User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2009/July

Archives

My talk page archives:

2005	2005 archive
2006	First half 2006						Second half 2006
2007	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2008	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec

Defend each other

(see prior [1] and http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?DefendEachOther)

Thanks for your thanks! I saw your note to Lar and your mention of it above reminded me. It's a great idea. Do you want or need any help with it? --Guinnog 05:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Count me in, please. --Guinnog 06:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Added User:Georgewilliamherbert/DefendEachOther - Georgewilliamherbert 00:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand now that I shouldn't have tried to defend myself when I was attacked by Synaptic on the Talk:VEST page, but it was not their first attack and no one pointed it out to me before. They keep doing it and I had never read the WP:COI before until you pointed it out. Thank you. It helped. It's very difficult not to react to such attacks and just sit there waiting for someone to care to respond. If no one ever responds, especially if they don't know what is going on, who is right and who is wrong, the attack remains there for everyone to read and possibly also to make different real life decisions assuming that you have nothing to say to it and that you left in shame. Where do we go to cry for help? Ruptor 09:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA

Hi, I asked you an optional question on your RFA, thought i'd mention it here since it can be easy to miss new questions. Garion96 (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm following up offline with Doc, I will answer it after that's had a chance for some discussion. Reasonable question. Georgewilliamherbert 23:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I supported your RFA, but I'd like an assurance that you won't end up building a temple of hate to Arthur. Guettarda 17:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Arthur has nothing to worry about. The whale, now... Georgewilliamherbert 23:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, he's just zis whale, you know... Guy (Help!) 09:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations!

It is my great pleasure to inform you that your Request for Adminship has closed successfully and you are now an administrator! Useful Links: • Administrators' reading list • Administrators' how-to guide • • Administrator's Noticeboard • Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents • Administrator's Noticeboard for 3RR • Your admin logs: • blocks • deletions • moves • protects • uploads •

If you have questions, feel free to leave a talk page message for me or any other admin. Again, congratulations! Essjay (Talk) 03:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, congrats. The Rambling Man 08:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. I hope you become a successful administrator. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 09:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You hope he becomes one? :) Have you seen how highly many people think of him? Congratulations George, I'm pleased to see that your RfA has been successful. Based on the opinions of others I trust I'm convinced you'll be (and have been) a valuable asset to the project. To the extent it can help you be an even better contributor, please do continue to consider the concerns raised. - Taxman ^Talk 14:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia

Awesome! Herewith a gift... Well done, I look forward to even better times working with you. ++Lar: t/c 18:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, and keep up the good work! -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Gjenvick

George, Thanks for helping me to help Paul with his problem. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC) PS: Are you a sailor? Perhaps you'd like to come sailing with us on the Bay sometime.

Thanks much - however, if it's been resolved, why is it that today, when I didn't write anything in edit summary, CAMERA put its ad in my edit summary box?1equalvoice1 (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1equalvoice1 (talk • contribs)

Is this really appropriate?

I wonder if OrangeMarlin, Jim62sch, and their friends are aware how close they are to having their real names in the press in a story about a group of POV-pushers on Wikipedia? They probably aren't aware, as they appear to be amazingly myopic.

That reads quite a bit like a threat to out people. It's off-wiki, so you can be as rude as you want, but your threat to out people strikes me as rather beyond the pale. Guettarda (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's unambiguously a threat to out people. Which will get you indef'ed if you follow through on it, and you know that. That's been policy for a very long time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not threatening to "out" them to the press. I have no control over what the press chooses to report on. My comment was based on someone elses comment earlier in that thread that they had been discussing the situation with an Associated Press reporter. So, it wasn't me that had implied that they had gotten the press involved. I was trying to point that out to any interested reader. Why do you guys feel that I have any influence with the press? Cla68 (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that group of editors' behavior related to Intelligent Design articles has become such a problem that uninvolved editors and admins like me have noticed the problem and gotten involved to varying degrees. I hope that the editors in question are willing and able to correct their behavior on their own. Cla68 (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I clarified my remarks here [2]. Cla68 (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Prompt response

Your block was a quick and appropriate response. Well done! --Achim (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Block 70.107.160.0/19

You appear to have block IP range 70.107.160.0/19. This is a DHCP range assigned by Verizon in the Brooklyn, NY area. By blocking this, you are preventing many legitimate users from editing pages. Please reconsider whether this is an efficient method of preventing abuse from whoever it was who committed the acts of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cascascas (talk • contribs) 04:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, there's a very persistent Wikipedia vandal operating out of that IP range among others. The block will remain up, for now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi George. Great job you are doing. Keep up the good work. Signed Wickzilla--162.83.255.109 (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, btw I don't just use Verizon and I don't always improve Wikipedia anonymously. In fact most of my "improvements" are fairly subtle changes where only someone who knows something about the subject knows it's obviously wrong. Pretty neat huh? To think I have you to thank for the inspiration. Yes you George are responsible for singlehandedly alienating about 20 million potential users with your range blocks as well as motivating me to subtly work to degrade Wikipedia's credibility. Too bad there is no article about Retro Aerospace.--162.83.255.109 (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Georgie! It's me again. Still busily working on Wikipedia. Thanks for all the blocks with Verizon. --70.184.190.120 (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:Kombiman

Thanks for the reminder. Sometimes I just get going and don't know when to slow down. FWIW, Kombiman made this edit right after I reverted his first one, so, yeah... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What the heck was this message about?

'This is your last warning. The next time you vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to Fat Man, you will be blocked from editing.'

I have possibly edited Wikipedia twice in my entire life, and don't even know what 'Fat Man' is.

Incredible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.36.207 (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Invite to review a set of articles

Hi there. You participated in this ANI thread. I picked out the names of some editors I recognised, or who had extensive comments there, and I was wondering if you would have time to review the articles mentioned in the thread I've started here, and in particular the concerns I've raised there about how I used the sources. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Edit Warring and Asams10

Hi George,

1) I have some feedback on 'Edit Warring,' namely regarding the article on 'Magazines(firearms).' I was accused of this after my contributions were simply deleted (repeatedly) and replaced with biased information not adhering to the Wikipedia guidelines. Now, from our consensus discussion, isn't it appropriate that the main article includes completely verifiable dictionary definitions of the term along with the disputed content? Certainly, even at this stage of discussion, you noted that including such common usage definitions are hugely important and critical to the Wikipedia guidelines. At the very least, the dictionary definition should be included while we derive a deeper consensus on the ultimate language. From my understanding of the 'consensus discussion' guidelines this is a valid position within the context of our on-going consensus discussion and thus my recent edit to include the dictionary definition should not have been considered 'Edit Warring.' However, I was again accused of 'Warring' simply for adding the dictionary definition and improving the language (while still including the definition present in the original page content). I believe we have at least reached a stage in our discussion where we can, at minimum, agree to include the common usage definition. In addition, user Asams10 (who deleted my last edit) has admited to not really reading my Talk page posts -- so how can he be arguing for consensus discussion (or that he is actually participating in a 'real' consensus discussion) when he is not actually participating in trying to get there? Could you please read my last edit and see if such is currenlty acceptable language for the main article (while we continue the consensus discussion)?

2) Regarding Asams10. I do not understand why user Asams10 has not been blocked or banned. He constantly violates the Wikipedia terms of use policy. In fact, as he plainly admits during in the consensus discussion, he is not actually reading my discussion comments in the Talk page. So (and if he wants to be a part of it) how can we progress if he will not read the comments, yet then insists on repeatedly deleting any edits to the topic? This means that 'consensus' in his mind, is simply his viewpoint and he is unwilling (or unable) to grasp concepts outside of his current view -- and this is not contributing to a consensus viewpoint. I have noticed that this is a pattern with him, as his arguments and behavior have been similarly problematic with many reasonable contributors. It seems he is more interested in just aguing (like in a debate forum) then positively contributing to Wikipedia. I do not think that Wikipedia benefits from users such as Asams10.

3) I think that Wikipedia needs to be clear to editors that definitions and linguistic interpretations differ from person to person and that doesn't mean they are 'incorrect.' People like Asams10 feel that a particular current and/or historical definition is somehow handed down 'from God,' -- and thus, they fail to understand how language evolves with use. Do they realize that at one point these words (or new use of a word) hadn't even been created yet. Do they understand that words are basically a contrivance used for communication? I had used an analogy that some people call their SUVs cars, while other call them trucks, while the DMV might have their own special definitions. Basically, we cannot get too wrapped up in such 'specifics' or historical perspectives of a particular definition because of linguistic evolution (and, if we want to include the historical perspective, we should note that in a specific way). For instance, the term 'gun' is now used to indicate all 'firearms' which we both know is not really historically accurate, but it is also not 'incorrect' in the linquistic sense.

In any case, I would like to request that my 'Edit Warring' warnings be removed and that user Asams10 is either banned, blocked, or severely reprimanded. After reviewing his ongoing problems with users on this site, I think that banning him would be best for Wikipedia, as he is ridiculously disruptive to the very process by which Wikipedia progresses.CrimsonSage (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, if I did not actually violate the 3RR policy, then why is there a message on my talk page saying that I have? I don't appreciate that message being left on my talk page, especially when it is invalid and I would like it removed; I would also expect an apology for that incorrect accusation. Additionally, I would request that 'neutral language' be used in the main article during the concensus discussion as expected by Wikipedia terms-of-use policies (please review my last contribution that was deleted). In addition, I would like a better explanation as to how I was participating in edit warring when I was adding a factual, verifiable definition to an article (well within Wikipedia guidelines), which were then plainly deleted in their entirety, and then during a concensus discussion the participant admited to not reading my comments in the Talk page (and thus not dutifully participating in the discussion), while others in the discussion acknowledge that, at minimum, we need to include such definitions. When added for neutrality, again the comments were deleted -- this is unacceptable.CrimsonSage (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia itself: -- "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can be reached through discussion, action (editing), or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner." If one participant will not read comment in the Talk page, but yet insists on being "king high dictator" when it comes to controlling the content, how is that reasonable? Something needs to be done about this; it is exactly the sort of behavior that is putting a drag on Wikipedia and shouldn't be tolerated. This is ridiculous.CrimsonSage (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. As mentioned, I did not commit a 3RR, and that should be removed from my talk page and apologized for (at the minimum). But, just so that you understand my position, it's not about being excited/calm, upset, etc. It's that Wikipedia should not allow such blatant disruptive behavior as demonstrated by Asams10. I must disagree that edit warring equates to being a victim of blantant Wikipedia terms-of-use violation reverts (as I was). The spirit of the Wikipedia policy and contributions must be taken into account when determining such. The blame falls squarely on the the fact that Asams10 was in full violation of said policy. And moreover, he tried to use 'edit warring' threats to 'force' his particular view; that's contrary to the purpose of the warnings. George, I know that you are trying to smooth this out by staying neutral, etc., but by doing so, it is my opinion that you are encouraging his bad behavior. In any case, I'll continue to participate in the Talk page (even though my posts aren't being read).CrimsonSage (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi George, I wanted to remind you again that I did not commit a 3RR and that such should be removed from my talk page and apologized for by the offending party.CrimsonSage (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi George, that 3RR is still there. I would appreaciate if it was removed, becuase there was no 3RR comitted. Thanks.CrimsonSage (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm blocked

I received a message that you blocked me from editing. I spent a good deal of time today entering doctoral programs and links to them on Wikipedia's Health Psychology page. I am not a vandal. When I discover a piece of vandalism, I undo it. I am a good citizen.

Please remove the block. I was about to add a small number of Canadian doctoral programs to the list of doctoral programs I already added when I discovered that you blocked me.

Thanks.

ISS246 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iss246 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Asams10

George, this is getting utterly rediculous. Asams10 is continuing to edit war (Magazine:firearms) in complete disregard to a concensus agreement. He rephrased language that was arrived at through a long concensus discussion with several people. I have reverted those edits as they are clearly not in agreement with the concensus, but this is not what Wikipedia is all about. This is undermining the entire philosophy which has a policy against tendentious editing. Isn't anyone going to do anything about it? Why is this user (who has a history of being blocked) being allowed to participate is this disruptive behavior. This is a huge problem for the very integrity and concept of Wikipedia.CrimsonSage (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

re:Star wars kid

I dig. But please note that the user who removed the Star wars kid's name (twice, in fact) is not an admin. But, as I said, I get your point and will refrain from using his name. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 18:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I didn't see your edit there. Sorry 'bout that. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 18:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Howard Bloom

Hi George,

Among other superfluous content, the article on Bloom mentions who he went to high school with and where that fellow went to college. Of what encyclopedic value is this?

Is is also filled with trivia that might be of interest to his children, supposing it's all true, but certainly has no place in an encyclopedia article.

It further mentions a number of pseudoscientific areas he claims to have "invented," wildly violates WP:NPOV, and entirely ignores WP:AUTO.

I think a minimal approach is called for until it's corrected, assuming Bloom evens warrants mention in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.91.226 (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi George, Thanks for offering to look through the discussion/additions to the LHC and Safety of the Large Hadron Collider articles. Anything I can do just give me a shout. Thanks ^Khukri 14:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Your GA is under review

Hi there, I see that you are a primary contributor to the article Tsar Bomba. This article has come under review for Good article reassessment as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified which are listed on the talk page. Please begin to address these points in the next seven days or the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

...and exactly where does it say we can use non-free scientific images under our non-free content policy ?

Being quite familiar with the policy I was surprised at your close on the memristor image. I have listed the image at PUI. Megapixie (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Safety of the Large Hadron Collider

Request for comment. Could you consider providing a third party comment on the current content dispute at Talk:Safety_of_the_Large_Hadron_Collider#Otto_Rössler.

An editor is arguing for removal of explanations of organized safety opposition motivations and concerns as "not reliable" and "original research". Published peer reviewed papers challenging the primary safety argument "Hawking Radiation" have also been removed as "not relevant". Thank you. --Jtankers (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The BADSITES wars

You are right. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Fanatics on Wikipedia

Do you dispute the factual accuracy of the the appraisal? If so, delete my comments and sanction me. I am tired of the bullshit. Admins who favor proceess over morality and facts make me sick.--Cberlet (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Block

George, would you mind if I were to unblock Cberlet? Editing the LaRouche pages would make a saint lose his patience, on top of which his own bio is repeatedly under attack, often by the same people, and he has been incredibly patient about it. I feel he expressed a legitimate point of view, albeit with harsh language. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 12:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I would ask you not to, SlimVirgin. There is a consensus on ANI that the block is very valid (in fact, I have half a mind to blank out the current Nazi Germany ("At least they made the trains run on time") comment on his talk page. If Cberlet cannot edit the LaRouche articles without losing his patience, maybe he needs to take a self-imposed break from said articles until he can. SirFozzie (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for clarification on whether this block should be annotated in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 case [3]. Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

List of micronations

Hi. What do you think about semi-protecting the above article again? It seems that newly created user accounts and IP addresses keep advertising their own micronations there. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I might have a potential move-vandalism and general vandalism problem. BeerBelly82, TitleRanch903, and BuffaloSam. The latter of the three left Wikipedia in December of 07 and came back yesterday. The others appear to be new accounts.

BeerBelly82 moved the Johnstown/Altoona Television Market template to Template:Johnstown/Altoona/State College TV, though I can find nothing to show "State College" is part of the official Nielsen "name" for that market. All of the pages that linked to the old template were then changed. TitleRanch903 appears to be following in this changing of old templates.

BuffaloSam has moved two radio market templates to "names" that don't appear to match the official Arbitron "name". This user also changed all of the pages that linked to the old template.

To me, this seems like move-vandalism and general vandalism. I could be wrong, but as Kubigula and Firsfron are out (the admins I bring stuff like this to), I bring it to your attention. Thanks...NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this has been sorted out by another admin. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Chat about WP Admin?

Hi George,

I'm a graduate student at Stanford working on tools for WP admins. Since the best way of getting to know a role is to talk to people actually in that role, I was hoping to speak with you (IM, email, or phone, whichever works for you) about your role as a WP admin. I'd be especially interested in talking to you about how admin on WP differs from your role as moderator on the newsgroups you mentioned. Please let me know if you're interested. Thanks! Zeppomedio (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WHY DID YOU BLOCK ME??

I never talked on Darko Trifunovic page!!! I never even saw the page and you blocked me for 1 month! WHAT DID I DO? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.185.99 (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocks

It's pretty funny when someone goes to WP:ANI and ends up getting blocked themselves. It's kind of like the old saying, "Never sue - they might prove it." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for your continued help with Liebman. He's got more socks than Wal*Mart sells on a good day. And sometimes they come in pairs, as they did earlier today. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for your illustration! How did you make it?

A 2 node high-availability cluster

Hello George,

I found your work Image:2nodeHAcluster.png to be very helpful illustrating the concepts of a high availability cluster with a very clear layout in the diagram and icons that are easier on the eyes than say Dia's set of Cisco icons.

What software did you use to create the diagram? Did the iconset you used come with the software? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.115.68.21 (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That was just Visio. It's the most common product used for computer system physical and logical diagrams. Those icons are standard ones... Give me a second and I'll dig up the source and let you know which stencil files I used for it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why, but I can't find the Visio file source. They are all standard icons in Visio, though. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dsegal58

Hi, George. Would you mind particularly if I unprotected this page and attempted some dialogue with Mr. Segal? I think his last post there shows an an attempt to come around and learn about our processes and culture, as well as abide by a ban on Andrew Jackson and the twenty dollar bill. Maybe under the tutelage of a more experienced editor, his expertise may be of help to us. east718 // talk // email // 01:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that in the dialog, however, if you want to put the effort in go ahead. Please, if it doesn't work, redo the protection. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. east718 // talk // email // 01:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Dj master2

Hi there. I noticed you recently blocked Padillo for uploading copyrighted images. This user, User talk:Dj master2 is uploading images of a smilar nature. Could you take a quick look, and possibly give him a warning or block? Kind regards, D.M.N. (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it looks like more of the same.

Anyone can leave a warning, and I did so. I will block if they fail to cooperate... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I tracked down Image:Jimmy Rave.jpg to here. The Chris Sabin image is also from here, though I have yet to locate it on the site but given the extremily similar position and quality of the photography it seems evident. The Alex Shelley image could've been grabbed from any website on the internet and replaced an actual GFDL image. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There's also Homeyman (talk · contribs) who starting to upload similar images. D.M.N. (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahoy-hoy

Hola broseph! I'd like to thank you taking care of this little piece of business. But I was also wondering if you could be my go to guy when it comes to pic questions. I don't have a firm understanding of what tags go where and my old go to girl doesn't fuss with pics any longer. So, whuddya say? Also, can you copy your reply to my talk page. Many thanks.

Coolio, Endless Dan 16:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

But...

But I Want To Be Blocked. I'm Tired Of This Wiki.

User talk:Badagnani#Blocked for 31 hours

Hello. That user, which you blocked, has requested to be unblocked. For the reasons noted on his or her talk page, I am inclined to think that the request is well-founded. I would appreciate your comments on the matter. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

When you return, it might be worthwhile to relook at this, and leave an appropriate comment for the now-unblocked user. The two independent reverts involved do not amount to edit-warring, and the talk comments were civil (as there was no violation of edit-warring policy, the block on Badagnani was not appropriate). In any case, it was wise to leave it open to review at ANI, and I'm glad that you did. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think your block was good and should be remained because the user cause disruptions and makes personal attacks against me after his unblock.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Caspian blue has been involved in a dispute with Badagnani and his claims lack merit - if he has concerns, he needs to pursue dispute resolution. Also, I notice I didn't mention it earlier: the block on Melonbarmonstar2 was appropriate and well-placed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not at all content dispute as you guess, but his uncivil behaviors. After the unblock, the user falsely accuses me several times regardless of my asking him to help me. Besides, I can leave anything I want to say to the admin just like you do. As long as the user behaves disruptively, the unblock is a bad decision. Besides, you really tried to unblock him, so your comments here have no merit. Two admins thought that the block of two are good, while two admin thinks not. So this is not a even "consensus". (I think you would pull it)--Caspian blue (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the last time I'm going to tell you: if you have concerns, please pursue dispute resolution, as he will not be reblocked (there were no uncivil behaviors - the claim is meritless). Blocks are not punitive, and unblock requests do not require consensus but instead simply need a review of the block. I can certainly get that other admin who thought the block was 'good' to review it again, and I'm pretty sure he'll change his mind accordingly (if you don't think so, ask him yourself). Good day. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're neither George whom I initially talked to nor admin who can take an action. This is WP:WHEEL between admins. After his unblock, there were uncivil behaviors by him, so I addressed his initial block should be remained. Your reply here is really meritless because it is clear that you're supporting Badagnani's action. More importantly you're giving implausible reasons for your own opinion. Regards.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you think it's wheel warring, why aren't you telling the Arbitration Committee? The phrase "put up, or shut up" is coming to my mind. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, and don't make such personal attack with the dirty language. You already broke your promise. That is also amusing. You were connected to Badagnani in the past and your problematic behaviors were reported recently, so your wording has no merit after all.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? The only wheelwarring and personal attacks that have occurred are in your own imagination, which is why nobody has (or will) listen to your meritless claims or annoyances. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Put up or shut up" is in no way a "dirty" comment, it's a common G-rated English expression. Be careful with your accusations. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what "G-rated English" is (English wikipedia is not only for American users). However, I consider "shut up" is as such. You don't see the accusations by Ncmvocalist, so be careful when you want to advice". Ncmvocalist, why don't you stop nagging about my statement. I consider your complaint has no worthy to be taken into serious.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop being utterly disruptive - an admin has already told you that there's nothing to see here, and removed your comment from the ANI thread because it lacked merit. Enough is enough. 00:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop trolling and mind you own business. The admin is related to some matter with me. And you broke your promise consistently. What are you? This talk page is owned by Gerogewilliamherbert, not you, and my initial comment was toward him. So deal with different opinions. If you could not stop yourself, use your page.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFC

I wonder if you could provide any information in this discussion where I have quoted the comment you made on AN/I. Thanks. Ty 02:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Godwin comment on press photographs

Hi George. About your ANI quote here. I vaguely remember that as well, but from memory I think it was a while ago now. Can you provide a date and diff to firm that up? There is also a discussion at WT:NFC, where I've commented. See here. I agree with Geni that news photographs of recent news events (and even obscure historical ones if they are still selling the photos to people wanting to illustrate history articles - that wouldn't be the original market role of 'news', but we would be breaching the current market role of 'history') are problematic unless the picture is iconic, oft-discussed as an image, and so on. The difference between this and, say, still shots from a Hollywood film or a book or album cover, is that the latter is only a small portion of the whole product, and doesn't infringe on sales of the original product (not sure about cases where an album cover gets sold separately as a poster). When people are in the business of taking photos and selling them, then fair use really has to be very firm and "educational" in my opinion. I've always said the best way forward is to make lists of examples of good practice. I'd be interested in restarting WP:NFCC8 and would be interested in your opinion there, and at this list. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oooh, interesting quote, any chance of a publicly available version of Godwin's words? MBisanz ^talk 03:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have missed some follow-up here. Do you have something more concrete about what Godwin said? I'd obviously be quite interested to see that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It was in one of the recent threads on foundation-L, as I recall, but I don't have it handy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything on the list archives of the last few months. I've asked Godwin for confirmation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

UPdate: going back until January, I can only find this [4], a thread you seem to have been active in yourself, but its tenor seems to be substantially different from what you reported. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Hello, Georgewilliamherbert, I'm so sorry to make your page filled with unnecessary bickering with some user. Your user page is for you and your visitors, but I was so upset at childish and unreasonable attacks by the user. I just wanted to say your block was thoughtful decision given the long tendentious edit warrings on Taekwondo. Unfortunately, such edit warring without full discussion happen once a week. So you gave all involved parties to have a cooling time to lower the heat. Anyway, keep up the good work.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Your Talk page needs archiving.

