Jump to content

User talk:Heimstern

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 210.165.133.93 (talk) at 09:33, 28 September 2010 (→‎Orange Bar of Death ;)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

  • If you leave a comment on this talk page, I will reply here, not at your talk page. If you're of the type who's really reliant on the Orange Bar of Death (AKA the "New Messages" indicator), let me know and I'll give you a note that I've replied here.
  • If I've left a comment on your talk page, I have watchlisted it, so you can go ahead and reply there; don't worry about letting me know here.
  • Please don't forget to be civil. But note: If you see someone else leave an uncivil comment here; please do not revert it unless it's simple vandalism or a drive-by personal attack with no substantial criticism.


Archive:17 Feb-30 Nov 2006
Archive:1 Dec 2006-31 Jan 2007
Archive:1 Feb-25 Mar 2007
Archive:27 Mar-9 May 2007
Archive:10 May-5 June 2007
 Archive:6 June-3 July 2007
Archive:6 July-10 Sep 2007
Archive:11 Sep-10 Nov 2007
Archive:11 Nov-30 December 2007
Archive:31 December 2007-5 March 2008 		Archive:6 March-11 September 2008
Archive:11 Sep 2008-24 Feb 2009
Archive:24 Feb 2009-present

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

ACE2009: AGK's answers

I've answered your first and second; but am still thinking on your third. There is no rush, is there? As we have near enough until voting opens, I figure I can take some time to think. Yours is, curiously, now the only question I have not answered. AGK 01:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No rush. I actually have some good ideas from your answers to Avi's questions about what you think of civility, and the answers you gave to my other two questions were among the best I've read yet. So we're OK for now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you liked them. I've now answered your third as well. Regards, AGK 20:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Block

Reacting to this, I blocked an anon here, failing to notice that you already had a block in place. I didn't mean to step on your toes. Feel free to change the block parameters. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not too concerned. It's fine either way. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Report

A summary of the community's comments on our WP:Edit warring policy will be featured in the Policy Report in next Monday's Signpost, and you're invited to participate. Monthly changes to this page are available at WP:Update/1/Conduct policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009, and it may help to look at previous policy surveys at WT:SOCK#Interview for Signpost, WT:CIVILITY#Policy Report for Signpost or WT:U#Signpost Policy Report. There's a little more information at WT:Edit warring#Signpost Policy Report. I'm not watchlisting here, so if you have questions, feel free to ask there or at my talk page. Thanks for your time. - Dank (push to talk) 04:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Belated thanks

Hey Heimstern - sorry I didn't answer your comments earlier. I appreciate your support, and will endeavor, within reason, not to give you cause to regret it. If you ever think I'm losing touch with the community/my election platform/reality, please do let me know. Steve Smith (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Unfortunately, it appears it is I who am no longer in touch with the community (see below). I hope you'll have a great time on the committee, though. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly parting comments

The election results this year show that the community is not interesting in fixing the problems I believe need fixing: at least one user who was the source of one of the problems has been elected to the committee. I think it's a disgrace, but hey, what the hell does my opinion matter? I'm nothing more than a lowly pawn in Wikipedia's cruel chess game. I think it's time for me to be done here. It's been a somewhat good few years, but I don't think I can even view the new committee as legitimate, which leaves me no place in the processes of Wikipedia.

Those who think I'm overreacting: Maybe I am, but this really has been awhile in the making. I almost left at the conclusion of ARBMAC2 over that issue, and most likely would have if the committee had not revised its decision toward the end. I've considered it several times again as Wikipedia has just gotten increasingly unpleasant over time. I only had my last enforced wikibreak terminated early so I could vote in the AUSC election, and intended to go on a break after the AC elections were over. These results convince me that break ought to be indefinite. And another factor is just the fact that real life is busier these days and that I really want to invest more time in my friends, as well as my job here in China. I need to stop using Wikipedia and, for that matter, the rest of the internet, as a way to distract me from boredom.

My greatest regret is my failure in all my time to produce any really honestly good content. I've spent loads of time admiring and supporting content contributors like Bishonen, Giano, ChrisO and scores of others, but have never managed to join them in making great content. I still ask myself sometimes why I haven't. I have an M.A. that required a thesis, so clearly I can write. I have a reasonable amount of knowledge. And yet the closest I've ever come to making a great article is Serenade No. 10 (Mozart). And I achieved that only once.

