User talk:Heimstern/archive 6

Girl
Saw that you were the last to block Girl. There's a user, Mwalai, who's vandalized 3 times. I warned him with subst:uw-vandalism1; I would revert his last, but then I'd violate WP:3RR (I think). Anything you can do? (Please reply on my talk.) Cymbalta 16:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3RR does not apply to reverts of clear vandalism. You can revert it any number of times. I suggest escalating the warnings for the offender, too: (go up to uw-vandalism2 and eventually up to 4 if he/she continues. If the vandal continues after receiving level 4, make a report at WP:AIV. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * He stopped after the third edit he did, actually. Thanks for the clarification- still fairly new. Cymbalta 16:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI
Hello Heimstern,

My edit at 3RR may slip through the cracks, so I thought I drop you a line and let you know that your 3RR warning to Lear21 had no affect. This is a constant method that Lear21 uses when editing, just look at his history; especially the Berlin page. :) &mdash;MJCdetroit 04:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have blocked for 24 hours. Only solution I can see at this point short of full protection, which I've already said I will not do. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How to Block
Hi, do you think you can tell me how to get someone blocked, if you know--Yankees10 21:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, well, first off, only administrators can block users. They use a restricted special page to do so. Administrators must follow Wikpedia's blocking policy when they block users, so you can't just request that a user be blocked. If, however, there is a good reason a user should be blocked, there are ways to go about this. If the user is vandalizing, start by reading WP:VAND], then, if you follow steps there, you can make a report at [[WP:AIV. There are other reasons blocks may need to made, such as edit warring, personal attacks or general disruption. You can read those pages to understand when blocks may be necessary and how to go about getting admins to make them. Well, I hope that helps a bit. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Coral Smith
Hello, there's a problem going on, at the Coral Smith article. User Migospia☆ changed a valid edit I made about that person on the article not being in a relationship with a guy named Abram and had proof of that with this source This was his first source which is actually just a wikipedia article so it can't be a source, and this is what he rudely says when he makes that first edit that immediately made me feel attacked: What the hell, they kissed and told each other they loved each other and in the reunion Coral stated they are no longer together but still friends.

I rv it back to the way I had it because he was using a wikipedia source and because I knew it never happened, and he realized he had made a mistake. However, he reverted it back again because he thought this was a source, which it wasn't. That also refers to it as a beautiful friendship, never a bf/gf relationship. He thinks the fact that they had a close friendship on one of the challenges means they were in a relationship. He claims they kissed and said they loved each other without a source, but I keep telling him that even if that did happen, it doesn't mean they had a relationship like he thinks it does. Not only that but he has broken a rule.

