Talk:Erich Heller

wp:policy
Criterion G7 for speedy deletion also contains the words 'and was mistakenly created'. Gaming Ownership of articles by invoking speedy deletion is not acceptable. That page is official policy and contains the words

"The discussion can take many forms: it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the revert altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting but that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it."

User:Prof02 has done precisely that, over months. To say that he/she is the only editor, when growling and tongue-lashing other editors has been the major tactic is quite unacceptable.

Charles Matthews 10:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ‘Growling and tongue-lashing’ are the sort of personal characterizations that fall within the scope of the definition of Personal Attacks that Wikipedia does not tolerate. So is the word ‘gaming’.  Mercilessness in editing, a quality which you (and not I) invoke as a principle of Wikipedia engagement, cuts both ways: if you do not wish bluntly to be told to stop when you do happen to violate Wikipedia house-rules, do not become an editor/administrator/ArbCom member, etc., here.  This is not a club of mutual adoration.  Wikipedia is a site that aims to be an encyclopedia, where only substance matters, and only discussion on matters of substance to it may be allowed, not personality issues in which you indulge.


 * CSD G7, the only relevant rule here, states in full: ‘Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request.’ The user requesting the deletion has, in fact, added the only substantial content here (as demonstrated by article history), and hereby certifies that he has done so by mistake and in error.  The case is closed.  Please do not abuse your authority here whenever you have no arguments to marshal in support of your position (hostility is not a valid rationale).  &mdash; Prof02 06:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

With regard to User:Antandrus’s edit summary of his further revert of my G7 request (3 November 2006, 06:30), which reads: ‘No: the moment you click "save", you agree to license your contributions under the GFDL. It's not your article to "db-author."’ I would like to know what the bar is to my exercising established Wikipedia house-rules. I have not based any argument here on GFDL (User:Charles Matthews and you invoke this for reasons better known to yourselves, as neither of you specifies relevance) &mdash; I base my request only on CSD G7: if, for the purposes of CSD G7, I am not entitled to make the request for deletion, because I am not the ‘original author, provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author and was mistakenly created’ (in the wording of Wikipedia OFFICIAL POLICY), then I would like to know, now, who else is the contributor of the substantial content of the article, and what the proof for that is. (I note that User:Charles Matthews does not make, above, a claim to co-authorship of the article, but merely objects that the mistakenness of the author, Prof02, in making his contribution was not indicated in the request for deletion: that requirement has now been satisfied.) Thank you. &mdash; Prof02 07:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If this much discussion is required, the article isn't a speedy. Consider AfD instead, please. Luna Santin 08:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I ask you to reconsider, please. Volume of discussion can be generated artificially, by people ganging up on an issue or a user without valid reasons, in an action known here as trolling. You are an administrator yourself, and are capable of making up your own mind on issues: CSD G7 is an extremely simple, open-and-shut, official policy that admits of little ambiguity, and the only question that arises is whether the two (2) conditions it attaches to speedy deletions are met or not in a particular case. Other issues are irrelevant here. If no one provides proof that the conditions are unsatisfied, G7 speedy should apply. It’s really that simple. Boldness should be exhibited not only in editing texts, but in applying rules, which are really very good and should be allowed to stand. Thank you. &mdash; Prof02 08:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are confident in your interpretation of policy, then surely AfD will generate the same consensus. Luna Santin 08:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I beg to submit that it is not a question of my confidence, but of CSD G7 rule. If it does not apply, it must be stated why. Absolutely must. &mdash; Prof02 09:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Other users have made edits. Not the biggest edits ever, but enough that I'd like a few people to have a look and give a recommendation. Just so we're clear, you do know that you can cite G7 in an AfD nomination, and that even AfD can end with a result of "speedy delete"? Luna Santin 09:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The edits by User:Charles Matthews are all copyedits and deletions (236 words excised), there is no addition whatever to the ‘substantial content’ of the page in question: he monitors this discussion, and made no claim to having contributed to the ‘substantial content’. His objection was that the article must have been ‘mistakenly created’ by User:Prof02 for the G7 to apply. I have certified that it was. The only other non-Prof02 edits are by User:Bishonen and User:Hooperbloob, which are all wikifications. There are no other edits in existence by other hands. The recommendations you mention belong to the AfD process, not to the CSD G7 rule, which must be decided on its own terms. No one here, for all the talk above, disagreed with those terms so far. &mdash; Prof02 09:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is continuing the policy of asserting ownership, by any means to hand. A hands-off approach by admins has brought nothing. The point about no ownership is not negotiable. The fact is that considerable tact was used, allowing further edits of the article in user space, in order to resolve the claim that the article was not 'finished'. All the content here has been released under the GFDL, and it is not in anyone's power to undo that.


