User talk:Herbolzheim

June 2012

I suggest it would be better to stop posting to User talk:Christian1985. Whatever your intentions, your persistent posting has come to look like harassment. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's a twit. But OK. See your own Talk. Herbolzheim (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Whether you do it on Christian1985's talk page, mine, your own, or anywhere else, this is unacceptable. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please stop playing God.~~ This is a first warning and I said OK in any case. With respect, your involvement is no longer needed. I'd forgotten about this guy and will do so again. Herbolzheim (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "playing God", and accusing me of doing so comes close to being another personal attack; at the very least it is uncivil.
It is not the first warning: see my message above, beginning "I suggest it would be better...".
Saying "OK" is meaningless, if, in the course of doing so, you post another personal attack ("He's a twit") and if you also take the opportunity to post a long diatribe about the user on my talk page.
My involvement will be needed as long as you continue to edit in ways that are contrary to Wikipedia policies. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was the first warning about being blocked. I am genuinely surprised at this and you taking offence and jumping on me. Twit is pretty tame. I'm a twit at times. I also have plenty of humility. I said OK and I meant it. Keep an eye on his page and draw your own conclusions mister. (Sorry if mister is construed as an insult.) As I said, I forgot him and I'll do so again. Herbolzheim (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewing your ongoing harassment of Christian1985, I'm tempted to block you now, indefinitely. That kind of brutal harassment would not be acceptable face to face, and is unwelcome on Wikipedia. You certainly should not need a warning to know basic human dignity (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christian guy: brutal harassment? Look, it's over. I'd bet that if you keep an eye on things somebody else soon will have issues. How do you become an administrator and waht rules do you need to follow, please? Herbolzheim (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The first rule is that discussions belong on user talk pages, not userpages. I have reverted your edit to my userpage, and you may reply here on this page in order to keep the discussion together. No need to notify when you reply, as I am watching this page (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are administrators allowed to say that an entry is nonsense? Are they allowed to SHOUT? Who checks on administrators for impartiality and to verify that they remain impersonal? If this is all set oy somewhere point me in the right direction - cheers. Don't email me agian, bitte. Herbolzheim (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm not sure if you're talking to me or not: you said something about not e-mailing you, which I have never done. Maybe you're looking for this information on being, becoming, and ending being an administrator? Admins are human, and are also volunteers here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the pointer. BTW I have had about six emails today from Wikipedia, two or three from you. Maybe it's an automatic thing when you write something. Herbolzheim (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had enough of this for a while. It's like a game for some of you. I love Wikipedia but the guards need guarding a bit I reckon. New editors need training and testing before they can edit, and should have to sign a pledge to be apolitical and impersonal - some old hands get very personal then throw up their hands when others respond. You should check how many times an editor cries for someone to be blocked and see if a pattern emerges. If they persistently ask for blocks the problem probably lies with them. Genug schon, Ich denke. God bless. Herbolzheim (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback

Hi! Would you mind telling me more about your issue? (Click Here to Reply)

TOW talk 17:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SMS texting þ

I would love to have the option to use þ in an SMS text. I never use texting (what is a 'phone for if not to talk to people?) so I am no expert, but can you say what you can press to get þ in a text message? What model of 'phone are you using - or were you having us on? Howard Alexander (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: Of course I wasn't having anyone on. We use it (Thorn) all the time. You can use Thorn or Eth to make our English "th" sound. Thorn is more commonly found as it is still used in Icelandic. On a Nokia it is seven presses on the "wxy9" key. Eth is nine presses on the "def3" key. I am snobby and hate using "b4" (before) and "m8" (mate). But I have no problem with using Thorn (e.g. My faÞer is coming as well.) or Eth (e.g. ðey will be here soon). Herbolzheim (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! It doesn't work on my cheap Sagem, but the Finns behind Nokia obviously know what's what. Apparently I can set my e-mail up to send text messages, so I may yet use thorn in texting. (I found some good hints on setting a computer up to handle Thorn, Eth etc on the "Gemotstow" wikisite, which has just moved but is now found at: [1].) Hogweard (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay off my talk page unless you wish to make constructive comments. You are trolling my talk page again with nonsensical comments and if it continues I will be reporting it to the Administrators. Please be civil. Christian1985 (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for continuing trolling and harassment on User talk:Christian1985. Your latest post there would not in itself seem a serious matter, but it has to be considered in the context of your history, including a previous block following trolling of another user, and your history of trolling and attacking Christian1985, which an administrator regarded as enough to consider imposing an immediate indefinite block. I also note that you had previously stated on more than one talk page that your pestering of Christian1985 was finished. I removed an indefinite block from your account a little over a year ago, but if you periodically return to your practice of harassing other users whose actions you don't like, then you are likely to be indefinitely blocked and this time left blocked. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Watson and Christian

All I said was that McFly were a bad band and mentioned that The Daily Mail had published a piece saying Arbeit Macht Frei wasn't such a bad Nazi slogan. Neither of these statements are trolling but the former is subjective and I wouldn't put it in an entry. Christian is always bleating on about people reacting to his own subjective views, and to his right-wing assertions. And then he complains to administrators who haven't always got the time to look at his history, and some of whom seem to enjoy playing god and go way over the top, watching carefully so that they can justify blocking poor bastards like me. You must be a bit bored, the pair of you. I have a 12 year old daughter. If she does something that I perceive as naughty I don't use it as an excuse a year later to ban her from going out with her friends. I think Watson is trolling me by watching my every move and if I get the time I will be be back on this. Christian asked me to stay off his talk page and I would have done so but didn't get the chance - My Dear Watson just zapped down like Zeus with his thunderbolt. Trolling as I understand it is serious and it's not what I am about. Herbolzheim (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HEY, WATSON BY THE WAY

ONE: Mr Christian said "Hello JamesBWatson, that same user Herbolzheim who was trolling and spamming my talk page with provocative and nonsensical comments and rantings is up to his old tricks again doing it once again on my talk page". What did I say that constitute trolling, rantings and spamming? Please tell me - it's only fair I should know for my appeal should I lodge one.