I made several edits I worked hard on, on that article and he reverted all the way back to his own edit. The user is not providing any good sources and I have a source that says they weren't in a relationship and he has no source that says it was a gf/bf relationship, but that it was a friendship. The user's first words to me were 'what the hell' out of know where which made me feel uncomfortable talking to her from the start. I also looked at her history and saw she had been in a couple of feuds, one involving in administrator being unhappy with her for unfriendly edits, so I didn't want it to turn into an edit war or anything and went right to administrators before it did. Please helpEverybodyHatesChris 03:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you want me to do? If there's some sort of policy violation, you can report that at the appropriate noticeboard. If it's just a content dispute, though, head for dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I went to contact us on wikipedia letting them know that you weren't willing to look into the problem at all and be helpful since it's your job as an administrator. You also lied on my user page and said that I had sent the problem to a number of admins. No, it was only to one, who wouldn't give me a response. There was one other one which was erased because I found another admin that knew the user better. EverybodyHatesChris 01:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. First off: No, it's not my job as an administrator to look into disputes. Admins are volunteers; furthermore, they are no more a part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution than any other editor. Sorry, you are mistaken.
 * Secondly: I did not lie to you. I saw that you had made this post, or something similar, on the talk pages of Voice of All and David Fuchs. Even if I was mistaken about this, which it doesn't seem I was, I most certainly didn't lie, as lying means knowingly telling an untruth. I posted on your talk page to let you know your actions were likely to be frowned upon.
 * I've given you a link to dispute resolution. That's about all I can do for you, unless you have a specific policy violation to report. Meanwhile, please don't come back here if all you're going to do is make baseless accusations of me lying or not doing my "job". If you have something productive to say, you're welcome to do so. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to be informed. I wasn't dealt with respectfully by you. That's all EverybodyHatesChris 02:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What was disrespectful about my dealing with you? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you started off by saying, "Well, what do you want me to do?" and then went into how you couldn't do anything. You told me you couldn't help me in less I had a specific violation to report. If you had read what I wrote to you, Migospia has violated wikipedia policy by reverted back to an edit before 18 or 17 hard-worked on edits I made. She cannot revert that far back. You also came to my page and said that I had sent my complaint to a number of admins and how that was frowned upon. I put my complaint on one admins page and erased it and put it on another admin's page who had a history of dealing with this user. That admin wouldn't answer so gave you my complaint. You made a lot of nasty remarks without checking into the situation so now I told wikipedia on you via contact us EverybodyHatesChris 05:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reverting back 17 or 18 edits is not a violation of Wikipedia policy. Repeatedly reverting, i.e., on multiple occasions, is a policy violation per WP:3RR and WP:EW, but that doesn't seem to be the case here, as far as I can see. As for your second issue, no, I did not make "nasty remarks". Telling a user he or she is doing something that's frowned upon is not a nasty remark, nor is saying "this needs to be dealt with elsewhere"; i.e., at the appropriate noticeboard. I'm curious as to what you mean that you "told wikipedia on [me]", as I don't see that you've made any complaints about me at all. If you wish to, you could try WP:ANI, but I really doubt you'd have much success with that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh no Heimstern, I'm not going there. This is serious. I'm going to the wikipedia heads and requesting they strip you of your administrative duties. I shouldn't have to deal with all this harassment from one little complaint, Heimstern and I think you know that. Sorry I had to do this Heimstern, but they need to know about this. It's bad, Heimstern. It's really bad, especially on an administrators part. There can't be administrators treating people like this. This is going to the heads of wikipedia. EverybodyHatesChris 05:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm, OK. You can do that. I don't think you have any chance of success, but you can try. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, they need to know what you think Heimstern. So I'm going to tell them you said that. This is enough arguing now. Not going to keep on arguing with you. Goodbye EverybodyHatesChris 05:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR
Sorry, it has all got very confusing. A user User:86.146.242.233 was blocked for 2 weeks for vandalism on Friday by User:Anthony.bradbury. He reappeared using the name User:Evianmineralwater yesterday, as evidenced by him making exactly the same edits as had previously been deemed vandalism by Anthony.bradbury. I asked Anthony to investigate whether this was in fact the same person and to take appropriate action if it was. Anthony seemed to think it was, but said he had been banned. It turned out later that this was merely because of an unacceptable name rather than his activities; he changed his name to User:Mineralwaterisgreat and carried on as before. My justification for reverting an edit by a banned editor is that I understood from Anthony's message that he had been banned for his actions, not his name - this temporary ban was by another admnistrator. However, he was subsequently banned anyway.

It is apparent to me that 86.146.242.233 / Mineralwaterisgreat are one and the same. His edits are all made from an extreme POV position (he has said that he is a member of the BNP, hboth users edits are identical in the BNP article and elsewhere, he refuses to check the sources I supplied, he has slandered the authors of the books I cited, he has stated his intention to continue editing the article contrary to the broad consensus that has been built up there by people with widely differing views, he has accused those editors of bias, he has insulted wikipedians and Wikipedia itself, he has vandalised not only the article but also personal pages (see particularly what he did to User:User:Mschel (a 14 year old)).

You are right - technically but unknowingly, as I explained above, I was wrong to cite the 3RR, but I hope you will understand how this came about. More to the point, what can be done about a deliberately disruptive person? Emeraude 12:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If there's already a consensus at the article, you won't need to do all the reverting yourself; other users interested in the topic will be able to make them, too. Then you will avoid 3RR. If there isn't any consensus yet, build it there through discussion and, if necessary, dispute resolution. If the user repeatedly edit wars against consensus and will not work to resolve the dispute, the user can then be sanctioned. (Disclaimer: I know very little about the subject matter, as I'm not British and thus don't know much about the political parties of the UK other than Conservative and Labour, so I won't be any help in this respect.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You
for locking up the pennbrook page, i wrote it and my peers decided it would be funny to change it. i didnt know how to lock it. so thanks
 * Just so you know, you can't lock it yourself, as only admins can do this. So the page you used, WP:RFPP, is the way to go. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding WP:3RR block of Ofthe1780s
Heimstern you did not adequately examine the basis for the complaint by Ultramarine before acting on it and blocking my account. As a lesson to you, please consult the following information:. Ofthe1780s 18:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As a lesson to me? Excuse me, you are not my teacher. As a matter of fact, I did check the basis carefully. Each of your reverts undid an edit by Ultramarine. Not always the same edit, but this is irrelevant, as any four reverts count as a violation of the rule. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn´t seem you gave much if any weight to the fact that a two stage conflict resolution process was underway. The revert war began after Ultramarine messed with my text in an unacceptable manner and I sought to get other editors involved. It takes two to tango but you decided to side with the other editor. Perhaps you lost sight of the forest while counting the trees. Another editor suggested the complaint and your reaction to it, to block my account, was excessive. Ofthe1780s 20:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right that I had not seen that you had attempted mediation. If I had, I might have made a different decision. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Misleading description. I reported the 3RR violation when Ofthe1780s refused to allow me to add critical material or even insert a disputed template. Much later Ofthe1780s asked for outside opinions (all of which have been critical). Even later he was blocked, it took a very long time between report and block.Ultramarine 23:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain your reasoning behind your 3RR blocking of Tecmobowl?
If I'm reading things correctly, Tecmo http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tecmobowl&diff=137375351&oldid=137375112 blanked] his own unblock request earlier after Irishguy commented on it, but I am confused about why he was blocked:

Here's my reading:
 * tecmo cleans the EL section
 * epeefleche reverts him
 * tecmo reverts epeefleche revert 1 for tecmo
 * epeefleche reverts tecmo revert 2 for epeefleche
 * tecmo reverts epeeflece revert 2 for tecmo

---


 * Irishguy adds section
 * Tecmo reverts that addition - that's revert 1 for tecmo on the Irishguy stuff
 * Tecmo removes sentence
 * Irishguy reverts back to his last edit
 * tecmo updates the stats
 * tecmo reverts irishguy - revert 2 for tecmo on the irish guy stuff
 * irishguy reverts tecmo - revert 2 for irishguy
 * Tecmo starts to incorporate the irishguy stuff
 * tecmo incorporates more

Tecmo makes some additional minor edits and then the only other reverts are:
 * epeefleche readds in link revert 3 for epeefleche on this link
 * epeefleche reverts himself, but reverts other tecmo edit at same time this undoes his previous edit but gives him 1 revert on another section of the page

Tecmo has a total of 4 technical reverts, but they are on completely different things. Two reverts on a particular topic is perfectly acceptable, especially gien that Tecmo was active on the talk page--he worked to find sources that were acceptable for the information that irishguy added (i.e not a blog etc) and added the information back with good sources, and with sources for all of the information and not just some.

