My talk page on the german wikipedia is just one click away. Please contact me at:

de:Benutzer_Diskussion:H-stt (english language is fine)

Most of your references are from recensio itself and they need to be more independent. Of course, time might make that easier to achieve. As you admit, it has only been going for 3 months. If you decide to recreate the article, I won't delete it again. Deb ( talk) 17:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I referenced relevant parts of the article with an independent journalistic article in our most respected paper, so the article does not rely on self promotion any more, and added a nice quotation from the same source. Thanks for your reply ... -- h-stt !? 10:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi, you deleted the disambiguation page after Recensio.net got speedied. As the article is back now with approval of the deleting admin, I'd like to see the disambiguation restored, too. The yearbook by the Miami University right now does not have an article, but it is linked from the Template:Miami University with quite a number of uses. So while it is not the most important disambig of them all, it serves a purpose. TIA -- h-stt !? 12:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I have created a redirect from Recensio to Recensio.net. I'm not convinced that a disamb is needed as the Miami yearbook article doesn't exist, and the yearbook doesn't appear to be mentioned in the Miami University article. I took a look at Template:Miami University which mainly consisted of redlinks, which is against the advice of WP:Nav box, so I cleaned it up, removing the red link to the Miami yearbook. None of these actions were admin actions, and would have been possible for any editor to do, and may indeed be built on or undone by any other editor in the course of normal editing. It was considerate of you to let me know the situation, and I do appreciate your thinking, though the recreation of either a redirect or a disamb in the circumstances was uncontroversial and fairly minor so it would have been acceptable for you to do it yourself. However, if in doubt, consult, so you did the right thing. SilkTork * ^YES! 15:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I just applied common courtesy and acted as I would like others to do. As an admin in two projects I know how small, seemingly uncontroversial actions can be misunderstood. Thanks for the cooperation. -- h-stt !? 07:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello H-stt. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Rudi-Sedlmayer-Halle, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not nonsense - there is meaningful content. Thank you. nancy 18:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I wish you would have let me know about this error when you reverted it. It would have saved me from having to make the same fix to a hundred other talk pages where the bot made the same error since May 13, once someone else finally let me know about the problem. Anomie ⚔ 23:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Ah, sorry for that. en-WP is just a side project for me so I did not investigate whether this bot error was systematic or just a single incident. I would have followed that on de-WP and probably on commons too, but failed to look at it here. I hope you could use your bot for the correction and did not need to do it by hand. Again, sorry for not being consistent in my thoroughness (is that an English word?) through all the projects. It's a matter of time and a bit one of dedication. So many people work here, I mostly focus on other projects. Have a nice week none the less. -- h-stt !? 10:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Doing it with the bot would have involved too much work, so I wrote a script that set the edit up and showed me a diff so all I had to do was hit "yes" or "no". It wasn't too difficult, just a bit time-consuming. Anomie ⚔ 11:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC) reply

P.S. Yes, thoroughness is an English word. Anomie ⚔ 11:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Muss die neue Extension auch mal ausprobieren… ;) MichaelSchoenitzer ( talk) 17:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi. When you recently edited Rocky Mountain Rendezvous, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bear Lake and Thomas Fitzpatrick ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 14:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of protected areas of Afghanistan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *[Ab-i-Estada Nature Reserve]

Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 15:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Two editors have now pointed out to you that the image is unsuitable forthe Skyfall article, and a third editor has flagged the image for deletion as a copyright violation. You need to stop edit warring to force the image into the article. If the image is reviewed and not deleted, I suggest you open a thread on the article's talk page for discussion, but while it remains tagged, it should not be added. - SchroCat ( talk) 10:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Two editors made two completely different claims why they don't like the file. If they can't agree, why should anyone take that as serious? The DR is formally valid and will have to be evaluated, but it does not prescribe the use of the file while the DR is open. -- h-stt !? 10:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC) reply

It's not a question of why a file is "liked" or not: there are different policy- and guideline-based rationale for not including it. (In other words, take your pick why it shouldn't be there, as there are several reasons). We can't have a copyright infringement in the article, which is what this is. You want to discuss it, go to the article talk page and stop edit warring. - SchroCat ( talk) 11:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Come on, you are party to this as well as I am. Don't give the neutral concerned editor here. Your opinion is not the least bit more qualified, than mine. Eh - your opinion is not qualified at all, because so far you have not made any statement of reason for your opinion while I gave legal reasoning regarding the copyright status of the title page. And given that you are accused of edit warring in the pages history by several people, you might want to tune down your tone, when you accuse others. rgds -- h-stt !? 11:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Use the article's talk page, focus on your own actions, rather than trawling through my edit history and try to not to dismiss people's opinions given in good faith just because you think you know better ("your opinion is not qualified" -good grief, that's quite arrogant!). If you want to continue this, do so, with appropriately good manners, on the article talk page, rather than continuing to edit war. - SchroCat ( talk) 12:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Your claim was never accompanied by a qualifier, other than mine, because I give legal reasons in the Comons DR. Os it was and is a mere claim, that's what I call unqualified. -- h-stt !? 13:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lea Lublin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ready made. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Karl Marx (composer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyperion ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC) reply

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. You are invited to express your views in the discussion. ~ Winged Blades ^Godric 05:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply