User talk:Heimstern/archive 4

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 05:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your congratulations. I guess I know get to check AIV, except you people are so fast everyone's blocked by the time I get there! Natalie 17:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed afterwards and tried reverting it but I guess it didnt go through, oh well. thanks for fixing it for me64.230.40.112 03:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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 07:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Meaneager 05:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

left you a note here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs) 09:27, 26 March 2007

Hi, and thanks for your help before! I'm afraid that anonymous IP vandals have come back consistently to Brooklyn Technical High School since the semi-protection was lifted — for example, here, here, and here. It all seems to be coming from the students themselves, who could simply register if they wanted to make real edits and not just goof around. Can you help? --Tenebrae 02:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Heimstern. =) You responded quickly like Riana, too lol. Nishkid64 03:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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 13:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, i have noticed that you have had problems with a user known as Skyring in the past. I just wanted to inform you that he seems to be up to his old tricks and i think an administater needs to look into Skyring. A quick look at his edits will indicate that he has contributed nothing of any note to this site and appears to be obsessed with date formats. It would also appear that he has looked at my recent edits and changed them just to be annpying. I don't like having to do this, but after looking at his block log i really don't think he's adding much to the site. Thank you CEP78 03:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to say thanks for the tip. I'm still fairly new to this. take careCEP78 04:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that you protected the Allah article from vandalism. You migt have stepped in a second too late, because it's now locked with a rather awful bit of vandalism at the top and front of the page. (Unless the servers aren't updated and I'm seeing an old version).

You're right; the version I protected was in fact vandalized and I didn't notice it. But someone else has since reverted the vandalism, so I think we're good for now. Heimstern Läufer 23:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't "think" it's irrelevant. It is irrelevant - fact. Short of patent trolls, the nature of the dispute is irrelevant. Administrators are not supposed to use the tools under any circumstances in any dispute in which they are directly involved, no matter how ridiculous they personally think it to be. It's against the rules, and effectively throws WP:AGF out the window. Chris cheese whine 01:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support position. However, I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey! thanks for the information, I reported an anon I reverted him 3 times and given the final warning, and he adds inappropriate words that are considered vandalism I hope its right!, thank you. Lakers 04:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted 4 times, but this doesn't exactly count right because its not a dispute I assume? Lakers 04:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the user was adding the racial words, because the 3RR says obvious vandalism so I wasn't sure whether I could or not thanks for your support :) Lakers 05:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The post I made the servers are lagging it seems confuses me, so some reports may be inaccurate. Lakers 02:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I notice whenever I reverted vandalism, than checked there contributions it wasn't there so I assumed they were lagging, habits thanks :) . Lakers 02:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA. --Anthony.bradbury 16:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

He's removed the report from WP:ANI again. Surely that is worth a block in and of iself. C ^thirty-three 02:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he's quite a pest. Thanks for the help! C ^thirty-three 02:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing my block request. New information there shows that Orangemarlin intends to continue his disruptive behavior after being warned. Gnixon 03:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for protecting my page. --Meaneager 16:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see the talk page. Enough reasons have been given enough times by Gnanapiti and Deepak was just trolling. I have at the most 2RRed and even that I have done after enough explanations had been given on the talk page. Not just the above discussion, but similar discussions have taken place at other times on other pages and Deepak knows it. It unfortunate that you think that I was edit warring. Sarvagnya 05:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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 04:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry!-Sorry!-Sorry! I screwed up two things at once and deleted the whole article. Thanks for putting it back!TeamZissou 07:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir, our 3RR/Edit Warring complaint is already in its second day pending and that is why I felt compelled to respectfully solicit your attention. Thank you in advance. - Sentinel 10:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You recently messaged me warning about over using reversions on the Red Hot Chili Peppers page. Well there is someone who is constantly making edits that he interprets and that only he does, saying the band is pop, the user is User:Zagozagozago. In the discussion we have talk about why they shouldn't be classified as pop and yet constantly he changes it. He is the only one who believes this is nessesary and frankly it's getting quite annoying. Any help/interfeirence by you to him would be greatly appreciated. I should also mention he was temporarily banned once before for matters similar to this. Thank You, - miTfan3 15:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi , I have posted a message for you on my talk page. You are under no obligation to reply it. User_talk:Deepak_D'Souza#A_message_for_Heimstern_L.C3.A4ufer

Just wanted to inform you that I intend to contest the validity of block on the administrators notice board.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 11:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I accept that your decision was made after due consideration and was fair. No contest. I apologise. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 00:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