Also, generally Tecmo's adding the information back in would be considered a sign that he wasn't edit warring etc. Yes, Tecmo and Epeefleche had a mini revert war for a few minutes until they cooled off or whatever it is that they are doing. But that's two reverts for that. Can you explain your reasoning? Thanks. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:04, June 11 2007 (UTC)
 * According to WP:3RR, the four reverts do not have to be the same revert to count as a 3RR violation. I know he did not have more than three of any one revert; however, he did have a total of four reverts (different ones), which counts as a 3RR vio. Does that answer your question, or is there still anything that's unclear? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that--but generally editors are blocked for reverting warring. While the reverts that Tecmo made in re Epeeflece and Epeefleche made in re Tecmo were just that, the other edits weren't at all.  They were accompanied by talk page discussion (the other weren't), and Tecmo put the information that they'd been reverting about back in (with sources for the parts that were lacking and with better sources and it was written better too), which would generally be considered a revert of himself, thereby undoing his 4th revert.  To be perfectly fair, those reverts were working on poorly sourced material about a living person, and Tecmo found sources fairly quickly and rewrote the section to actually work in the article fairly quickly.
 * That's why I was wondering why you chose to block him anyway, given the intent of the rule and that he undid some of his reverts by adding the information in. Was he being punished for revert warring on the Epeefleche part and the number didn't matter, or is this just counting the number and the reason doesn't matter?  You obviously don't have to answer but I was curious.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  19:48, June 11 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd have to dispute the notion that his reverts of Irishguy were not edit warring. However; you say he self-reverted his last revert. That I didn't see. Can you show me where he did this? That might make a difference (alhough it should be noted that three reverts is also too many, just not technically in violation of the 3RR). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, looking at what you wrote above, I see a place where he tries to include Irishguy's things after Irishguy had already reverted him. That doesn't seem like a self-revert to me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually--I think it's just timing. Tecmo originally removed the material at 12:03.  Irishguy reverted him at 12:08.  Tecmo reverted Irishguy at 12:17.  Irishguy reverted back at 12:21 and Tecmo undid that and put in the new version with the new sources etc at 13:39.
 * Tecmo's 12:17 revert edit summary says "rv see talk page" and Irishguy's 12:21 revert back says "there's nothing on the talk page about this" because Tecmo's comment on the talk page, which he clearly started writing at 12:17 didn't get posted until 12:23. Paying closer attention to the times and the talk page, you're right--it's not that he reverted himself, but I don't think it's edit warring either.  If either of them were careful editors, they would systematically include a talk page comment with the first removal of text/reversion, but they aren't.  Tecmo could have been more careful and added a talk page comment with his first reversion, Irishguy could have responded to Tecmo's edit on the talk page, Irishguy could have assumed that it might take Tecmo a minute to post something to the talk page and wait--they aren't the most patient of editors.  But I still don't think it was edit warring--in fact for two editors who have real problems with each other, and communication problems, this is one of the better examples of managing to make wiki work that I've seen.  Also, IMO, I'm not sure it helps editors who are having real conflicts and problems with 3RR etc to be blocked in cases like this where a lot of their editing was productive and they went to the talk page and worked it out. But that's just my two cents.  Interesting and complicated at any rate.   Miss Mondegreen  talk  08:48, June 12 2007 (UTC)

