User talk:Heimstern/archive 8

Signpost updated for September 10th, 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. R Delivery Bot 20:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
Hope you understand why I reverted the archiving of your page by what appeared to be just another IP! -- Orange Mike 13:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was my mistake, not yours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 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 03:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Report regarding likely sockpuppetry
Given comments on your talk page, this report may be of interest to you. 216.234.60.106 00:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Walk t'plank!

 * Avast, ye lubbers! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Supaman89

 * Hello Heimstern, it's me Supaman89, I've just been informed that someone... has asked for a usercheck on my account arguing that AlexCovarrubias and I might be the same person, so I just wanted to let you know that I strongly support the checking so we can clarify all this issue, Alex and I would like a public checkuser and if necessary I give permission to do it, regards. Supaman89 19:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren's block
Just to let you know, Digwuren is currently the subject of an ArbCom case. The user may need to be unblocked shortly to participate in the case. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, actually, I made a section on ANI to that effect. Obviously, I understand that may need to be done, and I'm fine with anyone doing so if necessary, or I'll do it myself. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think protecting the article may have been a more appropriate action here, given the circumstances. The ArbCom case is in an active stage now, so could you unblock Digwuren right away. Thanks. Martintg 00:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Re:Protection: I didn't really see an edit war with multiple parties on each side, which is the only condition under which I consider protection justified (though I may have misread the situation). Re:Unblocking: Is there a current need for him to edit the arbitration pages? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there were atleast four parties involved here, Digwuren, Irpen, Anonimu and Dihydrogen Monoxide, just on Sept. 25th alone, all reverting each others edits. The Arbcom case Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop is currently very active, so there is definitely a need to unblock Digwuren now. In lieu, you could protect the article, I'm sure Digwuren got the message. Martintg 00:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, you're right. I've gone ahead and protected the article. I'll unblock Digwuren, and will hope you're right about him having gotten the message. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm sure he has, otherwise I'll apply for adminship and block him myself! ;) Martintg 01:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Giovanni33-John Smith's
(Copying my comment over)

Giovanni has certainly brought up other edits I've made outside the article, so if they're not removed I think you are free to discuss other articles too. John Smith&#39;s 21:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Request to monitor an edit war
I noticed that you were kind enough to revert vandalism of my user page by User:Nathweni. I would ask that you add Shetland pony to your watchlist, as I believe the action on my talk page was not in fact a "technical accident." We have gotten into a fairly heated discussion on the talk page of the Shetland pony article and it seems to be escalating into an edit war. A rational, neutral third party presence with admin privileges may be necessary here. There is also a minor problem with User:Bananas'n'Cream, who is overly enamored of a cute but rather mediocre photo of hers and has been causing some problems by putting it in places where it doesn't fit.

On my own part, I will confess to being a bit snippy these last couple of weeks, I have been recovering from eye surgery, unable to ride, and probably spending too much time on wikipedia to compensate. However, if you will review my edit history on the Shetland article as well as my overall contributions to the horse breed articles, I believe you will see that, by and large, I have been devoted to improving the articles and that I attempt to find and use the best possible images for the articles I have taken on to rewrite and upgrade.

Anyway, as Nathweni seemed to take offense at me from the get go and did go after my user page, which I doubt was an accident, I would ask that there be someone without an oar in the water on this case keeping an eye on things. My last edit to the article was this one, and I would appreciate if it could be kept for awhile, particularly as regards NOT using the harness pony photo as the lead photo, but rather as an illustration under "uses," where it fits nicely. Montanabw (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I usually don't take requests to monitor edit wars. It's not that I don't take edit warring seriously, it's just that I'm not really a mediator (you probably wouldn't want me watching anyway; I've become pretty cynical about that stuff lately and would probably just get snarky). But there are other resources you can look at; if you haven't already, head for dispute resolution. Of course, you may also need to request page protection or a block for edit warring. I hope this helps. Again, it's not that I don't take this seriously, but I wouldn't really be able to help you by "watching" the edit war. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Well, thanks for catching the vandalism on my user page. Glad to know I am not the only person getting snarky!  I am getting real sick of trolls masquerading as "helpful" editors.  Montanabw (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Denial of Soviet occupation
Hi there, could you unprotect this article please. I don't think there will be any more edit warring since the article has now been listed for Afd Articles for deletion/Denial of Soviet occupation. These deletion debates often provide a good way of improving the article, as editors take on board critisms and attempt to fix the issues. As some famous writer once said: "The hangmans noose can marvellously concentrate the mind". Martintg 23:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Have fun. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 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. R Delivery Bot 02:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Pagans MC
You reverted an edit on this article where an anonymous user added a paragraph about as arrest of a Pagan member. The user recently readded the material, and rather than deleting it, I added a fact tag. I will attempt to find a reference for this statement in the next day or two. Thought you should know. Mmoyer 17:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That revert was partially a mistake, in that I did it because I thought the user was testing adding media examples (a later edit). However, I kept the revert because there seemed to be unsourced info. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007


