misstep, and you can be assured that they will report me whenever they think I've crossed the line :>

Lastly, while this is one of those "forgotten or ignored" policies, please keep in mind that remedies are supposed to be preventative, not punitive... my topic ban will expire in half a year. Unless you can point out that there is some "damage" that will be done now that will not be done in half a year? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's possible I've missed something. Right now, I'm pretty tired; I'll come back and read those sections you mention and then see if I need to reconsider my statement. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Sounds fair. PS. Do you think it would clear your concerns if I added a statement like this to the beginning of my request: "I am sorry I became radicalized and violated WP:CANVASS, I apologize and promise not to repeat those mistakes?" I do believe I say all of this, but perhaps not so strongly at one time in any one place, hence potentially confusing cursory readers? PPS. Actually, since you are the second editor to raise similar concerns, I went ahead and modified my statement per my previous comment here. Please let me know if you have any other questions/concerns/suggestions. Thanks, PPPS. Regarding "Apparently I'm now going to join the scorned "Piotrus is evil" crowd" - I hope my jest at the page was not inappropriate; anyway, I do not consider anybody really joining that crowd unless they contribute to the ED hate page (the one which gives out mine and others real life information and calls for our harassment and even assassinations :/). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Ping - did you have time to look into the matter? No rush, though, I understand we can all be busy with real life and such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
First, I really regret how long this took. As you may have seen, I was on holiday for a bit, and then I had a second brief overnight trip that I didn't post on the talk page. That and all the work I had to do playing catch-up put me ridiculously behind on all kinds of things (if you could see all the emails I haven't replied to in my personal inbox, you'd be aghast). Anyway, I've read some of what you said and have made an appropriate strikethrough and addition. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I certainly will tell your students

Hahaha! Give me a printout of your edit, please, so I can annotate it in my special student shorthand: "adj/adv". Chuckle chuckle chuckle chuckle chuckle chuckle chuckle... [/me goes to bed, still chuckling in a very irritating way. ] Bishonen | talk 00:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

I tend to do something similar during my students' oral exams (I teach only spoken English, so grading essays and such is not really in my jurisdiction). For me, it's "adj. as adv." Guess I'm a little longer-winded. In my case, though, the students never read it; it's just to justify my scores to the administration. Not that they ever read them, anyway. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
This term, I've been running into a lot of "adj/noun" problems. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Obviously, we see things differently here. But I appreciate your letting someone else weigh in. I've gone down this road more than once with others -- some editors aren't as sensitive to this issue at first blush as I am, I know, but the guideline is pretty clear. And there is no non-frivolous reason given for the deletion of this article of 100K and its 150 footnotes. Giving a frivolous reason is not sufficient. Feel free to respond here (or not at all).--Epeefleche (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I've pretty much already said all I have to say on the matter. We'll see what the other admins do. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
They protected the article so he can't continue deleting it for a week, and opened up an AN/I. Moves it in the right direction--that has the same effect as to the article. Tx again.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Where I'm off to

Just to let everyone know why I'm away: Life is really kicking my arse right now, and I need time away from Wikipedia to deal with it all. I'm already doing better than I was a few days ago, but I still need a little time away (OK, I came back to support an RFA I thought merited it). I'll be around at least to participate in the elections soon. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

  • Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
  • There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
  • If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this edit. I believe that Tony Sidaway added that the new section link so he could submit 3RR reports from his iPhone. There was a discussion somewhere but I have to look around for it. EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems we've been getting a rash of reports with no diffs lately, and I was hoping we could help stop that. If there was a discussion in favour of including that link, by all means restore it, though I'd like to see if there isn't a way we could try to get people not to use it the way they have been. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
One option is to just close them out immediately if they have no diffs! I wish we could get everyone to use the 3rr.php script, which is quite convenient if you try it. That might require changing the documentation to explain it better. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Per TS, he is OK with using 'Click here to add a new report', so we can leave out the newsectionlink. He had never noticed that button. Time to make it larger! EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a good plan. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

ACE2010 Edit Conflict

Note: Please see this for context. -Heim

No worries - To be honest, I didn't notice the removal until I edit conflicted myself in trying to respond to a comment that didn't exist anymore. Gotta love Mediawiki. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your message earlier Heim, feel free to email me if it's important. Cheers, Skomorokh (Narodnik) 11:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


Brill brawl?

Brawl? Heheheh, where?

Wut brill irc? Election brawl? Fun fun fun? little ankle biter

Thank you

Thank you very much for your kind words and support in your voter guide, as well as for your other thoughtful observations. I'll also take your more critical comments into account as I continue my service during the next two years. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley/For me/Things people say

I saw your comment at MFD re User:William M. Connolley/For me/Things people say. I have no wish to offend you, so I should make clear that the page is precisely what it says it is: a list of things that people have said; some good, some bad, some merely interesting to me. Anyone who claims otherwise has been lying to you; pay them no attention. You'll be aware, no doubt, that I've had my own troubles with arbcomm; so I was interested in your [4]. But if you don't want it recorded on that page, I'll be happy to remove it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't really mind. It appears that, in a somewhat surprising move, the MFD has been closed as a delete, so it may not really matter. Then again, it's practically guaranteed to go to DRV, so who knows what's next. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

IRC shock

Casting an eye on my IRC window, what is this I see? In fact Was spricht die tiefe Mitternacht?

This:

"Well, if I want to get to Saigon tomorrow, I should probably sleep around now."

I am appalled! Also, not getting the Saigon connection. Bishonen | talk 16:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC).

Tee hee. Looks like I should have thought about how I phrased that one! For the record, the phrase "sleep around now" meant "sleep at a time around this general time", not "get promiscuous". Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
You know what they say. "Never apologise, never explain." :-) Bishonen | talk 23:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC).
The good old Fifth Amendment, eh? (Yes, I know I'm being Americentric, but hey.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead for GZ article

Please see the rationale I gave regarding my revision. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 05:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI/3RR

Hey, you recently closed a 3RR report because I failed to include the requisite number of reverts. I looked at the page and found one that I had overlooked. Would you consider re-opening the report? On a related note, I know how close to the line everyone's toes are and I'm trying to keep it on the talk page. - Haymaker (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have reaffirmed my closure for reasons I've given at the noticeboard. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling

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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about Pmanderson case

Could I ask why my comments were deleted from the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pmanderson reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result:1 week)? I thought that while only administrators render decisions, peons can make comments. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, they weren't deleted; they were simply archived by bot along with all comments on that particular case. In any case, I certainly didn't remove any comments by you, so if that's not the explanation, I'm not sure what's up. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. Not sure what happened there — I think I followed a link to an earlier version, which was not the final one that was archived. Sorry, sometimes I'm an eejit. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
No prob. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Removal of delete tag on Wee Shu Min article

Hi there, just to point out that the recent spate of edits/removals of the nomination for delete tags on the article was apparently triggered by an external canvassing which took place on an external site [[5]]. On top of the notability issue, I was more worried that wikipedia is being used as a Coatrack attack source, but hopefully the edit furore goes away after the mentioned elections [[6]]Zhanzhao (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, canvassing is not good, but the thing about PROD is that anyone can challenge it for any reason, even if that reason sucks. Actually, they can even challenge it after it's already been deleted, in which case the article will be restored, so there's no point in keeping the tag there once anyone's removed it. Still, I want to clarify that I do take POV and coatracking issues seriously and that I would not object to its being sent to AFD if you think there are POV issues that cannot be fixed any other way. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to AE!

Per your comment, I felt the need for an official welcome template for any incautious admin who is tempted to put their toe in the water there. Since a lot of AE cases are murky, it helps to have more than one admin giving their opinion on possible closures. Simple cases are often closed by a single admin. Hope you decide to stay. Other admins are invited also. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do over time. Life's busy now, though, so it could be not so much for a bit. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I echo EdJohnston. AE is perpetually in need of reasonable, neutral, and experienced administrators. You satisfy those requirements, and then some, Heimstern; I do hope that you'll be active at the noticeboard in future. Regards, AGK [•] 13:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both for your welcome, and also thank AGK for his probably-too-flattering comments on my qualifications. Real life is still being a jerk to me right now, though, so I may take quite some time to get to this stuff. Hope to be there soon, though. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

ping

;) Barong 09:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
just wondering if you've been tagging along. Barong 09:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
With what, all the fun discussions? Somewhat. I know who you are and all that, if that's what you're wondering. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Ya; I keep an eye on them, too; the drama get pretty distracting here, sometimes. Carry on. [off to get a slice of wild berry pie]. Barong 09:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for comment at AN/I

Hello, Heimstern! I wanted to thank you for your comment at AN/I about the whole debacle over a checkuser having accused another user of character assassination. Since I know it's impossible to watchlist a particular thread at that board, I thought I'd also let you know that I made a change to the wording of the proposal to incorporate the light your comment shed over it. You could revert me eight ways to Sunday for doing that, i.e. for changing text that you'd already posted a reply to below, but I thought I'd risk the liberty in this case because your objection made such good sense to me, and because opening up a new level three subsection for a revised proposal would have been pretty silly. Since you were the only one who had responded, though, and since I made the change to respond to your comment, I didn't think you'd beat me up over it. ;-)

Anyway, I wanted to just let you know of this, and to explain that my hope is that (a) Ohana might yet change his mind, or, if he doesn't, (b) community consensus will nevertheless allow the comments to be struck through so they're not thrown in betsy's face every time she files an SPI for the next three years. Some people in the I/P area are just mean, I'm sorry to say, and would certainly repeatedly cite Ohana's comments on various pages, despite the seeming consensus at AN/I that they were uncalled for. It's disturbing, but the rule really does seem to be, "fling whatever mud is you can put your hands on, maybe some of it will stick". To be clear, though, I do not make these comments about any individual editor. If you want to have a look at the section again, here's a link. Thanks again for your comment, it was insightful and helpful. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned with your rewords; nothing looks problematic about it to me. I'm more concerned that it appears we've once again driven off a contributor rather unfairly. I'm thinking about talking with the checkuser team and asking them to review OhanaUnited's actions here. I think it's wrong for us to present this sort of reaction to attempts to deal with the very real problem of sockpuppetry in our most plagued areas of Wikipedia. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for allowing me the change. It's was rather a liberty, of course, but since no one else has !voted, I'm going to push it just a tiny bit further to also go ahead and clarify the proposal in one very minor way. I shouldn't have used the word "redacted" because it could be construed as rev-deleted when I only meant struck-through. But may I ask whether you considered recording a preference re whether the comments should be redacted, i.e. struck-through? Maybe I believe in lost causes, but I also know that the ebb and flow at AN/I seems to operate in a momentum-driven sort of way, and if others were to see an additional !vote then perhaps the thread would attract more reviewers, which is always a good thing. But don't if you think the suggestion improper in any way, of course.
Re talking with checkusers, that couldn't hurt, I suppose, unless it were interpreted as forum shopping. And I certainly honor your intent, i.e. that you care enough to consider it. My concern would be that - I don't like saying it - checkusers might be as reluctant to sanction "one of their own" as admins at AN/I typically are. I'd thought of an RFC/U, actually, since those tend to attract more non-admins than are typically present on AN/I. But I do feel pretty strongly that however it's to be addressed, the situation shouldn't just stay as it is. That's just too harsh an outcome by half for someone who was trying to do the conscientious and responsible thing.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, certainly I suggest that they be struck through, but as I said, I'm not really seeing that the section you made is going to do any good at this point, so I'm recording no opinion there.
For the record, in case this matters to you or to Betsy, OhanaUnited isn't a checkuser. Rather, he's a checkuser clerk. Not that that excuses his behaviour in any way. As for RFC/U, that may well be something worth considering. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I've not been clear enough, prompt enough, or direct enough at AN/I. I'm sure that has confused participants there, or irritated or bored them. A clause of our "no personal attacks" policy allows anyone to remove personal attacks, or at least suggests that it's the right action in some cases. And there's not much that's more attacking than falsely claiming someone has engaged in intentional character assassination to eliminate a POV opponent, and then following up when challenged on that by suggesting the person was part of a tag-team bent on harassment. And I'm not even proposing that the comments be removed, just struck through.
My point is that whether Ohana ultimately agrees to strike-through his comments or not, any individual who considers them a personal attack could reasonably do so. But it would be better, of course, if that action were supported by community consensus, and that's what I want to see develop with the !vote I set up. But I bungled the handling of it by not initiating that right away, and people lost interest. So I guess I don't understand why you think this can't do any good? If even half-a-dozen users would explicitly !vote for a strike-through, there would be no reason in the world we couldn't go ahead with that and provide justification for that everywhere we do it, in <small> text, with a permalink to the now-current AN/I thread. Do you disagree, or is there something else I'm missing here?  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Quick addendum: I see that our alphabet soup also includes WP:AOHA which says, in part, "It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly." So it seems like this does clearly qualify as a personal attack, and could appropriately be struck through without Ohana's blessing, for that reason.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, now I get it. I admit I've never really gotten the point of RPA or strikethrough of personal attacks except when voluntary on the part of the maker of the attacks. My main concern is simply having them not repeated.
By the way, were Ohana's allegations written anywhere except Betsy's talk? If so, it seems a little beside the point, as Betsy herself would be free to remove or refactor comments on her own talk anyway.
Anyway, I'm basically neutral on someone else redacting Ohana's comments because I don't really believe in the idea of doing so, but I also won't stand in opposition. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


Why a bright-line response is needed

Hello, Heimstern! Please excuse me for being a little slow in getting back to you about this. As you wrote above,

I admit I've never really gotten the point of WP:RPA or strikethrough of personal attacks except when voluntary on the part of the maker of the attacks. My main concern is simply having them not repeated.