I mean to keep spellchecking articles, but that's about all I envision myself as willing to do. And since I can do that without my account, I'll likely mostly live in IP-land. Keeps me away from the drama. Odds are I'll pop up now and then, so I don't intend to put up the retired template or anything. Like that ever means anything, anyway. (I really wish Wikibreak enforcer could be namespace-specific and keep me out of the Wikipedia space, incidentally.)

Over and out. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your essay "Wikipedia is going to suck sometimes"

Was recently pointed to this, thought it was a good essay, and would like to be able to quote it. So I've gone ahead and made a redirect to it (WP:SUCK) and stuck an essay box on it. It's in your userspace so I'm not sure if that's even appropriate but I thought WP:BOLD would cover me and you can always revert if you object. Thanks for writing something worth quoting. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S'okay by me. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to 3RR-land

Hello HL. I'm glad to see you taking an interest again by closing this case, particularly after bidding us all adieu here. I've not had much time for 3RR due to the real world, but it's good to see you show up again, especially on a confusing issue. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ed. Good to talk at you again soon. I wouldn't say this marks any triumphal re-entry into the field, but it doesn't hurt to try something once in a while. These days I don't have a whole heck of a lot of Wikipedia time, either (I like Wikipedia, but it doesn't exactly pay my admittedly really low bills, and when my Indonesians want to hang out, well, they're a lot more fun), so I don't imagine I'll be much of a regular there, still. Not to mention I'm much more willing to make "no action" closes like that one than actually block users. Still, I may turn up now and then. Anyway, thanks for the note. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"However" versus "but"

The only stylistic "problem" with however is that it is three syllables rather than the one you get with but. If you are going to ban the word, you have to ban conversely and similar words as well. Also, you have to chuck out although in favour of though. More to the point, there is nothing objectively wrong or low about using however to begin a sentence, so going about Wikipedia "correcting" its use is bad form. -Rrius (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've reverted yourself, so never mind. To address your edit summary, I don't think there is anything wrong with beginning a sentence with but; however, my point was that other people (wrongly) do, and they would outnumber those saying however is wrong. -Rrius (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't like the current wording. I hold to my assertion that "however" is poor style (not grammar, just style), and Garner's Modern American Usage agrees with me. I continue to believe "but" is better: the fact that more people will support "however" does not make it actually better. I've decided not to have a dispute on the matter, though. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Garner says the reason is that three syllables make it a "ponderous" way of introducing a contrast. Sometimes, though, you want to linger over the contrast to emphasize it or to slow the reader down for a moment before moving on. In any event, Wikipedia would be boring indeed if we replaced every three-syllable contrasting sentence conjunction with but. -Rrius (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, but I can't see any reason that would apply in this context; it seems like we ought to keep pressing ahead, as there's a continuous line of thought here. But like I said, I'm done with this issue for now. Adding the comma, as I did, is enough to make the sentence not terrible, and I'm ready to leave it that way. (Incidentally, I kind of would like to combine those two sentences about minority governments and when the election will occur, as I find it a tad bumpy to divide the related ideas into two sentences. But right now I'm not going to do that.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and combined them. They really did belong together. -Rrius (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least we can agree on that, eh? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restraint in bolded part of comments

I've asked four editors here to consider changing the bolded parts of their comments in that RfC. As you are one of those editors, I'm notifying you here so you are aware of the request. If you are prepared to change the bolded comment to just "support" or "oppose", could you please refactor completely, rather than using strike-through. Any emphasis can be moved to the non-bolded part of the comment. To make clear what has happened, you can also re-sign your comment to include the date it was updated, I tend to use the following code: <small>Updated: ~~~~~</small>. The aim here is to reduce the rhetoric and inappropriate emphasis, and to refocus discussion on what needs doing here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is intended for me; I've not taken part in that discussion. Perhaps this is supposed to be for KillerChihuahua? She has a link to my userspace in her sig and we end up getting confused for each other often thanks to CTRL-F searches. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Thanks for letting me know. I clicked on her sig, ended up at some userspace essay, and then clicked up a level and must have ended up here. I've since discovered that the RfC in question is sort of finished, so I may not bother correcting my mistake here, but thanks for letting me know. Carcharoth (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lo Wu

[1] Would you consider moving it to Lo Wu Station, or its talk page? 116.49.135.38 (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do you have a reliable source for it? That'd be the first step toward even considering if it's worth noting (or even demonstrating that it is factual). Remember, you can always bring it to the talk page for discussion, no matter what I think. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's move it to Talk:Lo Wu Station first. It takes time and requires input from across the community. 116.49.135.38 (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malformatting