. RCS 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -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 08:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've found 2 typos on your user page, both in the word "communties" which should be "community's". I'm not comfortable editing other people's user pages (although the vandals certainly appear to be very comfortable editing yours ;-), so I'll just point this out and let you fix it if you wish to. Later. --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember typing that one in a hurry; not surprising I made an error. Thanks for pointing it out, it's fixed now. Heimstern Läufer 16:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The edits that IP was making to Cesar Chavez were simple vandalism, so your report would have been better placed at WP:AIV. I haven't blocked, since the last vandalism was three hours ago, but I will if the IP starts up again. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer 21:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I got this message still on my talkpage (Reporting 3RR). Ronbo76 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, at the time of my submission, I would be willing to bet WP:ANI would not have accepted the report because the warning would have been considered too current. Ronbo76 21:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the situation behind the report Netsnipe was referring to, but I assume it was a case in which it was a content dispute rather than vandalism. In this case, you must go to WP:AN3RR. But if the user is blatantly defacing the page, as the IP in question today was, you can just use WP:AIV. You may want to read WP:VAND, especially the section "What vandalism is not"; that may help you know when a report is suitable for AIV and when it's not. Cheers! Heimstern Läufer 21:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it was almost identical. Ronbo76 21:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, then. But anyway, I'm sure in this case it was just vandalism. Don't worry about it for now, as the IP has stopped, but if he/she starts again, head for AIV. Thanks! Heimstern Läufer 21:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but, I have found recently that different admins have different standards for blocking users especially at WP:ANI. Typically when I post there, it is a blatant vandal as per today's effort. Too often, I have seen admins use the reasoning, "oh well that was too recent a level four message" or the "vandalism has stopped." Ronbo76 21:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, this sort of thing does require admin descretion, so no, not all will respond the same way. The best I can advise you is to just do what you can to follow the guidelines at WP:VAND (and, where necessary, WP:3RR) and see what happens. Heimstern Läufer 21:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what I do/did. Ronbo76 21:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Good, that's what I was assuming, anyway. Carry on! Heimstern Läufer 21:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, he's been evading his 3RR block as 76.193.216.191 (talk · contribs). Is there any thing you can do about it? Khoikhoi 05:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a pretty obvious case of evasion. Blocked the new IP; reset the block on the original. Heimstern Läufer 06:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Khoikhoi 06:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Heinstern, I recently denied an unblock request from the above user that you blocked for edit warring, but after looking further into the users contributions, and checking the diffs and the particular article in question, many of the users contributions were actually fairly important. He was simply readding citation needed tags into an article which seriously fails WP:BLP, in fact, I've personally now gone and cut a load of it out - it was a legal case waiting to happen. Would you allow me to cut the length of the block down from a month? I seriously believe that Ahwaz has actually been the subject of some serious ganging up from other contributors who wish their POV versions to stay. I really have no interest in the article itself, I was just alerted to it after looking through the contribs. Your opinion would be much appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite talk/contribs 15:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Ryan. I've actually already been requested to review this block for very similar reasons. Since you seem to have made similar findings as the user who requested the review, I'm going to defer on this one and assume you are both probably right. Go ahead and reduce it as you see fit. I would do it myself, but I'm currently at work and unable to spend much time on the computer. Cheers! Heimstern Läufer 17:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for that, on the surface, it looks like a clear cut case of edit warring, and a 1 month block seamed very appropriate (hence my original decline), but after looking further into it, you could argue it wasn't edit warring on the grounds that it was trying to correct BLP issues. What I've done, is reduced the block down to a straight forward 24 hour one for edit warring, I also have a promise from the user that he will not edit related articles if he is unblocked. I think in this case, it's the best thing to do. If you feel I'm being too lenient, by all means increase the block (preferably within 11 hours!), I may be away from the computer for the rest of the day, so I'll leave it upto you Ryan Postlethwaite talk/contribs 17:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You originally blocked User:Ahwaz for violation of 3RR, for which I reported him. His violation of 3RR had nothing to do with BLP, and was the result of his edit-waring to place a notability tag on the article, since he's claiming the subject is not notable to have an article, eventhough the subject generates thousands of google hits in several languages, and User:Ahwaz's argument was refuted several times. Furthermore, User:Ahwaz has been blocked for 3RR, incivility, and sockpupetry 17 times by now, in less than a year. Please note that User:Ahwaz was still edit-waring, even after he was explicitly told by an admin the last time he was blocked, that he was very close to being blocked indefinitely if he doesn't improve his behavior.. I think unblocking him, will only encourage him to continue on the disruptive path he's been on. Now can you please, for the sake of transparency and accountability, reveal the name of the user who e-mailed you off wiki requesting an unblock for User:Ahwaz. I am asking this because there is extensive off-wiki lobbying going on, and it's important that such matters be discussed publicly and openly on Wiki to prevent any abuse. --Mardavich 18:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I will not, sorry. The user in question emailed me out of concerns about harassment; I have no intention of betraying his/her trust. Heimstern Läufer 18:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

