User talk:SebastianHelm

WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation
Dear Sebastian is there any chance of resurrecting this project? As there are few sources which still need to be classified/reclassified. This is to reduce the heated arguments taking place on Sri Lankan Civil war related articles. Thank you Oz346 (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Oz346, thanks for asking. For that we would need constructive people from both sides of the conflict. When we started it, we were three people, but each of us put a lot of time into it. Back then, we were like firefighters and construction workers at the same time, which was often challenging, but rewarding. How do you see the situation now? How much time are you willing to invest? As for me, I don't have as much time for Wikipedia in general anymore, and I'm pretty much out of touch with the SR conflict, but I would be happy to assist. ◅ Sebastian 17:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * well I'm in wiki for the long haul so I'm willing to contribute daily if need be. Regarding constructive users from both sides, I can leave messages on their talk pages to see if they would be able to make valuable contributions. In terms of the situation now, the already existing table of sources at SLR has helped a lot and prevented unnecessary conflicts. It just needs to be expanded with the help of a moderator. Oz346 (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It sounds like the situation isn't nearly as bellicose as it was during the war and the rest of SLR isn't needed anymore. If you want to initiate a cooperative effort just to revive and update the RS portion of SLR, you have my blessing. ◅ Sebastian 21:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @SebastianHelm, could you please give your opinion on whether Tamil Times is a RS: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources
 * Thanks! --- Petextrodon (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, Petextrodon! Sorry, i hadn't gotten the notification through Oz346's ping, but i'll look into it shortly. ◅ Sebastian 08:48, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sebastian,can u help me?
I contributed a lot to the mu online article in Spanish and LuchoCR just for having contributed without vandalism blocked me forever from Wikipedia, you can review the changes I made on the page and I asked them in a good way to remove the block since I had not done anything and instead they gave me a 13-day block and then for asking librarians for help in Spanish they undid my changes asking for help on their discussion pages and they blocked me forever, the librarian Taichi is complicit I asked for help with this user https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_discusión:MajinBaki who is 3 years old and they blocked my IP forever without having done anythinghttps://es.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&redlink=1&title=User_discussion:186.11.123.149 Taichi deleted my discussion page where I put the unlock template explaining everything and rightly put that it was unnecessary, just to delete it, vandalizing my page discussion page Here is an example of the help I asked a librarian in Spanish on the subject and the ocelot librarian as a mafioso reverted the changes https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:MobileDiff/152986729 and asked my ip ban without doing anything, I just ask for help to do justice, the user Ocelot asked for my IP ban and the mafia user LuchoCR thanked him for reverting my help changes on librarian pages and said yes to me ip ban requested by ocelot https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tablón_de_anuncios_de_los_bibliotecarios/Portal/Archivo/Nombres_inapropiados_y_vandalismo_persistente/Actual?markasread=52216326&markasreadwiki=eswiki#c-Ocelot-2023081016300 0-Block_Breach_10 there is a mob on wikipedia in Spanish that is why I ask you for help, please translate everything that appears in the links that I send you so that you understand MajinBaki(talk) 20:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC) MajinBaki (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * If I understand your message correctly, you are talking about the Spanish Wikipedia, with which I have very little to do. Why are you turning to me, then? ◅ Sebastian 03:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Median lethal dose
Hello. Help copy edit. Thank you. 171.226.236.47 (talk) 11:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please clearly write what help you need from me. It would also be nice if you could tell me why you're turning to me, of all people, since I don't remember having anything to do with the article you name in the message title. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 11:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Juliet Mphande
Hello, SebastianHelm,