Could you explain what you meant by "malformatting" on this report? All the links were removed. Thanks! --UltraEdit (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were no links to diffs showing edit warring. You need to provide links showing the edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of ANI Discussion (Fut.Perf's topic ban of Hkwon)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Qwyrxian (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for removing this. I don't even know what the person is upset about as I haven't deleted any articles recently. :) ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually not usually keen on RPA, but this edit seemed just plain disruptive and practically nothing more than vandalism. Anyway, you're welcome. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gongbei Port

In case you don't already know, Macau has its own control over immigration and customs clearance, as enshrined in its constitution, the Macau Basic Law. The border between Macau and the rest of the People's Republic of China is nothing different from an international border, except that people don't use a Macau passport to go to the other side of the border, and vice versa. For citizens of other countries, leaving Zhuhai for Macau is nothing different from leaving China for, e.g., Russia, Mongolia or Vietnam, and entering Zhuhai from Macau is nothing different from entering China from any other country. SchmuckyTheCat has long been known for playing down the autonomous nature of the special administrative regions of the PRC. 112.118.162.41 (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've crossed that border like, ten times, I'm definitely aware of its nature. I'm not really sure why you're bringing this up with me, since I haven't challenged any of your edits, only STC has. He says you are a banned user, and if he can confirm that to me, I'd be ready to take administrative action on the matter. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's perhaps because of his delusion of persecution. He insists that to present the ports of entry as something between Shenzhen and Hong Kong, or Zhuhai and Macau, and he discussed it with you on his talk page. 112.118.148.29 (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Hey Heimstern, it's RickTommy. Did you get my e-mail? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 23:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC) (aka RickTommy)[reply]

Get a clue, would you? DC already told you off of obsessing over me at HRWiki, and now you bring it here? Please leave me alone. I've had it with your constantly pestering me to answer your irrelevant questions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PD

Re [2] - the PD page, apparently. However, no-one is permitted to add any text to that page saying so, 'cos that would make everyone's life too easy William M. Connolley (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already self-reverted, anyway. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just fyi, there's a thread on the question of when there'll be a proposal posted on the proposed decision talk page. It's not going to give you any answers but it's there.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re. [3]: We currently whine at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision, where you are (I suppose) welcome to join us ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just tired of this issue constantly coming up on my talk page stalkees' pages. When it even made it to FutPerf's page (who's not generally involved in this type of crap, anyway), I was like, geez. Apparently there's nowhere this dispute can't live. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC

A thought

Arbcom, please post your ^@%$#&$*!# proposed decision on the climate case already. This is boiling out of control and we're sick of it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This originally was going to go in the thread about WMC's block, but I decided it said nothing about the merits of that block and would go better here.

OK, mm goi, but it doesn't answer some important questions... Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Common names

I'm getting a little confused as to your exact point over at the UN names discussion Heimstern. Do you then agree that Ireland is more a common name in en than Republic of Ireland? Ditto China rather than People's Republic of China? I know both are wrapped around with all sorts of other debates, but on the common name point? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ireland is the more common name, as is China. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the clarification. I guess the next question is how to get them there. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Ireland, that's going to be completely impossible per AC ruling. The problem with common names is that we also have to deal with disambiguation, which comes into play for both of countries. Sometimes the most common name is ambiguous and we have to do something to clarify what exactly it is we're talking about. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I understand about Ireland, I was really just saying I realise it would be very difficult. On China, I feel the disambig has gone the wrong way pretty clearly - the general international usage common short name in English, "China", invariably means both the modern PRC state and the historic entity(ies) - I think this one in particular calls for revision given it's centrality in the listings as the largest populated nation, etc. Would one way to approach this be some sort of reference document citing all principle media and organisational labellings of how China is used? I still, possibly naively given the way things are often conducted in Wikipedia, believe in evidence. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2

Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34#Does WP:NOTMYSPACE apply to secret pages?, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Bar of Death ;)

