User talk:Heimstern/archive 9

Re: WP:3RR warning

Hi, I let you know I've replied to you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Nanshu reported by User:coasilve (Result:no action yet). If it's not the right place, feel free to move my comment. --Nanshu 09:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not making any judgment concerning your manners. I'm simply reminding you not to edit war. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds irresponsible if you really want to stop edit wars. You don't have to just tell me because I know that. I don't like nonproductive actions. But I have the reason to do so, and the next deadline is approaching... --Nanshu (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Danke für ihre Mitteilung!

Hi. Thank you for your information about the AIV. I beg your pardon because I only speak a little Level of English too. But your German is very well every word tells. Okay, to my Problem with User:Kadenpress he will not unterstand that I am not an Stalker about an Model called Claudia Cisla. He will not unterstand that I haven´t used some Sock puppets to post untrue Comments about the subject. He thing that every different adverse opinion was posted by me. Sorry, but I'm sick of it. I'm at a loss what to do. Maybe both of us need an Mediation Committee to handle with our problem solution?? Wiki-nightmare 05:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee is one possible solution. You should read the page Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, as it explains how we resolve disputes at Wikipedia. I suggest you start there. If you feel Kadenpress is actually harassing you or in some other way violating Wikipedia policy and you need an administrator to take action, you can make a report at WP:ANI, the Incidents noticeboard (but you'll need to be able to demonstrate that there's a policy violation, or no one will take action).

Wenn meine Wörter schwierig zu verstehen sind, kann ich sie auf Deutsch schreiben. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advices. To sum up, I can say that (I write in german Okay?? Danke!) Also ich habe kein Problem mit diesem User im eigentlichen Sinne, vielmehr ist es eine unüberwindbare Meinungsverschiedenheit, die darin begründet liegt, dass ich ursprünglich seinen Article zur Streichung vorgeschlagen hatte. Zugegeben, aus heutiger Sicht, hätte ich ihn vllt. vorher mal freundlich fragen sollen, was es mit diesem Artikel auf sich hat. (Der Löschantrag wurde zwar abgeleht, ebenso der Review aber das ist nicht schlimm - also ich bin deswegen nicht auf ihn oder auf den Artikel "böse") Das eigentliche Problem liegt nur darin, dass ich versuchte in diesem Artikel Claudia Ciesla Argumente zu finden, warum dieser Artikel immer noch einen "non-notabel" Satus besitzt. (Meiner Meinung nach, dienen diese Argumente dazu, den Artikel zu verbessern - nicht zu zerstören) Er (Kadenpress) geht aber im grunde überhaupt nicht darauf ein und argumentiert halt nur damit, dass irgendwelche anonymen IPs und MultiAccounts (mutmaßlich meine) diesen Artikel nun umbedingt sabotieren wollen um so doch noch eine Streichung zu erreichen. Es gibt auf dieser Talkpage tatsächlich unglaublich viele "1-Kommentar-Accounts" die nicht gerade zur Verbesserung des Artikels beitragen. Als kleines Beispiel: Wenn ich der Meinung bin, dass eine angegebene Quelle nicht nennenswert ist, weil... (das bedeutet natürlich nicht, dass ich damit recht haben muss - deswegen diskutiert man ja auch drüber) dann kommt irgendeine IP und postet direkt irgendwas von Hasstiraden und Multiaccounts ohne auf das eigentliche Argument einzugehen. Umgekehrt ist es allerdings dann genau der selbe Fall, dass es unglaublich viele IPs gibt, die der Meinung sind, dass dieser Artikel zu streichen sei. Es findet dort also ein sog. Edit-War zwischen IP´s statt und dazu kommt dann noch erschwerend hinzu, dass der User Kadenpress und ich eine sehr kontroverse Meinung über den Artikel-Inhalt haben. Ich fühle mich aber in diesem Punkt überhaupt nicht von ihm bedroht, sondern nur unfair behandelt, weil er ja eigentlich überhaupt nicht wissen kann (es ist nur eine Mutmaßung) ob ich "Claudia" als Stalker belässtigt habe mit irgendwelchen "anonymen Liebesbriefen" und weil sie mich ablehnte, ich nun versuche auf diese Art und Weise mich zu "rächen", indem ich ihren Wikipedia-Artikel löschen lassen oder zumindest sabotiere. Das ist doch absoluter nonsens!

I hope it is not answer insolently that I answered in German. Normally I will use the english Wiki to learn more about the english Project/Language. Thank you!