But such requests should be made publicly on Wikipedia for transparency and accountability, I think that is what Jimbo or ArbCom has previously ruled on this issue as well. I have a very good idea that the user in question is User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, and I am considering opening a RFC on this issue of back-door lobbying to get "favorite" users blocked and unlocked through thrid-party admins. If the issue goes to ArbCom, I will notify you as a party. Such back-door lobbying is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. --Mardavich 18:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can demonstrate to me that the ArbCom or Jimbo has in fact said something on this matter, I will reconsider. Heimstern Läufer 20:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Heimstern, sorry for the lateness, but congratulations on your adminship! I can't think of anyone more deserving of and more appropriate for those powers.

I've been around a little less than before, but I'm still working on articles. The last big one was Forbidden City -- your criticism is welcome as always if you have time for a look around. See you around. --Sumple (Talk) 09:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I question your decision on my report on User:Psantora's violation of 3RR. There is no such a rule that if someone violated 3RR 2 weeks ago, he shouldn't be blocked for violation. I was unable to report him because of the block imposed on me by his report. More importantly, he hasn't realized he had violated 3RR. He needs to blocked to prevent him from further violation in the future. Miaers 14:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, there's no such rule; however, it goes against the spirit of a preventative block to make a block when the violation is two weeks old and the behavior in question has not continued since then. Heimstern Läufer 16:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocking him is for preventive purpose. If you look at the Reply section that he left on my talk page, you can see that he doesn't even think he violated the 3RR. He is just happy I was blocked for removing copyvio images after he reported me. You need to block him to prevent him from 3RR violation in the future. Miaers 17:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I see now that Rlevse has already affirmed my decision. This edit war is in the past. We don't block for things that are clearly in the past on no longer ongoing. That is not preventative. I am sorry that the blocking admin in your case didn't treat both sides equally (I'm assuming your report is accurate; I haven't really checked since it's stale), but it is late to do anything now. If you have further trouble with this user, make another report. Please understand that my actions are quite in line with how admins here usually respond to these situations. Heimstern Läufer 18:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at my report on the 3RR board. I think this thing is not over yet. User:Psantora is now arguing back. Miaers 20:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if he does request one you've got my permission to unblock him. I don't think it'll be necessary though, mainly since it's only 12 hours, which means he may be unblocked automatically by the time he sends in the request, and proper stuff is looked at, etc.--Wizardman 05:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. You're probably right, though I wanted to be prepared for anything. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer 05:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your question about the scope of a case, I suggest you ask Newyorkbrad the clerk. Durova^Charge! 15:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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 06:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