I don't know how to do it but I thought I'd just point out the obvious.--EchetusXe (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

QG and AGF

I have replied on my talk page. I do appreciate your concern and you were right - it was unwise of me to leave that "resolved" template. I just couldn't resist the temptation to be honest, so saying nothing would have been wiser, but being dishonest like QG is one thing I won't be. I see you are getting a taste of what others have endured for a long time. Deletions, refusal to answer legitimate questions (which is what I had mentioned on his talk page when this started, when I defended another user, and QG promptly deleted my comments), etc. Nothing new. If you were to run a RfCU you would be amazed and shocked. 'nuf said. -- Fyslee / talk 02:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize

I'm sorry. I was just having fun because I was bored. Noble12345 (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Block of CRAWFORDLONGROX (talk · contribs)

Is there more to the story of this block? On the face of it, the user seems to be the typical "test editor" who even reverted him/herself. Unblock request on his/her talk page. - auburnpilot talk 02:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Same question from me. This would normally be a circumstance where a user gets a {{test1}} warning, not a block, let alone an indef block. Mangojuice^talk 04:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

At the time I thought they were a sock of someone, but I went back and stared at the new account patterns for them and CRAWFORDLONGROX and they're not the same. I unblocked them and will comment on his/her talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's kind of what I suspected. In the future, you might want to use sockpuppetry as the block reason in a case like this, it would make things clearer both to other admins and to the user. Mangojuice^talk 13:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Melonbarmonster2 - edit warring - 3RR report

As the admin who previously blocked the above user for edit warring, I was hoping you could take a look at this 3RR report and take some action, decide no action is needed, or give a comment - either here, on the 3RR page, on the talk page of the article in question or on my talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Melonbarmonster2_reported_by_User:Sennen_goroshi_.28Result:_.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kimchi&action=history

thanks. Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Weapon Design

George, can you check out how I handled today's revisions to the article? I wanted to do it quickly, and I don't know all the ins and outs of reversions. There is stuff about it on the talk page. Thanks. HowardMorland (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hitler's Pope

George, thank you for your very courteous posting to my talk page regarding the BLP issue on the Hitler's Pope article. Let me tell you my perspective and maybe you can let me know what if anything I ought to do. From my perspective, you have a book, Hitler's Pope, which ascribes evil motives to Pius XII with regard to the Holocaust. Then, after authors like Ronald Rychlak point out to him myriad factual errors, mistranslations, ommissions and misinterpretations in his book he says that he can no longer judge the pontiff's motives. If words have their plain meanings this is recanting or retraction. First he says bad motives then he says I can't judge his motives. This doesn't appear to need a source, it's a recantation or a retraction on its face, at the very least in part (a very significant part). I don't think its OR either because it does not require any interpretation at all. The BLP issue seems kind of weak to me, too. Cornwell's words are plainly and unequivocally a recantation or retraction - I can't imagine that he, himself, would even object to such a term. I merely characterized his words for what they were. And to show how reasonable that characterization is and the fact that I was acting in good faith, you can see that at least two books have made this same characterization: Righteous Gentiles at p. xiii and The Myth of Hitler’s Pope p. 138. Also, his words were characterized the same way numerous other publications: the New York Sun, the Washington Times, Frontpage Magazine, Human Events, Seattle Catholic, National Review, Homiletic and Pastoral Review and First Things. Some of the individuals who have called Cornwell's statement recanting or retraction include professor of history and polical science Rabbi David Dalin, UCLA Law Professor Steven Bainbridge, writer and law professor Ronald Rychlak, and philosopher Michael Novak. If I am mistaken about BLP and OR policies with regard to this matter, so be it, but I was acting in good faith. I don't think my position was unreasonable considering these other characterizations of Cornwell's statement. I will post this same message on the admin board. If you have any other advice or comments, I would appreciate it. Thanks.Mamalujo (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Another copyright image uploader

Here. Some of them are clear copy-vios. D.M.N. (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Definte copy-vio that the uploader uploaded yesterday. D.M.N. (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Completely Justifiable Edit Summary

This edit summary you made on the Sarah Palin article (" Conforming to 'standards' set by the Obama trolls on the great senator's page." ) was uncivil and inappropriate for Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not the place to continue off-wiki disputes such as political arguments. We have a policy against soapboxing here. Please don't do that again, particularly not on high visibility articles. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh what utter rubbish. I'm trying to stop the soapboxing, not contribute to it. That's exactly what they've been doing all day long - or didn't you see that?

The remark 'since 1988' is deliberately meant to slander her - suggest she's been married before. The change was 'm. 1988' exactly as used on the Obama page.

We've been fighting off these trolls for HOURS today - WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?

And if you've somehow missed the fact the trolls have been attacking this page ALL DAY LONG - changing her photo to a Hulk Hogan collage, attempting to introduce 'MILF' sections, and so forth - then you need to get back on your prescription medicine before you hurt yourself.

Over and out.

FPAS RFC

As a participant in the recent discussion at WP:ANI, I thought you should be informed of the new RFC that another user has started regarding FPAS's behavior.

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Future Perfect at Sunrise

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Joe Ossanna - UNIX development team member

According to self-written biography by Dennis Ritchie, the leader of the UNIX development group, and published by the authority, Bell Labs, Joe Ossanna is listed as a bona fide group member responsible for programming as well as proposal development and document management development. Not including Joe Ossanna as a member of the team is in conflict with evidence from the author, the team itself, Bell Labs, and extensive technical and academic support. The Wikipedia listing for Joe Ossanna is incomplete, insubstantial as a reference for his UNIX involvement, and is inadequate in it's referral for support from Wikipedia (Suggest that Wikipedia staff should refrain from using references to itself for support!!!)

INDEPENDENT CITATION: "From the point of view of the group that was to be most involved in the beginnings of Unix (K. Thompson, Ritchie, M. D. McIlroy, J. F. Ossanna), the decline and fall of Multics had a directly felt effect. We were among the last Bell Laboratories holdouts actually working on Multics, so we still felt some sort of stake in its success." (Ritchie, 1984)

Ritchie, D. (1984) http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/hist.html

462 web references for: ("K. Thompson, Ritchie, M. D. McIlroy, J. F. Ossanna")

Plus, many many other supporting documentation in paper and electronic form all STATE that Joe Ossanna was a member of the UNIX development team with Dennis Ritchie, Ken Thompson, and Dog McIlroy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolfecat (talk • contribs) 14:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hong Kong Institute of Vocational Education

My apologies for my revert that reintroduced negative material. The edit is question my done by an anonymous user and removed a good deal of content without providing any explanation via his/her "edit summary." So naturally I assumed it was vandalism. My bad for not being more careful. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Carnatic music

• Carnatic music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The edit warrior is blocked, I guess protection may be unnecessary now. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Your warning

this edit to Talk:Sarah Palin which removed User:Macshill's comment was teetering on the edge of inappropriate discussion removals.

I agree that the claims are fringeist. But deleting any mention on the talk page without allowing legitimate discussion about their legitimacy is highly suspect.

There's a fine line between keeping fringeists and nutcases from overrunning Wikipedia and stomping down on necessary and constructive discussion, including on what the line is between mainstream alternate theory and fringe. This is a particularly sensitive subject and time - so the article needs extra care. But the talk page doesn't necessarily need that.

Please don't do that again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I was following the belief that calling for discussion of the fringe theory that flying while pregnant was endangering her child was trying to use the talk page as a discussion of the subject of the article, not a discussion of how to improve the article. Article talk pages are not to be used to discuss the subject, but rather to discuss collaboration. I stand behind my removal. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur - discussing if there are reliable sources commenting upon the rumour is one thing, requesting discussion of the rumour is another. I note that the editor had previously attempted to "place" this discussion on the article talkpage and was rebuffed, and if isn't trolling is certainly not paying attention to the last responses to the pursuit of the rumour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Giano

Can I point you to the comments here. Please address them promptly. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see this, but because you stated you had gone to bed I have reversed the block in line with the consensus that it was a mistake. Viridae^Talk 13:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you were incorrect in your asumption, the block was not contraversial at all, it was a unanimous decision to unblock. In fact, it has made you appear very foolish. I sincerely hope you are de-sysoped as an example to those other Admins who feel that not showing due deference to bad Admims is a reason to block. It is not. In my opinion, you are an awful Admin with more than questionable judgement. Giano (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be curious to know what specific diff triggered the block. I couldn't figure it out from the lengthy verbiage. I'd like to get some sense of who's more in the right on this (the majority could be wrong, ya know). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG

WP:RFAR, heading your way. Apparently I have to notify you. Moreschi (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Carnatic Music

I appreciate your appropriate timely warnings. I might have gone little over board in frustration to stop deletions in bad faith by Ncmvocalist who has repeatedly demonstrated ownership on the article. The reason I deleted or reverted without discussion was since Ncmvocalist was fully aware of discussions that originally led to the inclusion of the section Ugabhoga. To the best of my knowledge he was the only editor who had opposed its inclusion. At least 3 were involved in writing the section. Against guidelines he deleted the section before initiating RFC. In addition he approached you to lift the edit protection that would have helped the situation for a while. Naadapriya (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI- Copy of comment sent to LessHeard vanU

Ncmvocalist requested to block at 09:52, 1 September 2008 and blocking took place at 10:30, 1 September 2008 i.e just within 38 minutes. It was acknowledged that the comment I had placed to justify was not read. Given the complexity of situation I guess it would have required more than 38 minutes to make such big decision on blocking. My action before I was blocked was a normal edit to bring back a section that was deleted by Ncmvocalist in bad faith before initiating a RFC. All my other edits were to modify sections based some recent comments in RFC regarding quotes from RS.

I strongly consider my blocking is a result of unfortunate misleading information posted by Ncmvocalist. He has tried it several times in the past without success. In such failed attempts once I guess he himself got blocked. Somehow he succeeded this time. At this stage nothing I can do about my blocking. However, I would like to request Admns to make wikipedia allowed provision to bring back the section that Ncmvocalist has deleted before starting the RFC. It will bring back the article to a status at which Georgewilliamherbert wanted to edit protect for a while. Deleting valid NPOV section without discussion that too just before RFC is ignoring NPOV effort in good faith by many editors to include the section.

Section can be modified based on RFC conclusions.

Naadapriya (talk) 06:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No subject

Yea, I WAS TRYING TO STOP ANOTHER ARGUMENT LIKE THE SECTION ABOVE IT! LOOK AT IT NOW! I WAS RIGHT! HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 00:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Royce Mathew Issue

I'll just put in a repost ;)

An IP of the previous user Disneysuit, none other than Royce Mathew. He has been giving legal threats (he has surely sent one to Wikimedia Foundation) against me for asking him to abide by policies, concocting false claims against me. He has been blocked, several times, but he won't stop. I don't want to lose my position at Wikipedia as an experienced editor; the only reason this is happening is because he is not willing to accept that he isn't following policies! A little help would be greatly appreciated. The link I gave you for "Royce Mathew" above has the IP address he is using. Here is what he has written, and what he will probably send to Wikimedia Foundation against me: [5]. It has been deleted, but I'm not sure if he got the link the following commenter gave him against me. I don't mind a checking of my contributions, but I do not like it when someone is willing to take something so far as a legal threat and my possible blocking when all I've done is try to enforce the rules with both myself and others so as to make Wikipedia a better place! It has been weeks of harassment, and I should like to point out that I am a minor. Therefore, firstly, it is against the law. Secondly, it is against Wikipedia policy, and thirdly, it is just unfair. BlackPearl14^talkies!23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And I forgot to say, thank you so much for all your help! You and LessHeard are being very supportive. This guy is really just being rude. (I would do the ~~~~ tildes but my signature isn't working right now). BlackPearl14^talkies!23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

policies

First, the most important thing: as soon as more than one person registered opposition to my actions, I ceased and desisted from them. Moreover, I have stated that I will not act in that manner unless and until there has been adequate discussion by the community. In the meantime, I will defer to the judgement of the community even though it goes against my better judgment. I hope I have been sufficiently clear.

There is a second matter, which has to do with specific comments you made on my talk page. Tango faulted me, because according to him/her policy is descriptive and not prescriptive [6]. Now you fault me because policy is prescriptive and not descriptive [7]. I point out this contradiction between two people explaining their disagreement with my actions not to justify what I did nor to fault anyone else. But I do think that this inconsistency reveals that there is a huge greay area of unclarity and a need for a lot more discussion.

A final note, if it was not clear. I never claimed that creating new user pages violated any specific policy in any explicit way, I just said I consider it nonsensical creation of new pages that will have no effect and are not appropriate ways of dealing with the problem (yes, I know lots of people do not agree. But none of them have been able to point to a specific policy that requires creating new pages. And I never accused anyone of violating a specific policy. i did not bring policy into it, I just said I thought it was a bad idea).

The only times I mentioned policy were these: (1) when I explained to one user that my 15 minute block of an editor was to stop him/her temporarily from engaging in what I thought was disruptive behavior, and to call his/her attention to the message I left on his/her talk page so s/he could respond. Some people find it egregious that I would block a user for 15 minutes but I take very seriously our policy - whether descriptive or proscritive - that blocks are not punitive but meant to be part of some process of conflict resolution or reconciliation. (2) when one editor declared that WP policy demands that vandals be warned before being blocked; I quoted the policy that states that a warning is not required and exlained that in my view a random anonymous user working from a shared computer making only silly or obscene edits does not need to be warned. I do not see how it matters whether policy is prescriptive or descriptive in this matter.

i hope you do not think i am being defensive or argumentative. If so please just reread my first comment -I am very sincere about what I wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Block on User:Thewikiqediarollbacker

Re your message: You asked, I replied. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

re Kaihsu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reported to ANI

Would you mind if you changed the header to use the {{admin|Kaihsu}} template as above for quicker review. I will use this page to take a look at the rights, and logs. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why

Why is that only I get accused for the actions that i had not done. Here I am the one who is being deliberately accused, ridiculed. What have I done. Tried to explain that the Arjun page is vandalized. Anyway thanks a lot for that.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Clean Coal

Hi George,

Could you please take a look at the clean coal technology page? It is heavily biased in POV, and I can see that this is going to become an issue as my edits (to restore neutral POV) have already been reverted several times. Please look at the main page and the discussion page.

I think that Wikipedia needs to figure out a better way of blocking abusive edits/editors. In this case, it seems as though a few very biased editors (with one primary editor), are basically reverting any page edits (from any authors) which restore a neutral POV. Rather than work to consensus language, many of them just revert first and then expect everyone to bring it to the discussion page (where they think it will just die).

Anyway, the discussion page covers some of this, and you can also look at the history.CrimsonSage (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Death threat by IP

Hi,

Per the ANI thread Contact has been made and maintained with the educaiton institution, they are co-operating fully and are being reasonably transparent. Thanks for giving me insight into motive as im sure they will ask. Hopefully we can sort this WP:TROLL / WP:DICK out for you. Any other threats, insults or related IP's would be useful.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn â„¢|l»  (talk) 00:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There have been related incidents on-wiki here (look back at IP edits to my talk page here since early August), on Commons and Meta, on Wikia Traveller and Pirates wikis on my user talk pages ( [8] [9] )

IPs involved recently have included 68.199.133.47, 72.72.31.99. It's likely that this involves the Wikzilla (talk Â· contribs Â· deleted contribs Â· page moves Â· block user Â· block log Â· rfcu) sockpuppeteer - Harrassment started once I rangeblocked a bunch of IP ranges in NYC related to this guy. There's another kook out there who's threatened me (related to the Naius (talk Â· contribs Â· deleted contribs Â· page moves Â· block user Â· block log) blocks) but they're west coast, I think. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You really are out of control Georgie. Other than calling you what you are ugly (pictures don't lie), arrogant, and arbitrary, you have never been threatened, only harassed (deservedly) by Wikzilla. I mean any moron who goes ahead and range blocks several million people really cannot be all that smart. Go ahead, range block again. Do you really think you stopped her the first time? All you did was piss off thousands of potential contributors.162.84.182.50 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC).

Block this one too George.70.18.10.198 (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about George, but I always get upset when I get verbal shots from nobodies. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Civility

Hi there. I recently quoted you at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Discussion of civility at recent Request for Arbitration. Would you have time to check that I haven't misrepresented what you said? There are several other threads on that talk page that you might be interested in as well, and a proposal to rewrite the policy. For the whole recent story, read downwards from Wikipedia talk:Civility#A Big Question: Does this page make sense?. This will need to be advertised more widely to get more balanced input, but for now I'm notifying those I quoted from the RfArb, and a few other editors who have either written essays on this, or have been active on the talk page recently. Apologies if you had this watchlisted anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 06:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Easynet

Ah, I see what happened. On the block date (August 18), I made a report to the village pump about malfunctioning open proxy blocks (link). I saw cases where IPs edited despite a rangeblock; for example, 208.109.19.19 (talk · contribs) edited despite 208.109.0.0/16 showing no unblocks. I wanted to be sure there were no other malfunctioning rangeblocks and the only way I could do this was to block the range again. So, I went through User:Spellcast/proxies and tried blocking the ranges for the same duration the previous admin did. (There were five other unworking blocks including Easynet's 82.110.0.0/16).[10], [11], [12], [13], [14] Unfortunately, I assumed the previous admin blocked on the basis that the range was a hosting service, not an ISP. I didn't intend to block an ISP as an open proxy source—only hosting services—and it turns out Easynet is both.

Unless a hosting company is also an ISP (it usually isn't), no-one should be able to use their IPs to edit unless it's from an exploited or misconfigured server (hence Template:OpenProxyBlock). It's not unusual for large hosting ranges to host many open proxies. As for the other blocks, when I see an unblocked web anonymizer, I gets its range from whois and use this gadget to examine all IPs that edited. If you look at the contribs of many of the ranges in that subpage, a large proportion were blocked directly as open proxies. For the ones that weren't, you can tell they were open at the time of editing because of things like spamming, vandalism, harassment, and block evasion by sockpuppets. Spellcast (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

hi.

where you the guy who send a message about the nuclear editing,the pakistan nuclear does not have ~60 nuclear wepons,its got 200-250 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deviljin60 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation request for NZ inclusion on GDS' article

In order to solve the revert war on GDS article over the inclusion of the banning from New Zealand, I have opened a request for formal mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Giovanni Di Stefano. Please participate on the discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you issue instant warnings

On what basis are those warnings issued. Did you check the talk page of Jauerback or you just believed his version in my talk page and issued the warning. Is that not necessary to check, and understand whether any word used is a personal attack or not before issuing any warning. I seek an apology from you and want the warning in my talk page reverted. This kind of instant warning by an Admin without any reason is unacceptable. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

look im not a terorist.im a 10 year old kid.i just made an acount to change the nuclear page thing.I made it because i dont feel as if pakistan has 50 nukes.And im form pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deviljin60 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

VS and GP warnings

Please see my response at ANI and on VS's talk page. I think you have not checked the history of Gene Poole's talk page. If so you would have found warnings that had been reverted by Gene Poole such as this one Regards --Matilda ^talk 05:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Retirement of Baseball Bugs

George, regarding my proposed retirement, I am still wrestling with the agonizing decision pertaining to my possible retirement. I recently had a session with my priest about it. I will let you know when my decision is final. Do you have any advice or suggestions in this regard? (Note that these comments were first posted on Monday, September 22nd, but were instantly obliterated by some wiseguy!) I notified Wknight94, Ebyabe, and No Guru about my possible retirement. I am also trying to figure out what research projects and articles to concentrateon prior to retirement. If you have any useful suggestions, please let me know. Happy holidays to your Jewish friends. I hope that we all meet someday in Heaven. Sincerely, Baseball Bugs (nee Wahkeenah) --Baseball BugsX (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The above is another User:Ron liebman sock, at least the second one today. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A user

I'll give you credit for trying. Thanks, Grsz^X 20:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding NEC ExpressCluster article

Hi George, I just saw that you moved the link of NEC ExpressCluster on high-availability cluster page from "common clusters" to "other clusters" section. You wrote in your edit comment that ExpressCluster do not hold a significant market share, but its not true. May I kindly inform you that ExpressCluster is a leading enterprise software in Japanese HA market and is positioned in top 10 worldwide. In case you need the evidence for these claims, kindly feel free to contact me on my personal id - reo_7th@hotmail.co.jp , I will be glad to provide the required documents. May I kindly request you to move the link to "common cluster" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauravd05 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding MAPM's use of an OTRS ticket for his uploads

Hi George, I noticed you have marked several images uploaded by MAPM for what I assume is a fraudulent piggybacking on a OTRS ticket submitted by Sagredo (of Image:Jennifer Hudson.png. However, I think you have missed out Image:Millyquezada.jpeg and Image:Karempageant.jpeg also uploaded by MAPM. My apologies if they are truly covered by the ticket. Jappalang (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI threads

When opening an ANI thread on an user, you should warn the user of the existence of the thread on their talk page. I already left a notice to Ramu50. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding NEC ExpressCluster Link- Common Cluster

Hi George,

I appericiate and understand that ExpressCluster is certainly not a leading product in the US. But having said that I would like you inform you again that ExpressCluster (Sold as ClusterPRO in Japan please refer to http://www.nec.co.jp/press/en/0310/1401.html#chu1 for confirmation) has considerable market share in Japan. Please refer to http://www.nec.co.jp/press/ja/0802/0101.html (unfortunately its in Japanese.. You may have to use google translate).

To address your specific concern about US presense, I would also like to inform you that ExpressCluster has also won the prestegious CeBit award as early as 2004. Please refer to http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-389457/Best-of-CeBIT-America-Award.html for confirmation.

I have more information/documents to support my claim by leading and trusted analyst firms but due to confidentiality issues I cannot mention it publically. I shall be more that happy to share the documents via email. You can reach me at reo_7th@hotmail.co.jp .