 * The only way forward is in fact for User:Prof02 to disown the article. The material is here, others should be able to edit it. Anything else strikes at core policies, which have the specific intention of preventing the development of 'walled gardens'. It is regrettable, perhaps, that this point can be misunderstood, but there is no flexibility on the matter.

Charles Matthews 11:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no place here for selling User:Charles Matthews’s chip-on-the-shoulderism as Wikipedia policies (the chips must be left at home): trolling to stall the normal functioning of the site for private and unaccounted-for reasons is a form vandalism that is recognized by official policy.

G7 seven rule stands, as official policy, unshaken by the continuing defiance and grandstanding intended to dislodge it. No one may be permitted to hijack the Wikipedia project, through mystifications or any other method. There is no other rule or consideration that applies to deletion request under CSD G7: only that rule applies and nothing else. The rule has two conditions, and both are met. If they are not met, objections as to why not may be heard. Red herrings will not be entertained, however. They smell foul, and are completely out of place here.

The only way forward is for User:Charles Matthews to recognize that he is not Wikipedia, that he does not speak for Wikipedia but for himself, and that his private views (and imaginings, of my alleged ‘ownership claims’ or whatever, by whatever devious route arrived at), are just that, private, and, however tenaciously pushed by him, do not supersede previously adopted Wikipedia house-rules, which are the sole determinants of all issues here. &mdash; Prof02 07:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good luck with persuading some naive admin that your claims to have created Erich Heller mistakenly are factual. If the page is so deleted, I shall request that the deletion be properly reviewed. Charles Matthews 08:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It is intolerable that you should feel free to mount personal attacks on others here: in this case, on the administrator Luna Santin who, despite agreeing that I have a case under CSD G7, gave way to your objections and did not grant the deletion as requested by me. Anyone who dare disagree here with you is branded as ‘naive’, whereas anything to be done ‘properly’ has to be done in accordance with your private and unaccounted-for POV. This is, as I say, intolerable; and you must be stopped from hijacking this project. (And this, essentially, is what your fight now is all about &mdash; it is not about the matter at hand.) Your disregard, blanket disregard, of all Wikipedia house-rules (such as, for an immediate example, the Wikipedia injunction against editing during disputes: see the  official policy  here &mdash; by your continuing to edit the page in question in order falsely to stake a claim to it) reflects, at bottom, a contempt for what Wikipedia is, and in my personal view disqualifies you as a participant in it. (Cf. ‘Administrators are expected to respect and be familiar with Wikipedia policy’: Administrators). &mdash; Prof02 06:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The request for deletion under CSD G7, which went up for discussion  under the AfD process on 4 November 2006, as per the suggestion of administrator Luna Santin (see above), did not generate a consensus of opinion on whether or not the requirements of the G7 rule had been satisfied.  The discussion was nevertheless closed, on the initiative of administrator Yomangani, on 11 November 2006, at the urging of User:Charles Matthews, just seven days after it was begun (with the result ‘keep’), despite the fact that the deletion process under G7 is not subject, according to Wikipedia official policy, to any  time limits, and in seeming violation of the principle, enshrined in the same policy, that ‘[s]ome arguments can override all others’ (Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators).  &mdash; Prof02 07:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Lack of citations and odd formulations
The sections 'Main currents of his thought', 'Views on America', and 'The Heidegger question' have either no sources at all or just list sources that seem irrelevant regarding the presented claims. The whole page seems like a strong interpretation, yet there are none of the usual disclaimers "warning" the reader of original research and the lack of sources. mnivis (talk) 08:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)