See also links belong at the bottom of the section. The date linking format is incorrect. Huge navigation templates are unnecessary. I suggest you review my edits carefully before calling them vandalism. --Wang C-H 23:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Linking to the same item multiple times is unnecessary. Names of China and all the links in the See also section are not relevant. --Wang C-H 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As I indicated in my original notice to you, when removing content it is important to explain why using an edit summary, otherwise no one has any way to know why you are removing content, and I must assume that it may be vandalism. Heimstern Läufer 23:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Having looked a bit closer at the contribs: I would have reverted most of them anyway as undiscussed removal of content. I don't think items should simply be removed from the page unilaterally in that way, especially templates that have been nominated for deletion but not actually deleted. A few of those links probably could go, as some articles were linked multiple times. But by and large, I think this was a much too extreme approach, particularly with no prior discussion. Heimstern Läufer 23:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The least you can do is replace the edits that are ok, instead of reverting the whole thing. --Wang C-H 22:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You can put them back yourself if you want, just please give a reason for all your removals. If you don't, they will most likely be seen as vandalism again. It is up to the one removing the text to provide this explanation; if he/she doesn't, he/she must expect the edits to be reverted. Please note: I did not revert blindly; I reverted edits I had examined. When I saw content removed without explanation, I reverted. Heimstern Läufer 22:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you also remove all the "independence for Kurdistan" userboxes in Wikipedia on behalf of WikiProject Turkey? I also feel offended and provoked! :) Nazi flag, I am 100percent behind the decision to remove, but Palestinian one really falls into a marge of appreciation really. Baristarim 15:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The critical factor was that this user was clearly soapboxing and trying to make a point in a disruptive manner. I wouldn't have supported the block without the past action (the Nazi flag thing) having already demonstrated his disruptive intent. That's where I'm coming from, anyway. Just so you know, I don't like all those "support independence for Kurdistan, Taiwan, Tibet, California, whatever" userboxes, either. Nor really any political ones; they just serve to divide users and can be used for soapboxing. Our project has come to accept them (under the German userbox solution), but I wish people would simply choose not to use them. Heimstern Läufer 17:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I edited the entry - will anything be done? Please leave a response on my talk page. Thanks, XINOPH | TALK 18:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, there: I've kind of taken a short break from 3RR processing. I find I have to do that from time to time. If you find no one's processing your report, you can mention it on the talk page for the noticeboard; sometimes that'll help you get attention. Heimstern Läufer 18:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Heimstern, could you consider a semiprotection for the Germany article? It would be much appreciated. Several unregistered users did their vandalism edits the last days and it does´nt stop. Thanks in advance and all the best Lear 21 21:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the vandalism was pretty extensive. I've gone ahead and semi'd it. Heimstern Läufer 21:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Great relieve! Is it possible to install a protection like the USA article without the template above the introduction ? all the best Lear 21 21:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and switched the templates in this case. Heimstern Läufer 23:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! And thanks for your kind words and support. --Shirahadasha 04:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a heads up that I have commented on the unblock request seeking review of your block of User:Nightscream. I believe the user had at least a good-faith belief that he was addressing a BLP violation on the subject article, and would unblock. In view of the division of opinion, and sensitivity of BLP issues, I have posted to ANI for further comments rather than go ahead and unblock on my own. Please feel free, nay encouraged, to comment. Newyorkbrad 02:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Already replied. Let's discuss further there and we should be able to come to a meeting of the minds. Heimstern Läufer 02:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw your response on ANI. The user got lucky. I misread 48 hours ... if I had seen "18 hours" I might have let it go. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I generally stick with less than 24 hours in borderline cases (including any case in which both reporter and reported get blocked) except for unrepentant edit warriors. Part of my efforts at being preventative rather than punitive. I actually did consider giving both sides a warning rather than blocking, it was mainly because the edit war was ongoing that I felt the need to step in with a preventative block. Anyway, I think in this case the unblock was best. Let's hope all invloved will learn not to edit war, though. Heimstern Läufer 03:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've posted to Nightscream's talk urging him to take it to the BLP board next time. Newyorkbrad 03:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I've learnt something today. I did not realize we had a BLP board! I'll have to remember that. :-) Heimstern Läufer 03:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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 06:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has blocked Lovelight, I wanted to let you know of an RFC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lovelight) I just opened, I was hoping you'd have some comments or additions to it. Thank you. --Golbez 15:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You should eximine facts before warning. Please get back to me when you do. I will overlook your error for the time being. Alastair Haines 05:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I did in fact examine facts, and my analysis has been validated by another administrator, as you can see above. You removed a template from that article four times within 24 hours. That is a violation of 3RR. Do not continue revert warring or you can expect to be blocked. Indeed, as you can see above, Coelacan would have blocked you if I hadn't chosen to warn you instead. Heimstern Läufer 05:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've asked a friend to investigate this. Your judgement is definitely superior to the other admin, you considered the big picture of Wiki and promoting contribution. You also conceeded some benefit of doubt. Knowing that the other admin would have blocked, and it was only chance that prevented injustice shows there is room for Wiki to improve this process. We have to do better than this. Supposing I was some kind of difficult customer, what's to stop me reverting once every day or so, ad infinitum? Anyway, it is evident you did some research, so I retract my comment. However, I recommend you get a comment from both parties in a dispute before making a final decision next time. Your real life commitments will make that difficult and it won't always bring better results, but I think you know it is best practice. Tchuess. Alastair Haines 12:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there has been frequent cause to revert inappropriate edits on that article. Whereas almost all of the regular contributors have accepted that Jehovah's Witnesses (of which I am not a member) are indeed a Christian religion by definition, consistent with both a generic secular view of Christianity and that given in the the related Wikipedia Christian article, there are some biased editors (by far the majority being anonymous editors) who keep seeking to remove the fact. What would you suggest?--Jeffro77 07:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all, don't repeatedly revert per the three-revert rule, as I've suggested. Secondly, it would be good to discuss this issue with those who disagree: maybe a way can be found to reflect the different perspectives on the issue. If discussion on the talk page fails, you can consider dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer 15:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, this discussion has been rehashed more times than I think you're imagining. The current text of the (protected) article does reflect the best consensus we've come to. It doesn't make everyone happy (and thus the occasional edit war), but that's nigh impossible on any controversial article. -- mattb 21:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it has. I'm not involved in the debate; my only involvment here was to warn Jeffro not to revert more than three times, as he did recently. Heimstern Läufer 21:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In principle, it is the people reverting the article away from the consensus that has been reached on the Talk page, not me for restoring the article to what has been agreed to by the regular editors. The problem is that the people who are changing it refuse to be involved in the discussion process. It is very frustrating.--Jeffro77 09:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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 06:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)