(PS: Die englische Sprache ist nicht sehr schwer zu verstehen. Die Schwierigkeit liegt darin, die deutschen Gedanken in die englische Sprache zu packen) Wiki-nightmare 06:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC) And with the accusations. Thanks. Enternoted 04:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Swamp

I'm going to have to agree with Enternoted on this that these edits are not vandalism. Not all removals of content are, as sometimes there's a good reason to remove it. Furthermore, Enternoted did explain his removal in his first edit summary. As this is not vandalism, please don't repeatedly revert. See Wikipedia:Edit war. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay next time i will leave it if it gets reverted again, but revert in a few days time or so. I don't think this editor is here for the long hall, judging by his edit summary. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. 04:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Remember that you can pursue dispute resolution if necessary. Just don't edit war. Cheers, Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 45	5 November 2007	About the Signpost

Wikimedia avoids liability in French lawsuit	WikiWorld comic: "Fall Out Boy"
News and notes: Grant money, fundraiser, milestones	WikiProject Report: Lists of basic topics
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 3, Issue 46	12 November 2007	About the Signpost

Unregistered page creation remains on hold so far	WikiWorld comic: "Exploding whale"
News and notes: Fundraiser, elections galore, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Missing encyclopedic articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 07:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia

Done. Vizjim 07:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thx spam

Thank you, Heimstern, for supporting my RfB, which I withdrew at a final tally of (33/12/1). I failed to overcome the not unforeseeable opposition, but I am humbled by some extremely supportive, encouraging words I could read. In order to honor your trust, I once again vow to continue working and improving. Please contact me should you have any advice or recommendation to give. Or, should you need assistance. I am, as will always be, at your service. Again, please accept my most sincere gratitude. Best regards, Húsönd 03:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 17:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 47	19 November 2007	About the Signpost

An interview with Florence Devouard	Author borrows from Wikipedia article without attribution
WikiWorld comic: "Raining animals"	News and notes: Page patrolling, ArbCom age requirement, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: History
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 10:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

David Vitter and Mitch60

User:Mitch60 has again, for the sixth time, deleted the mention of the scandal in the article's lede. [1] And is also deleting other reliably sourced statements. I'm bowing out of this article since it has been determined that I'm edit warring with a WP:SPA. I defer to you. ∴ Therefore | talk 04:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And I hasten to add I've attempted to discuss this both on the article's talk page and the user's talk page. ∴ Therefore | talk 04:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Mitch60 for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

May I revert his change or should I just avoid the page from now on. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 06:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say keep away from reverting for now. It wouldn't really be fair if I blocked him for reverting after warning and then didn't block you for the same, after all. If you haven't already made your case on the talk page, do so. If the edit really needs reverting that badly, someone else can do it. Don't forget that dispute resolution may help if this continues. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

May I presume it is OK for me to resume my normal editing of the page as long as I don't participate in edit warring with the the SPA? For the record, as outlined in my 3RR report, after the first revert I explained my justification on the article's talk page (from WP:LEDE the lede should "briefly describing its notable controversies"), invited him to the discuss why this shouldn't apply in this case on his talk page. I received no response. But you are correct, even though I'm well informed of WP's core policies and am a long-time editor, I failed to report this to WP:ANI before getting involved with an edit war. My bad and I apologize. ∴ Therefore | talk 21:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine to edit it, just don't resume edit warring (looks to me like someone else has already reverted Mitch60's last, anyway). I don't want to hamper you from constructive editing, just from sterile edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Nazism

Having banned me for 24 hours for edit warring on Nazism, I assume that in fairness you will now do the same with User:Vision_Thing and User:EliasAlucard.--Cberlet (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, not banned. And no, I will not be making any more blocks. You reverted substantially more than any other user in the dispute. The reversions by the other two editors were not good, by any means, but not enough to need a block. You reverted many more times than they. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did not revert many more times than they did. I tried rewriting the lead in a number of different ways that clearly preserved the term "national socialism." On the other hand, it was User:Vision_Thing and User:EliasAlucard who simply reverted, and User:EliasAlucard resorted to personal attacks several times. I don't think this was a fair use of admin powers.--Cberlet (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I count five straight reverts among other edits that were partial reverts, although I can understand that for the latter, you were trying to seek compromise. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am not going to suggest I was blameless in this instance, and I can get testy, but I do think more was going on here than meets the eye at first glance. In any case, thanks for talking it over. I am heading to bed becasue I am cooking Thnaksgiving dinner for 14 relatives tomorrow. Yikes!--Cberlet (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Your questions

... You asked a few questions at my candidates page. I'll try to wrap these up (or most of them) tomorrow, but a couple might need an extra few hours beyond that to do them justice and give good consideration. I thought I'd drop you a courtesy note "in case" so you'd know :)

Best,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Take all the time you need. Well thought-out answers later are much more useful to me than not-so-well thought-out answers sooner. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Answers for you now :) If you've read them since I posted them, please re-check, as I've reviewed a couple of them slightly to better reflect the sense of them.