Sorry I got bitey, I had gotten pretty badly smeared by the IP and pals on Commons, and overreacted to you. Thanks for keeping balance.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Sorry about your bad experience. I did notice that that IP was being pretty thoroughly unpleasant (I found his/her description of you as "violent" inappropriate, though kind of amusing in how absurd it was), which contributed to my willingness to block him/her. Anyway, just stay away from edit warring in the future and we'll be fine. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing this user has done since being unblocked ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/210.165.133.93 ) is to edit war on my talkpage. What recourse do I have at this point? I don't need more trouble, but I don't need badgered either.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry to be unpleasant to you, Heimstern, mainly because I do not know the reason. If you think that calling someone retard is not a violent action, for sure is not a kind one, and Kintetsubuffalo did that on me. I was just trying to remove an useless file from this wiki, and you can check the comments of the DR in Commons to confirm that. Kintetsubuffalo is alone on this, and my recent adds are just for restore the warning message he got in his discussion about his edit warring. He just erased it. You can check the original one in the message of 3RR that led him blocked. --210.165.133.93 (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anon, I sense that you are perhaps a non-native speaker of English? If so, OK, I understand; I'm an EFL teacher. Still, you need to realize that describing a person as "violent" means they act in a physically damaging way, and it's a serious accusation that should never be thrown around without actual physical acts to back it up. True, when applied not directly to a person, it can be non-physical, e.g., a "violent outburst" might simply mean a loud and hostile one, but when applied to a person, it cannot reasonably have this metaphorical sense. Furthermore, users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page. Do not re-add it; it is edit warring.
Kintetsbuffalo: You are exempt from edit warring restrictions such as 3RR in your own userspace except for adding blatantly disallowed content such as libel or copyright violations, so it's OK to revert the anon. If he continues, report him for edit warring. Feel free to talk to me about it, though note that I'm about to head for work. The edit warring noticeboard might be a better place to go. Hope that helps. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, English is not my language. Everyday I learn new things, like that I must stop no matter I was right in the edit warring, or that warning messages can be deleted from your own discussion. Also your explanation clarifies about the term violent. Maybe more appropriate will be intimidating behaviour or harassment? That user used on me these words:
  • retard
  • blow me
  • should be obvious to anyone with half a brain why the rename was done
  • His original snotty post was unsatisfactory, I don't need his vomit on my talkpage.
By the way, as an EFL teacher maybe you can help me with a question. The sentence How is this spam? is correct? --210.165.133.93 (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it does help.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand

I said, in my statement, that I did things wrong, I apologized and I promised not to let that reoccur (I elaborate on that more in the "Response to Offliner", so if you have not read it, please do). What else can I do? A 10-page length essay in which I tear my clothes, salt and feather myself? Rather than amuse the crowds with self-humiliation, I prefer to propose solutions.

Regarding the topic ban, please note that I have already been allowed to contribute one EE article by proxy (it has reached GA thanks to my edits), and edit the WT:POLAND page (like those or those), all not only without any controversy, but my WT:POLAND activity has led to several editors expressing their support. I have also been active in EE areas on other projects (pl wiki, Commons), nowhere any controversy was raised.

Regarding the fine line, well, no topic ban has a perfect line, current included. But if the topic ban is narrowed (in a fashion similar to this one) it would be obvious to me that while I could edit NC article with regards to most of its areas, I should stay away from the nationality section (and frankly, I'd prefer to stay away from the entire article, in any case - I am fed up with battlegrounds like that and do not with to even get close to them again).

Regarding oversight, as you can see, there is a lot of editors who are happily monitoring my activities for every small misstep, and you can be assured that they will report me whenever they think I've crossed the line :>

Lastly, while this is one of those "forgotten or ignored" policies, please keep in mind that remedies are supposed to be preventative, not punitive... my topic ban will expire in half a year. Unless you can point out that there is some "damage" that will be done now that will not be done in half a year? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible I've missed something. Right now, I'm pretty tired; I'll come back and read those sections you mention and then see if I need to reconsider my statement. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair. PS. Do you think it would clear your concerns if I added a statement like this to the beginning of my request: "I am sorry I became radicalized and violated WP:CANVASS, I apologize and promise not to repeat those mistakes?" I do believe I say all of this, but perhaps not so strongly at one time in any one place, hence potentially confusing cursory readers? PPS. Actually, since you are the second editor to raise similar concerns, I went ahead and modified my statement per my previous comment here. Please let me know if you have any other questions/concerns/suggestions. Thanks, PPPS. Regarding "Apparently I'm now going to join the scorned "Piotrus is evil" crowd" - I hope my jest at the page was not inappropriate; anyway, I do not consider anybody really joining that crowd unless they contribute to the ED hate page (the one which gives out mine and others real life information and calls for our harassment and even assassinations :/). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly will tell your students

Hahaha! Give me a printout of your edit, please, so I can annotate it in my special student shorthand: "adj/adv". Chuckle chuckle chuckle chuckle chuckle chuckle chuckle... [/me goes to bed, still chuckling in a very irritating way. ] Bishonen | talk 00:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Heimstern&oldid=387496344"