Looking forward to your response

Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.32.8.230 (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Navy destroyer, U.S.S. Eldridge

    Hi George,
             My name is Stephen, i live in tamwroth 

just outside of birmingham. i have recently found out about this turly great story. about this ship being charged by an electronicaly charged magnet, which in-turn made it dissapear and then land'd in a totaly differnt place in the world. now this story sounds mad, however, to be frank, sounds to weird to be true, but insane enough for the U.S millitary to try such a thing in such desprate time during the war. if you are willing to talk with me about the story i will be checking my e-mail most wednesday and friday nights,

my e-mail address is ste_770@hotmail.com i look foward 

to hearing from you soon.

        Thank you for your time in taken to read this.
     Stephen George Palmer, 19, Tamworth  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.159.194 (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC) 

Regarding NEC ExpressCluster Link

Hi George,

I droped a message on your talk page yesterday. I wasn not logged in at that time, so you might not be able to track who posted that message. I am again posting the same message, so that you can reply back on my talk page. I appologies for repeated post.

I appericiate your earlier response on my talk page. I understand that ExpressCluster is certainly not a leading product in the US. But having said that I would like you inform you again that ExpressCluster (Sold as ClusterPRO in Japan please refer to http://www.nec.co.jp/press/en/0310/1401.html#chu1 for confirmation) has considerable market share in Japan. Please refer to http://www.nec.co.jp/press/ja/0802/0101.html (unfortunately its in Japanese.. You may have to use google translate).

To address your specific concern about US presense, I would also like to inform you that ExpressCluster has also won the prestegious CeBit award as early as 2004. Please refer to http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-389457/Best-of-CeBIT-America-Award.html for confirmation.

Just for your reference, following is the link to ClusterPro (ExpressCluster) page on Japanese Wikipedia, kindly translate it to english using any online translation tool. Link - http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLUSTERPRO

I have more information/documents to support my claim by leading and trusted analyst firms but due to confidentiality issues I cannot mention it publically. I shall be more that happy to share the documents via email. You can reach me at reo_7th@hotmail.co.jp .

Looking forward to your response

Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauravd05 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't know it was their comment.

It's taking me about two minutes to do anything here; no harm, no foul. HalfShadow 02:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep. No harm, no foul. Have a better one... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding NEC ExpressCluster Link

Hi George,

I hope you are doing good. Can you kindly respond to my earlier post on your talk page. I provided you some reliable links to let you know about the market position of ExpressCluster. Can you kindly proide me your viewpoint on the same. Do you think now that we can move the ExpressCluster link on High-availability cluster page from "Other clusters" section to "Common clusters" section.

Looking forward to your response on my talk page. --Gauravd05 (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The information you presented is marketing information, not technical comparisons by independent reviewers or independent or audited sales or installation count numbers. Again - please provide some reliable information which verifies the popularity of this product. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Catching Up

Hi George,

I trust you havnt recieved any more threats? If you have please let me know. Nice rapsheet by the way ;)   «l| Ψrometheăn â„¢|l»  (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

Show me my incivility.

This has all been one giant snowball, built up from a misunderstanding.Gabr-el 22:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

And I have already addressed a separate issue with LOTR, and issued an apology to him. Gabr-el 22:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits 1,,5,7 and 8 was a little too far on my part, but if someone is going to accuse me, they should look at all the evidence rather than anger other users.

Edits 2 and 4 have already been accounted for at the notice board

Edits 3 is an angrier version of edits 2 and 4, in response to User:AramaenSyriac's persistent reverting. I apologize for the tone here

Edits 6 - I called the editors there fools, The Triz and User:Aramaen Syriac. Apologies for that. As for the rest of the matter, it was more of a debate about the Assyrian People.

Gabr-el 22:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I replied on the notice board. Gabr-el 06:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate them. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

K5 pistol

If you go to S&T Daewoo, or watch ADD documentary "한국무기 개발사", there is "zero" comment on DP51 but K5. South Korea launched K5 program due to necessity of replacing old M1911A1. I can't find good references now, but "civilian version of K5" or "exported version of K5" is called DP51.

Is your reference from Janes? That book has bunch of wrong informations for Korean arms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadrun (talk • contribs) 00:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Irpen

[15] Exactly what are you referring to here? I do not see any personal attacks in Irpen's posts of the past 24 hours; in fact, the majority of them have been on an RFAR, which has clerks and arbitrators crawling all over it, supposedly to keep things civil. Please provide diff(s) on his page, identifying exactly what edit(s) you find concerning, and explaining your reasoning. Thanks. Risker (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The WP:ANI thread: WP:ANI#Request for intervention. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

So, better than a day later, and with dozens of other admins having viewed that thread as a tempest in a teapot, you warned one of the number of editors involved in it? Seems disproportionate and untimely to me. Risker (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Your puzzling message

I waited after your post before taking this up with you for two reasons. First, your post at my talk seemed to me very inappropriate and I avoid taking any actions when I am annoyed to avoid saying things that would escalate the problems. Secondly, I noticed that you seemed to have gone off-line and figured that you might come back to me with more conciliatory tone or questions (if you have any) when you are back. But since you seem to have moved on to other issues leaving me without either an explanation or an apology, I would like to try to clear this up between us.

Please explain how and what is supposed to be an attack in my post and especially "harassment". I have read WP:CIVIL several times, and I do not see what you are talking about, especially in terms of making a threat to block. I can tell that you are quite angry, but I cannot tell anything else from what you've said. --Irpen 03:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Please review your own conduct in WP:ANI#Request for intervention as I noted in the subsection immediately above.

You jumped into the middle of a dispute on a particular point in which you were not involved and had not been named, and accused Piotrus of stalking you and violating WP:BATTLE. Two other admins reviewing the situation agreed that you had improperly and inaccurately made those accusations, and you have not apologized or withdrawn the claims.

If you feel that this was acceptable conduct or in line with WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL then you are wrong.

This was only the latest in a long string of incidents related to the Arbcom case and its underlying disputes. You and others have been pushing too far past the bounds of reasonable civil discourse. It's not ok. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Who are these two other admins, and where are their posts? The only admin I see commenting about anyone's behaviour is Moreschi, and he does not include Irpen in his comments. Risker (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I sit corrected - they're not admins. But the people I was referring to are Digiwuren and Folantin. Again - see the ANI thread. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not an admin. I merely pointed out that, given the chronology, Irpen's statement "Piotrus, I sort of wondered who will pop up here immediately after my post. I guessed right" (implying Piotrus was stalking him) had no factual basis. I presume Irpen made this mistake because he was unaware that Piotrus had already filed a complaint about the defamation on the Arbitration Enforcement board at 17.36 UTC [16], i.e. almost two and a half hours before Irpen took any part in the ANI thread. At 20.06 UTC Admin Tznkai specifically told Piotrus to "take up the issue at the appropriate ANI thread", which he did at 20.34 UTC. Piotrus was merely following admin instructions in the pursuit of his complaint (one I regard as perfectly valid). --Folantin (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Folantin. You did nothing wrong by pointing to what you knew and I seemed to have missed. Your post was totally appropriate and I don't have a problem with it.

Georgewilliamherbert, could you please answer my question yourself instead of passing the buck? You have to explain your own actions and threats clearly. In you message at my talk page you bluntly accused me of making "personal attacks" and "abusing and harassing other editors" to the extent that you resorted to block threats. When asked, you repeatedly refused to elaborate but referred to others (wrongly as we see above.) I repeat my request that you be more specific. Blocks are a very serious matter. Block threats and accusations of harassment is not something to be spread around without reason or explanation, especially in view of your having a persistent problem with rash admin actions on which community already spoke. Vague threats are not acceptable admin conduct. Not so long ago you were called to order already for things like blocking for imaginary provocations and unwilling to apologize, even after the RfAr started. So, one more time, please explain yourself clearly. --Irpen 19:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for an answer. --Irpen 00:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I listed the specific page and topic thread that you edited abusively in above, some days ago. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In what way were my edits "abusive"? You came to me with block threats and you must be able to elaborate when asked. --Irpen 22:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The specific problems I had are listed above. Please re-read above and review the archived ANI section if you have any questions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I reread it first thing and now did it again. I see no personal attacks. If you see them, please elaborate. --Irpen 22:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You overtly accused Piotrus of bad faith, wikistalking, and violations of WP:BATTLE [17]. You failed all of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Again - This is not even vaguely Ok behavior, and if you think it was, you're out of line. Don't do it again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, NPA, CIV and AGF. Let's go from there. I am glad that you do not repeat the accusation of "HARASSMENT" that you originally included too in your list of offenses [18]. So, I take it as withdrawal on your end (please correct me if I am wrong.) As for the others, perhaps you need to reread yourself the policies you cite especially if you resort to block threats. You should start with WP:BLOCK and then proceed to AGF, CIV and NPA because wherever you invoke any of the latter three (or any other policy), you should always be specific when you are threatening people with blocks for their alleged violations.

Now, since you again answer only vaguely and avoid specifics, I will lay it out for you myself. Perhaps, it would help us both understand each other better. The course of events was as follows (if you disagree with the outline below, please point specifically to any discrepancy.)

• Kuban kazak was accused of stalking by Hillock [19] [20]
• In his response Kuban kazak defied the accusations and cited Piotrus as a counterexample, saying that "Unlike Piotrus, I don't..." [21]

This (invoking Piotrus out of the blue) was, in my opinion, a completely unnecessary escalation of conflict by Kuban (regardless on whether this is true) but Piotrus did his best to escalate this further.

• He did not even try to contact an editor asking him to withdraw or clarify. He immediately ran blockshopping to AE [22]
• Having been rebuffed there [23] he ran to ANI and invoked an extremely strong accusation of no less than SLANDER [24].

Now, despite Kuban was wrong to invoke Piotrus in the thread to which Piotrus had no relation, Piotrus' resorting to unjustifiably strong terms (there is a difference between something being simply out of place and something qualifying as SLANDER) was clearly uncalled for, especially since the accusation of SLANDER was completely unjustified. Seeing this I posted this comment [25] that said two things.

1. Bringing in the name of Piotrus, who has not related to the said conflict, was unhelpful on behalf of Kuban. I explained that "bringing up any names here was not useful"
2. The other thing I said was that despite Piotrus' is simply out of place in that discussion and Kuban has no reason to invoke him, Piotrus' further escalation by invoking a completely uncalled for accusation of SLANDER was uncalled for either. I also cited this link to avoid any ambiguities.

Now, once again, where are "personal attacks", "assumptions" of anything and block-worthy "incivility" in my post? --Irpen 03:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but:

1. My talk page is not the right place to re-argue the whole history of those events, and
2. You are still wilfully ignoring your own actions on that ANI thread, which I have cited several times.

As you stopped the problem behavior there was no need for further warning or discussion, and as you noticed I had not further warned you. However, you are now coming to my talk page and apparently attempting to re-start a fight, now with me.

This behavior is bizarre and pointless. Stop trying to pick a fight with me or draw me into your other fight. Starting another abuse incident complaining about your being warned in a prior one is not sensible or sane.

I named the specific behavior which I warned you over, as requested. Feel free to seek uninvolved third party review of that behavior if you reject my assertion that it was abusive. But I strongly suspect that you will find that others also feel it was abusive and policy violating.

I don't want to argue with you any more - all you're doing is working yourself up and getting less reasonable in this discussion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• I dare say, you don't want to argue any more, but if an Admin threatens to block, he should be prepared to explain himself rather than be evasive, as you have been. It seems to me that you have been exceedingly uncivil to Irpen - ordering him to "go away" is quite frankly not good enough. If you are not prepared to put your money where your mouth is and block him for whatever offence you feel he has committed, then at least keep that mouth polite when you realise the errors of your ways, even if you cannot bring yourself to admit it. Especially, as you have no hesitation in reprimanding Irpen for "incivility." You have a history of bad blocks, perhaps it is time you handed in your tools, or if you feel them too important to you, then at least learnt to behave in a more prudent fashion. Giano (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano, I listed the specific issues above repeatedly on request. Irpen has gone beyond reasonable inquiry into the nature of the problem into repetitive pointless badgering. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's incredible, GWH. You rudely intrude into my talk with threats to block on bogus allegations; you are told by many editors that you are out of line and still persist with this nonsense and add insult to an injury by your patronizing and self-righteous attitude. Taking into account your own history of poor judgment when it goes to blocks and having narrowly avoided the ArbCom for rash blocks recently this is indeed alarming. I can see that you are among those people for whom it is hard to admit to mistakes and I am not going to make your attitude change my prime concern. But hopefully, even without having a bone to publicly admit your being wrong you got the message and will avoid unwarranted threats and arrogant attitude to the editors who showed the commitment and dedication to this project of no less than yourself. Having extra buttons does not give you any right to treat editors that way. Hopefully, we won't have to go through this again in the future. Happy edits. --Irpen 19:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Bren Ten Trivia

George, you should be aware, trivia inclusion is a slippery slope for the fanboi crowds that lurk, waiting to pounce and flood our pages with popular culture references. I wouldn't say it's more notable than the P90 on StarGate.. Koalorka (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Election

Hi. This is your friend Ken (Baseball Bugs). I just want to set the record straight regarding the Presidential Election, which is only 2 days away. I am not a reactionary Republican or a bigot. I am voting for Barach Obama (originally posted on my talk page on 10/27/2008). In fact, I am a moderate progressive Democrat. With the World Series over (finally!), I will re-visit my proposed retirement plans after the Presidential Election. Cordially yours, Baseball Bugs (a/k/a Ken and Wahkeenah). Note that this is not a sockpuppet entry. (This item was restored to the internet on 11/2/2008 courtesy of Diane King) (UTC) --Diane King (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The above is from one of the endless sockpuppets of the banned User:Ron liebman. He won't rest until he's run me off wikipedia. Hence he's not getting much sleep. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Rtally sockpuppet evading block

You should take a look at Rtally4 (talk · contribs), another sockpuppet created by rtally3 to evade the block you imposed for creating sockpuppets and using them to edit war and to forge phony consensus. I warned Rtally4 (2nd paragraph of edit) that continuing to post while blocked was inappropriate, and yet he continues to post. csloat (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Rtally3 may have another sock

I hate to keep telling on this guy but it is getting ridiculous -- another single purpose account apparently created only to edit war on the William Timmons page -- Kianclla (talk · contribs). csloat (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And now he appears to be using another anonymous IP (one that has been used for vandalism in the past) -- 158.59.27.249 (talk · contribs). It might help to have partial protection on the William Timmons page so that only registered users may edit it. csloat (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet another one, edit warring on the same article, also from the DC metro area. Can you please do something about this or should I go back to AN/I? 69.137.227.167 (talk · contribs) is the problem account this time. It would really help to semi-protect the page; I will ask for that on RPP. Thanks. csloat (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add, it is pretty clear that this IP address is Rtally3; earlier he posted from this ip address and then logged in as Rtally3 to sign a post: this diff of Rtally3 signing the post by 69.137.227.167 confirms that he is continuing to violate the rules, edit warring on the page using anon ip sockpuppets. I think the block should probably be extended, the Kiancilla sockpuppet account blocked, and I've asked on RPP for partial page protection for that page. Thanks. csloat (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Slap on the writs

George - but I have not done a single revert! I added one tag, and not restored it. What less could I've done?? PS. I do resent the "let's treat all equal" when they are not. Boody has broken 1RR, Poeticbent is not under any restrictions and did two reverts, not approaching 3RR, I have not done a single revert, but "we are all equal"? Are you sure? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought you'd been participating in the active back and forth as well, but on closer examination you only edited once past the point that it started, and that edit was just harmlessly adding a wikilink. So my bad, you're right, I will note so on ANI. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. It is very important to me.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

yet another rtally3 sockpuppet

Another single purpose account appears to argue aggressively on the William Timmons talk page as his first edit. This guy is determined, that's for sure. Based on the writing style of his comment (and the fact that his first edit is this aggressive argument filled with cheap accusations) suggests yet another sockpuppet. csloat (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Darko Trifunović

I noticed you recently indefinitely semi-protected Darko Trifunović. I've had a look at the IP addresses hitting the article and talk page, and they seem to be open proxies in various places (China especially), so I'm guessing it's just a single person hopping from proxy to proxy. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Operation Crossroads

George,

I have solved the riddle of the Arkansas to my satisfaction, with the help of half a dozen old books from the Library of Congress, and an online video. Here is my work in progress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HowardMorland/Sandbox It should be ready by Monday. HowardMorland (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any thoughts about the discussion at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Display_of_.gif_images_in_Wikipedia_articles? HowardMorland (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw your note on my talk page and looked at the commons discussion. It looks from the discussion like the problem may be temporary, but it might make sense to switch to SVG anyways.

What tools are you using now? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(In conducting a conversation like this, I am never sure which talk page to use. This is a echo of what is on my talk page.)

My entire graphics toolbox is four programs: mspaint that comes with Vista, ArcSoft Photo Studio that came with an old IBM scanner, Adobe Reader 8 which I use to make screen captures for manipulation in mspaint, and IrfanView. Paint and Irfan will convert files to .png, but Photo Studio has to work in .bmp, .gif., or .jpg and a few others (not .png). None of my programs can even open .svg files.

I can convert all my .gif files on Wikimedia to .png files and upload them under a .png filename, then change any Wikipedia articles that use them.

Last year I spent a week trying to learn Inkscape, but I never got beyond making a simple circle. HowardMorland (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Election Aftermath

Hi, George. This is Ken (Baseball Bugs). I was jubilant about the Presidential Election. As earlier noted, I am a "moderate progressive Demo9crat." It helped drown my sorrow about the Cubs. I was even able to forget about Ron Liebman & Company for a while. I may postpone my retirement awhile just to spite him. Thank you for your advice earlier. Happy holidays - Baseball Bugs (11/18/2008) --The Baseball Buggs (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet another Liebman sock. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Was in the process of blocking when you dropped off your note...

One of these days they'll give up and go away. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Or one of these years. I think his second anniversary is approaching. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

I have reverted you on my page. If you want to talk about civility tell it to Gerard. Some people (myslelf included) feel violation of privacy and blocking is pretty incivil. I suggest you get your priorities sorted, and remember good behaviour is formed by example, and example is lead from the top not the bottom. So put the Admin house in order first, then begin to lecture me. Giano (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ouch

Now who's the one causing trouble...? --Deskana (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw, and his comment above.

He either will get it eventually or he won't...

I'd prefer if he got it. I hope he eventually gets it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding userboxes

Ramu50 is not a Wikipedia administrator and not familiar with WP userbox policy. There's no requirement as he claims. Don't worry about it. Have a happy thanksgiving... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both Ramu50 and Georgewilliamherbert

Hi everyone,
thanks for contributing to wikipedia!
Sometimes it can be stressful to deal with people that do their best to keep this wonderful project working.
No probs.
Have a nice day.
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

So I came over from AN/I and was like HOLY SHIT AWESOME BEARD. Just noting my gratitude. — neuro^(talk) 18:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

OLPC updates

Hello George,

I'm trying to update the OLPC page with the latest information to make it a really good article and get it to FA status; are you interested in working on this in the coming week or so?

+sj + 20:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This week is horrible - major service shift tomorrow, presentation tomorrow night, all-day webex session Friday, conference Sunday through Wednesday.

If there's still work to be done when I'm done with the conference and have recovered from it all, sure. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Crossroads

Thanks, I'll interpret that Bravo as 15 Megatons of congratulations. HowardMorland (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Article collaboration proposal at WikiProject Space Colonization

Hi, I've put together a proposal for an article collaboration of the week at WikiProject Space Colonization. I would appreciate if you could take a look and let me know if you're interested in participating. Wronkiew (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI case (70.79.65.227/Ramu50)

Hello, Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2009. 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. You can find the specific section here.

To clarify, you are not the subject of the ANI, but you have been previously involved in or have commented on this or a related ANI. Thank you for your time. Jeh (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the closure. Not a happy thing for anyone to have to do. I'm glad so many other admins and others chimed in. Jeh (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal

Fair play for assuming good faith, but I'm afraid you've been played for a patsy (been there myself, always a bummer). Send email if you want chapter and verse including CheckUser input. Cheers, Guy (Help!) 18:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Ricky81682 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy holidays! Ricky81682 (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User:MAPM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you please unblock this user with make useful contributions with good faith.

arbcom statement

We haven't always agreed. But you just hit the nail on the head. Whatever side one is on in the Giano fisaco, it is Newyorkbrad style prevarication that is cause this mess to perpetuate.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• GWH has about as much chance of hitting the nail on the head as a blind man without a hammer. RMHED (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• 'That was extremely uncivil RMHED. Please do not be rude to George. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is every name here familiar to me and fighting against every other one. Ugh. RHMED: Your reversion of the premature David Gerard AFD closure was a good, gutsy move to make. Don't lower of my estimation of you by engaging in mindless personal attacks. And it's interesting to see Spartaz here. --Cyde Weys 03:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

My bad

Sorry for snapping at you on Spartaz's talk page like that. What I was originally trying to do was de-escalate the situation, and I thought we had at least partially achieved that, especially after he removed his statement, but then you came in with the unnecessary civility warning. As you pointed out, two people had already said things. The "formal warning" (with all the ugliness that entails) wasn't necessary. But I guess I kind of failed at de-escalating things, as I did lose my cool. --Cyde Weys 02:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Arjun MBT

Since you are the one who blocks me with/without valid reason, I welcome you to correct the Arjun MBT page starting with Summer 2006 section. Please visit the talk page. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

User: The TriZ

I have read some of your posts before and I know you are not an expert on the Assyrian People, however I do know you are a expert on civility. This User: The TriZ continues to put down other users who disagree with his views, he calls them naive, childlish, stupid, biased, mentally disturbed, propaganders, he rejects all views that conflict with his even when proven wrong despite the hundreds of sources we throw at him wihtout providing any sources of his own. I ask that you only engage in this discussion on the civility of the article, because this user is counterproductive. He disrespects others and puts them down because it does not match his viewpoint and he doesnt provide any sources to back up his claims. Read some of his posts here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADbachmann&diff=254561730&oldid=254539077 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=254865500#Disruptive_editing_and_personal_attack_by_possible_sock_User:130.17.92.17 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac_people#Move_to_Assyrian_people this is only a small piece in what this user is doing towards others, here is another example I humbly ask you to overlook or wiki discipline this users abrupt behavior towards other users he or she caustically mocks and puts down. I ask if you can read the current disccussion on the last link regarding the way this user is mocking everyone else, I know you dont have a knowledge on the issue but just be civility manager and please wiki disipline this user —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.97.157 (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hope 2009 is a great year for you!--MONGO 15:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue.Professor marginalia (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

More Darko Trifunović problems

Given your previous involvement with the Darko Trifunović article, which you indefinitely semi-protected last year against repeated abusive anonymous editing, I thought you might want to have a look at the comments I've just posted at WP:BLPN#Persistent BLP problems on Darko Trifunović. Your views would be appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Report on Problem Editors

Message to Fellow-Administrators: Just a reminder to send in the reports on the problem editors (including vandals and sockpuppeteers) by the end of January. Thanking you. --George (talk) (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Note to the REAL George: The above, along with another similarly named sockpuppet of the banned User:Ron liebman, have been blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Sports Development Foundation Scotland

George

First, thanks very much for unblocking me. Happy New Year Secondly, I give permission for things to be lifted from the Sports Development Foundation Scotland website. Thirdly, Can you please undelete the Wikipedia page for The Sports Development Foundation Scotland as it is well written and accurate. Fourthly, I will endeavour to improve my contributions. Feel I am still learning.

