User talk:Heimstern/archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Switchfoot Unprotect Request

Hello. I'm requesting that the Switchfoot article be unprotected now. The issue has been resolved. [1] Thank you! Joberooni (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've granted your request. Just to be sure, I've put the page on my watchlist and will re-protect (or, if I think it makes more sense, block editors) if the edit war continues. Cheers, Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I Thank You

For reverting my userpage. :P -WarthogDemon 01:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Doing my job as always. B-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Symphony No. 58 (Haydn)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Symphony No. 58 (Haydn) , has been proposed to be merged into another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanx

Thank you for protecting it. That was my only option against disruptive behavior from the other oponent he was trying to make it Serbian!!! (Kendobs (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

I didn't protect it. Another editor did. And it certainly wasn't protected to help your side of the dispute, but rather to stop the edit war. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship

Dear Heimstern, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Riana, I have no regrets about my decision to support you, regardless of the outcome. I know it doesn't sound like any fun at all at this point, but I would hope you would consider another shot at this some months down the road. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop with the tagging

Or, in the alternative, look at the article it's in before tagging it with an inappropriate tag. I swapped images around, so as to keep you from having it deleted. It now "illustrates" only the stamp itself, not Steinbeck. Why are you so intent on having it deleted? Bellwether ^B_C 04:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I did in fact read the article, and no, it does not. It is not being used to show something about the stamp itself. It is being used to show Steinbeck. That is not allowed by our policy. We only use fair use images where no option to use a free image exists. I'm intent on deleting it because it is Also, note that you are not allowed to remove that tag. If you disagree with my tagging it, you should add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|Your reason why a free replacement can not be found or created}}. I'm restoring the tag; please don't remove it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Bull. I moved it, and now it's only used to show the stamp. Read the friggin' caption. What's your deal, man? Is this your new cause or something? Bellwether ^B_C 05:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • He is right, the stamp usage is not correct. The mention of the stamp is not even mentioned in the article text. I would suggest adding in the article on "tributes" on when he was depicted on a stamp and why he was chosen. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• (I will not swear, I will not swear.) His picture's on the friggin' stamp! It's pretty clear he was honored in that way! Why so deletionist, Heimstern, why? Bellwether ^B_C 05:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• If you have read the license tag for the stamp image, you should have seen this: "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)." What you have decided was to base the rationale on the later; we need it for the former. If you take my hints of what to include in the article, the image would most likely stay on here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've included a sentence about his being honored with a postage stamp. If this doesn't satisfy, I give up, which may have been Heimstern's goal all along. He seems bent on getting it deleted. Bellwether ^B_C 05:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I'm disengaging from the matter. Contrary to what you might think, image policy is not my main thing here; I just happened upon that image and thought something seemed afoul. Zscout has much more experience with fair use than I, and he'll be able to handle this better. Note that I will not complain at all if this image is kept as long as it's being used properly. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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 (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Re your decision at 3RR

Greetings. With respect, I think that when looking at a 3RR report where the dates and times had not been provided by the reporter along with the diffs, you might have thought some edits were more recent than they actually were. I see only 3R in a 24-hour period about a week ago plus only 2R in a 24-hour period today. I'd appreciate it if you would have another look at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Diplomacy rule reported by User:Fireproeng (Result:24 hours), where I've inserted the dates/times into the diffs; or look again at the contributions of Diplomacy rule in the page history of Son of God. Thanks in advance. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at User talk:Diplomacy rule and see that the reason you gave there for the block was edit warring, not 3RR. Perhaps you were not mistaken after all, and I misinterpreted what you'd said on the 3RR page. If so, I apologize. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a pretty clear case of edit warring, even if 3RR isn't technically breached. The user is obviously trying to force his/her edits through without discussion, which is pretty much exactly what's wrong with edit warring.

It should be noted, though, that I misread the dates and thought the edit war was quite recent, when actually it was a day ago. I could see a case that I should unblock as a result (although blocking for something 24 hours ago is not completely unreasonable, it is a bit on the stale side). On the other hand, it looks to me like the user is continuing to edit rather tendentiously, pursuing the same POV he was pursuing during the edit war. So I think it's not unreasonable to continue the block, but will have no objection if it is lifted, either. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the most recent revert (part of 3R in just over 24 hours) was only about 3 hours before you issued the block, so it was fine as far as that goes. Thank you for tolerating so nicely my mistaken criticism of your action. I guess you're not suffering from the ego problem you describe in your essay. After having read your editwarring essay I now see that by "open and shut case" you didn't necessarily mean that 3RR had been violated. Some of my thoughts about enforcement of the 3RR policy are here on my talk page. I also gave a link to your editwarring essay to EdJohnston.