Good questions. Feedback's welcome if you like, after mid December. Let me know if you have more :)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

GPO page

By all means, please be involved. I don't really know who to ask. J (talk) 06:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't really do politics. Also, since I just blocked Political junky, I really should stay out of the content dispute. You could head for Wikipedia:Third opinion, though. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Red-Green Alliance (Denmark)

Dear Heimstern Läufer A user called Malangyar is now engaging in edit warring behavior at Red Green Alliance. Page has recently been closed after dispute. He is removing the text that emerged from this dispute without argument. I move to have this user blocked. Also report to "FlyGuy". ‎Thanks Ovest (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like you are edit warring just as much as he. Do you want me to block both of you or neither? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Did not check back to see your response. The user came to his senses. Upon closer inspection you will see that I have not started any edit wars. I have merely undone deletions that are continually being made without argument. The record will show that I am always willing to discuss, unlike several of my opponents who are apparently hard line leftists, very keen to use their delete button, whenever there's something they don't like. You would do wikipedia a great favour by looking after the page. ~Thanks Ovest (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Notification

Comments addressed to you have been left here. Best, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. More on that when I'm less tired. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Aloha, Heimstern. I have struck my remarks regarding the possibility that you left my comments out of your archive intentionally. Review of your talk page history seems to indicate a bit of an archiving snafu right about the time I left my last comment to you on your page, and it is very likely you didn't even see my comment. Please accept my apology.

I noticed you left a few more diffs as evidence, this time from the VVAW article. I have only taken a brief squidge, but I am quite certain I will be directing you to here for an explanation of the first 4 (almost identical) edits, and here where I already explained that 5th edit to the ArbCom. None of those 5 edits have anything to do with edit warring on my part; Admin Chaser was involved in each, and basically told TDC to stop deleting and follow proper channels. I've posted online sources backing my citations, and even sent some to Chaser via email. Please tell me who the warrior is here. TDC's only explanation for deleting valid citations is (clearly you did not look up an article that is 37 years old, you got it from Nicosia's footnotes, and that violates WP:CITE) in an edit summary. I can't help it if TDC's access to source material is so deficient. Cheers, Xenophrenic (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 48	26 November 2007	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	WikiWorld comic: "Cursive"
News and notes: Ombudsman commission, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Education in Australia	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 08:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Quel surprise?

Hullo, Heimstern. I wanted to let you know that a user with whom I think you are familiar is again the topic of discussion at ANI. The user is participating in a disruptive edit war across a number of Korean/Japanese related articles. Shouldn't this disruption be considered a breech of the spirit of the agreement that this user has with several administrators? This continuous disruption of Korean-related articles has long since frightened away editors who have the expertise to help make Korean-related articles GA or feature articles. I wonder why we have to put up with this editor and his equally disruptive counterparts (e.g. this one)? They have effectively hijacked a part of Wikipedia and will never cease in their pointless ethnic-based edit-warring. I am appealing to you, Heimstern. Something needs to be done to clear out this lot of disruptors. BTW Badagnani got reported too but this editor is a valued contributor. Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz seems to think Good friend100 has not violated his agreement to 1RR. Do you have any diffs to suggest that he has? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I suspect that Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia may be a socket. I don't know why s(he) has strong urge for the editors to be banned infinitely. I just guess the above user and the others to have engaged in other Korean related article in the past. Can you spare a moment to look at the report, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Phlegmswicke_of_Numbtardia.2C_Who_are_you.3F?.