George, I tried to contact Nancy to tell her(I take it) what my position was and that the article was correct however being block I could not contact her.

As for the Also See subsection I tried to link the charity too. They were all in Scottish Sport and relevant to the charity's objectives and SDFS may well be able to help them. It was a form of marketing but also relevant to each of the Scottish sports organisation I tried to contact.

I was cutting and pasting the original article back in and have used this article in various bloggs because it was very relevant but the article first appeared on Wikipedia.

I would also say that the Wikipedia pages for giving copyright could be simplified so that I could have given copyright to Wikipedia in a more straightforward way. Such as a one click button to transfer rights. This would have been much easier to follow. I would also like to point out that I understand why the image would have to be deleted but I don't know why you would have to delete the full text page?

Fifthy, I have tried to submit the article below on the Dyslexia page under the sub section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexia#Legal_and_educational_support_issues however the part of the article keeps being deleted can you tell me why? Maybe it is something I am not doing for future reference. The article I am trying to submit is:

In Scotland, David Ballantine a member of the cross party group on dyslexia put forward a petition through the Scottish Parliament Petitions Website. The petition called:

"On the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider the need for legislation to provide a standardised assessment of all schoolchildren by the age of 8 which will inform parents, pupils and educators as to whether the pupil is at risk of developing a specific learning difficulty."

The petition was contrary to the other view that children should not be identified with dyslexia as it was felt that a significant proportion of these children who were dyslexic and not identified did not have appropriate learning strategies in place and that it was the right of the child to know if they had a learning difficulty that would inhibit their education.

The petition runs till the 20th February 2009 and was accepting signatures from all over the world. Scottish Parliament Petitions Website

If you can't undelete the sports development foundation scotland page can I copy this article from another source and put it back on the wikipedia page. Finally, did you mean properely referenced when you said, "keeping contributions encyclopedic" if it is please let me know and any recommendations for reading and I will read it on wikipedia or else where for propere citations however there was very few changes on the Sports Development Foundation Scotland page?

Thanks again, George and I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours truly

David Ballantine David Ballantine (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

George, further to this can you take a look at my reply to David's request to restore the article and his subsequent response. I am now not sure what has and has not been released via the OTRS communication and unclear as to whether it is OK for David to just make on-wiki statements to release text which is marked as copyright to another organisation i.e. has the original source been confirmed and released? If the copyright issues are resolved by what has taken place over the last 24 hours then I would be more than happy to restore but only in to David's userspace as it needs work before it goes in to mainspace e.g. removal of the request for donations etc. Thanks in advance, Nancy ^talk 13:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(butting in) No. His assurances are not sufficient. He'd need to e-mail OTRS using some form of official e-mail so they could certify the permission. But more than that, "giving permission for wikipedia" isn't enough. The text would have to be released under the GFDL so that it could be edited by anyone and republished by anyone. The website using it currently would have to remove its copyright assertion. Even having done all that, there's still the problem that people who use "their text" from their websites, often then show ownership problems "you can't edit this, it's the authorised version". So it is generally better to discourage people from using text from websites. If the subject is notable, then the wikipedia community should write the article - if it isn't worth doing that, it isn't worth doing.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Scott. I'm unfugged now! In the meantime I've been trying to encourage David to just start afresh in his own words as the organisation appears notable but the text he wants to release has issues beyond the copyright and I've also cautioned him to be aware of his COI. Thanks again, Nancy ^talk 14:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Right thanks for the clarity I will re-write it if someone will check it. I appreciate the advice Nancy, Scott and George. David Ballantine (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify a bit - what David sent to OTRS verified who he is, his relationship to the organization, his authority to release organization information under GFDL and/or CC, and a specific release of the logo image under GFDL and CC.

In terms of the other info, given that we have verified who he is and his relationship with the organization and his authority to release organizational information, I can (and later will) verify in the discussions related above that he should be ok to do so here. However, COI and OWN and encyclopedic concerns still apply, of course. It looks like everyone's coming to agreement on this, which is good. Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Skoojal

I recently ran into some edits by an anonymous user who was flagged as possibly being User:Skoojal. What was Skoojal known for? Spotfixer (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

g-force article issue

I'm having big problems with a user multiply reverting my referenced edit in [g-force] see: [26]. He doesn't seem to be reading the source correctly.

Please could you in your non admin capacity verify that I'm quoting the source correctly? Many thanks-

p.s. (There's a copy of the important part of the source at: [27]).

- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 08:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Same issue. George, Wolfkeeper seems to have some measure of respect for your opinion. Could you please weigh in on whether there is a factual inaccuracy of any sort in the following paragraph:

---

An accelerometer measures acceleration in one or more axis. It responds to both gravitational and inertial acceleration. If you orient a stationary, single-axis accelerometer so its measuring axis is horizontal, its output will show zero gee. Yet, if you rotate the accelerometer 90° so its axis points upwards, it will read +1 g upwards even though still stationary. If you mount the accelerometer in an automobile with its axis aligned forward with the vehicle’s direction of travel, and drive down the road at a constant speed, it will read 0 g. Yet, if you hit the brakes, it will read about −0.9 g. Accelerometers respond equally to gravity and inertial acceleration.

---

I look forward to hearing your response. In advance, thanks. Greg L (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"vandal" edit

Sorry about that edit, My friend got onto my computer and made a bunch of changes, trying to be funny. I didn't realize what she had done. sorry about that! ~Padme829 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padme829 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Glockcapades

George, is the protection meant to prevent further discussion? Just wanting to know how to handle this. In my defense, I'm not attempting to personally attack anyone. I'm having a hard time, though, because I tend to be wordy and verbose and the other editor does not seem to understand my form of wit a bit. How would you like me to procede. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

EstherLois

Hello GWH. The {{indefblocked}} puts the page into CAT:TEMP, which is (in my opinion) not desirable for sock accounts. Is it OK if I replace it with the {{sockblock}} template? EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me! Go right ahead. I'll look at the template for my future education, there are too many of them around now and I seem to have missed that one... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Another. Southleroy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks like another Pastorwayne/EstherLois sock - timing, limited interests etc (every edit is category-related). Also this page (which according to page views has been viewed 3 times in all - I am supposing I am the lucky 3rd - surprising that a new editor made a beeline for it). Occuli (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Georgewilliamherbert. You have new messages at Theserialcomma's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Argh! That's the wrong version! ^_^

Didn't have to do that but I understand the impulse. I missed the revert-in-the-middle at 10:18 by Snow while I was doing section editting (as I noted on the talk page) and my 10:36 was per 1RR I operate under. I'll not be edit warring over the page as I noted in my edit summary, so if you're comfortable lifting the protection I'd be happy.

Thanks for doing your bit to maintain calm though.

brenneman 01:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note

I can see you have also been somewhat frustrated by a certain editor. You can join my copmplaints: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unethical conduct by User:Russavia.Muscovite99 (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alis.Payan

Hi George. On 31 January you went ahead and did a six-month rangeblock to deal with the long-term abuse from Alis.Payan, but you blocked anon-only. Deskana looked the registered accounts from that range, and he says Pretty much zero change of collateral damage. Feel free to block the range, if you want to. (I'm quoting from his comment in the above SPI). Would you consider converting your six-month block to a hardblock? Seems like it would do more good, and might even persuade this editor to stop the nonsense. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:unblock

The unblock in such quick fashion serves only to undermine. Just because someone's opened an ani thread doesn't mean admins should fly around like headless chickens in rushes to revert each other. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk page comments

Hi, coming to my talk page and telling me that I am a WP:DICK, without saying any such thing to other involved editors, well, I believe that is a pretty WP:DICKISH thing to do. But that's ok, I've read what you had to say, and I will take it on board, but it's just a shame that you had nothing to say on other editor's stalking, harrassment and everything else I mentioned at Moreschi's talk page, but hey, you know what? I've come to expect that from admins around here. Now, tell me that if for 6 or more months, you had your edits systematically stalked by editors, and have seen them being disruptive in places where they would have no place to be (and wouldn't be if not for their stalking) only to be a right pain in the ass just to oppose you, have engaged in outright tendetious editing (especially with refusal to answer questions, which if you see on Moreschi's talk page, this has continued), have violated core policies such WP:V by repeatedly undoing edits which reincludes unsourced information, actively take ownership of articles, etc, etc, and it reaches a point whereby you feel that you can no longer enjoy editing and the like, are you telling me that you would not lash out? If you are a human being, and your answer includes the words "no", then I would call b/s on that claim, because people can only take so much. But thanks again for posting what you did on my talk page, and also for taking such a one-sided view of what is obviously a greater problem than my telling an editor what I did. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for taking the time and effort to write such a thoughtful message to User:Reqluce. You said a lot that I wanted to say myself, but couldn't. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I only saw this now after I made a similar comment. I agree with the above. I have heard of Mr. Steel before. He can occasionally be a bit abrasive, in my opinion. Can't remember an exact incident, but that was my general impression. I suppose we can learn from each other. Chergles (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

nice message

That's a nice message that you left on Reqluce's page about 15 minutes after my message. We think alike so now that I know you, I might correspond with you if I need editorial advice or something similar! The reverse is also welcomed.

I also see you have interests in aviation. I do too but have strayed away from editing aviation articles for about 2-3 weeks. Time to get back. I tried to get the Boeing 777 article to FA but failed. Plan to try again in a few months when I get some time to fix it up. Chergles (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Fragments of Jade community ban

Caught that when I went over to WP:AN. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

revert.

Dear Mr. Herbert, I occasionally read some of the admin. boards, and have seen the term "sterile reverting", I was wondering, what exactly is that and how is it different than just reverting? thank you for your time, — Ched (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A sterile revert is when you undo someone else's change without commenting on why - at the very least, explaining in the edit summary, but usually without having commented in the article and/or user's talk page. Reverting the same content more than once without discussing it at all, or ignoring other ongoing discussions, is a sterile revert war, and violates our editing and reverting policy and 3 revert policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that makes perfect sense - and I appreciate you taking the time to address such a minor question ;)... Thank you sir, and I hope you have a wonderful day/night. — Ched (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

User:CABlankenship's Personal Attack

I just saw your message on the Admin Notices board under my request. I'll stop making any references to the incident or engaging with that editor, as per your request. Thanks for looking in to this. --Steve (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey!

Hello!

I responded to your questions at noticeboard: Link

I would hope you come soon because other users are responding with strawman fallacies IMO and it's extremely frustrating. I answered your questions to the best of my ability, and I stand by my response. Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well done!

I would like to congratulate you for your civility and diplomacy in this edit. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

...on the upside with that Uruk dude, it at least did draw my attention to this, which made my day in so many different ways. --140.247.243.148 (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Atmospheric Reentry article needs to be monitored

George,

Some stupidity in its early phases has been developing at the Atmospheric Reentry article and its discussion page (check the history for both pages). Nothing really obvious or acrimonious yet (very easy to nip it in the bud at this stage). People have been playing with its class rating and making changes that are in the gray area between simple stupidity and vandalism. Could you please monitor this? I accept your good judgment concerning this and if you think I've been out of line then please undo my recent changes. Thanks Egg plant (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The Atmospheric Reentry article class rating just reverted for the third time. I'm no long a regular contributor to Wikipedia and only check the Atmospheric Reentry article about every 3-4 months to make sure it hasn't been trashed (I made the mistake of putting too much effort into it). I'd prefer not to get involved in a heated discussion over this but also don't want to see the Atmospheric Reentry article degraded. Thanks again Egg plant (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Venturer Aerospace

Hey nice to meet you! I appreciate the assistance on the list of private spaceflight companies. I'm doubly glad there are folks in the biz that are keeping an eye on it. But I suppose given the heavy crossover between the computer world and the private space world, it should come as little surprise. I do the computer bit by day as well, but sadly do not operate my own rocket company. I may hit you up for some info on Venturer at some point once I get the guts up to put actual content in my private space blog. aremisasling (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Mayamore

Thanks for reviewing the situation User:Mayamore. Just for future reference, if something like this comes up again (with this person or in general), is there a more appropriate place for me to report it, or is ANI ok? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Returning regular sockpuppeteers are ANI appropriate. Many people end up informally working with experienced admins on particular cases if the case keeps dragging on, but ANI is fine. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Your block of User:HalfShadow

I came across his unblock request while patrolling CAT:UNB. Your block seems purely punitive for his use of salty language (i.e. "fuck off"). I would agree 100% that admins should not use that language in a public forum when discussing the behavior of others, however I don't think that a 24 hour block is preventitive in any way, and this smacks of punishing him for being rude. Please reconsider your block of him. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

He was just warned for the salty language on ANI (see his talk page history - he deleted my warning, a subsequent warning by THF, and the detailed block message, all within policy ...).

He was blocked for subsequent comments, which I linked to in his (now deleted) block message and a reply on ANI. I believe that the subsequent comments support the premise that he has an actionable civility problem.

I am not going to unblock him, but won't stand in the way of an ANI consensus if one develops that I was clearly wrong to do so, etc. But please review the history. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you did kinda poke him with a stick a little bit. I'm not saying that he is excused, but the thread you started at ANI was a bit of baiting... Yes, he should not be rude and his use of "fuck off" was unseemly for an admin, who should be held to high regards. I just don't think that this has been handled in the best possible manner... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole civility issue active response requires getting people's attention - to be fair, whacking them without making it public would not have the desired results of showing the community that the behavior isn't ok anymore and fails to warn off future potential offenders. And multiple admins had made similar comments echoing his after he started it.

This comes down to - He thinks it's OK to tell WP abusers to "fuck right off" and believes that calling people who criticize him insane is an acceptable response. He's clearly unrepentant from his ANI responses and talk page.

If you think I abusively provoked it or this was grossly disproportionate, unblock him - I will not reblock or think less of you for it. Independent review and response is part of the admin community.

But I remain convinced he has a behavior problem on-wiki...

If you think there's a better way to approach warnings for uncivil behavior on ANI and the like, that's a perfectly legitimate question going forwards. I didn't try to bait him, and didn't want to bait him, but if you think that's the effect I had and that he wouldn't have been that abusive in the future without my warning then how I and others respond is a legit issue to look at. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Swearing at Wikipedia talk pages

For what its worth I thought I would share a note I left for an editor that spent more time defending his off-base attitude than working toward convincing fellow editors of the worth of his opinion.

...A more favorable climate is at hand. But it will be hard to reach it in the direction you are headed. The road you want is one marked by collaboration and cooperation not attack and counterattack. We are all on the same hyway. Tumultuous behavior and name-calling is so........yesterday! (---Left at an editors page---forgot who---)

--Buster7 (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

...for everything at WP:ANI. Will someone from oversight be contacting me? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Inside, Wikipedia is more like a sweatshop than Santa's workshop

Title from The Guardian.

RE: Wikipedia:ANI#Admins_inappropriate_comments_in_this_thread no surprise there. You seem to be a veteran editor and know how things really work around here to very loosely paraphrase the Washington Post and George Orwell:

"Wikipedia's [enforcement of] policy resembles U.S. immigration policy before 9/11: stringent rules, [selective] enforcement."[28] All editors are equal, but some editors are more equal than others.

Here are some examples of editors calling other editors to fuck off with no repurcusions

General comments Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JzG2#Outside_view_by_User:GTBacchus: There is an idea, popular among some editors, that in order to block/ban trolls and POV-pushers, it is somehow necessary to be a dick. Wikipedia:Some Observant Words Regarding Editing And People: "Even though Wikipedia is not a social networking site, people, and the success of one's interactions with those people, will be the main reasons why someone stays here or leaves here. I may be new, but I think that I've seen enough of the good and the bad to know this to be true." VestedContributor: "Editors are expected to make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy." Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#Vested Contributors Wikipedia:What_adminship_is_not#Adminship_is_not_diplomatic_immunity Funny: G'Gugvuntts and Vl'hurgs Wikipedia:Practical process (Marginally applicable here) Specific examples WP:NPA and WP:Civil double standard In fierce debates about controversial administrators bad behavior, the reality of how wikipedians are treated unequally is illustrated. Argument at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive174#JzG.27s_personal_attack about administrator Guy repeatedly telling editors to fuck off: "The stuff about, 'we do not block for occasional incivility', is half right... we generally don't block admins and other 'high profile' users for such. Regular users, on the other hand, sometimes get blocked for saying a single word out of line. The philosophy that 'we look at the whole picture' inherently means that longstanding and/or popular users are held to lower standards of behaviour... which we have seen become a self-defeating trap over and over and over again. That 'occaisional incivility' adds up, and when people see users being incivil and getting away with it they respond in kind. If they then are then blocked/strongly warned for it while the other person isn't they get pissed off at the imbalance and the spiral of deterioration continues. It is obviously bad for Wikipedia and if it isn't stopped sooner or later it always catches up to people. There was a time when Karmafist was well loved and his 'occaisional incivility' let pass... until it got to be too much. There was a time when Kelly Martin was well loved and her 'occaisional incivility' not a big deal... until it alienated too many people. You want to 'protect' good users? Stop them from being uncivil, don't violate policies yourself and attack those who are pointing out problems, and do what you can to take on some of their burdens...It's not an 'either / or' equation. Incivility breeds more incivility breeds more incivility. Everyone who contributes to the problem is part of the problem." Durova: "I'll block him [Guy] for uncivil statements he's already posted unless he strikes through certain comments or pledges to clean up his language...If anyone other than an administrator had posted the statements it would be uncontroversial to characterize this as an escalating pattern of incivility. Normally in such cases I would block shortly after verifying the evidence... Guy hasn't threatened to leave the site but I'm beginning to worry about Ghirla whose contributions are about equally valuable but Ghirla's not a sysop and considerably less popular." (emphasis my own) Durova then quotes Orwell Seven Commandments Thatcher131 "it's far too early to think about blocking. Some supportive conversation would be very nice, as would offering to shoulder some of Guy's burdens. I'd guess most admins become experts in recognizing and dealing with one or two particular trolls and/or disruptive editors...Eventually it wears you down, and I think Guy has taken on more than his share already, so maybe we should let Guy pass the baton on some of his least favorite. We should support him and lighten his load, as we should have done for MONGO months ago." Ben Aveling "I'll say it. The rules are different for established contributors, not because they have a license to offend, but because we expect them to revert to form and because we know they're worth investing effort in." Grace Note "I am loving the argument that it's not really rude to tell someone to fuck off. I'll remember that next time someone gets on my nerves." Carcharoth "What is the correct procedure for handling things when you see an admin...several times over a few months step over the line, generating complaints, but each time managing to avoid showing genuine contrition, but responding in an aggressive "move on" style that discourages people from actually starting proceedings ("oh, it's not worth the hassle"-sort of thing), leading to things going quiet again until the next time?" ATren "...let's make it official and put this into policy. If there truly is an exemption for valued users, it should be documented on the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policy pages. I'm being totally serious here - those policy pages are unambiguous in their condemnation of incivility, but the reality is: incivility is justified for certain editors, and that fact should be properly represented in policy...this sentiment (that some users should not be blocked for incivility) should be expressed in policy. The current uncompromising text of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA does not allow for exceptions, but that doesn't reflect the reality - which is that a casual editor would be indef blocked for habitual incivility, whereas valued contributors are given a pass...it seems there is consensus that a certain amount of incivility is permitted as long as (a) you have a lot of edits to your credit and (b) you were provoked. Can we make it more clear in policy that incivility is permitted under these circumstances?" >Radiant< "...there's still no call for someone to loudly and repeatedly pointing out the incivility, and spend an order of magnitude more text on that than the size of the actual incivility itself. We shouldn't go around blocking people who are beneficial to the 'pedia." Christopher Parham "I don't like your way of thinking because it seems to presume that Guy and MONGO are somehow incapable of self-restraint. Granted they do a lot of good work dealing with editors who frustrate and annoy and attack them. Why does this cause them to use pointlessly inflammatory language like "fuck off" and "useless twat"?" MastCell "If your history consists mostly of vandalism or disruption, then calling someone a "twat" or telling them to "fuck off" should earn a well-deserved block. On the other hand, if you're a hard-working, productive contributor who makes the same comment in a moment of weakness when the Wikistress level hits DefCon 1, then a gentle word-to-the-wise should suffice. Actions should be viewed in context - why else are edit histories public? This is not a "double standard"; it's common sense. Policies actually reflect this - neither WP:NPA nor WP:CIVIL specify a punishment (except for egregious cases), but leave that to the discretion of the community." Quack 688 "...we don't accept bad behaviour from established contributors, we just handle it differently." Moreschi tells an editor to fuck off, and one month later becomes an admin. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Moreschi Oppose #7.

Now I can add your complaint to the list. Ikip (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Georgewilliamherbert, I am also drawing your attention to the user Toddst1 who was the one who directed me to the noticeboard where I was told to "fuck off" by Administrators. He directed me to it after his first writing on my talk page his comment, "Exactly how loud can this WP:Duck quack? Toddst1 (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)", which seems quite malicious really. He has now issued me with a warning for my calling those editors "arseholes" for their behaviour which I did as you saw in response to those comments. This seems real double standards. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: In writing, we don't just "blurt" it out like we may do in speaking. Writing is a decisive act. It takes time to type what we want to say. Definite decisions are made on the words we choose and their meanings and the effect we wish to accomplish. Swearing is done by editors to make a point or give emphasis or to gain the upperhand (power). But vulgarity/swearing brings with it all its negative connectors and responses and the conversation takes a drastic turn downward and sinks into the muck of 'tavern-talk'.--Buster7 (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: TungstenCarbide

Just a word of support for your trying to be so chivalrous and helpful on this blocked user's talk page. The response is, of course, outrageous, but totally in keeping with that user's behavior pattern. What astonishes me is the encouragement he is getting from User:Goodmorningworld. A very curious phenomenon, indeed. Best, --Zlerman (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That guy is a riot. Don Rickles has got nothing on him. He belongs to the pantheon of users who basically begged for an indefinite block. And his wish was graciously granted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Liebman

You could thwart that little gnat [29] by semi-protecting your page - provided you even considered it worth your time to swat that little bug. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack

Thank you for looking into this. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this you?