I've also posted a link to your above comment, and a quote of part of it, on the 3RR noticeboard.

Re practical methods of reducing the ego problem: users who are so inclined may find some useful techniques at User:Coppertwig/Techniques for handling emotions when editing. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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 (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Deh Shiva Bar Mohe

Hi, I have contacted Ajjay wrt the above thread.

As you may be aware there are political tendencies around the Globe for religious militant groups to foster segregation by many techniques. Modification of meanings and/or concepts to suit their goals is one.

The message I left for him as follows:

"As I mentioned before, the title uses 'Shiva' not 'Siva'. (Yet he keeps changing it to Siva) ???

If the Guru or Gurus didn't mean what they said or said what they mean or more specifically didn't say what 'political' motivated adherents preferred, then that does not mean you preclude exact words and/or definitions. Dave"

I hope you agree with the above, but its your jurisprudence. Thanks, Dave Indologist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.3.244 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what this is about. Is this relating to some action I took at a noticeboard? If so, remind me what it was; I've forgotten. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Re user Svetoid

Excuse me, Heimstern – I don't know whether you mind getting messages like this, but I thought you might be interested in an editwarring case, although it was declined as a malformed report by another admin at the 3RR noticeboard. There was no actual 3RR violation, but clearly editwarring. It's at WP:AN3#User:Svetovid reported by User:87.97.109.54 (Result: Declined) and involves revertwarring on Hedvig Malina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) by user Svetovid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). --Coppertwig (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding a recent report about 3RR

I think protection of the page will do for now. Thanks for the intervention. Josuechan (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC) ₳

Alternative to infinite full-protection of Qur'an

Hi there, you might be interested in this proposal. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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 (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Scorpion (Mortal Kombat)

"Department of Redundancies Department" - that was priceless. :) Beemer69 05:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Always glad to entertain. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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 (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 14th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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 (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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 (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

A message from WarthogDemon.

I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, was unsuccessful with 61 support, 25 oppose, and 4 neutral. I've been taking the advice of the Opposes into practice and hopefully I can improve myself. Once again, thank you. ^_^

Re: Signature

Thanks! By the way this essay is great, and I'll be linking to it; it perfectly encapsulates what I tell people on occasion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reading it! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

See

You should see this article. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 11:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Would I be right in guessing you might be the same user who plugged this article at HRWiki here? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A sample edit-warring case

Hello Heimstern. I notice you commented on the Ultramarine/Giovani33 case at the 3RR board. This looks to me like a data point arguing against the notion of an edit-warring noticeboard. It would simply be too difficult for the average admin to want to sort that one out. ANI lets many cases to be archived with no action, and that's presumably because each one would take too much time for a proper investigation. Even the regular 3RR cases can sit around for a while; one of them recently got completely missed (and went stale) because nobody got around to it. (That was the User:Dual Freq case). And closing 3RRs should be easier than closing edit war cases! Where shall we find the manpower?  :-) EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I weren't questioning my own ability to remain neutral, I'd probably take a crack at this one, myself. It is true that more complex ones are sometimes better suited to ANI, and this one is a case where I think an argument can definitely be made for doing so with this one. On the other hand, there are some cases that are still pretty easy, if a bit less so than true 3RR cases. For example, in autumn 2007, I blocked two users who were reverting exactly once a day every day for something like two weeks. The reporter was able to list the diffs in such a way as to be abundantly clear why the revert war needed action. I could find other examples if I looked through my history at that board.

My philosophy for editors reporting non-3RR violating edit wars at AN3RR (which I would continue to follow if its name ever changed) is that the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate why the edit war needs attention. And I find often they do so well and the revert war is stopped by administrative action. If not, it can just be closed. And of course, admins always have the option to simply not process a report if they don't want to take the time to review a particularly complex one.

I'm not totally sold on the idea of changing AN3RR to and edit warring noticeboard, but I do think it should always be treated as one, even if it's not renamed (i.e., editors should be allowed to report non-3RR violating edit warring there). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You have mail. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, received. Your question will probably take me some time to mull, but I'll try to get back to you as soon as possible. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I closed the 3RR case as No Action, but I have no objection if you want to follow up there. There is a rather intense discussion at Talk:British Isles (which is not going in circles) so there is some hope of further progress. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Pensil (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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 (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

One of your 3RR closures is being cited as a good example

I couldn't resist answering the Kim Bruning challenge. This is quoting the Gamaliel-DJ_Creamity case from 16 January. Enjoy. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)