Get some clear judgement, will you?
Why don't you get some judgment before threatening to wield your irons. The others are reverting. Not me. I am adding material and these amateur dipspits think they WP:OWN the article, with a right to make it...amateurish to a teenaged degree. C.m.jones 22:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it appears you've been blocked by Nick, anyway, so I guess it's irrelevant. When you come back, do mind WP:CIVIL. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI Jones also vandalized the page by move-warring to a nonsense name: - Merzbow 00:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw. WP:POINT, I'd say. Doesn't really matter now, though, since he's blocked. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR on HanzoHattori
You might like to know that his "opponent" did so as well:. The Evil Spartan 16:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see three reverts, but not a fourth. Could you show me the fourth revert? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like I was wrong. Apologies. The Evil Spartan 00:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize for a simple mistake like that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, nevermind, I was right: see . This is the history of a page where 4RR was used, after being warned, too. I hate to sound lazy, but I only have 15 minutes, and filing those reports at WP:AN/3RR takes forever (i.e., I might not get them done) ... The Evil Spartan 00:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm, I'm not going to go through the history to find the vio, just in case you were hoping for that. I need diffs, not just a link to the history. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For pete's sake, they're right they're in the history. Forget about it, I'm filing at report. The Evil Spartan 14:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin
I honestly think if she were not an admin the rules would be applied the other way. I'm sure you're familiar, but just to be sure, the 3RR says "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." and "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period." Am I misunderstanding something about how that is phrased? Thanks for your consideration. Fourdee 20:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, what it comes down to is what counts a a partial revert. Realize that often users feel a previous edit needs changes, and so they tweak it in some way, which may have the effect of removing some elements of the original edit. Does this qualify as a partial revert? It could probably be debated. I tend to think this isn't one, and as I found another editor there agreeing with me, I wrote no vio. I'd be happy for you to have another admin review this, if you want. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Help with 3rr process
Hi, you replied to make request for 3rr review that I needed diffs. I'm newer to the process please direct me where I can figure out what that is and how to reference it. Thank you. Benjiboi 21:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, well, this is a diff. It shows the difference between two revisions. What you provided was this, an oldid. To get the diffs from the article's history, use the button that says "compare selected versions". Hope that explains it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, will see what I can do! Benjiboi 21:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User: DavidRFLA
It seems as if he, who who blocked yesterday for 3RR, won't go down without a fight. Check out User talk:DavidRFLA: "Ok Heimstern. I will be using different ip address to wipe out everything Pats1 and you put up. You want to vandalize my stuff, then fair game. War. All I wanted to do was to keep a page with the Bucs depth chart. It has nothing to do with you or your group. If this is the way Wikipeida is run, it wont be around for long." Pats1 13:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if he does evade his block, he'll find himself blocked for lots longer. I'll keep an eye out for further disruption. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection Reconsideration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Chicano_rap_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 for Dominican Repuiblic, Chicano Rap, and Dominicans don't play. This would be beneficial b/c it is the same user using various IP address to bypass 3rr reversion wars. The Dominican Republic page was protected before and there was more progress on the talk page and less worry about the alleged KKK influence on the Dominican Republic. BoriquaStar 17:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For now, I would say just go ahead and report 3RR vios as they happen. If the user then continues to hop IPs to evade blocks, we may need to semi-protect. But thus far I'm only seeing one change of IP address (from 74.230.193.91 to 74.230.195.78), so I don't see the need for semi yet. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've already filed the 3rr. There are at least 2 ip's      BoriquaStar 18:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * All right. I may be able to have a look at that soon, or if not, another admin will. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On the DR page we have another random IP addres deleting large portions of the article. I believe a semi-protection would be fair at this point.  BoriquaStar 18:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * more content disputes by new users.  BoriquaStar 21:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You know it ended up geting semiprotected after another user made a report.  Was my report not good enough? BoriquaStar 22:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Husond must have judged the situation differently. What can I say? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion
I'd probably protect the talk page now, he is making up lies and flooding it with un-block requests.-- trey  18:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
Hi Heimstern, you recently blocked me for edit warring and a 3RR violation on Fedor Emelianenko. Even though I have over 1,000 edits, I've never been involved in a content dispute before because the majority of my edits are either noncontroversial or reverting vandalism. If you don't mind, could you please guide me through the dispute resolution process? Please leave a reply on my talk page. Thanks! east . 718 21:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I missed your message this morning, oops. Well, start by having a look at Resolving disputes and see if that helps. If not, you can come talk to me more and I may be able to make some suggestions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Migospia and 3RR block
Good morning (I assume your sleep patterns follow the norm).