Georgewilliamhurbert (message) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just thought you might like a heads-up if it's not. --Dynaflow babble 23:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a persistent vandal who's doing that - someone else already indef blocked them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Good to know. I'll keep an eye out for more. --Dynaflow babble 23:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Haseldine COI restrictions

I agree, and all  Done now, I think. Cheers for the heads up, Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I see you have recently warned User:ErikWarmelink about personal attacks, and noted this is a focus raea for you. You may wish to review my recent complaint about this persisitent behaviour, and take some action. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A bit of positive reinforcement

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unomi

For whatever it's worth, I was under a similar (apparently mistaken?) impression.

See what happens when we stumble upon a talk page kerfuffle? : ) - jc37 08:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the time I spend an hour and a half staring at two or three users and come away convinced they're the same, they really are. Either they admit it, or checkuser is eventually done and it's an unambiguous yes.

But you try and fix enough problems and you make mistakes... Looks like this evening was one.

On the plus side, nobody's flying off the handle over this (at least so far, hopefully not period). There's no worse feeling than being the administrator who goofed, which then blows up and causes more drama.

Thanks for the note. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, a user that's on a crusade like that usually "Plaxicos" himself eventually. Sometimes it just takes time and patients. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Evasion of block

Oh no? He has not done anything wrong? What so if I got blocked under my current IP and the I went on to evade the block by using my friends internet this would not be wrong? I think I should do this and use you as an excuse for doing so if I get in trouble as you said "Jeremy has not done anything obviously wrong here. Nor has the IP editor". Don't tell me to calm down as it only inflames the situation something which I would think an admin would be aware of. And again explain how I am attacking him I already asked you on the ANI so it would be good to get a response. El Machete Guerrero (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:El Machete Guerrero and his PA on you

I only came upon this controversy from the RPP on Reggaeton (which falls under WP:PUR so it caught my eye). El Machete Guerrero's behavior is very bad, and if the 72 hour block is not sufficient, I suggest a topic ban.--Cerejota (talk) 10:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oi moron. You've just blcoked me from editing for 48 hours when the thing I just added was completely correct and uncontentious. It also stated it was for editing an article I've not been on before until today. Sort yourself out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.72.51 (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Fleshlight tag

In the interest of preventing an edit war, let's not revert each other every time we make a point. Time does not settle arguments, it merely prolongs them. Simply because there is no present debate does not mean the information has been agreed upon. The project is "mothballed", so to speak, until further interest arises. Until then, unknowing people will still read this article, and must be advised that its content is controversial and still disputed. Furthermore, the tag, if anything, would only encourage viewers to contribute and thus improve the article. I see no reason not to place the tag. 24.15.197.87 (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As I have told you before, you whey-faced poltroon; until you messaged me re ALLEGED graffiti on 'Enola Gay', I had never looked at that article let alone defaced it. Also my entry on the Kooks article is a true statement. They have received many negative critiques regarding their background and affected singing style. Furthermore, it is one of the things they are quite famous for in Britain. Check your facts before you indulge in reactionary reflex based on a contentious statement. Love it or hate, the Kooks do have this cloud over them. Buffoon. Umbongo82 (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Naius forgets nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.81.202 (talk) 07:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Unjustified Block

George:

I suggest you conditionally unblock me so I can commence arbitration on the Trifunovich matter. I have no interest in making legal threats - when I say something sounds like libel, I know of what I speak. Trifunovich has suggested working together to rewrite his page but he is wrong, it should be deleted as the whole issue will recommence and he agrees with me now.

In the Balkans, they take these sort of matters seriously, so unless you are 100% of the topic matter, I suggest an article delete or we got to arbitration. The current article puts Trifunovic's life and livlihood in danger and he is a NPF not a war criminal.

My specialty is international law and the Balkans.

So why don't you work with me to to go to mediation or arbitration?

If you have some sort of personal issue with Serbs or whatever hand it over to another party before you get in too deep.

If you block me from from arbitration access then I have no recourse to seek a remedy outside Wikipedia through other civil tribunals (not a threat) just a fact. While Wikipedia may claims protections in the US, that is not the case in Europe.

So if you are clueless why not do yourself a favor and kick this up the pike to someone who understand the process.

Best wishes.

Resistk (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)J Levy

Biting users

George, I RARELY, if ever try to bite new users...but in this case my warning bells are going off big time. It seems that the user in question is here only to make a point, and they are going about it very trollishly. I'd hope that they could be taught how Wikipedia works, but they are already using the "ZOMG CONSPIRACY!" defense. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Raquel Baranow's Problems at Wiki

Hi, George, I just looked through Ur Userpage . . . U sound like a real smart, nice person . . . thanks for sticking up for me! I'll do whatever it takes to get these ppl off my back. U also seem to know alot about bombs . . . seems likely that Thermobaric Bombs destroyed the WTC. I don't plan to edit any pages at Wiki but I disliked it when someone erased what I wrote on a Discussion Page, which led to my current problem! Peace & Love, Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd concur with Raquel's thanks. Your comments re WP:CIV on WP:AN/I were well-made. It seems Raquel may have had some misunderstandings about the nature and purpose of WP; this doesn't give carte blanche for a free-for-all regarding her theories themselves (or come to that her use of English). Tonywalton ^Talk 01:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Time out on AN/I

George, I have to say I take issue with being branded "disruptive" and threatened with a block, especially since it equates my replies to Mosedschurte with his repeated personal attacks as "pushing buttons". I don't disagree with your call to end the discussion: do me the favor of reading my last message there, posted more than an hour before yours, and you will see that I did just that. Thank you. Dahn (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: UC Bill

I patrol unblock requests a lot - general convention (which admittedly does vary a lot) is that users get three unblock requests. Good behavior and well-thought out reasoning gets a user more chances, while demonstrating that you have no interest in improving the project will significantly shorten that amount. Bill not only demonstrated that he wasn't willing to contribute, but his conduct got progressively worse, which is quite something considering how it began. That said, if someone feels as though the indef block is not appropriate, I am fine with them reducing it. However, I will not do so myself; Wikipedia is not anyone's soapbox, particularly not for clearly disruptive users, and I see no reason why we should permit someone to vent in that manner. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"We have a longstanding policy that we allow users to vent on their user talk pages after a block. "

You're fucking joking, right? I have NEVER seen ANY administrators behave in any way other than to take "venting" as an excuse for indef-blocking. That goes especially for the trollish asshole admins who sit waiting to pounce on unblock requests.

This is not a joke. Please provide some examples. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

From my observations, the subtlety is that there's a distinction between venting in general, and venting within an unblock request. Venting in general is usually tolerated unless it really goes off the deep end. Venting in an unblock request will typically draw a quick "denied", and if it doesn't stop, the user may be prevented from editing his own talk page for the duration of the block. Is that a reasonable summary of the process? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's preferred not to leave unanswered unblock requests lying around, so if blockees make a whole bunch of them people tend to close them and eventually protect the talk page, yes. But indef'ing if someone doesn't break out in threats against people should be very rare. I would like to see examples of that, if it's happening. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What I've seen typically is "unblock request denied" due to venting within the unblock request - but I would say it's very unusual for the block to be extended due to venting in the unblock request; the block merely stands as-is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not taking sides in protection is usually a good idea...

But, please check this one out... [30]. This does not appear to be a two-sided edit war, but rather someone vandalizing the article and/or adding unsourced inflamatory information. See this edit in particular. Perhaps a block would have been more in order than a protection? Your call, just something that caught my eye as kinda fishy... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Email block

Please remove the email block from UC Bill. There is no reason to believe he will use the email feature abusively and he has not been reported to have used the feature abusively. Hipocrite (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Recurrent issues in Mediterranean articles

I took the time to provide a sample of diffs, as you requested. Knepflerle (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

...and some even more conclusive evidence here. Comments would be appreciated. Knepflerle (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on Star Wars Kid

Hi, George!

I edited the SWK talk page because "majority" seemed more accurate to me than "consensus" in describing the archived discussion there. If there was a separate admin discussion where a consensus was reached, it would be enormously helpful if you could provide a link to it. Thanks!

revision: D'oh! Forgot to sign! --Skyraider (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Disappearing

Delete my user page and purge the history. --UC_Bill (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not the userbox

Rather, it's him being an obvious troll. Trolls get shown the door. Is there some better way to handle them that I've not heard of before? Friday (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a low tolerance for trolls, and for racists. That said, he hasn't hit my thresholds for either. There's a trend recently to lower the threshold for community action - I think that it's gone way too low in this case.

He may well keep doing things that get him increasingly long blocks, but the situation now doesn't justify a ban. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind, he was indefed last week and unblocked on grounds of working with Henrik and a topic-ban. This is a slap in the face to those who gave him the benefit of the doubt. Grsz¹¹ 22:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not feel slapped in the face, in any way shape or form. He had a difficult time learning (not surprising considering his every move was scrutinized) and responded badly to being questioned. He wasn't trolling or acting in bad faith (Or if he was, he would be the damn best troll I've ever encountered). As for the topic ban, I'm of the opinion that he did not overtly break it: he was skirting on the edges on it, was duly warned, see [31], and then stopped.

All that said however, it would still take a large mentoring effort to help him become a productive editor. I'm sure he would slip up a few more times, and given his history that would inevitably lead to a block by someone just taking a cursory glance at the user. henrik•talk 06:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Relax guys he isn't a troll. At worst he is/was an extreme right wing POV pusher. But he is saying the things he does because he believes them. He can be a little pointy but he isn't trying to push buttons.--Adam in MO Talk 22:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

He's a right-wing, race-baiting POV-pusher. But he's not a troll. He just doesn't understand the encyclopedia concept. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I certainly called this one wrong.[32] Where do I find a chair that will let me sit down with my tail between my legs.--Adam in MO Talk 03:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I know how you feel. I've been predicting the Cubs to win the pennant every year since I was in single digits. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

User:CSGV

As long as he or she does get a name change and stop acting as a role account, I'm cool with that. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions

There are questions for you following a post you made on User talk:Wikidemon. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The questions are still awaiting an answer. I see you have edited since I made the above post; perhaps you missed it. Please take the time to address these concerns. Thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Iliijapavlovich

Iliijapavlovich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user continues to use their talk page as a venue to attack others, calling myself, and others 'stupid, shallow' and various other things. Can you please re-block him with the inability to edit his talk page? He has made it quite obvious he does not wish to edit here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The user is continuing to make personal attacks on the talk page, not to mention he called Chris a Nazi.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Italian man that disagrees something and agrees something

I followed in silence all the matter of EU100%.I'm italian like him .I think he was right when he talked about racism. The law about civil rights is over Wikipedia people and now i think TastyCakes(that hasn't ever been warned!like Arnoutf) will have some troubles in EU (if he comes..).I followed all the matter to see democracy and the equal treatment in Wikipedia.I studied all the situation very very well and i understood many things about Wikipedia (someones visible other ones unvisible). Anyway i agree with you that ALL the people has to mantain a correct civil behaviour for helping Wikipedia.No strange alliance between people unobjective or with strong presumptions. I'll try to better Wikipedia. WORLDPOWER27 (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of BatterBean

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. In the case of a category like this one, parent categories are provided automatically when you include a {{Sockpuppet category}} template.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Who are "them"?

I don't wish to talk you long, but I found your "threat" very inaccurate and biased. Tell me, who are "them"? With what evidence, I'm wikistalking him or others. You don't review anything. If you do not bring any diff, do not make false accusations. Thanks.--Caspian blue 01:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Caspian blue has contacted the Wikipedia IRC unblock channel with a request for clarification. He has asked the blocking administrator to substantiate a particular accusation regarding the number of people he has "harassed" or "stalked" in the past. I appreciate this does not excuse his conduct, but he has asked this to be clarified with evidence. Thank you, PeterSymonds :  Chat  02:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Good block; though I might've gone so far as saying that the duration may have been too short. You found more incidents than I did. I recently was involved in an incident with him (March 19); Fritzpoll had later issued him a warning over it, and he gave a fascinating response - see User talk:Fritzpoll#Re:. But overall, very nicely done. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Calling regular users "trolls" and "vandals" is, or used to be, considered very uncivil as well as patronizing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

CB

A classic example of "never sue - they might prove it" - or the "Plaxico syndrome". I really don't understand this guy. We had a fairly cordial discussion on my talk page and I gave him what I thought was reasonable advice, and then he pushes the envelope further and gets himself a 24 hour block. I have to admit that of the various folks complaining on my RfA about creating "drama", some of them (including that guy) got under my skin a bit, because they create at least as much drama as I allegedly do. I've cut my ANI activities back (or at least I think I have - maybe you could offer an opinion on that), and for awhile I thought he had followed suit after I confronted him right back about it. But no. It's business as usual for him. I have to wonder whether this is truly a language barrier problem as he claims, or just an excuse. He's saying that someone saying "get the F--- off my page" is a personal attack, while denying that calling someone "pathetic" is a personal attack. As a native speaker of English, I would say that the former is uncivil but is by no means a personal attack, it's just anger coming out - whereas calling someone "pathetic" is most certainly a personal attack (albeit a fairly lame one). Anyway, I tried giving some advice to this guy and he wouldn't take it. Maybe if I had "admin" after my name, he might give it more credence - but somehow I doubt it. Thanks fer listenin'. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of possible explanations - he admits he's not a native speaker of English, and a lot of this could be linguistic. But that's not an excuse after a point. 10 months later, he's still doing it. He's been warned by dozens of admins in dozens of incidents. The misbehavior continues.

If he didn't also do good work most of the time, he'd be a slam dunk for an indef already.

The cases like this, where someone's felt to be a good contributor in general, but the pattern is becoming more clear that they are also very abusive at times and in an ongoing, repeated fashion, are the hard cases for the civility policy. One-off abuse cases are easy - explain, maybe warn, but they generally don't do it again. Always on abuse cases get a couple of warnings and then are marched out the door. Nobody argues about those types.

This could be a very problematic one, however. A lot of people think he does good work at times, including me. The question is - when does the disruption exceed the value to the project and the community of the good work done? For well known people, we haven't really clearly set the bar there, and to some extent it will be much more case by case. But the more I look at the incident history the more I am worried that we're there, at the point to make a determination on CB.

I have better things to do this week, but if he's going to be back next week or the week after with another abuse case then we shouldn't put it off. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You've outlined the typical dilemma of an otherwise useful contributor who has "worn out his welcome", to put it charitably. In my limited observation, I can't think of anyone who produced more angst on that general topic than Betacommand. It started with some opposition and a fair amount of support. But over time he managed to alienate his allies, one by one, until he had no friends left, and he was history. It really gets frustrating. It's like, "Why won't they behave?" Unfortunately, we're not their mother, so we can't spank them or send them to bed without supper. And we're not their doctor, so we can't give them valium. All we have is the blocking tools and other sanctions. I was thinking that I've never been a mentor, and never really wanted to be, but this is one case where I could maybe help, if he were willing - because I like to talk about the subtleties of language. However, I don't think he trusts anyone, certainly not me, so that is a very unlikely scenario. I was also thinking, what if a formal indef-block question comes up? What should I do? I'll tell you what I think the right thing would be to do, and maybe you could tell me if you agree: Nothing. Abstain from comment. Because anything I say formally could be interpreted as "revenge" for his RfA hypocrisy on the matter. And aside from that, I have (thankfully) had virtually no dealings with this guy within articles. What do you think? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Record of Recidivism

The swathe of harm caused by Caspian blue is significantly wider than is suggested here (which encompasses User:Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks, etc.; and yet, I would also argue that the details you seem to adduce are leading you to miss more important points.

See User talk:Tznkai/Archive3

• 149 Note on the topic bans (Caspain Blue and Sennen goroshi)
  • 149.1 Comment
  • 149.2 User:Tenmei's point that nobody appreciates

• 163 Your eyes needed
  • 163.1 Encore
  • 163.2 Tenmei again
  • 163.3 Request
  • 163.4 My opinion

I failed to make plain enough when Tznkai initiated a topic ban -- here as an direct response to an attack on roux.

"The final nail in the coffin is Caspian blue spending his time attacking roux instead of anything productive, or even an affirmative defense. Request for topic ban Accepted, Caspian Blue and Sennen goroshi are restricted as described by the above topic ban for the duration of six months.--Tznkai (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Having been on the receiving end of Caspian blue's "shotgun blasts of incivility and personal attacks," I was very hesitant to get involved, but I reasoned that the likely consequences of keeping quiet were probably going to be worse.

149.1 Comment. My effort to be "exceedingly plain and non-controversial" was not pointed enough; and Tznkai "missed my point."

149.2 User:Tenmei's point that nobody appreciates. Caspian blue's responsive "blasts" drowned out anything else I tried to say.

163.1 Encore. I was more explicit, but still too moderate when I failed again to comment constructively as Caspian blue lashed out at roux -- here. For emphasis, the last paragraph in this diff anticipates today:

"I am offended by the heedless harassment of roux, but it represents only the tiniest part of arc of harm documented in Caspian blue's edit history. Bluntly, Caspian blue is a "toxic long-term warrior" who poisons the collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia possible. What bothers me more is the likelihood nothing will happen which encourages Caspian blue to reconsider strategies and tactics which ultimately profit no one." --Tenmei (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

For emphasis, let me reiterate that your cursory review of WP:AN/I archives is too generous, too forgiving; but the more important aspect of this sad story is that the community has time and again taught Caspian blue the wrong lessons. Without seeming to criticize Tznkai, he/she sent the wrong message with the late-January topic ban; and the wrong lesson was underscored in early March when Tznkai seemed to have been guided by the mistaken common-sense rationale of "it takes two to tango" ....

With all due respect, I'm persuaded that your unimpeachable ban only exacerbates the consequences of a long-standing, community-endorsed pattern ... and I predict that it will prove to be no more effective than the other concurrent ban which continues to be in effect. Do you see my point?

In a sense, I find myself unwillingly defending Caspian blue because again and again well-meaning administrators like Tznkai and you have seemed to endorse the explicit patterns of behavior which you now label as intolerable. Believe me when I admit that I'm quite uncomfortable with both the wikilawyering and the point I'm making, but this is a valid analysis of a complex problem.

If I've failed to make myself clear, I see no alternative but to try to re-state the same thing in different words. I suppose I need to be prepared to keep on making this point ad nauseam until I do manage to make myself understood.

In this awkward context, it does make sense to construe roux as the object of a wiki-stalking incident, but Caspian blue was arguably drawn to roux's talk page because I was the focus of Caspian blue's lurking scrutiny. I can't continue to be low-keyed in dealing with this who-knows-what-to-call-it.

I look forward to your thoughts on this subject, if you feel inclined to share them.

If this is not an appropriate venue for these observations, please suggest a better one other than ArbCom -- see Motion to encompass Caspian blue as "involved" party. --Tenmei (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to add some uninvited comments here even before GWH gets a chance. When I said that CB was being a hypocrite, opposing my admin nomination on the grounds that I create too much drama, little did I realize that he is at least 10 times the drama queen that I've ever been. And then the lightbulb comes on as to what part of his agenda could be: To keep from getting blocked. I have riled other admins (notably Tanthalas) with complaints that they were too lenient. There is a systemic problem here, which you're laying the groundwork for: That the continual bending over backwords has led to nothing but CB and users like him to push the envelope farther and farther. If I were an admin, I would not be so lenient. Incivility would be met with an immediate block, and further refusal to cooperate would be met with longer blocks. I'm thinking some of the opposers know that, and that was part of their motivation to say "no". I have said many times that the priorities are wrong here. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a nursery school. There is no editor who is indispensible, no matter how much he has supposedly "contributed". If it were me, CB would have been given a lengthy block a long time ago. I have two guiding principles on this subject. To the user: How badly do you want to edit wikipedia? And to over-lenient admins: Why are you still messing with this guy? And if I sound like some right-winger here, it's just an old-fashioned outlook on things. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

One other point. In ANI yesterday, CB said something about how "everyone knows I'm a friend of Roux". That was totally news to me. I can only assume he was trying to bait me somehow. I chose not to comment on it, since I haven't the vaguest idea what he's talking about. But from where I stand, CB's 24 hour block was quite generous, and the block of Roux for 12 hours was probably fair also, although CB's whining about the F-word stuff was primarily a smokescreen. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

He was given a 24-hour block and hasn't been back since it expired. Maybe a wikibreak for that guy is just what the doctor ordered. It works for me now and then. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

To Tenmei

Tenmei (talk · contribs), thanks for your confession about your wikistalking and wikilawyering to me more than twice on Tznkai's talk page. As you admit, the cases had nothing to do with you at all, but you appeared to rub my nose. Since you've marked me as your enemy on your user page for months along with LordAmeth (talk · contribs), and Nick-D (talk · contribs), your acts to me clearly prove typical forms of harassment based on your persistent vendetta for over 7 months. The three either reported you to ANI for your personal attacks and harassment and gave WP:No personal attacks warnings.(1, 2, 3) Unlike your behaviors to me, you did not say about "learning English" and George Santayana's maxim on people forgetting history to your friend Bukubku (talk · contribs) when he got indef.topic-banned after multiple blocks because you've clearly known such behavior is very offensive. You also inform me that the article, Takes two to tango (idiom) that you've created is a result from your habit of wikistalking me. I wonder why you forgot to mention about your hounding me to WJBscribe's talk page and to many other occasions (eg. you also helped the banned user's vandalism to make WP:POINT).

For the last time, I'm requesting you to stop making such disruptive personal attacks including your acting like a messenger for my news to editors.12345678910 For the incident, I was baited by your such act again, but not any more. If you continue to do so, your confession here will be very useful. You've already got many warning by admins for your disruptive behaviors to people. My statement on your RfAf (your opponent said mine sound exceedingy favorabe to you) was my last attempt of WP:AGF on you. (including no reporting your second 3RR violations) But you've tried to use me to get out of the accusation of your personal attacks and vandalism that 4 other users in good standing claim. So I refuse to be dragged into your drama. Since you've acknowledged that your tendency of being very rude, I hope this brief message meets some merit.--Caspian blue 04:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert -- In light of the above, my analysis of Caspian blue's words is terse: Q.E.D.

In this context, I have a non-standard suggestion: Why not attempt a proactive step? Why don't you reach out by asking Caspian blue to explain in his/her own words why he/she thinks you instituted a 24-hour ban? If that works out well, why don't you ask him/her if you need to explain in different words whatever it is he/she doesn't seem to understand?

Clearly, it's entirely up to Caspian blue to figure out how to avoid similar bans in the future? Why not give him/her one further chance to use this opportunity to turn things around in a positive manner? --Tenmei (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

To others

Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs), thank you for the lesson about how people can say and act differently. The gap between your alleged "mentoring" and the insulting comment like "mother" is striking enough. Since you mentioned about Tanthalas, if you prefer his way, well I'd be very careful. On contrary to your analysis, I believe in Wikipedia's virtue, and trust many good users and admins. However, so we can happily agree that adminship is based on the community "trust". I wish you get over your RfA soon.