Automatically delivered by COBot 02:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Denial of Soviet occupation
Can you please protect the article again or block User:Digwuren who constantly removes POV tags from this havily-disputed (and being considered for deletion) article? You've already blocked him for 2 weeks, but there was opened an arbcom case against him and you then unblocked him to allow him participate in the case. Instead you protected the article, but now it is unbrotected and Digwuren continues his edit-war.--Dojarca 10:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. The article has been deleted.--Dojarca 01:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Don't let the world get to you. Your contributions are invaluable. - auburn pilot  talk  17:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, man. Stopping vandalism is something I can still do here and care about it, so I'll do that. If only Wikipedia's community were a little less of a shark tank, I'd be willing to do more, but that's just not happening. And the recent problems ArbCom is having even rendering decisions is worrisome to me (at least they acknowledge the problem, though). Oh, well, we will see. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

70.48.246.221
Hi Heimstern, see. I was considering unblocking, but I thought you might want to handle the unblock yourself, since you are the blocking admin. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I did, with a proper warning concerning what will happen if he fails to keep his word. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd like to see what happens now. :-P Nishkid64 (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 15th, 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 09:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

may need some support
Seems User:Nathweni and User:Bananas'n'Cream have a problem with my very existence and are now resorting to threats and personal attacks. See User talk:Bananas'n'Cream. I archived the spat I had with these two over shetland pony after a third party opinion settled the matter, so it wasn't cluttering up the talk page, and to cool the discussion have removed some of the flaming that was getting started on my talk page, though if you care, the discussion was here with the heading "Where do you get off?" I am concerned with their level of threat, and feel that it is best for a third party to step in and help cool things down. So, given that you intervened with Nathweni blanked my talk page, I am simply giving you a heads up that things are heating up again with these folks, who seem determined to declare that I am acting in bad faith, which I am not. (That I am occasionally tired and snippy, I confess). Thanks for any help. Montanabw (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I had a quick look at this. My immediate analysis is that the two other users are assuming bad faith with you, which is obviously against our behavioral guidelines. I don't quite see that they have escalated to the level of personal attacks as yet (if I'm wrong, show me some specific diffs to let me know). Have you pursued mediation yet? You could head for the Mediation Committee and see if they can help, or you could pursue more informal mediation. The mediation cabal is one place you could look for this. If you're wondering if I'd be willing to mediate, I could consider this, but I warn you that I don't have lots of experience in this, and am disgruntled enough with Wikipedia at large that I might not be the best. Anyway, that's the advice I have for you now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Appreciate it, and sure, you can feel disgruntled, that's OK. (grin) Sometimes I do as well, like today.  If you wouldn't mind keeping my talk page, Driving (horse) and Mare (horse) on your watchlist for a little while, seems this gang weighs in about once a week or so, not necessarily every day.  Basically, the spat archived in the Shetland pony talk page that I got into with Nathweni was one with a level of meanness that I don't care to have repeated.  I suppose I am just gun shy. I found the comments on the talk page of B'n"C about how terrible I am and how I should be turned in to be borderline personal attack as they stood, though it wasn't on my talk page...I had actually gone over there to tell B'n'C that she made a reasonable edit to Mare (horse) (where she and I have had previous disputes) in an attempt to show her that I don't just revert things for no reason, and found the discussion.  Then an anon IP who traces to Australia reverted my tweaks of her edit to the mare article, pretty sure it was B'n'C.  Her ad hominem attack on me about the Driving (horse) article on my talk page (that link I provided above) was pretty over the top as well.  The basic problem seems to be that what I consider to be a style edit to make things read better is perceived as some kind of control freak thing by these two. This all started when I removed a photo of a pony (possibly her own) from several articles where it didn't seem to fit, and tweaked some captions to be what seemed to me to be more encyclopedic.   Guess I just really am unhappy about being viewed as something I am not and having my motives deliberately misunderstood. Thanks.   Montanabw (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I warned B'n'C not to make personal attacks on you after I saw the comment on her talk. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I saw it. I am really, really trying to keep myself out of that spat until it settles down, but it is very difficult not to defend myself.  Please continue to keep an eye on things, and be aware that I am not going to respond on B'n"C's talk page until asked to respond.    Montanabw (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Your 3RR report