Could you do me a favor and go back and sign your closure of this AFD? If you use XFDCloser, this happens automatically. But it helps for editors to easily see who decided to close a discussion, especially in cases like this when it was an early, snow closure. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello Liz, thank you for your message. I would certainly do so (note to self: add sig to “The result was ...” as there at 06:23), but i now realize a possible problem: From the code  right where my signature should be, i now remember that there was a rule that closures should only be done by uninvolved editors. Since i was involved in the discussion, i probably shouldn't have closed it, then. What do you think? Would it solve the problem if i asked you to do me the favor and sign it instead? You could leave a comment referring to this discussion. Or you could write something like “originally closed by SebastianHelm (date), seconded by Liz (date)”.
 * In addition, this points to two problems at the the instructions i followed:
 * I don't see the rule alluded by  there. If it is still in place then it should be added to the instructions.
 * Likewise, the instructions say nothing about adding a signature.
 * ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 08:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, for the late reply. I don't check my pings. Admins who frequently close AFDs use XFDcloser which adds the closer's signature. I've actually never seen an AFD close before without a signature, it was a little startling. I believe editors who participate in a deletion discussion, or just want to check it out, have a right to know who closed the discussion and whether it was an admin or NAC. If you don't want to add your signature, for some reason, I'll just type in your username for you tomorrow. Editors shouldn't have to go into the page history to see who closed the discussion. And if you are going to help out more in the AFD/RFD/TFD/etc. area, I suggest you strart using XFDcloser which takes care of all of the steps for you including tagging the talk page, deleting redirects, archiving the discussion in one easy step. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 06:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Conclusion: Because of BLP privacy concerns and the unaddressed problems, it's best to not rock the boat any further. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 21:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Physics in fiction has been nominated for renaming
Category:Physics in fiction has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Reversions
I will not be un-boxing that item. BANNED USERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO EDIT. There can be no compromise. Read WP:BMB. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me fill you in on this nonsense.  Baseball Bugs has a block log as long as your arm and is restricted.   He claims editors are "banned" but never, ever, substantiates his claims.   He expects other editors to accept what he says as gospel.   For instance, he tries to justify his action by citing policy, but if you follow up his link it says nothing about "hatting" discussions   My interest in this is that on Tuesday I edited the Reference desk and this is what happened: .   Six minutes later, "Favonian" blocked me, alleging that my edits were "Long-term abuse".   You be the judge of that.   He linked to a "Long-term abuse" page.   If you care to plough through it you will see that it is of not the slightest relevance.   Viennese Waltz, who reverted both of Tuesday's edits, is another one who never substantiates his claims.   He is linking me with another editor who apparently lives in north London.   "Favonian" blocked the editor you are discussing at 16:54 this afternoon, who indeed lives in London.   That was just half an hour ago, and quite obviously I cannot travel from London to Nottingham in that time, so a number of people have got their wires crossed. 2A02:C7B:225:6F00:D9FE:A99D:670C:1BEC (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the relevant half hour is 13:31 to 14:05 today. 2A02:C7B:225:6F00:D9FE:A99D:670C:1BEC (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that corroborates my impression. And on top of that, this removal, which I reverted since it sheds more light on the issue. They seem to are on a vindictive agenda. With that, I will bring the issue up at AN. I won't include what you wrote here so as not to add an additional level of complication to something that should be clear enough by itself. But there might be a moment later when your view could help. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 17:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Sri Lanka Reconciliation Project
Hey @SebastianHelm, would you mind arbitrating over the reliability of a source, ITJP? This is a pretty straightforward case and shouldn't take much of your time.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources

Thanks. --- Petextrodon (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Ref desk procedures
I do not see any acknowledgement regarding the report about above that you posted at AN. Therefore I am posting the result here: AN report (permalink). That should make it clear that there must be no further disruption concerning banned users. I am one of the several administrators who commented in that report and I would be willing to ensure that future problems do not occur. One way to do that would be to block anyone who restores removed content. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

POV-Editing, Manipulation
Dear Sebastian, Could you please engage in the discussion and read the entire thread? There seems to be an issue. Your attention would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aramaic#Shmayo_deletes_sourced_information PersonJanuary2024 (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello PersonJanuary2024, sorry that I'm replying only now. May I ask why you are contacting me? I don't remember having any experience with that topic, and, in addition to understanding the topic, it's quite a long discussion if one has to “read the entire thread”. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 01:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

NESOHR
Hi @SebastianHelm, |Oz346 has claimed that you as the Admin has concluded NESOHR as QS in the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources. My understanding is that the discussion was not concluded. Can you please clarify if NESOHR has been classified as a QS. Thanks. Cossde (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello Cossde, let me reply here: I did consider the discussion concluded last October, until you posted your reply “Disagree”. Then I made an effort to value your concerns by seeing them in the bigger view and concluded by asking you „can we please settle this one issue, so that we can move on?“. You never replied to that question, which to me meant that you wanted to move on. Why else would you never reply? ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 10:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry. Sebastian I may have missed this for some reason. My bad. Since then things have snowballed. Cossde (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So how should we repair this now? ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 10:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We can take this to the RS Noticeboard and see what the outcome is. Cossde (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course, that's possible. But why bother other people to clean up after us? How would you mitigate the problems caused by your lack of a reply? ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 14:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Dear, would it be possible if you could please formally finalise NESOHR as a QS on the SL reconciliation list of sources, as user Cossde is repeatedly using its current omission on the list, as an excuse to cast doubt on it, despite it being explicitly attributed . This is despite him twice ignoring your questions regarding it, including now. I do not think we can satisfy all individuals (SinhalaLion is a more constructive editor anyway, who agreed with its QS status), especially ones who dispute all sources critical of the Government of Sri Lanka. I feel it is better to go with what is right, instead of leaving the issue hanging indefinitely, especially when you have already done the hard work in independently vetting it. Thank you. Oz346 (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)