My main concern is also that they not be repeated. But absent a now unlikely apology, if there's no concise, "bright line" response from AN/I, like a strikethrough, or a block of Red Stone Arsenal, or a censure of Ohana, I can assure you they absolutely will be repeated, although not by Ohana, and probably for years.

It's no exaggeration to say that many editors in the topic area eagerly "fling any mud they think might stick" to gain an advantage. It's extremely regrettable that such behaviour is permitted in the area, but it is permitted. And among its most prolific editors, amounting to fewer than a dozen, really, this behaviour is very much the rule rather than the exception.

If there's no definitive, indisputable conclusion to the third opinion requested affair at AN/I, I can assure you that Betsy will see linked comments like these, for years to come,

With the authority of an SPI clerk behind the repetition, no less, these false accusations would appear entirely credible. It would be in vain that Betsy would reply, "But people at AN/I said OhanaUnited shouldn't have said those things!"

Simply directing critics to a tl;dr AN/I thread that rolled to archives with a lot of opinions but no clearly demarcated outcome would allow Betsy's detractors to say, "Oh, sure. Everyone always has their partisan supporters, but it was an SPI clerk who said so." Without a "bright line" response of some sort, the comments will prove an albatross around her neck, a scarlet letter, for literally years to come, and one she did absolutely nothing to deserve.

If that seems hard to believe, I can provide diffs of a recent instance of the sort of thing I'm sure Betsy would be subjected to. I'd be glad to do so, as long as it's understood that I wouldn't be asking for administrative action here by presenting such an example. Neither am I doing so here, with anything I've posted above, of course.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm also generally uncomfortable with refactoring others' comments except for the most serious offenses or clear violations of policy (like blatant WP:FORUM talk), and in those cases I'll usually just revert rather than refactor. But I think that Ohiostandard made a compelling point here, Betsy has had conflicts with editors who have gone to some pains to paint her in a bad light, and if OU's comment is left as-is then it could be used against her. She would then be forced to dig up links to archived ANI discussions to explain the context of that comment. If the comment was struck out, however, or made clear in some other way in the text itself that it should not be taken at face value, then she shouldn't have to worry as much. Like it or not, what administrators say about editors are often given more weight than other comments, and if OU refuses to refactor the comment that was made, someone else should. -- Atama頭 16:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
(ec) It should also be remembered that, in an earlier SPI involving some of the same accounts, the CU clerk who closed the case, HelloAnnyong, wrote "I don't really think they're the same. Having said that, I've opened another case regarding Red Stone Arsenal".[7] Given that several editors, including an uninvolved CU clerk, were convinced that RSA was a sock, it is doubly disturbing that Betsy was cautioned for making this SPI request. Nearly every editor who has commented in the request for third opinion has agreed that the comments were out of line, I really don't understand why they have been allowed to remain. I agree with OS that the atmosphere in I/P editing is so poisonous and adversarial that this unwarranted rebuke will be thrown up against Betsy every time she gets into a dispute, or questions the behaviour of another editor. RolandR (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'm beginning to see the case for removal, and I'm basically supportive now. If I'm not mistaken, though, Betsy herself has asked for the thread at ANI to be closed at this point, so I'm thinking it would be best to just respect those wishes and do so. This sound good to you? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for taking the time to review the rationale. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I suspect that if anyone were to ask Betsy, she'd naturally prefer to see the comments actually struck through at the SPI request page, perhaps with a <small> and very brief explanation such as "struck-through by community consensus at AN/I". I do very much want the thread to archive, though, so I'll go ahead and ask her to weigh in here, if that's alright, by posting to her talk, and then perhaps we can be done with this. – OhioStandard (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Btw, I can't now recall whether User:Sj aka Samuel Klein also explicitly supported strikethrough, since comments have been made on so many different pages now. But I will just mention, in case people missed it, that he's an admin as well as an elected WMF Trustee, and that he explicitly requested, on Ohana's talk, that he reconsider his comments and apologize. Other admins have also supported some form of redaction, I believe, although it would take some time sorting through the multiple threads to verify that.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

