Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:44, 16 February 2008

Thanks.

Thank you for the revert. · AndonicO 00:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thuja

I see that you have locked the Thuja article. Please note that a similar edit war is occurring at the related article Thuja occidentalis. MrDarwin (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It may need protection at some point, too, but I'm not sure that's quite now. If you think it does need it at some point, please make a request here rather than on my talk. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Heimstern: Thanks for taking the time to carefully look over the situation. Anthon01 (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I knew there was some controversy over this, I did not how much until I was directed to the talk page by an apologetic reverter. And then I find this discussion. In the heat of the moment, the reverting user also removed other improvements to the article. Please note these are not part of the current issue, when you note that I undid his revert. I also restored the fact, from a RS, on the censored topic. Ta, cygnis insignis 23:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think the additions you want to the article are non-controversial (particularly, they don't pertain to the current dispute), you might add {{editprotected}} to the talk page and explain what you'd like changed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah... it took two of them, but they sorted it out in the end. Cheers, cygnis insignis 23:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

All right. Sounds good. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:User talk:DeathMark

Understood-- penubag  02:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Relating to the edit war, I would just like to apologize for my behavior and if I inconvenienced you in any way. I lost my head for a while there, and never thought that the issue could escalate the way it did. Hopefully I won't get into something like that again, and I thank you for the warning. Again, if this has inconvenienced you in any way, I apologize. Comandante42 (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to worry about inconvenience for me. We admins are volunteers, after all, and I could have just not processed the report if I hadn't wanted to deal with it. The warning is primarily for your sake, to remind you that this behaviour could lead to blocks, and for Misplaced Pages's, to help end an edit war. If indeed you heed the warning, all will be fine and we won't be here again. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

EU edits

What policy justifies a 3 week block ? All edits are clearly different, are backed at the talk page by the majority of editors and have argued in detail by myself !!!! I am merely upholding a consensus layout. There is clearly no violation. Please reconsider the decision. Lear 21

As I said at the noticeboard, there is no requirement that the edits be the same to count toward a violation, per the policy page. Also, please do not evade your block by editing anonymously, or you'll find yourself reblocked for longer. I'm not going to do anything now since you're only writing on my talk, but if you attempt to edit articles, you'll find your IPs blocked and your main account reblocked for a longer duration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Anon Edits

Hello, I noticed that you were the admin who took the job of sorting this case. Today there have been three anon IP edits to the EU page reverting changes . All three came from HanseNet Telekommunikation GmbH, at least according to the first tool listed at the bottom of the page which comes up when you click on the IP in the edit history. The editor concerned shows knowledge of the page but didnt leave any explanationsa on talk. The reverts were on different points to the issue which Lear reverted yesterday. User:Lear 21's user page at least used to say that he was a resident of Berlin. I note that yesterday there was an anon revert amongst those by lear, changing 'Economic policy' to economy', which also came from hansent.

I don't know if this will continue, but if so, is there a specific place where clued up people can investigate this sort of thing? Sandpiper (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest heading for suspected sockpuppets. This wouldn't be the first time Lear21 has evaded his block, from what his block log says. Also, note that after the block, an IP, also from HanseNet Telekommunikation, posted on my talk claiming to be Lear21 and asking me to reconsider my decision. You can use that as evidence if you like. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR block on 24.30.38.213 - didn't work

Hi. I'm just letting you know that I have re-opened the 3RR issue you closed concerning contributions, because the 24-hour block you imposed did not seem to encourage the user to discuss his edits on the article talk page. As soon as the block expired, he resumed the edit warring. I have explained to him on his talk page, as well as on Talk:Shadow people why his edit keeps getting reverted, to no avail it seems. He reverted after a final NPOV warning, but I hesitate to report this on WP:AIV while it's more of a 3RR issue. -Amatulić (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In general, rather than updating an old report that's already been processed, you should just start again and make a new one (you can, of course, point out in the new report that the user was recently blocked). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:75.145.226.149

Spamming? Corvus cornix_talk 06:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Guess my click on the Twinkle drop-down menu was a bit off. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 06:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Osho

Thanks for the intervention. Can we please revert the article to the version before the edit war started? I would also suggest removing the COI (but not the NPOV) template. The COI template was reintroduced by the same IP, even though the relevant COI was inconclusive and is long archived. (Although I just see, he has resurrected it, which likely means we are dealing with User:Semitransgenic - User_talk:Semitransgenic). Up to you on that one. -- Jayen466 20:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no, I cannot revert now that the article is protected. It's against our policy. Once an article is protected as a result of a dispute, no changes related to the dispute except changes with a clear consensus should be made. I suggest heading for the talk page to work this one out. Sorry I can't help with this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, you may want to head for suspected sockpuppets if you think there's abusive sockpuppetry going on. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)