TWO: If you put something on MY talk page start a new heading and don't put your own attack under another article. Thanks. Herbolzheim (talk) 09:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Test

Test Herbolzheim (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your email

Thank you for your email. I have read it and thought carefully about it, and will comment on those of your points which are most relevant to the reasons for the block.

However strongly you disagree with Christian1985's political views, repeatedly posting messages to his talk page about such things as the Daily Mail, nazis, and a band that you don't like is unconstructive. It is not a contribution to developing the encyclopaedia. You are also fully aware that such posts are unwelcome, so doing it continually is harassing him. Whether your statements are "subjective" or not is irrelevant, and so is whether they are "true and verifiable" or not. However true your statements about the Daily Mail and nazis are, they are irrelevant to contributing to the encyclopaedia, and no useful purpose is served by continually posting such remarks.

It seems somewhat disingenuous to comment as though you think the block was for one post. I am sure you are aware that it is for a string of posts spread over the course of a few months. I see no reasonable way of reading the block notice as indicating that the block was for just your latest post to Christian1985's talk page. To try to make out that you were blocked because of one pair of silly but not very important comments in one posts is unhelpful.

It is absurd to say that I "threatened to hang [you] for using the outrageous word "twit"". the warning I gave you was about a continuing campaign of harassment, not about one particular word.

I am not "taking sides". If Christian1985 starts persistently posting infantile remarks getting at you for your political views, your taste in music, or anything else, and does not stop after warnings, and if the fact comes to my attention, then I will block him.

As for you asking "have you just got it in for me...?", referring to me as "Wikipedia's Judge Dread", and suggesting that I "enjoy banning people" that is simply bizarre. Let me remind you of a few facts. (1) I unblocked you when you were subject to an indefinite block which four other administrators had all supported (either by blocking you or by declining unblocks, whether on your account or on your IP address). (2) I have now blocked you for a month after another administrator had said that your behaviour justified an indefinite block, following which you had done yet more of the same kind of thing that led to that statement. If you honestly see my actions as being those of a "Judge Dread" who has "got it in for you" and "enjoys banning people", then I suggest you stop, stand back, and think very carefully about whether you are looking at things from an objective perspective or not. Five other administrators have, at one time or another, indicated they think you should be indefinitely blocked, and I gave you a limited block, after I had previously removed an indefinite block. Think about it.

The answer to your question "Why don't you tell this geezer Christian to grow up and stop telling tales?" is that I do not see such childish name calling as being constructive, and also because i regard it as perfectly legitimate to seek administrative help when someone is being persistently harassed. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Watson

You are a clever bloke who can bat this backwards and forwards as well as anyone, but I think that anyone genuinely objective would think that you were over-the-top. The picture you paint of me is unfair. E.g the Mail did say thetre was something reasonable about a Nazi slogan, but you conflate me saying so with my attitude to this Christian geezer, inferring that I called him a Nazi. You follow me a bit too closely. I concur with every single Wikipedia rule without question, but feel that they can be manipulated and used selectively by editors; and that some administrators sometimes go too far then won't back down, and a few seem to enjoy it. If I could find a way technically, I bet I could also find five Wiki users and possibly administrators to support me over Christian. Personally, as I have said before, I would welcome a mandatory test for all those wishing to edit, and I'd add ongoing peer-review from equals.

If you watch me for years you will probably find reasons to block me, but its seems a bit draconian and a waste of your time. Even driving licence points get removed after a while, and you are told how long they will stand when awarded them. I have a bit of a chip on my shoulder I admit. The fact that I am a bit of a working-class intellectual who doesn't fit normal profiles seems to concern some people on the left and right, and I feel that they have it in for me. Sob. Herbolzheim (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you try making sure that you have read comments carefully before replying to them. For example, I have searched carefully, and can't find where I suggested that you accused Christian1985 of being a nazi, nor even where I said anything that could be read as implying that. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK - you just intimated that I called him a Nazi. You didn't actually say that. I said originally that the DM published a piece that reckoned Arbeit Macht Frei was appropriate under some circumstances, e.g. in modern-Britain for people without work, and I think I gave a reference/date. I hate that paper - yes, hate. It supported Nazis before the war and papers like that in Germany on the conservative reactionary right helped Hitler to power. My depth of loathing is based on close knowledge of what happened in Germany, to all sorts of people, and my Jewish East End roots. It is still reactionary - it's not a normal paper that just "leans to the right" and it pumps out nasty bile that I'd like people to see for what it is. BUT I set about it the wrong way - I was a bit childish in posting the comment on C's page. That said, have a look through his history, like you have had a butcher's at mine, and you will see that he's sucked loads of people into arguments and blocking threats and counter-threats and controversy. Best - Herbolzheim (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]