User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archive2007-11

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

User talk:Betacommand

I hope you don't mind my saying how very impressed I was with your contributions there. You said it much better than I could have done. Well done. --John 03:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Force pistols

I understand you have photos and reports of Delta operators using different kind of pistols in Iraq ...can you send me what you have on my email : dsgbvdsg@yahoo.com ....thank you --Blain Toddi 09:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, anything that might identify an operator is not going to be circulated further. Georgewilliamherbert 19:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK , the reports then and you could delete the names of the operators ...--Blain Toddi 07:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reuploading of image GEnx.jpg

You are mistaken as I have only uploaded the image two times. Please do not accuse me of uploading it more times than I have. ~iXetsuei —Preceding comment was added at 23:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla's request

I just emailed the list but see you're already on the job :) Looks like an interesting case ... - Alison ^❤ 00:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User mtralston

Hi, after reviewing some page histories, I see you unblocked the user mtralston after he had sent you a letter of apology. However, I would urge you to review this, since I am a student who works at the University of Puget Sound's office of information as a technology consultant, where the user also attends school, and I wrote him this morning when I tried to edit Wikipedia and found out our public IP was blocked. However, it appears that after the user had been unblocked by the administrators here at Wikipedia, he began writing me snide comments. For example, I told him I doubted his sincerity at all levels after he sarcastically said I should go back to playing World of Warcraft. He responded to this by asking whether the levels I was talking about could be found in World of Warcraft. He then added "blow me" to his comments. I am highly convinced this user is not sincere. He has not written or spoken to the Dean of Students as he said in his message to you. This user is lying and I would urge you to permanently ban him.

Thank you. Acumensch 06:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would perhaps be unwise to ban the UPS public IP. However, if the username is banned he can always create a new account and will not have learned any lesson. The student in question has written me several messages just recently, to which I have not responded. Since the student does not believe that this homophobic sensibility has any affect on his university - as evidenced by his comments that talking to the Dean of Students would have no affect on his behavior, that the students should "make a poster" and "have a table-setting" to talk about it - perhaps banning our wikipedia privileges could provide the necessary conditions to begin a discussion about either queerphobia or Wikipedia vandalism. Your call. Send me a message. Acumensch 06:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

George, I was not inflaming anything , nor did I make a literal comment. The most I said were in edit summaries. At most it was slightly uncivil, but how you gather a personal attack out of it is beyond me. I made three edits, one reverting the userpage to the discussion stating in the edit summary that the templates were restated on the talk where I redirected it to, and two edits to the talk. The next two talk edits were removal of the excessive comments he made after he was blocked with the edit summary "remove crap" (something along those lines which undoubtly you are refering to as the 'attack' and another one removing the last comment I accidently didn't remove. I hope you know the blocking policy well enough to know that blocks are not meant to be punitive, or because you disagree with an editor. I would take that into consideration before you decided to make any attempt at blocking this account for reasons of 'personal attacks that are deleted now'. — Save_Us_229 01:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did remove the bulk of the messages he decided to post after his unblock was declined. I felt the were starting to get inflammatory because he didn't get his unblock, which was enough for me to insert myself and stop him from making vague threats like "Watch yourself". No, George, there was nothing personal in it and there was no attack upon him, slightly uncivil, but theres no definition on WP:NPA which says that comment was a personal attack by any means. I hold my position that it was ok, as I saw his comments as starting to get unnessecary. — Save_Us_229 01:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Sealand

Hi George. There's a discussion underway re the above which I think would benefit from your participation - see here.

One of the contributors has made some really good contributions to the micronations Wikiproject over a short period, but they seem to be in danger of losing perspective when it comes to Sealand. --Gene_poole (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mooooovies

Check 'em out, if you haven't already. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies

I'll try to remember that in the future. Although, I'll be disappointed that I cannot practice the new "Scientizzle Doctrine" in your space... :) — Scientizzle 00:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries.

Regarding the doctorine naming... well, heck, isn't it true that there's no such thing as bad publicity? 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boosted fission weapon

There are some details discussed in Talk:Boosted_fission_weapon where you might have sources that can clear things up. Would you mind having a look? Man with two legs (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Alexfusco5 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Alexfusco5 22:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing list

With regard to this post [1] I think your assertion is mistaken. Arbitration had not started at the time Giano posted the secret email on November 22. The case was not brought towards ArbCom until the 24th. Catchpole 22:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]