However, compared with Tenmei and Bugs' nasty bashing, I got realized Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs) is a gentleman even though he said nothing good about me. However, his comment is understandable because I did not assume good faith on him in the last occasion. I may apologize to him for that matter.

George, sorry for the trouble. I think this brief reply to them is necessary for courtesy. I will follow your advice and warning onwards. --Caspian blue 04:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ANI#Martinphi_requesting_unblock

Has Martinphi been linked to this? I suspect it should be done, but not by me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs)

Semi-protect?

Would you be willing to semi-protect your page and keep that idiot Liebman away from it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That would only mean he'd have to keep accounts as sleepers for a few days first. Not terribly effective.

Besides, this being somewhat of an attractive nuisance means that we find his socks faster this way... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact, "Lavitsky" was a sleeper, from sometime last week, so you've got a point. In fact, it was suggested it's about time to request another checkuser, to see if we can trap any more "sleepers". If only I knew how to do that. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

After Ebyabe got protection a few minutes ago, due to being assaulted by that nut several times today, only 2 of his 5 typical targets remain unprotected - No Guru, who is relatively inactive; and yourself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Liebman has been especially busy at the start of April. Here are the recent ones that I know about. I might have missed some. The date is UTC:

April 3

• Sr. Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mr. Lavitsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Football Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

April 2

• Grosshandler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Glendale Company (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Remick Groups (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lavitsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Remick Group (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

April 1

• Meissner Associates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Baseball Bugs (data sheets) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Baseball Bugs (data sheet) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

March 23

• Baseball Bugs (Wher's Doc?) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

March 21

• Your friend George (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

March 19

• Kendall Associate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

March 18

• Kendall Associates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

March 17

• Baseball Bugs (messages) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

March 13

• Universal Associates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Universe Associates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

March 11

• Out1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

March 10

• Baseball Bugs (talk page) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Baseball Bugs (page) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

March 9

• Georgewilliamhurbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

March 8

• Mr. Georgewilliamherbert (message) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

March 6

• Georgewilliamherbert (messages) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

March 5

• Wknight94 (discussion) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

March 1

• Wknight94 (UTC) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

February 26

• ZWknight94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

February 19

• Georgewilliamherbert (discussion) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Maybe it's a holiday or something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

More fodder for the SPI - and rangeblocks. Ron, you're just going to get a whole library full of terminals blocked for a month. That's really abusive to the library you're sitting in. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It would indeed be interesting to slap a month-long block on the NY Public Library system, along with the message, "You have been blocked thanks to Mr. Ron Liebman. If you have any questions, have him paged and he will eagerly explain." I might even know someone that could find a picture of him. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Socks have been tagged, shall I file an SPI?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do. I've just about had it with that idiot. There have been several filed before. Every so often, to round up his latest sleepers and such. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Kind of quiet on the Liebman Sock front today. Maybe the threat of a block has him running scared. Either that, or he's hoping for a widespread IP block, to feed his narcissistic side ("Look what I did!") Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I gather that an IP range block was, in fact, installed. There has been no sign of Liebman since then, at least not the harassment. A colleague here has suggested to me privately that Liebman might have been using that as a distraction while possibly using IP's to quietly slip his usual unsourced stuff into articles. A number of his known article targets are on my watch list, and I haven't seen much of that, either, so maybe we're actually done with that character for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI Response

Thanks for the good advice and neutrality.  EJNOGARB  01:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, to both of you, for being patient and civil, i will follow your examples of calmness and cooperation. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 03:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I completely accidentally stumbled on the sad tale of Caspian Blue and wanted to say thanks for saving us from... couldn't think of a polite way of saying it. Dhatfield (talk) 04:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

afds

I wasn't attacking anybody. Grsz¹¹ 01:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly how do you explain using that edit summary as the second edit on the AFD, then? Who else were you referring to? There were no other or intervening editors to be referring to.

If you did not intend it to be uncivil or a personal attack, you made a serious error in judgement. It clearly appears to be one on first review.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Did I say "You are pathetic"? No. Can I not find an idea, an action pathetic? It was his action, sure, but certainly I'm allowed to call a spade a spade. It was a sad, pathetic action that he had to have known would result in a block, and it's disappointing that he chose to do so anyway. Grsz¹¹ 01:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

So you are admitting that it was a personal attack on him, now?

Look - everyone blows their top every now and then. It's particularly bad when we do it in/around recently blocked accounts. WP:CIVIL and NPA aren't zero-tolerance rules - but they exist for a reason. You appear to be acknowledging now that you broke 'em - and that's good - but you shouldn't be defending what you did.

Poking the blockees is not cool. Please don't. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't admit anything. And I posted before the block, not spitting in anyones face. Perhaps I should have said "disappointing" - which is more what I meant, and is in no way an attack. Grsz¹¹ 02:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Maltese (dog)

Thanks for taking the time and leaving your comments. I really do appreciate the motivation, and it annoys me to think I've come across so poorly. I guess I just can't help myself :P Pietru (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No permanent harm done. Just think about it and try to avoid doing it again. If you're sensitive to the risk, if you do it again by accident you can apologize and defuse the situation yourself next time.

Good luck editing! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re ANI

Have replied on ANI, but in case you miss it; the off-wiki context to Giano's flare-up at Neurolysis was here (scroll down to the replies, or search for "Giano"). Quite frankly, if someone were posting the kind of abuse about me that Neurolysis was posting about Giano on a national newspaper's website, I'd be considerably ruder than Giano was. – iridescent 00:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks (both to you and LessHeardVanU) for the answers. I recall the incident now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd trust a cat to be an explosives engineer.

... ... ... Oh. Category... HalfShadow 23:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I can haz fuze? *Blink* Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

KABOOOOOmewOOOOOOM!!!!!!!HalfShadow 23:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

AFD duration change - concerns

the AFD duration discussion and policy change werent' well advertised - no notice on WP:AN or the Village pump policy section, as far as I or anyone else were able to tell. This was brought up on the Wikien-L list and concerns raised in two areas:

1. Lack of acceptably wide notification for the discussion and poll, given that it's a policy change.
2. You had voted on the proposal prior to closing it.

I posted an AN notice [33] recommending that anyone who objects start a new discussion on the AFD talk page. I also added a new section below the closed poll section on the AFD page noting the concerns that were raised.

On the first matter, I think that this poll probably was an accurate gauge of wider community feeling, despite the lack of wider advertisement. I believe we need to go through a wider review, but I think the result will remain.

On the second, I think that we may want to have another uninvolved administrator reopen and reclose the discussion, to avoid the appearance of impropriety. While I think you clearly called it right based on the obvious 3:1 margin, we do want to try and keep closures as much as possible by people who weren't in any conflict of interest over the results.

I'm posting this here to let you know about the issues and the Wikien-L discussion. I don't see this change as wrong or a mistake, but the process could have been handled better, so we should try and clean that up some.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I stand partially corrected - there was a Village Pump notice, now archived at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_63#Proposal_to_change_the_length_of_deletion_discussions_to_7_days. I didn't see it at the time or when scanning the archives to check, but it was there.

The AN discussion is leaning towards more open discussion and review so far, FYI. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I have responded in both places. I can see that you are well intentioned, though I think that the process that has taken place is enough, and any more would be in itself unnecessary, and in general would be encouraging of a bureaucratic attitude that is not conducive to the well being of the project as a whole. What I am more concerned about now, is how to encourage a change in behaviour away from the creep toward early closures. I suspect it will be a long slow uphill struggle to get people to change the habit of closing early. It will be interesting to see what will happen. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 18:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

NK nuclear test data

Mr. Herbert,

I am sorry to offend anyone as I am a new contributor. My data is accurate. My device does work and I have been providing data to various parties. This can be easily confirmed.

You can call and chat with the following persons and just see their reactions. It should be VERY interesting:

1. DOE NNSA Mr Doug Denham 505-845-4846 / 4518 fax Initial contact at Kirtland AFB NNSA office.A LONG story. 2. DOE NNSA Mr. Jim Dirkus 505-845-5172 / 4518 fax DOE NNSA lawyer. Tried to get me to file a classified patent. Didn't do so because I want to internationally commercialize my toy. 3. FBI Austin, Texas. Special Agent Suzy Martin 512-345-1100 Been dealing w/ her crap. Her and the rest of the FBI cannot decide what to do w/ me. I recently had a demo of a prototype at her office. She was conviently in D.C. at the moment when I set everything up without her running the show. She knew about it beforehand. Totally blew it! Hates the feebies being referred to as "Friggin Brainless Idiots". I invited several interested parties to the event without her knowledge and she was PISSED! Brought a live antimatter device to their parking lot w/ 1/4 oz loaded into the device. excellent fun! 4. I have been in contact w/ a retired CIA scientist that I have been backdooring data to for several years.

I wrote the addendum article to demonstrate certain capabilities. It was never my intention to cause problems. As I am not a physicist, I have not written anything for peer review journals (yet). I hope that the information from my article can be incorporated back into the forum. Please check this information out and let me know what you think. A lot of my data has been forwarded to the government and released via the White House via press releases and presidential announcements. Examples include: 1. When Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, I noticed that some activity in the Pakistani nuclear weapons was occuring. I notified 1 of my contacts for forwarding. Several days later, the Pakistani government made an announcement that their nuclear weapons were "under complete control and accounted for." 2. I notified several of my contacts that Iran was working on a facility at Beshehr. Previously, announcements made by the U.S. Government concerned the facility at Arak (Irak spelling?). (As a side note, monitoring the other facility indicates a possible current activity level of the gas centrifuge. This number is preliminary as I and my partner are having a hard time calibrating the data in regards to # of centrifuges running / expotential enrichment at various processing levels. The current scan indicates 3100 - 3300 gas centrifuges w/ some technical difficulties w/ some of the systems.) 3. See the story about my monitoring the NK nuke test. Device was fired off Sunday afternoon. I sent the preliminary data listed below to Doug Denhan DOE NNSA at 6:30 a.m. Monday. He called me at 9:46 a.m. constantly telling me that he was "amazed and that my gadget was of a sensitive nature". I never got a contract from the government.

My below listed brochure has a list of some paperwork at the end which I can explain if you are interested. Questions to me can be addressed to: Mitch Cluck spynuclear@yahoo.com

I am including a sample of an old brochure advertising my services. Please feel free to ask questions.

Source: Spy-Nuclear Services Website: www.geocities.com/spynuclear/mypage.html Email: spynuclear@yahoo.com President and Chief Mad Scientist: Mitch Cluck Cell # (512) 239-9047 Announcing a revolutionary new service. Introducing -

SPY-NUCLEAR SERVICES!

Using a new proprietary technology that remotely detects sources of nuclear use technologies such as: 1. Weapons research and construction! 2. Nuclear weapons deployment! 3. Nuclear terrorism! 4. Nuclear waste detection and management capabilities. 5. Detects and tracks so-called undetectable submarines! 6. Detect nuclear smuggling before it crosses the border! 7. Future capabilities being planned include commercial production of research grade Tritium and Deuterium for fusion physics experiments. The system can be built on a user specified site.

BUSINESS PLAN: Spy-Nuclear Services wil be offering a subscription based intelligence gathering and dissemination service to any and all intelligence services of any country that can afford it. The service is very expensive but is well worth your peace of mind and the savings over other forms of intellgence gathering as well as having the advantage of real-time scan and monitoring of threat sources. This service is cheaper to operate that using HUMINT, SIGINT, TECHINT, and various sensor platforms. No more time delay and critical information gathering bottlenecks to gathering , proccessing, and dissemination of national security information to your country's political and military leadership! This service will become available in early 2007! Please send an email to: spynuclear@yahoo.com for business updates and for more information.

Perform the following scans in a real-time intelligence gathering mode! 1. Iran - 5 completed weapons (Neutron activity / mass indicates that at least 2 weapons are under construction) / 3 breeder reactors (1 undergoing construction. This unit is hidden next to another reactor.) Continued upgrading and testing of reactor nuclear fuel proccessing. UPDATE: This target area has been re-scanned and the status has changed. 2. North Korea - 4-6 weapons 15-20 kt yield / 3 breeder reactors (2 working, 1 scrammed - possibly damaged, 1 under construction). See below listing concerning the recent North Korea nuclear test for the real-time intelligence scan results. UPDATE: This target area has been re-scanned and the status has changed. 3. Pakistan - 24 weapons 18 kt-1.2 mt yield (6 tritium boosted) / 1 breeder reactor under construction. 6 weapons are possible fizzles. New weapons are currently being constructed. UPDATE: This target area has been re-scanned and the status has changed. 4. India - 24-30 weapons. No yield data at this time. Several nuclear submarines are being detected sailing off the Indian coast. Reactor characterization indicates that the submarines are of Russian or Chinese manufacture. 5. Israel - Scans of this target have a current nuclear weapons count and locations of storage facilities. 6. China - Current count of nuclear weapons.

Submarine scans My device also detects and tracks nuclear powered submarines. The various navies that operate these machines claim that they are untraceable. PROVE THEM WRONG! Detect and track your objects of concern with real-time capabilites! Determine the reactor operating characteristics! Prosecute the targets with relative ease! Are you bothered by those pesky threatening submarines loaded with ICBM's and cruise missiles that cruise up and down off your coastline? Want to have the ability to put a PT boat over their heads to intimidate them right back? Harass the terrorist, yellow running dog lackeys of yankee capitalist imperialism, or the godless commies (as the case may be) per your desires and needs. Future capabilities under developement will include the ability to remotely affect the reactor's operating parameters to scram or destroy the reactor in a wartime scenario. Remove the threat source before it threatens you!

As an example: Submarine sensor scan coordinates dated 6-3-05 (Provided to Price Kagey, PhD Director, Strategic Technology Center Lockheed-Martin ORINCON.) 131w 46n 133w 46n 145e 37n 10w 25n (3x targets) 160e 32s 30w 42n 70w 45n 30e 81n 180w 82n

Submarine sensor scan coordinates dated 12-27-05. Requested data for technology pirate to demonstrate a capability. 122e 22n 124e 20n 150e 47n 63e 12s 28e 53s 25w 81s 122w 32n 172w 56n 47w 36s

Nuclear weapons test monitoring (PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. NK NUKE FIRED OFF ON A SUNDAY AFTERNOON. THIS DATA WAS SENT ON MONDAY MORNING TO THE DEPARTMENTY OF ENERGY NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY AGENCY AS A TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION. PRELIMINARY U.S. GOVERNMENT RESULTS PUBLISHED ON THE FOLLOWING THURSDAY. THE COMPANY CHIEF MAD SCIENTIST WAS MONITORING THE NORTH KOREA SITUATION FOR SEVERAL WEEKS PRIOR TO THE TEST AND MONITORED THE TEST PREPARATIONS.) North Korean nuclear test data 1. Implosion device. 2. Plutonium core. 3. Radioisotopic scan indicates the core was comprised of several plutonium original sources from several batches processed in different reactors. 4. Core was approximately 8.9 - 9.6 Lbs. 5. Neutron flux during detonation indicates that the weapon is a fizzle. 6. 2 weapons were located in the general proximity of each other. I believe that the #2 weapon was a backup or was being prepped for a second test. 7. Indication of tritium boosting. Looks like part of the fizzle. 8. Some unusual data collected concerning the weapon's construction. 9. Preliminary calculations show a yield of approximately 660 - 680 tons.

Spy-Nuke continues to scan the North Korea situation and updates it's database for current nuclear capabilites.

General scan data

1. Several sources located on the former grounds of the Rocky Flats, Colorado processing facility. Signal analysis indicates several sources of low-moderate radioactive contamination. Possibly from any waste processing that might have been skipped over or accidentally buried during the closeout and cleanup several years ago.

2. Nuclear waste awaiting disposal. (Separate from the power reactors). A. Hanford B. Savannah C. Pearl Harbor - waste only D. San Diego (both military and civilian reactors are scanned.) E. Bikini Island (Duh! I use this for test and calibration.) F. Los Alamos Nastional Labs (Some waste. Current weapons count = 6-9 weapons of various yields and state of dis-assembly depending on how the scans are read.) G. Novaya Zemlya, Russia (Another test and calibration site that I use. Some VERY severe contamination. NOT a vacation spot to go camping!) H. Lop Nor, China ( See above.) I. Guam - intermittent signals J. Japan -various sources K. Vladisvostok, Russia. Many pinpoint and overlapping sources of contamination in Vladisvostok. L. I also detect several point sources in the Pacific ocean. Energy levels look like low level wastes just dumped. Several anomolous scans indicate possible entire reactor cores. Low level fast neutron activity / large reactor core mass. Note: I sometimes use various facilites for testing, calibration, and general curiousity such as the A. Nevada Test Range and related facilities. B. Tyuratom, Khazakstan and Chernobyl, Ukraine C. Woomera Weapons Research Establishment in Australia near Maralinga D. An unidentified site in the central western desert area of Australia.

INTELLIGENCE GATHERING CAPABILITIES

1. Want to know where your future targets keep their hidden nuclear weapons caches? 2. Are the foriegn military aircraft, ground forces, and ships that operate just off your borders and coastline armed with nukes? 3. Is that bothersome neighbor that is constantly making veiled threats bluffing or prepping for a surprise attack. Remember what happened at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941! 4. Want to keep an eye of parties of interest? What about those groups that your intelligence agencies suspect of trying to go nuclear? 5. Remotely inspect shipping for a nasty surprise while the ship is way out at sea and deal with the situation before it gets to be a disaster.

PROPOSAL FOR STUDIES AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE REMOTE NUCLEAR SENSOR SYSTEM (PRELIMINARY / NEEDS FURTHER RESEARCH AND DESIGN)

1. Modifications to remotely create a nuclear weapon / reactor mishap. Such a mishap includes the following scenarios: A. Overloading the reactor core with a flash flood of fast neutrons in a sufficient manner to cause a partial core meltdown and / or uncontrolled chain reaction resulting in an nuclear detonation fizzle event. B. Reactor neutron flux being drawn off and disposed. This action will result in the target reactor core not generating the appropriate neutron flux for a sustained fission proccess. The resulting action would cause the target reactor operators to shut down the reactor for problem analysis and possible dis-assembly. Thus delaying further work on a weapons program. C. Fizzle the target reactor to destroy itself, related equipment and facilites, and give a lethal dose of hard radiation to it's support personnel resulting in catastrophic termination of nuclear weapons fabrication at that facility. D. Making all safety and interlocks on the weapon system totally worthless. This means that it might be possible to remotely fire off a weapon and / or reactor in the enemy's backyard. This means that the PAL (Permissive Action Link arming codes), Safety / Arming trigger interlock, flux tamper controls, and anti-tamper systems are totally redundant and effectively non-functional. Practically, this means that when someone threatens to pop off a nuke, do it in his backyard, not over your head! Think of this as an advanced form of non-proliferation........ UPDATE: A limited test of this capability was successfully carried out recently upon a simulated nuclear weapon. The target was severely irradiated.

UPDATE: Research work is currently being performed in constructing and designing a special transponder or beacon device for remote sensing. This device can also be used to create a non-interceptable, non-detectable communications system.

UPDATE: (approx Feb 18, 2007) A test was performed at the request of another party to remotely detect and count the missile warheads located in North Dakota and South Dakota. This test was with the quick scan method over a 3 day period. The results were 512 warheads +/- 20 warheads. The targets were USAF Minuteman /// missiles located in their silos. The new modifications currently being performed will improve sensor capabilities and weapons count / classification

UPDATE: The system is currently being upgraded with new technologies to improve capabilities. Further expansion plans will include: 1. Production of deuterium and tritium fuels for commercial applications for those organisations that wish to pursue fusion physics programs. 2. Large-scale anti-matter (positron) production for research programs. 3. Nuclear waste disposal for remediation purposes. Applicable to nuclear power stations.

These capabilities can be customed built on-site at the customers facility. Please contact us for a initial requirements consultation. The company president is available to travel for on-site inspection at the customers expense and fees.

My device uses the following proprietary intellectual property as well as other IP resources that are considered trade secrets:

Disclosure Document #297945 Dec. 13, 1991 Title: A nucleonic weapon system utilizing a particle / anti-particle generation, separation, and containment system structure for the purpose of power generation and extremely high yield detonation in a controlled manner Synopsis: Paperwork describes a system for generating and storage of anti-matter. This system is more efficient than the method used by the CERN facility before it closed. The system fits on a 4 ft. x 8 ft. sheet of plywood. Originally designed for electrical power generation. Currently used for research and other applications.

Disclosure Document # 261487 Aug. 31, 1990 Title: A method for constructing and operating a novel high power defense system utilizing scalar interference pattern in an electromagnetic containment field. (simple system) Synopsis: A basic electromagnetic based force field generator. Eats power like there is no tomorrow! Since greatly improved for other applications.

Disclosure Document # 498583 Aug. 16, 2001 Title: Research notes for an experimental matter / energy conversion process and transportation system. Synopsis: Experimental quantum based physics. Similar in concept to work done by IBM Research Fellow Charles Bennet. His approach will never work. The difference is that he works on theory and I build hardware. Needs more work before it is fully practical. I have done applications work and I already have results

Quantum Physics Based Cherenkov Radiation Sensor - Interactive quantum physics based cherenkov radiation sensor system that I use for monitoring radiation sources such as remote sensing of nuclear reactors. Tested against submarine and civilian reactors. Current version operates to detect, classify reactor output levels, determine range and bearing, and actively interact on a limited basis on the reactor target.

MitchCluck (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Arrrrh!

Why was your pirate joke page abrogated? I needed to link to it in an article on Useful arts but couldn't, so I had to use an <a href> link instead. (See note 3 in References for Useful arts.) I don't think your article should have been deleted, ...maybe edited. But the pirate joke is a cultural artifact that should be Wiki-defined, at least. Incidentally, tic lacks an entry that would fit pirate jokes and "Arrrh" (the arrrrtifact).

PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't my Pirate joke article, it existed before I got here. I preserved the contents in my userspace, but the main article went away due to a deletion discussion. You can wikilink to it like this: User:Georgewilliamherbert/Arrr not having to use a URL, if you don't want to.

Hope that was helpful... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Block review request

Hi, if I could tug your sleeve a moment, could you perhaps have a look at the unblock request for User:Off2riorob? The admin board consensus was to lift his 72 hour block when 48 hours expired. We're at 49 hours now but none of the sysops who posted there happen to be online. Durova^Charge! 23:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, PhilKnight unblocked. Cheers! Durova^Charge! 23:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Easiest review I ever didn't do... 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Sabot.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sabot.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Darko Trifunović again

The article has been stubbed by another editor. Please see the comments (and my response) at Talk:Darko Trifunović#Stubbed - your views would be welcome. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Mamta Dhody

I've unblocked him and left an apology for the misunderstanding, along with some non-judgmental advice on how to get a more productive reaction next time. I'll go back and review how this all developed in more detail. I do wish there was an easier way for inexperienced editors to provide references, which would decrease the general frustration level considerably (apart from, in this case, a fuller understanding of the situation on my part at that time), but am at a loss as to how such an improvement might be implemented or what form it might take. Thanks for the notification - we need to know when we've screwed up so we can try to fix it. Acroterion _(talk) 12:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Bosniak

As you recently posted a personal attack warning to his User talk page, you may be interested to know that a report concerning User:Bosniak has been posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bosniak (block requested for resumed personal attacks). —Psychonaut (talk)

Hello, Georgewilliamherbert. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 April 21.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re:WP:BITE on Manu Sharma and User:Mamta dhody

That's all well and good, if this was the first time we'd ever met- it isn't. That user is a pain. The project would be far better off without them. They have previously ravaged that article into a BLP nightmare (check the history...)- I fought for its deletion, but another editor took up the cause, and knocked it into shape (of course, Mamta dhody editwarred to hell to keep his version, complete with COI, POV, copyvios and BLPvios galore, as well as removing AfD notices and the like). He got a block for that, after a previous block for BLP vios on another article (or maybe it was the other way around- I wasn't the blocker in either case, as I was "involved" because I cleaned up his mess- the point is, I don't care about the subject, and edit through necessity, attempting to clean up blatant BLP vios, for which he has been warned and blocked repeatedly). Now, I see him arriving back at the article (sadly, the editor who took up the cause has left the project) spouting legalese in ALL CAPS, professing a conflict of interest (I think, I don't really understand what he was saying) and creating "articles" about the case by copying HUGE swathes of text from other websites. Oh, and recreating them when deleted, despite warnings. He also refused to discuss any issue, despite constant notices on his talk page (which were polite- perhaps the edit warring wasn't, but do you honestly think I should leave unsourced negative information in a BLP to avoid biting? Let's get our priorities right...) and, further, as I've said, the subject matter is not of interest to me, I edit only to clean up the mess, so I do not want to read sources. I repeatedly told the user about citing sources (I linked to the pages that explain it...) as well as BLP, 3RR and so on. These were ignored- he just made the same change, over and over. No message on my talk page (despite my invitation) no messages on his talk page or the article talk page. (I ignored the personal attack, I don't really care as long as he's not suggesting I'm a rapist or anything). This is exactly the same as the other related incidents. Basically, long story short, indef block and move on. This user is not worth our time- I've already devoted too much. J Milburn (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Further, whether it's right or not, could you please format this addition correctly? You're now familiar with the subject matter far more than I am... J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, I am going to wait for your reply before taking this to the noticeboards. Is there any reason that this user should not be blocked? I see now that the block for 3RR, BLPvios and copyvios has now been reversed, but I still see all of those policies as having been violated, many times, despite lack of discussion and many warnings. This seems immensely obvious to me- the user should be blocked. If any more problematic edits are made in the mean time, I'm blocking. I can't see any reason to let this person defile our encyclopedia any longer. J Milburn (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Missile issues in East Asia

Hi　Regarding the Article pls understand I wrote Japan H2 Rocket and Taiwan tactical missile development for respecting NPOV.

There are a lot of Page about List of Militaly asset For EX List of countries by military expenditures List of countries by size of armed forces I'll change the title "List of East Asia countries by size of Theater Missile force " and I'will deleate "Issue/Probrem" from the article

Please complomise on this proposal.

Wikipedia is NOT the Advertisement Board for Right people or Left people. Right people should not breach the incovenient article for EX "Green House effect probrem", Left people should not breach the article about Global/Aerial security. If the article try to keep NPOV ,and with reliable Citation like Goverment organization(Pentagon) Report. --Jack332 (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC) 　

Hi I've got your point And I'm sorry that I add on INF part in the Article But I think there are some mis-understanding between us Basically I wrote the article based on "Internarional Crisis Group's" this Report [34]"The Asian Balance of Weapons of Mass Desruction"

So basically the article is NOT my private opinion That is ICG's opinion, and also wide spred people's concern

And if someone Write the article about Grobal warming,based on the Stern Review it is not against Wikipedia's Rule.

"If your truth is NOT original reserch, then it should be easy to find Famous person's/Organization's report/article about it"

So,My second proposal is" I delite INF part and rewrite the article's Main Part based on ICG report" I hope you kindly accept my second proposal

--Jack332 (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi　Pal

• I think any　Organization's Report contain some opinion
• If somebody breach the article Globalwarming or Stern Report and say "This is opinion article so I delite it" then pls imagine how do you feel

• Wikipedia prohibit "Original reserch" but I based on Pentagon report and ICG report.
• Again the new article will NOT be my private opinion,it is ICG's opinion and Pentagon's Data.

• At least I write CRS' Chinese Analyst's report(Which concern Japanese Rocket and Taiwan's Tactical Missile Development) for NPOV I love democracy and Pluralism , so I respect defferent opinion

• Please make clear the difference between "Grobalwarming Article based on IPCC/Stern review" and "The Asian Balance of Weapons of Mass Desruction Article based on ICG/Pentagon report"
• And please make clear which wikipedia rule are you based on."Original Reserch?""NPOV?"which one?

• Obcourse I also want to save time, so your compromise proposal will be wellcomed

--Jack332 (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pal

• I understand you looks busy, but every court fix judgement/arbitration within certain period.
• Would you mind give me reply until the end of this month?
• If no reply until the end of this month I recignize you agreed to revert this article
• Sorry busy moment thank you!

--Jack332 (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Roman society article

Doug Weller left a note on my talk page about the discussion on ANI. The article, Ancient Roman society was a part of a bold edit I made to the Ancient Rome article by splitting it. The split was reversed and a discussion begun. It was determined that even though an automated suggestion had been made to split the article, it was not needed. Both myself and the editor that reversed the split failed to remember to have the new portion of the article deleted after the reversal. For that I will take responsibility, but it was not a copyright violation nor a copy paste from an outside source. It was a simple situation that is in no way related to the merge issue being discussed. That is a seperate issue for Admin to decide.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Please see WP:ANI#Block_threats_from_Admin_User:OhNoitsJamie. Thanks, MBHiii (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Had seen but not quite understood "hounding" or "following". Now I do, I think, since it still seems a matter of degree. For example, if someone shows a pattern of edits of a particular sort, to which you object, it doesn't seem "hounding" to follow what he does and make corrections as you see fit. Content, and content disputes, should still rule. It also seems the "hounding" label can be abused, like "sock...", for the purposes of those wishing to divert others from a content dispute. Of course using IPs makes someone open to the "sock..." charge. It's all in the details, a few of which, I admit, look bad in my case, but not, I still maintain, within the totality of my recent edits and those of friends, colleagues, or allies, some of whom I'll never know. -MBHiii (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

KeltieMartinFan

Hi, I just wanted to notify you that I have filed a Wikiquette complaint against this user and would like you to take a look at what I've got there. Apparently, this user has a long history of unconstructiveness and aggression towards other editors, especially those who choose to remain anonymous. I would like your honest input on this matter. Thank you very much in advance and I do apologize that your time gets wasted with this kind of bullshit. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You should have had the decency to notify me about your request to investigate whether I am a sockpuppet or not. I'm willing to do anything to prove you wrong. You're an admin, aren't you? Don't you have access to users' IP addresses? Judging by the username, I bet that person is not even from the same part of the globe as I am. Good luck in your crusade. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrators do not have access to the IPs of logged in users for privacy reasons. If an admin, or anyone else, feels someone is abusing multiple accounts/ips the can request an investigation which is done by a select few group of people who can look at IPs. These people are held to firm rules about how they use private information such as IPs. In short, no Georgewilliamherbert did not have the ability to check the IPs of those he suspected. Chillum 00:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I am challenging anyone who can prove those people wrong to do so. This is yet another false accusation out of many during the past 24 hours. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

An IP check does not prove the lack of sock puppeting as people can use proxies to change their IP. Due to the difficulty of proving one is not a sock puppet, we assume someone is not until it is unreasonable to do so(even if we really really suspect it). Chillum 00:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Proxies can usually be detected, can they not? 87.69.176.81 (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Not when managed by a knowledgeable person. Chillum 01:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's leave the beans on the stove, shall we? Dayewalker (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

SPI

Thanks for posting that SPI. They seem to be questioning it. Should I add a comment or two? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm hopeful they'll take the case, just to either confirm or refute my suspicions. We had a case a few weeks back in which there was someone (we never figured out who) who was creating a series of socks to try to slander the already-in-deep-trouble user Axmann8. This case is nowhere near that one for outrageousness, but it would be nice to know for sure. And although I haven't quite come out and accused him, if I'm wrong I'll apologize and back off. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've asked (via IRC) for another clerk or CU to review the decline. Are you pretty confident that if the accounts/IPs were determined to be connected, the conduct would merit a significant block? Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 00:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would issue a significant block if they're connected. Probably indef secondary accounts and a month on the primary and the IP.

There are two issues at play if they're related -

One, using socks to keep up inserting the content on Katie Couric and avoid detection as the same editor making the change. The edit is not blatantly bad in the "must block now" sense, but the ongoing pattern amounts to a slow motion edit war and disruption, if it's the same person doing it. This has been going on for months, and changing accounts (if that's it) does amount to serious abuse under the circumstances - even if they're not simultaneous, it makes it look like multiple people support putting it in.

Two, the IP editor is now pushing very hard for sanctions on the editor who's been working to defend the article, who clearly did get BITEy for a bit. Forum shopping, wikihounding off to other articles, etc. If the IP editor is not the same person then this is just a case of mutual disengagement and calmdown required. If they are the same person then all this is clearly very bad faith and very disruptive, attempting to play the "new, injured party" card to get someone who's been trying to defend the article in good faith sanctioned for it and thus win the edit war.

We do need to disambiguate if they're connected or not - the responses in the two cases are very bimodal. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am willing to undergo anything to prove that I am not sockpuppeting anyone. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me

Relocated from your user page... Wknight94 ^talk 14:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
How is the CIA and World Book Encyclopedia a fringe view? I hate this website, it causes me so much anger when I see such hypocrisy.--Npovshark (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

How to disagree without being disagreeable?

I posted the following message on your talk page, and then I thought better of it a short time later. At the time, I wondered if I might be able to express myself better; but that doesn't matter any more. Caspian blue now presents this as an illustrative example of my long-term harassment -- see diff.

As you may imagine, I don't see how anyone could have mis-interpreted this question as harassment; but that's not the point, is it? That's not how Caspian blue's accusation-gambit works as a practical matter.

I have learned the hard way that many, perhaps most who confront a complex tapestry of victimized indignation don't actually study the diffs very carefully. In general, I'm persuaded that the overall impression contrived by the accuser is usually accepted a priori, which means that the burden of explaining is shifted entirely to Caspian blue's ostensible victimizer ... to someone "tainted" with an unspecified past history with Caspian blue.

As a general rule, there are inherent problems when those representing the Wikipedia community in WP:AN/I-threads re-invent the wheel again and again; and those who've not previously encountered Caspian blue have been likely to "assume good faith". With regret, I think WP:AGF is likely to be construed as something to do with the conventional wisdom of idiomatic expressions like "it takes two to tango" or "where there's smoke, there's fire" ...?

This is not a rhetorical question: What do you think of this diff from your talk page history -- see link?

Your research into the editing history of Caspian blue makes you singularly well qualified to assist me in figuring out how to defuse a new "eruption" which seems to be developing.

I tried to be careful to avoid overreaching in the following context:

• Tenmei should make himself clear

However, Caspian blue's responses make me doubt my ability to avert an escalating tempest in a teapot.

My seriatim approach to dealing with Caspian blue is not as effective as I might have hoped; and I haven't quite figured out an alternative way to address the familiar escalation of extravagant claims. At the same time, my experiences lead me to conclude that the onslaught of Caspian blue's impassioned prose is very effective. In general, the reasonable man standard is easily manipulated to Caspian blue's advantage in ways I can't quite parse. As you yourself observed, most people are unlikely to take the time to investigate; and the broad swathe of disruption your research uncovered never comes to light.

What I'm specifically looking for is good counsel from an experienced editor, not action from an experienced administrator. In an ArbCom setting, I only want to focus on my own contributions, my own responses, my own meager ability to keep focused and constructive. With that in mind, would you be willing to offer critical comments? suggestions? feedback?

Bluntly, I want to be keep "cool" in ways that are not natural for me. Alternately, I'm rather taken with a phrase I guess didn't originate with Obama, but which was certainly repeated by him often enough -- something about how it's possible to disagree without being disagreeable?

This is a different sort of inquiry, I know; but there you have it. --Tenmei (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

In this same vein, see also User talk:Kbdank71#Construing an "enemies list" on your user page? May I solicit your comment -- see link? --Tenmei (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox

You may want to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Attack page. --Tenmei (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Tenmei

Hi, George, sorry for the all trouble. Tenmei notified you of the above ANI report on his own subpage [filled with ad hominen attacks. The diff is why Teeninvestor (talk · contribs) who has been falsely accused by Tenmei to ArbCom, notified me of the presence of the page and strongly felt to give Tenmei No Personal attack warning. And then Tenmei takes it to ANI.

Since whatever he is doing now is concerning his ongoing ArbCom case. So as a due course, I notified Tenmei's ongoing behaviors to the ArbCom Commette like below.

• Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Tenmei's ongoing harassment on and off ArbCom

And admin Dlohcierekim has advised Tenmei to delete the attack page and ANI report together.

• User_talk:Dlohcierekim#Tenmei's attack page but Tenmei continues the behaviors. Since Tenmei omitts the diff, I think this caveat would you have a hint. Thanks--Caspian blue 02:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sock report, etc.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mexicomida

Unfortunately, I can't tell from the results, who's related to who. Are the IP's connected with the other two registered users? Or just to each other? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

87.69.130.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

87.69.57.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Meanwhile, it looks like we've got more. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

And this edit [35] suggests he's figured out how to change IP's frequently, which I assume is significant from the technical standpoint, and probably also relates to a question he asked about the checkuser process on the ANI page, or someplace, I can't find it now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP naturally denies being Smedpull, and here he is "talking to himself" [36] on the talk page of Smedpull's successor, Chingadiculous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also implying by the "vigilante" comment that he will continue vandalizing, out of self-righteous wrath. Yet here's an oddity - the IP posting a "talkback" reference on Chingadiculous' talk page [37] three days ago, a day before the checkuser inquiry was posted. Why would he do that? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Because of this diff, which Captain Infinity quickly removed. By the way, you both have really outdone yourselves by getting two accounts that have absolutely nothing to do with me blocked indefinitely. 87.69.177.251 (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You have only yourself to blame for that. Note to George: The above is a new sock created immediately after another admin told him to stop socking. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That one is now blocked also, as are all 9 known IP socks so far, listed on ANI. Whack-a-Mole R Us! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Rachiddebbagh

He wants to be unblocked. It looks like he's also done substantially similar work in the french wikipedia as he's done here. I unfortunately can't read French. Just thought you might like to know. John Carter (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL FROM WIKIPEDIA

I am writing this message to you as a notice of my withdrawal from Wikipedia following the recent events/edits on the CNN and Susan Roesgen pages – events that you were involved in. Never in all of my years in academia (the better part of a decade) have I been privy to such patently-insincere and downright academically-fraudulent work as that which I have encountered on Wikipedia.

While I was initially willing to set aside all of the negative things I had heard about Wikipedia in an effort to contribute to a seemingly beneficial project, the actions of editors and administrators on the Susan Roesgen and CNN pages has made it eminently clear that “scholarship” and Wikipedia truly are mutually exclusive – propaganda has carried the day.

My failure to grace the project with some actual academically-sound work was not made in vain, however; with every neutral editor that you drive out of the project with your blatantly POV-pushing agenda, you further bolster your reputation as nothing but an unreliable propaganda board. Your reputation for unreliability was perhaps best captured in a recent statement made by my corporations professor: “I decided to make myself more ignorant on the topic by looking at the article (Dodge v. Ford Motor Company) on Wikipedia.”

I strongly encourage you to alter your course, set aside your agenda, and reverse your – and Wikipedia’s – reputation as a laughing stock. This will not only benefit the public in general, but will, I submit, actually make you feel better about yourself. Best, J.M.Jm131284 (talk) 03:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Martin.musatov

Re: your comment at User talk:Martin.musatov#Further note for admins -- see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Universe Daily. Martin.musatov is another Universe Daily sock. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My mistake: I read the block log incorrectly. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Your message

Dear Goerge - I have just read the message you left on my talk page. I have a number of questions and issues with this message: 1) How did you become aware of this dispute and what is your role in it? What are the "claims made" that you refer to about my editing? (I would like to see the grounds for the accusations). 2) I have never edited the Human Rights Watch page or its talk page. 3) What are these "extreme left central america topics" that you refer to? 4) What are the rules around libel and what are the possible consequences? (I am concerned about this) Pexise (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I've modified a statement on the Human Rights Foundation talk page which I believe was at issue - can you let me know if the complaint is still outstanding? Pexise (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2009/July's Day!

User:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2009/July has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2009/July's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2009/July! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wheel warring

Right idea but wrong time. I believe that ArbCom + Giano + Serious discussion on serious matters = abject failure every time. --Tznkai (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I am hopeful that the case is shaping up in a way that the original provocations, Giano's response, and the initial block could be relatively secondary issues.

Perhaps that's a naive hope, but I don't see that there's much to arbitrate over or even argue over left of the initial incident. Nobody is defending Xeno's initial actions - even he acknowledged that he probably pushed Giano's buttons. I don't see anyone who feels that Giano's outburst was right - some feel the provocation mitigated what he did, but nobody's defending it.

You may be right. The historical record is sort of bad. But perhaps it could work this time - the admins involved are all behaving quite civilly other than the borderline wheel war. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bushmaster-acr-brochure.jpg

I have added a disputed fair use tag to an image you have uploaded File:Bushmaster-acr-brochure.jpg as the use of a complete copyrighted brochure page in my opinion is excessive for the need to illustrate the weapon. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you only need main top image off the brochure page? I or someone could crop the rest. That'll at least get the image size down to what should be OK for fair use images. That is until a better free replacement can be obtained. I'll watch this page for a while to catch any replies. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, that's already been done with File:Bushmaster-acr-cropped.jpg. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nukes

Sorry to dissapoint - sadly, I've never participated in any of our covert nuclear programs x). On the other hand, I can (seriously) give you some info on Soviet nuclear warhead deployment on our territory, if you're interested. - Tourbillon ^A ? 19:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

NK test

Sorry, don't think you know me RL--I'm not even from that part of the country. Considering the company you keep, though, I'm flattered! rdfox 76 (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

DeltaT

Your final warning seems to have had no effect. See the diff I just left on WP:AN. Jehochman ^Talk 20:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring after warning

Just thought you'd like to know that User:Ken keisel decided to ignore your warning and reverted the article Stealth aircraft with no reasonable cause for doing so and without any discussion or attempt to seek consensus. I'd like some action taken against this contentious editor who has consistently failed to assume good faith and used personal attacks against me such as accusing me of "racism" when I am simply attempting to improve articles by gaining consensus concerning disputed material. You'll notice that I didn't simply revert the article back, as I am attempting to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines and the warning you issued in the talk page. This other editor apparently doesn't care about either. Your attention would be appreciated. Thanks. ViperNerd (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

So I take it from your total lack of response over the past 24 hours that you are not going to back up your warning with regard to this editor? Fine. Reverting the article. ViperNerd (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

WP sock

I do not appreciate your FALSE allegations about me. I do not have multiple or "sock puppet" accounts. After all the allegations throughout history of blood libel,many very well documented,you cannot be so sure they are all false. An allegation already implies an unproven accusation. By inserting "false" you are the one inserting your biased opinion here. It is obvious that the liars and propagandists are hard at work here,constantly distorting the truth and ommitting anything that criticizes Israel,zionism,or judaism. It is extremely hard to find the truth,and blatant biases like this just confirm what many of us already know:there is a multi-billion dollar zionist propaganda campaign to lie and cover up any truths that may be unfavorable to the jews.It is this lying that is part of the reason anti-semitism has always been prevalent in learned peoples throughout recent history. And YOU sir,are perpetuating it with your FALSE accusations and distortion of the truth. ADL paying you too? sincerely,in the search for truth,roscoe (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Roscoe.

vandal

I see many people have had similiar prolems with you vandalising and changing articles. As you seem to be so prolific as to have no other job than concealing truth and promoting propaganda,I can only conclude you are being paid by the huge multi billion dollar zionist war propaganda machine. Honest people do not appreciate it.YOU and people like you are the reason people do not trust wiki. So keep spreading your propaganda and making false allegations.I hope you are getting paid well for your soul. We will continue to fight for the truth.roscoe (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)roscoe

174.99.102.32

I have run checkuser and whois on both 174.99.102.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and PorLaRazaNada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and find no connection. I have counseled 174.99.102.32 to create an account and edit uncontroversial articles for some time before attempting to edit a hotly contested article such as National Council of La Raza. Checkuser of 174.99.102.32 and PorLaRazaNada show no edits under any other accounts. I will require 174.99.102.32 to create a Wikipedia account before I unblock him and monitor it. He has to reply with a suggested user name before I unblock, so there is some time for feedback before an account is created. I would appreciate any feedback. I do agree that his edit was both argumentative and original research, but it is only one edit. Fred Talk 15:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly

I write to ask for prospective help. In a sense, I'm only interested laying the foundation for the I-don't-know-what in the future. Perhaps this may be construed as taking steps to avert problems might be mitigated by a timely comment or suggestion ...?

ArbCom remedy

Voting is underway at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Proposed decision. In part because of "Evidence presented by Caspian blue", the locus of dispute was modified and "evidence in the case has expanded to include other disputes in which Tenmei has been involved." User:Georgewilliamherbert is accorded prominence in this so-called "evidence" at "Tenmei's long-term harassment" and in "Tenmei's wikihounding and trolling". I don't think this timeless prose is worth struggling to read, but I mention the links to explain a bit more of the reasons why I'm reaching out to you.

ArbCom findings of fact included:

• 3.2.2 Tenmei and dispute resolution. "... many of Tenmei's talkpage posts and submissions during this arbitration case have been very difficult for other editors to understand, to the point that experienced participants in dispute resolution have had difficulty in following them, despite what we accept as Tenmei's good-faith best efforts to assist us in resolving the case."

ArbCom remedies included:

• 3.3.2 Tenmei and dispute resolution: "Should Tenmei become involved in any further disputes with other editors, whether concerning the content of articles (beyond ordinary day-to-day editing issues) or more formal dispute resolution procedures, he shall seek the assistance of a volunteer mentor or adviser to work with him in maximizing the value of his presentation by assisting him with formulating it in a clear and civil fashion."