Besides, Good friend100 has not violated the imposed agreement at all. Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sudan and WP:RfPP

My apologies for using the word "balls" earlier. I meant, of course, "cojones". Best of luck with it; you may be in for a busy night. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 01:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I understood what you meant; still, it wasn't exactly the most civil thing to say. But anyway, I'll keep my eye on that article. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Bender235

Looking for input on this user's current unblock request. Haven't looked too deeply into it, just yet, other than to note they seem much calmer than the usual person appealing a 3RR block. Hope to be more familiar by the time you get around to replying. Thanks in advance. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've made the unblock, per my philosophy that I will unblock editors first-time offenders who say they won't do it again. Thanks for the heads-up. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

And as soon as he's unblocked, he's back to edit warring the same article by immediately reverting what he couldn't revert before we got banned. So much for that lesson being learned. I won't engage in the edit war again but I feel his reverts are not appropriate. For example, he's hell bent on using University of Mississippi's nickname Ole Miss in the info box instead of its official University name. As soon as he was unblocked, he went back and changed it again. I'll open a discussion on the Houston Nutt talk page but let it be on record that he should be blocked again for continued warring and 3RR. And since you blocked us both, why didn't you unblock me too? -- ALLSTARecho 05:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I only unblocked him because only he said he wouldn't continue reverting. As for revert warring, could you show me which edits he reverted? I see he has edited the page, but can't find what he's reverting. I only recall that the revert war was about changing years from 2007 to 2008 and vice vesa. (Though this may be a bit stale by now.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

See [2] and [3] -- ALLSTARecho 01:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, yes, that latter one is definitely a revert. As it did happen when he would have been unblocked, anyway, I won't block him, but it was a bad decision for him to revert. Have you looked into dispute resolution? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on Rashida Jones

I consent to the fact that the constant reverting was inappropriate on my part, but under the circumstances I think I was in the right. My formatting changes and removal of unsourced content as well as an image that goes against image policy[4] was completely appropriate and called for; the anonymous user continuously reverted my edits although I explained the circumstances again and again. I fear that if I go through dispute resolution, the user will either not take part and ignore my comments, as they have done before, or nothing will happen. It is obvious that this user has reverted the article back to an inferior version, but you've warned me not to revert it back. What do you suggest I do? María (habla conmigo) 13:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just opened an RFC. I hope that was the correct way to go. María (habla conmigo) 14:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a wise decision. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

{{Globalizecountry}} tag

Hi, After being able to edit again, I would like first to ask you as an admin about myself being right (also if I have the right) in adding the {{Globalizecountry}} tag to the article Catalan Countries.

• If I, as a user, find that article POVISH and biased towards a region; If I find that an explanation for this same subject in other regions lacks or is negliged, do I have the right to include that tag?
• Is a consensus with all the users of that page needed?
• What happens if the tag is removed for political reasons or because I'm in a direct confrontation for months with those users?

I'm asking you this because for months, I have suffered the reverts of a groups of users who teamed against me (and some other users) in order to prevent us from editing in all Catalonia-related articles. We even tried a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia in order to improve the content of the articles but all we got was a frontal attack against my behavior (which sometimes wasn't the best one, I admit) in order to get me banned (I kindly ask you to take a read at it). After receiving a 30 days block, Casaforra even asked for more. Is this the way for partnership from a "neutral" user?

We were encouraged to continue to reach consensus in order to improve the articles. Because of that, instead that simply modifying the article, I decided to add the tag and explain my point on talk-page. Nothing was erased, modified, added... I only headed the article with the tag and waited for comments by other users... What I got? Reverts! reverts! reverts!

Now, what do I have to do to be free to continue editing wikipedia as anyone else? I have never denied my bad behavior when confronting these users, but I have never received a complain about my edits being referenced, sourced and in good-faith.

I sincerely need a guidance in which way I have to act and where may I go to defend what I believe; that this group of users is preventing good faith editors to give a neutral POV to "their" biased and POVish beloved articles.

You can find my explanations on these user's comments in here]. Thanks in advance. --Maurice27 17:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ordo nox

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Ordo nox, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Ordo nox. B. Wolterding 14:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was necessary to notice me in on this, as all I've ever done there is to revert vandalism. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism

No matter what I do, two editors simply revert back to the lead they prefer, and one has suggested that the scholars I cite a simply wrong, and therefore do not need to be considered valid. What am I supposed to do in situations like this? We have asked for comments, and that was fruitless. The page was locked for edit warring. As soon as the protection expired, the reverts began again.User:Smerdyakoff and User:EliasAlucard were involved in a previous fracas with me at Nazism for which I was blocked bu they were not. The last time I tried to work out a comproise I was blocked for "sterile edit-warring." Suggestions and intervention greatly appreciated. I am tired of going to mediation. I am also leaving this message with User talk:Tom harrison.--Cberlet 20:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC) User talk:Heimstern

Well, I may not have a lot of good ideas if you think RFC and mediation are a bad idea. Of course, arbitration is possible if there are user conduct issues you feel the ArbCom should examine and you've already been through dispute resolution as you suggest. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

