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]

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]

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]

uh? --210.165.133.93 (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"How is this spam?" is fine in English as long as what you're asking is in what way something constitutes spam. Sorry about the late reply; went on vacation. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:09, 8 October 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 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]

Ping - did you have time to look into the matter? No rush, though, I understand we can all be busy with real life and such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I really regret how long this took. As you may have seen, I was on holiday for a bit, and then I had a second brief overnight trip that I didn't post on the talk page. That and all the work I had to do playing catch-up put me ridiculously behind on all kinds of things (if you could see all the emails I haven't replied to in my personal inbox, you'd be aghast). Anyway, I've read some of what you said and have made an appropriate strikethrough and addition. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I tend to do something similar during my students' oral exams (I teach only spoken English, so grading essays and such is not really in my jurisdiction). For me, it's "adj. as adv." Guess I'm a little longer-winded. In my case, though, the students never read it; it's just to justify my scores to the administration. Not that they ever read them, anyway. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This term, I've been running into a lot of "adj/noun" problems. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, we see things differently here. But I appreciate your letting someone else weigh in. I've gone down this road more than once with others -- some editors aren't as sensitive to this issue at first blush as I am, I know, but the guideline is pretty clear. And there is no non-frivolous reason given for the deletion of this article of 100K and its 150 footnotes. Giving a frivolous reason is not sufficient. Feel free to respond here (or not at all).--Epeefleche (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I've pretty much already said all I have to say on the matter. We'll see what the other admins do. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They protected the article so he can't continue deleting it for a week, and opened up an AN/I. Moves it in the right direction--that has the same effect as to the article. Tx again.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let everyone know why I'm away: Life is really kicking my arse right now, and I need time away from Wikipedia to deal with it all. I'm already doing better than I was a few days ago, but I still need a little time away (OK, I came back to support an RFA I thought merited it). I'll be around at least to participate in the elections soon. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit. I believe that Tony Sidaway added that the new section link so he could submit 3RR reports from his iPhone. There was a discussion somewhere but I have to look around for it. EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we've been getting a rash of reports with no diffs lately, and I was hoping we could help stop that. If there was a discussion in favour of including that link, by all means restore it, though I'd like to see if there isn't a way we could try to get people not to use it the way they have been. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One option is to just close them out immediately if they have no diffs! I wish we could get everyone to use the 3rr.php script, which is quite convenient if you try it. That might require changing the documentation to explain it better. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per TS, he is OK with using 'Click here to add a new report', so we can leave out the newsectionlink. He had never noticed that button. Time to make it larger! EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good plan. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please see this for context. -Heim

No worries - To be honest, I didn't notice the removal until I edit conflicted myself in trying to respond to a comment that didn't exist anymore. Gotta love Mediawiki. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed your message earlier Heim, feel free to email me if it's important. Cheers, Skomorokh (Narodnik) 11:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just FYI, you struck almost your entire guide - which I think was an typo in the wikicode - so I fixed it. Amend as/if appropriate. –xeno^talk 14:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you were right. Thanks for the fix. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wut brill irc? Election brawl? Fun fun fun? little ankle biter

Thank you very much for your kind words and support in your voter guide, as well as for your other thoughtful observations. I'll also take your more critical comments into account as I continue my service during the next two years. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks also for your advice on ignoring incivility. I will try to practice that as much as possible. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment at MFD re User:William M. Connolley/For me/Things people say. I have no wish to offend you, so I should make clear that the page is precisely what it says it is: a list of things that people have said; some good, some bad, some merely interesting to me. Anyone who claims otherwise has been lying to you; pay them no attention. You'll be aware, no doubt, that I've had my own troubles with arbcomm; so I was interested in your [1]. But if you don't want it recorded on that page, I'll be happy to remove it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't really mind. It appears that, in a somewhat surprising move, the MFD has been closed as a delete, so it may not really matter. Then again, it's practically guaranteed to go to DRV, so who knows what's next. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casting an eye on my IRC window, what is this I see? In fact Was spricht die tiefe Mitternacht?

This:

"Well, if I want to get to Saigon tomorrow, I should probably sleep around now."

I am appalled! Also, not getting the Saigon connection. Bishonen | talk 16:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Tee hee. Looks like I should have thought about how I phrased that one! For the record, the phrase "sleep around now" meant "sleep at a time around this general time", not "get promiscuous". Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know what they say. "Never apologise, never explain." :-) Bishonen | talk 23:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The good old Fifth Amendment, eh? (Yes, I know I'm being Americentric, but hey.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the rationale I gave regarding my revision. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 05:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you recently closed a 3RR report because I failed to include the requisite number of reverts. I looked at the page and found one that I had overlooked. Would you consider re-opening the report? On a related note, I know how close to the line everyone's toes are and I'm trying to keep it on the talk page. - Haymaker (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reaffirmed my closure for reasons I've given at the noticeboard. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/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/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask why my comments were deleted from the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pmanderson reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result:1 week)? I thought that while only administrators render decisions, peons can make comments. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, they weren't deleted; they were simply archived by bot along with all comments on that particular case. In any case, I certainly didn't remove any comments by you, so if that's not the explanation, I'm not sure what's up. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. Not sure what happened there — I think I followed a link to an earlier version, which was not the final one that was archived. Sorry, sometimes I'm an eejit. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, just to point out that the recent spate of edits/removals of the nomination for delete tags on the article was apparently triggered by an external canvassing which took place on an external site [[2]]. On top of the notability issue, I was more worried that wikipedia is being used as a Coatrack attack source, but hopefully the edit furore goes away after the mentioned elections [[3]]Zhanzhao (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]