<-- If possible and not improper, that would be very kind! Thank you for suggesting it. But will this funny B&B interface work to post this? betsythedevine (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I'm closing down my talk page now, but I just wanted to thank you for your kind thoughts. I don't think OhanaUnited's attitude is a good one for an admin or checkuser. betsythedevine (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) OhanaUnited isn't a checkuser, although he is a checkuser clerk which may be what you are thinking of. The two positions are very different, although holding neither, of course, exempts one from the general requirement to behave with professionalism at all times. AGK [•] 13:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Milton Babbitt, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 16:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Back atcha

Hey... I never thanked you for the nice note you sent me. Although I'm responding late, I did genuinely appreciate your message. Hope all is well with you, and best regards, Kafka Liz (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No one is edit-warring WP:Title any more.

The problem was resolved (assuming you were following what was going on) by me creating a demonstration page in my user area: User:Born2cycle/Titles. This was all explained on the talk page.

It's funny to see the protection put on the page after the issue was resolved. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Funny, this sure looks like edit warring to me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I did not deny that an edit war had occurred. I said that the page was protected only after the edit war was over.

Please understand that no rendered content was changed through all of that "edit war" - it was about whether the same certain content should remain in the page itself, or be placed in a transcluded subpage so that it could be transcluded elsewhere too. One side was that the change should not be made until consensus developed for it. The other side argued the edit was necessary to demonstrate how the proposed changed affected things so that consensus could be based on informed opinions (there were many questions and a lot of confusion about transclusion is, how it works, what are the effects, etc.). This went back and forth via edits (back and forth between transcluding and not transcluding the subpage) as well as discussion on the talk page until someone suggested doing the same thing with a demonstration page, at which point the edit war abruptly ended.

Anyway, please note the chronology of relevant events:

  • 18:16, July 15 2011. Last edit of WP:Article titles, prior to it being protected[8].
  • 18:35 Suggestion is made to create a demo page [9]
  • 18:40 Demo page created so it can be used for testing instead of this page [10], ending any reason to add the transclusion to the page itself, at least until consensus is worked out, and thus ending the edit war.
  • 18:52 Page is protected after edit war is clearly over (that's the part that I found to be funny).
Anyway, a new suggestion has now been made and tested [11] - to add <onlyinclude>/</onlyinclude> tags around the shared section in the main page (which doesn't affect anything about how that page works) and transclude the entire page from other pages that want to use it - but it can't be implemented because the page is protected... Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

Thank you for your support
Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

OK...

No Problem!! Alexander the Great (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom

At User:Heimstern/ArbCom, you mention "the committee's refusal to adjudicate content disputes combined with the lack of any other available form of binding content dispute resolution. The model in use seems to be that if we keep editors in line with our conduct policies, the content will fall into place...."

I wonder if you might have overlooked an John Vandenberg's comment here:

"the proposed discretionary sanctions will mean this topic will be subject to the organised complaint management system of Arbitration enforcement, where uninvolved admins review problems carefully. It is our hope that with these remedies, and better administrative oversight, the level of discourse on the talk page will improve." John Vandenberg 11:52, 25 September 2011

In this context, perhaps you may have some insight which will help to improve our articles about Law of the instrument and Déformation professionnelle. In the realm of problems ArbCom creates, please consider the confirmation bias implicit in Maslow's hammer, which is popularly phrased as "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". --Tenmei (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

My sig

I'm taking the link to your essay out of my sig. It seems to attract trolls. :-( I wanted you to know that I'm just tired of dealing with that, and that's the reason I've removed it, and not because I don't still think its a good essay. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries. To be fair, it was getting a little annoying to get notices from people meaning to talk to you, so probably it's best removed. Glad you still like the essay, at any rate. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that too. You'd think the large "Essay" label at the top might be a clue, but apparently not everyone noticed that, or understood it. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs

Hi Heimstern. You participated in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Standard of review for non admin closes, which was snowball closed. A subsection of the discussion has been created. Titled Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs, it pertains to {{Request close}} and Category:Requests for Close, which were created after a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 78#Template to request a discussion be closed. I have posed several questions there and am interested in your thoughts. Cunard (talk) 06:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

唔該晒。?

I'm sure you're right. But què? 美少年 | ノート 00:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC).

It means "thanks very much". Not really germane in any way to the discussion in question, but since you were using all those fancy diacritics, I thought I'd get out my own set of fancy characters. These are particularly uncommon as they're Cantonese-only ones, too. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Hehe. They're cool. The first one obviously represents a tall cabinet, a pair of kitchen scales, and a squat chest of drawers. Are you sure it doesn't mean "IKEA"? Bischånen (fancy Swedish spelling of my username) | talk 00:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC).
Sorry, I think I must have meant the last one, right? The one on the left. Bischånen | talk 00:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC).
Quite sure it does not, as I just walked by IKEA a few days ago.  :-) But methods like that are exactly how I first remembered Chinese characters, too. 京, for example, I always viewed as a TV on a tripod wearing a hat. Fun stuff!

No result?

What was the result of this? [12]. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  • The discussion he said isn't taking place is taking place. So far 4 editors have said the poll doesn't belong. And he is still trying to force it in, still having not participated in the discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ears burning?

You have been mentioned here. Bishonen | talk 18:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

I certainly never object to publicity for my writing. :-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Heimstern,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 22:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Heimstern. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Hi there, Wondering if you could have a look at the latest section I created on the talk page for Rush Limbaugh. Having a strange debate with someone over the inclusion of fact checking sites. There is a section on Limbaugh's page related to Claims of Inaccuracy. This seems like an appropriate place to include statistics from fact checking organizations. Somehow that point is not landing. Need 3rd party intervention. Thanks.Jasonnewyork (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I just got back from an enforced Wikibreak. Hope the dispute was able to be resolved. I don't really mediate or in any other way get involved in US politics articles; the subject kind of makes me vomit a lot. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Just saying hey

Hey there! You were the one that welcomed me to Wikipedia five and a half years ago. Just wanted to say thanks for that! Atomic Religione 01:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I missed this. You're welcome, five and a half years later! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

My ban appeal

Honestly, I don't really want to go to ArbCom with something like this. I was anxious enough about filing the AE appeal, and feel taking it to ArbCom would only cause me more distress regardless of the outcome. Do you know of any way I could resolve this without taking it to some higher level?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, no. I can understand if you don't like it, but as far as I can see, your only choices are either to appeal the ban to ArbCom itself or to simply accept the ban. I know this isn't the answer you want to see from me, but in this situation, I have nothing better I can offer you, sorry. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I don't think I could ever "accept" this situation, but I can definitely tolerate the ban for a couple more months. Thanks anyway.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for reverting vandalism on my userpage (which I didn't even notice until just now)! A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 11:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I actually at first wondered who you were so mad at that you wrote obscene language on your userpage, but then checking the history showed it wasn't you who added it at all. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Heh, it was actually a sock I'd reported for vandalising a BLP page. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 08:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Poke, poke

I have mentioned you name here. I apologize for taking it on me to interpret your motives for certain actions, and invite your correction. Bishonen | talk 00:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC).

Sigh. Seems I've picked a bad time to come back to Wikipedia. Too many nasty people all around. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggested talk page tagging

Obviously Ramil Safarov and its "brother" article Gurgen Margaryan are hot-button WP:ARBAA2 topics. Is there some template that can be added to their talk pages summarizing/linking to the arbitration remedies? (I suggested doing this on WP:AN, but was ignored.) Tijfo098 (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It appears they're just using the generic {{sanctions}} tag on other Armenia/Azerbaijan-related articles. How about adding that? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
That template doesn't link to the current ArbCom boilerplate. It seems someone created {{ArbCom discret sanctions}} more recently, but it doesn't seem used much. There's also {{discretionary sanctions}} and {{DS Courtesy Notice}}. I'm tempted to TfD some of these for merger, but I should probably just ask ArbCom somewhere to standardize it to their preference. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Probably a good idea. I admit templates are not my strong suit; I just can never keep track of them all, so I usually just follow the patterns I see on similar talk pages. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Grüss Gott

Hello there. As I already happened to say I would not contribute again to the discussion about the accusation against me on 3rr, I am writing directly to you. This is the last edit by the user that complained about me. Seems like s/he would be trying to make a country (his?/hers?) bigger by imposing his national POV on the articles considering mine (Turkey). I am not requesting anything from you as an admin, simply wanted to share a facet of the user with whom I am dealing at present. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

AE (talknic)

Message - [13] I would appreciate a response. Thx ...talknic (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Another message[14]. I would like a reply just to confirm you have actually read my statements. Thx ... talknic (talk)

I assure you that I have. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Heimstern/archive_14&oldid=1166520106"