You, too, are edit warring, even if not breaking 3RR technically, and you've carried on with this for far too long. I've watchlisted the article to watch both you and ILike2BeAnonymous. If you continue the edit war, I will block you. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your complaint is complete and total {profanity removed}. Even the most careless reader would see that there are multiple individuals adding sourced content and one individual who has been removing it with flimsy excuses, trying to refight the AfD that failed just weeks ago. That you can find some moral equivalence here to justify your inaction on the clear WP:3RR violation and your failure to enforce Wikipedia policy, and can come up with threats is shameless. Alansohn 13:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3RR is nothing more than one way to measure edit warring. And you are both edit warring, end of story. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR was designed so that even an admin can understand how it works. It uses fairly low-level brain processes, such as counting. One, two, three, four reverts equals a textbook definition of a WP:3RR violation. You have acknowledged the violation in your comments to ILike2BeAnonymous, yet you both refuse to follow Wikipedia policy and refuse to make any effort to understand that this is a case of an abusive editor removing sourced content without any valid justification. Alansohn 03:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikilawyering is not going to get you anywhere, nor is your sarcasm. Blocking one person and not another because one has exceeded a count of reverts and the other has not is just silly and does not relate at all to the intention of the rule, which is to stop edit wars, not to automatically block anyone who exceeds a certain number of reverts. Please note the wording on the page, "sysops may block you"; this means whether or not to block is at the sysop's discretion. But hey, if you don't like the result, get another sysop to review it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ignorance of Wikipedia policy is not helping you either, nor is a complete an utter failure to understand the abusive and unjustified removal of content by ILike2BeAnonymous. Other than that, you've been quite helpful. Any suggestions on an alternate admin? Alansohn 03:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. There's over a thousand, you shouldn't have trouble finding one. But as for policy, you've been in violation of it for quite some time by your edit warring. Read the page carefully and notice how it says editors may be blocked even without making three reverts per day. I could have blocked you both, and I'm quickly wishing I had done that. Instead, I was lenient and blocked neither. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As you refuse to consider the facts of the case, I will be more than happy to take you up on your offer and attempt to find one who will. Alansohn 04:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

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 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 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 05:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Arb com questions
I had to remove them because I copied paste them from another candidate, is it ok if you can ask me. Thanks Jbeach sup 19:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, is it not allowed for you to do that? If not, I should probably add something saying that candidates are welcome to copy them to their question pages. But anyway, I'll add them back. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There was some comments in the talk page saying that I can't for some reason, also is it ok if I mention User:Heimstern/Problem in a question that I got from another editor saying what you think is wrong with wikipedia. Thanks Jbeach sup 19:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, anyone who wants to bring my writings into play is welcome to. :-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the real problem with Wikipedia?
I made a comment--victor falk 16:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Good friend100
Thanks for the support. Spartaz Humbug! 21:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. He seems like the kind of guy who needs this stuff spelt out, so I thought I'd make this as clear as I can. Unfortunately, I still suspect the cluehammer is not going to work on him and that we're going to need a bigger one. Let's hope I'm wrong, though. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFARB
Just in response to your comment on the RFARB about Kmweber: Edit summaries like aren't really that big a deal when you consider comments made by admins in opposes for example here. I know that it's not OK to be rude just because other people are, but in my view we could hardly take Kmweber to task for those very minor infractions without having to take to task half of WP's core community for their rudeness, also. User:Veesicle 03:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not the edit summary for that one that concerns me, it's the comment as a whole. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Pigeon Loves Things That Go!
Hello,

I'm a bit concerned about the outcome of this discussion, since it doesn't seem like anyone bothered to research these books. First of all, the articles weren't created as spam; they were created by longtime contributor badlydrawnjeff. Second, at least some of these books are notable. To pick one at random, Edwina, the Dinosaur Who Didn't Know She Was Extinct was a NAPPA award winner and the subject of multiple newspaper reviews (based on a quick Newsbank search).

Would it be a big deal to relist the discussion? In my experience, Wikipedians have made a lot of mistakes when assessing children's books. (See this discussion, for example.) Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  21:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I've done so. Have a look at the articles and see if you can't improve them. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll get going on this as soon as I can. Zagalejo ^  ^  ^  02:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I added some refs to Don't Let the Pigeon Stay Up Late! I'll see what I can do with the others. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  03:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Help with sockpuppets
Hi, I don't know if you remember a case from way back at Talk:China about Central Kingdom vs Middle Kingdom: see Talk:China/Archive 10 and Talk:China/Archive 11. It seems our good friend User:Right desciption aka User:Jalamen2 aka User:JackyAustine aka any number of things is back, this time in the guise of User:Maeblie and User:Peter zhou. My suspicion is based purely on the edit histories of these users - that they are all single purpose accounts to add the "Central Kingdom" view to China-related articles (although User:Peter zhou has also edited Jesus).

The same rhetoric is being used on talk pages and the edits are suspiciously identical to the edits in the last outbreak of sockpuppetry on that topic. What do you think? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes, it looks very familiar indeed. But I don't know that we can block the user, even if he is Jacky. You see, Jacky's block expired some months ago, so this wouldn't actually be block evasion, and thus not abusive sockpuppetry as far as I can tell. The only exception would be if Maeblie and Peter zhou are currently being used abusively, i.e., to make an appearance of greater support for ideas on talk pages or to avoid 3RR blocks. Has anything like that happened? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late response - since nothing much has happened on the talk page, but User:Peter zhou is now coming back with the same tactics that Jacky's sockpuppets typically engaged in, especially (1) claiming that other users have been banned/sanctioned by the community when they have not, and (2) claiming a consensus among other editors which does not exist.
 * The sockpuppetry itself does not seem to be abusive, in the sense of stacking the disucssion using different accounts. However, I think s/he is misleading other editors by appearing to be a separate editor to the one(s) who caused all the fuss previously, and who was ultimately dominated by consensus. Not a hanging offence? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
 Thank you for supporting me in my recent RFA which unfortunately did not pass at (47/23/5). I will be sure to improve my editing skills and wait till someone nominates me next time. Have a great day(or night)! -- Hdt 83     Chat 05:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...
--nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 06:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This may help
RE: WSI


 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Travb (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
  Click there to open your card! → → → Dearest Heimstern Läufer, Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your kind words of support are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow  and  Phoenix-wiki  for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.  Lara  ❤  Love  19:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Credits: This RFA thanks was inspired by  The Random Editor 's RFA thanks which was inspired by Phaedriel 's RFA thanks.

Message from 90.184.4.231
Dear Heimstern You blocked me in "edit war" yesterday but not my oppononent, who was deleting all my edits and refused to discuss the text. You said my text did not have sources. Now it has. Entirely reputable ones that substantiate everything. Highly pertinent stuff. Would you please protect it from the new vandalism that has already started?

90.184.4.231 01:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm looking into the protection situation at this article. Meanwhile, let me say that I do not believe this is vandalism on either side; rather, I believe it to be a content dispute. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

re: Red-Green Alliance (Denmark) semi-protection
Thanks for pointing that out... that's what I get for a quick drive-by of RFPP while logged on for a few minutes. On closer inspection it does look like a content dispute, despite the edit summaries in the article history. The article talk page also bears this out. I've changed this to 1 week full protection for the parties to work this out. Please feel free to adjust this if you feel it's inappropriate. Cheers! -- Flyguy649 talk 06:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems fair to me. Yeah, we do have some bad-faith assumptions going on and thus some inappropriate "rv vandalism"s. I'll keep an eye on the article and unprotect sooner if there's a consensus or anything, but in the meantime we can leave it like this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are assessing the situation correctly. Thank you! I was beginning to get frustrated. It is indeed a content dispute. My claim is that my opponents (party members?) are simply deleting anything they don't like, no matter how well founded and pertinent it is. They are not disputing my facts. They will not discuss the text with me. They are simply dismissing anything I write as "POV pushing" or islamophobic slander, which is clearly absurd.

Perhaps they will feel less need for such undemoctratic behaviour after the election.

Best regards and thanks again

90.184.4.231 09:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)