Hi Heimstern. Thanks for your questions which i've just answered. However, could you please guide me to the 'negative political statements' i've made on someone's talk page? Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for asking. It's not a comment you made on anyone's talk, rather, it's the comments on your userpage about who are the worst US presidents. Now, some people are probably going to argue that I'm taking this too far. Here's my thinking: Of course, Wikipedia is made up of people with lots of viewpoints. I do everything I can to respect all these different viewpoints. But I feel it is undesirable to make most comments on one's views on a userpage, especially negative one. It emphasises our differences, rather than our similarities, and fails to further our attempts to make this a collaborative project based on collegiality. That's why I think negative political are undesirable even in an administrator, although I'm willing to look past it for RfA candidates. For ArbCom, I'm less flexible.

Now, I see that many voices I respect are standing up in favor of you, so I have been reconsidering a bit, but for now, this is where I stand. Cheers, Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I got it and you are totally right. I've just removed that as i really don't give it much importance. I appreciate your opinion and judgement. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

All right. I've decided to strike my vote at this time, pending a possible closer examination. (As I'm quite busy now, it's possible I'll end up just abstaining due to time constraints.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 49	3 December 2007	About the Signpost

Signpost interview: New Executive Director Sue Gardner	Arbitration Committee elections: Elections open
Possible license migration sparks debate	Featured articles director names deputy
Software bug fixed, overuse of parser function curtailed	WikiWorld comic: "Wordplay"
News and notes: Wikipedian honored, fundraiser, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: LGBT studies	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 09:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Help

If I recall, you offered help previously. There's a dispute going on over at Talk:Universal Life Church and I'm being ignored at WP:AN/I. If you could lend assistance, it would be appreciated. My talk page is open to your reply. GJ (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm really busy right now (hence the late reply) and can't really spend a lot of time on side projects, sorry. Try dispute resolution if necessary. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to say thanks

Hey, I just wanted to say thank you for reverting the vandalism that was done to my user page. Rearete (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 50	10 December 2007	About the Signpost

Wikipedia dragged into German politics over Nazi images	Wales comments on citing Wikipedia produce BBC correction
WikiWorld comic: "Kilroy was here"	News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Greater Manchester
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 07:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. I appreciate it. For that you get a cookie.

S0me l0ser (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks Again! S0me l0ser (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

<eats> Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 51	17 December 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: ArbCom elections, holiday publication
Former Wikimedia employee's criminal history detailed	Möller resigns from board, joins foundation as employee
Google announces foray into user-generated knowledge	WikiWorld comic: "Tractor beam"
News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Plants	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 18:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Dr. Zakir Naik has really been criticed by people like Khushwant Singh and his comments like..."all muslims should be terrorists" have been noted by critics Jon Ascton (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

But it must be cited to appear in the article, per our policy on biographies of living persons. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 52	26 December 2007	About the Signpost

Wales appoints six arbitrators	Board approves expansion, up to 11 trustees possible
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses"	News and notes: Stewards, Senate testimony, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	WikiProject Report: Plants
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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) 13:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment on ATHOMENET debate

I understand that your job is to look at the concencus in the debates, but I still feel like there are definately some editors out there that see the notability of athomenet's contributions to the community website industry. I asked a couple of the last posters on the debate what exactly would it take to clearly satisfy everyone's definition of 3rd party source notability, and there seemed to be varying reports. From your standpoint, put yourself in my shoes, what in exact terms do you need to see to make this listing bulletproof? I would appreciate a reply on my talk page as well... Thanks --Edenrage (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a place you might start to look for the answer to that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ta

Thank you muchly :) --Alf ^melmac 07:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No prob; also blocked the guy. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please remember Wikipedia's No Personal Attacks policy when making edits. Spacebanana (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd forgotten that "bugger" is offensive in some countries... Not that I'm going to waste time apologising to someone who just defaced Wiki alf's talk again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocking editors

I see you blocked Domer for edit warring with Traditional Unionist even though (apparently from your comments) Domer did not breach 3RR; so why did you not block Traditional Unionist? (Sarah777 (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

Actually, I did block both Traditional Unionist and Domer. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Who blocked Domer earlier? Would you provide a link because he claimed it was "wrong" but won't tell me where or who! Regards (Sarah777 (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

The spirit of 3rr

Dose this breach the spirit of the 3rr, or would it be the same as this, because I use the talk page, outlined what the problem was and it still gets reverted. If you could reply on my talk page. --Domer48 (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say that's fairly well against the spirit of 3RR, and is definitely edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)