I have read your page regarding your personal policy on 3RR, which I am in agreement with. I have in the past attempted to help Migospia with her editing of WP. I noted her appeal for help re the block. Since I have a past association, and note she did violate 3RR (and not for the first time), I was unwilling to consider unblocking. However, I would comment that Migospia is a well meaning editor who trangresses policy via passion and not intent. If you were to look at her appeal, and if you think that the point has been made to her, and that she realises she was in the wrong that you could reduce the block to time served I would be grateful. Thank you. LessHeard vanU 12:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would agree with LessHeard, and would appeciate a re-consideration of the block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Independent of either LessHeard vanU or ≈ jossi ≈, I have worked with Migospia in the past, and am trying again now to work with her to understand why she was blocked. Whether she truly believes the rules are being applied unfairly, or truly understands the 3RR rule, I don't know. I have edited in that article in the past (it is actually due to edit warring with her and another user that I began editing there).
 * She is certainly very passionate. And, she was clearly 3RR, and I believe 4RR.
 * If she can acknowledge that she was warring, then I would go beyond asking you to reconsider, and specifically ask you to remove the ban for time-served and add a comment in the unblock that she acknowledged warring and promised to improve.
 * If she refuses to acknowledge warring, or accept the definition of 3RR, then I would not support such a request, since the block time was already shortened due to your question about whether it was technically a violation. Lsi john 19:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you; been busy all day until now. Eh, if you think she's learned her lesson, OK, I'll unblock. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am unable to say that she has learned her lesson, but it is not for the want of others trying to help her to that understanding. I'm sure you will act for the best. LessHeard vanU 20:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Another issue with HeadMouse
He has created this page, Walt Disney monorail System and copyed the history of Walt Disney World Monorail System of what he wants that page to look like. Then he tried to re-direct the original one to his. Please talk to him. -- trey  18:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, both titles are now protected, and HeadMouse is blocked, so the problem's gone for now. I don't really think there's much more that I can do. You, he and Maelwys may want to consider some form of dispute resolution when the block is over. Just keep your cool and be careful not to edit war yourself and you'll be OK. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfair
This is the reference on which all the arguments of Gnanapiti to deny my inputs are based on: Reference # 9 in the article Telugu language. (http://www.engr.mun.ca/~adluri/telugu/language/script/script1a.html) Users who revert my edits tell me not to depend on web information in Wiki. But they did not tell the same to Gnanapiti or Kannambadi.? why? Is it not hypocrisy? When you open this webpage and go to the section "Evolution of Telugu character graphs", you will find the Figures T1a and T1b, about which I have been trying to drive home my message. Either you do not have time to read these pages or you want to deliberately ignore the truth. Kumarrao 05:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, first off, it would have been helpful if you had told me what this was in response to. I didn't even remember protecting that article (I do lots of admin actions a day). Anyway: I am not part of your dispute. I have not protected the article to endorse the current version, but rather to stop the current edit war. I apparently protected the wrong version, but unfortunately that is not for me to decide. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

False allegation
The false allegation of Gnanapiti that I was canvassing support is absolutely unfair and is against Wiki standards. How hoping for support of others can be termed 'canvassing'? Does he understand English? Unfortunately, I am not well conversant with Wiki guidelines and contact administrators to discipline users like Gnanapiti. I hope some administrator will notice this prejudice of Gnanapiti and take suitable action against him. The unexplained reversions of my edits by multiple Wiki users, who are Kannada enthusiasts, strongly point towards some sort of collusion and collaboration. Everytime I make an edit, I am asked to explain but reversions of my edits are done nonchalantly without properly reading my inputs. This is ludicrous and it exposes the limititations of Wikipedia itself.Kumarrao 07:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you want me do to here. Is there some action that needs to be taken against the person you're talking about? And if so, why does it need to be done (i.e., what policy is he/she violating)? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Frustration
I am thoroughly convinced that Wikipedia is a highly susceptible tool for spreading falsehoods by a group(s) of people who can collude among themselves and then twist, distort and protect their articles from well-meaning Users. At the same time, they can prevent others from editing their contributions in a clever and premediated fashion. I do not regret that I lost to a bunch of fanatics and chauvanists. I only hope that Wikipedia owners, administrators and others take notice of my frustration and amend the guidelines to make Wiki more credible and authentic. Kumarrao 14:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't really know what to tell you, except to remind you first that the protection I made to that article is not permanent and to suggest that you consider seeking dispute resolution. If something's going on that requires admin attention, I'd be happy to help (unfortunately, I may not respond quickly, as I'm currently traveling). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I know, i know
Erasing whole paragraphs without justification is no vandalism, but "content dispute" if the eraser is and the complainer, and only then. We've been here before. RCS 06:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have been through this several times, and I have informed you several times that that noticeboard is for simple vandalism. Disagreeing over what content is included of what spellings are used is not simple vandalism; it is a content dispute. You are absolutely wrong to say this is true only when you are making the report. I do the same thing for any case where it is not clear vandalism. And in case you've forgotten, other admins have removed your reports as well. As I've said several times, dispute resolution is available, but that noticeboard is not part of that. There's nothing more to be done here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)