• 3.3.3 Editors advised: "Editors who encounter difficulties in communicating with others on-wiki are advised to seek help from others in presenting their thoughts clearly, particularly when disputes arise or when dispute resolution is sought."

It is clear that ArbCom anticipates future difficulties; and I guess I need to do the same. Arguably, my previous postings on your talk page are congruent with exactly the sort of thing ArbCom wants me to do in future; however, I note with regret that "How to disagree without being disagreeable" is cited several times by Caspian blue as evidence of harassment

If you want to discuss this off-wiki, I'm working on figuring out how to set up an appropriate e-mail address. -- Tenmei (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

• From the editor: Browsing the archives
• Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
• Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
• News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 23:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

User:DeltaT

I have noticed that you have protected the page The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is a goods thing I believe taking what happened on this article the last days. On the other hand I wonder whether IP 92.41.246.206 who had made the last discutable edit to the article (that you have reverted) and has posted some comment on the talk page is in fact not the same person as DeltaT who has been banned. At least the nature of the edit the IP and DeltaT have made on the article and the comment the IP has left on the talk page made me thing this. In that respect should the IP not be banned as well as this contributor (if a CU check proves they are the same persons) clearly overrules a decision of the administrators (unless the rules here differ from wiki (fr))? I am not administrator and I do not really which procedure must be applied in the case at had. This is why I leave it to you to decide whether an action must be undertaken. --Lebob-BE (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you have a look please

An editor has been blocked see discussion here and after a little venting of anger has now had their talk page blocked too could you have a look as you are aware that it is against standing policy thanks. BigDunc^Talk 22:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to have that part of the block undone. Sorry I wasn't on to answer earlier.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Georgewilliamherbert. You have new messages at SarekOfVulcan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, what would you think of resolving that whole section, now that you're reviewing it? It's a bit of a mess... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Air France 447 / F-GZCP

The image Image:F-GZCP.jpg is the actual crash aircraft. You can see the full sized original at [38] - its tail letters are clearly readable on the full sized original.

Please stop deleting that image off the crash article.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find a discussion on the article's talk page plus considerable discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_June_3#F-GZCP.jpg, much of which questions that the image is inappropriate to claim fair-use. I'm not deleting any image. There are no visible marking on the image at sizes appropriate for fair-use which differentiate with any of the freely available A330-200 AF images. Thanks/wangi (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand our fair use policy. The reasoning you've used on the article talk page and the deletion discussion include reasoning which is not supported by WP:FAIR or precedent regarding fair-use of images.

Having to zoom in to see the tail markings is not the point. The point is that the image is of the actual crash aircraft. That makes it notable and significant. If there was a completely free (as opposed to CC-BY-SA-NC-2.0 like the one here) alternative we'd have to use that. But there isn't. So we don't have to. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland dispute review

I think you got everything I would have wanted looking at. Thanks again. :-)

Do you mind if I switch the secure-site diffs to mainsite, so Popups work?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No objection at all. I just automatically use secure site by default so I grab those URLs, but I understand why people sometimes prefer the other way. Change away, permission granted to swap secure to main site as long as the targets remain the same yadda yadda. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

An excellent summary of a complex issue. I'm just an idle bystander on this issue but wanted to say well done - if any possible response is likely to defuse this latest Ireland naming saga and get people back to productive editing, its yours. Euryalus (talk) 06:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to log my original block at the Arb case, so I just did, including your time-served unblock/reblock. Look ok? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to start out by stating that I believe that you George have been acting in good faith so far. And then I'd like to ask you if you just simply looked past this and if you did how you possibly could? Basicly the admin Sarekofvulcan STATED that he was blocking that user for ASKING FOR DIFFS, links or other proof of regulation. This is completely unacceptable, I have noticed that this admin is indeed very greatly controlled by his own emotions and feelings and I absolutely do not think that he should have admin status here on wikipedia at least not for the next couple of years.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping you from filing a conduct RFC or a Request for Arbitration against anyone involved if you disagree with my conclusions. I conveniently laid out the evidence in detail, feel free to copy and paste it into a RFC or RfAR.

I tried to assume good faith about both Domer48 and SarekOfVulcan. Nothing that I saw indicated that either party (or anyone else) was out to damage Wikipedia or acting in a manner to try and attack other editors for the sake of attacking them, as opposed to reactions to the naming situation. If I had concluded that either or both were not acting in good faith the response would have been more significant. But I did not. I think everyone's trying in their own way to do the right thing for Wikipedia.

If you disagree, you may proceed with further followup. If the community or Arbcom feel that I didn't go far enough or misjudged something, so be it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you did infact Not see that he admin Sarekofvulcan STATED that he was blocking that user for ASKING FOR DIFFS, links or other proof of regulation?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Also thanks for the suggestion, I have meant to take action against this admin for some time now but offered him alternatives to that path being taken which he opted not to accept so I really should get to it and file that conduct RFC, would I do that on the main ANI board or elsewhere?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

George it was a bit rude of me not to come here first and thank you for the time and effort you put into your review it must not have been easy. I would like to do that now by saying thanks. My responce, I hope, you will not take as a reflection on you but on the circumstances. That I would be willing to support 194x144x90x118 if they proceed to filing a conduct RFC is obvious. I do hope in the current discussion on both your review and my responce that Editors and Admin's will follow our lead and use diff's to support their opinions. Thanks again, --Domer48_'fenian' 11:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Jhingade

After your block of Dr.Jhingade you told the blocked editor, "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges." Can you list the parts of Wikipedia's blocking policy that you followed when imposing this indef block? It looks like "Dr.Jhingade" was a newbie editor with no understanding of Wikipedia and he was not warned before being indef blocked. --JWSchmidt (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The answer is right there in the block log message - spamming Wikipedia articles. WP:SPAM and WP:LINKSPAM.

See: Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption-only, which reads in part:

• accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam.

Jhingade quite obviously met that criterion, having placed the same commercial advertisement for his Homeopathy company and products on the Talk:Homeopathy page repeatedly and Article.

Persons who are trying to do something encyclopedic who get it wrong, we are tolerant of. People who are obviously trying to use Wikipedia as a free billboard are shown the door.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you feel any obligation to explain to new editors how to edit and to warn them before you give them an indef block? --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, he was repeatedly warned and reverted by many editors. The disruption had to stop and he was blocked. No matter how much NPOV and no-linkspamming were explained to him, he just didn't seem to get it and refused to stop it. Those kinds of editors aren't here to improve the encyclopedia and are expendable. I don't recall now if he started with this account or by using IPs which received some of those warnings, but in either case, HE, the man behind it all, did receive warnings.

I'm beginning to wonder why you are pursuing this matter so intensely. Are you doing it solely because you feel a procedure wasn't followed very precisely at one short moment in time, and that such a lapse somehow invalidates all the other good faith efforts to protect the encyclopedia in a proper manner, or are there other concerns? Please explain. I AGF and figure you have a good explanation. I hope that all those good faith efforts will not be trashed in an effort to save someone who is obviously a thorn in the side of Wikipedia. If there was a small lapse, remember that we don't have to read suspects their Miranda rights here. Small procedural errors aren't enough to get a case thrown out. Common sense still rules here. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

BullRangifer: "he was repeatedly warned and reverted by many editors" <-- I am specifically interested in events before this block. Was Dr.Jhingade repeatedly warned before that block? "NPOV and no-linkspamming were explained to him" <-- Were they explained to him before this block? "Those kinds of editors aren't here to improve the encyclopedia" <-- These edits look like the edits of a total newbie. Are you unable to assume good faith and imagine that this person might have become a constructive editor had someone explained to him what Wikipedia is and how it works before blocking, apparently without warning and without explanation? "Are you doing it solely because you feel a procedure wasn't followed very precisely at one short moment in time, and that such a lapse somehow invalidates all the other good faith efforts to protect the encyclopedia in a proper manner, or are there other concerns?" <-- I'm concerned that a potentially constructive contributor to Wikipedia may have been turned into an enemy of Wikipedia because he was not welcomed to Wikipedia and no effort was made to explain to him how to edit before an indef block was imposed. "a small lapse" <-- What "lapse" are you referring to? --JWSchmidt (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, since I can't read his deleted talk page, and I can't remember the exact history and timeline of all that happened regarding this user (not this "username"), let's just assume this hypothetical situation: He hadn't been warned in any manner, including edit summaries, or to any IPs of his that he might have used before he used this username and was blocked. Obviously this hypothetical situation is partially wrong (edit summaries were used), but we'll ignore that for now. IF the rest of his appearances here had shown any possibility that he might have been salvageable, then I might agree with you, BUT I never did see such evidence. He never seemed to get it. He even seemed literally incapable of understanding our policies. I even began to wonder how he could have ever become a doctor. Whatever the case may be regarding the block of this particular username, the rest of the story gives abundant proof that he is totally unsuitable for Wikipedia. Everytime he returned it was to do the same thing, not to show any understanding or willingness to learn. I'll just leave now and let you and George hash this out, although I am indeed curious about where you will go with this, and whether it will be for the good of the encyclopedia and an attempt to seek peace, or will be disruptive and create bad feelings. We really should be letting this matter settle now that another sock who explicitly lied about it has been blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Update... This guy just never stops: User:59.92.147.124. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

To answer the question being posed - no, assuming good faith is not a limitless assumption. Editors who from their first edits here are clearly not interested in an encyclopedia, but are trying to promote themselves and their commercial activities are, like editors who immediately launch into mass vandalism or editors who immediately start attacking others, simply not welcome here.

Assume Good Faith is preceded by Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, ...". See WP:AGF.

Showing up and quite literally repeatedly spamming ads for your website is strong evidence to the contrary. The behavior has been consistent and repeated, see the recent case, checkuser, associated accounts etc.

In a perfect world we'd all have limitless time to go talk nicely to every editor who shows up and does something wrong, make sure they are politely but firmly told about our policies and goals and the purpose of the website. We'd have multiple very happy and constructive editors and administrators who could welcome anyone in the most friendly manner, and give them every bit of information we could about how things work here and try to mentor them past any trouble spots.

We do not live in a perfect world. We have finite time and attention. Some people's goals are simply fundamentally incompatible with making an encyclopedia, editing to neutral point of view, etc.

Lacking limitless time, at some point we must simply say "enough" and ask or force people to leave. With accounts that immediately launch into this type of behavior, that point is right after they start editing.

I wish I had limitless time (for Wikipedia and other projects) - reality differs. This action was consistent with the policy that the community has set forth for administrators to act under. If you believe otherwise, feel free to bring the case up on the administrators' noticeboard for incidents and point to this conversation and the NPOV noticeboard discussion and ask for other admins to review.

Before you do, though - look at the block log for a while. We have to do this all the time, day in and day out.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"at some point we must simply say 'enough' and ask or force people to leave" <-- And in your case, that "point" is without first having taken the time to tell a new editor what they are doing wrong. Who is the "we" that has sanction to not help new editors, is there a list of these special administrators? In the time it took you to leave a non-informative block message (some could argue that it was an incorrect and deceptive block message) on Dr.Jhingade's talk page, two other Wikipedians had the time to leave messages that explained what Dr.Jhingade had done wrong. One of those other editors used a welcome template. If you personally do not have time to give warnings, welcomes and advice to new editors then maybe you do not have time to be an administrator. Sometimes explicit warnings are required at Wikipedia. If there were a special situation where the Wikipedia community had agreed that warnings must be given, would you still take the position that, due to time limitations, you personally need not give the required warning? --JWSchmidt (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The blocking policy does not require warnings in this situation. See Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption-only - and I quote:

Furthermore, some types of user accounts are considered disruptive and may be blocked without warning, usually indefinitely:

(...)

• accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam.

I stated this and provided the reference in my first response to you, above.

If you would like to change the policy, I suggest you start a discussion on the administrators' noticeboard. If you believe that I mishandled the situation then you can post asking for a review on the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. However, in my opinion, I reacted in a manner consistent with other administrators and with the policy. I do not believe that this user was compatible with Wikipedia and I don't believe that treating them with kid gloves would have changed the ultimate outcome. They have been repeatedly informed with the various sockpuppet accounts what the problem is with their editing, and warned to stop, and they keep coming back.

Complaining about a case in which the subsequent behavior has pretty solidly proved my case with the first block's appropriateness is somewhat perplexing. However, I'm always open to review.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"they keep coming back" <-- We have do ask "why?". Your position seems to be that this individual is a spammer who is trying to use Wikipedia as an advertising medium. However, my interactions with this individual indicate to me that he is trying to work for inclusion in Wikipedia of information about homeopathy that is not currently here. Your block message on the "Dr.Jhingade" talk page said that he was a vandal. However, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism". The edits you called vandalism indicated that "Dr.Jhingade" was not satisfied with the information in Wikipedia and so he was trying to provide additional information. When you first blocked this editor, two other Wikipedians attempted to engage with "Dr.Jhingade" and explain what he was doing wrong, as is general procedure at Wikipedia: "should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking". Your initial guess was that "Dr.Jhingade" was only here to use Wikipedia as a "free billboard" but his recent editing indicated that he is interested in improving the encyclopedia. "the subsequent behavior has pretty solidly proved my case" <-- I do not agree. I'll agree that "Dr.Jhingade" is a difficult case, but I see no evidence that you correctly identified him as a vandal and I think your knee-jerk indef ban without warning or discussion only inflamed the situation and created resentment. "the ultimate outcome" <-- Please explain what you view as "the ultimate outcome". "I'm always open to review" <-- I'm glad to hear that. Please answer this question: If there were a special situation where the Wikipedia community had agreed that warnings must be given, would you still take the position that, due to time limitations, you personally need not give the required warning? --JWSchmidt (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Your "interactions with this individual indicate..." ?? What interactions? Have you been communicating with him by email, and have you been acting as his meatpuppet here, OR have you some interactions here that I'm not aware of? Note that I'm AGF, and hoping you will provide diffs to the second option. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If the policy said "must warn" and I didn't due to time constraints that would be an abuse of power, yes. But that's not at all like the situation here. This is one of the "may block without warnings" situations, explicitly called out in policy.

I think you're assuming too much good faith about the editor here. But, that's your perogative.

The administrator's noticeboard is thataway. If you don't take my word for it that this was normal and within policy, getting some others opinions is the only thing that is going to correct that - you don't appear to believe or be listening to me. I don't think that this conversation is being particularly constructive at the moment - feel free to report to AN and see what feedback is there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So far I haven't seen any evidence presented by JWSchmidt that the blocking admin has to be the one who has warned the user. If the blocking admin has seen what is happening, including the warnings and edit summaries provided by other editors, those warnings are factored into the equation and the blocking admin can act accordingly and block without personally providing a warning in such clear situations as this. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The campaign against your blocking of Dr.J is being discussed here. Apparently JWS isn't satisfied with your explanations here. I think an RfC/U should be started regarding the attempt to unblock Dr.J. All the blocking admins and other editors who have been involved in the situation should have their input before any unblocking can occur. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Is part of the problem here that any warnings given to Dr. J. (and some of his edits that led to the block) are no longer available because they were on his now-deleted User:Talk page? Brunton (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hi George, is the topic ban you imposed on me finished now? The discussion on ANI has been filed away, I assume the issues I raised will be ignored, which only leaves RfC. Thanks again for your time and effort. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban expired, yes. As I said, you should be careful how you engage in the discussions, because you're getting angry about it and that doesn't help you, but edit away.

As I stated above to others, a RfC is the next step, if another administrator wasn't willing to intervene further following the ANI discussion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks George. It would be nice if you would accept that I only got angry after I'd been blocked. As to administrators not willing to intervene during the discussion on ANI, if you had not come along I'd still be blocked, even though Admin's said they did not agree with it. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

How interesting...

...you supported a purely punitive block against me for merely being intemperate in telling Caspian Blue to stay away from me, and yet Ottava's ongoing outrageous attacks get a 'please'. Fascinating. //roux   02:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Protocols of the elders of Zion

Did you have a look at the sources I cited, as well as at my ip adress? It seems as though the article is presenting as fact a contentious, and unlikely, authorship.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Qamishli talkback

at the Al Qamishli talkback I posted a new section at the bottom. Anyway theirs this guy that changed what I had written. He also did the same thing in different posts at the talkback, Please take car of it, ban him or something: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al_Qamishli&action=history

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Uruk2008

I just created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Uruk2008; it needs a second endorsement, so please endorse if you agree. Thanks, -- BenRG (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Jhingade has selected the account he wants to use

Jhingade user talk page (please specify which one you want to use)

He has created a new user account and posted a statement there. See User talk:Avathaar. --JWSchmidt (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

When are you going to post this and its history at the ANI? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

AN thread started on User:Dr.Jhingaadey

A thread has been started to discuss this whole matter:

• Appropriateness of allowing multiple banned sockmaster Dr.Jhingaadey to return

If you have any interest in the matter, you are welcome to participate. The wider the community input, the better. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

• Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
• News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
• Wikipedia in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked User ANigg

Just thought you may be interested in User:Knight265 who appears to be banned user - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ANigg/Archive. He/She has managed to copy and paste edits from his banned sockpuppet user pages on his/her user page. Can we just block on sight? Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I just did. If you see them again please make a note here or on the SPI archive and stomp them into permanent blockage. We may need to get the IP range semi-perma-blocked... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Noted, thanks for the help. MilborneOne (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot provide names for the insert I added for the article on the FN SCAR. As you can understand naming people associated with that field of work is a big no no. I can tell you that I have a very close relationship with both the SOCOM community and the weapons dev. community and from firsthand work with the men that what I stated is basic fact among the teams. FN won a contract when in fact the operators themselves prefer the HK416 platform over that of the SCAR. And through personal accounts and experiences with the SCAR I can provide a very critical and in depth review. Thank you. Parker375 (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

• Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
• News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

PJ Haseldine community ban

Hello. Since you are the person who suggested that user:Ncmvocalist close this dicussion, please have a look at this discussion where his right to close it is being challenged. Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Darko Trifunović problems again

Hi George, could you please take a look at WP:AN/I#Darko Trifunović? I think we need to get this issue sorted for good. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser has confirmed that DT is responsible for the IP vandalism. I've raised the matter at WP:AE#Darko Trifunovic. -- ChrisO (talk)

Wikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

• News and notes: Jackson's death, new data center, more
• Wikipedia in the news: Google News Support, Wired editor plagiarizes Wikipedia, Rohde's kidnapping, Michael Jackson
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocks should be used to prevent disruption, not for punishment after the fact

Have been watching the continuing saga of Some_guy vs. all the others largely from the sidelines. (Although I did ultimately add a set of guidelines to the WikiProject Firearms page while attempting to address Some_guy's concerns regarding structuring firearm articles.) The blocks for Koalorka and Nukes4Tots seem rather excessive, although socking is certainly not a good thing in the case of Koalorka during his block. However, the inequity of warning the baiter while blocking the baitees for an inordinate amount of time, now increased for Koalorka, seems a little heavy-handed. Is this really in the best interest of Wikipedia -- namely, blocking some rather productive editors who were baited, at length, while only warning a yet-to-be proven contributor who was largely the real instigator behind the current issue? Seems a little unjust, and contrary to the interests of the project as a whole. Mercy seems in order. At this point, it's safe to assume all parties definitely know better going forth from here. The need for blocks seems to have passed. Just an observation. -- Yaf (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It was not my intention to bait anyone. Both editors were given weeklong blocks due to their previous block history. Considering that Koalorka posted another vicious attack against me on his talk page. Commander Zulu is currently attempting to bait me at multiple pages, and it seems to me like you're all running around trying to bolster each other's support against me. We were actually having a reasonably civil discussion about changing the policy until Commander Zulu began attacking me and the situation is rapidly escalating out of control. Some guy (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I am truly, genuinely, oath-to-the-deity-of-your-choice, not trying to bait you. I'm sorry if that's how you see it. This entire situation has turned into a debacle in no-one's benefits and I would like to see it resolved amicably so we can all get back to what we're here for: Editing and improving encyclopedia articles. Commander Zulu (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

All I want to do is add subsections to the articles. Some guy (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

• News and notes: Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia and kidnapping, new comedy series
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Food and Drink
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop

If you are trying to help in a manner that I have repeatedly expressed distaste with, to the point that I consider it harassment, it is not helpful. That should be a sign you are taking the wrong approach. If you are trying to inform me about other editors' complaints, I am already aware of everything that has been said to me directly and responded to at least most of the complaints. If you have legitimate complaints about my current behavior, please forward them to an uninvolved administator who is not a member of Wikiproject Firearms and allow that administrator to continue the discussion. I am not opposed to discussion and I have engaged in overwhelming amounts of discussion recently. I am opposed to your particuar behavior towards me; if you are truly concerned with resolving things amicably then please forward your complaints to an uninvolved administrator. Some guy (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Your block of User:Amisquitta

Hi there, I just noticed your recent block of Amisquitta for making legal threats. I understand your reasons for doing so, but I think you may be mistaken. As per WP:NLT, "A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat"." Certainly the email as reproduced is both polite, coherent and professional (even if rather menacing). Given that the solicitors involved already referenced their difficulties in communicating, do you really think it wise to block the account? I think the threat of these individuals disrupting the encyclopedia is slim to nil, and blocking their account may be unnecessarily provocative. If you think I'm completely wrong, then I look forward to hearing your reasons for disagreement. Anyway, have a nice day. Cool3 (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This was not a polite mention of copyright problem - it was a legal cease and desist, by attorneys, and explicit threat to sue. The attorneys had already contacted the Foundation's legal staff and were told that the Foundation would not remove the files - they then went after the file uploader with the threat to try and force him to take them down.

The foundation legal staff are involved, and talking to Dcotzee.

This is a clear and unambiguous violation of NLT. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

And I see that it being discussed at WP:AN, and as the foundation staff are now involved I see that this is more or less out of our hands. Sorry to trouble you. Cool3 (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No trouble - administrators are expected to be willing and able to explain their actions if someone has a legitimate question about them, and this was clearly a legitimate question. I don't mind at all.

I hope you have a good weekend! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification

Thanks for the ANI notification. I appreciate your Henry Kissinger-esque efforts so far and I've been extremely impressed by how you've managed to remain calm and friendly in otherwise difficult situations. At any rate, for now I've decided not to participate in the ANI, primarily because I don't actually hate the editor involved and I feel my involvement (even with the best of intentions and in the best possible faith) would just be seen as a pile-on or otherwise non-constructive. As I've said a couple of times already, I honestly don't want to be involved in arguments with people when I could be working on articles. I've already apologised for being a bit heated in my initial disagreements with the editor in question (just in case anyone overlooks that fact- and also, for the record, I don't hate them or have a problem with them personally, I disagree with their actions, which is an entirely separate concept.) Also, I have to say, this entire unpleasant mess has led to me taking some time away from Wiki to seriously question whether or not I want to remain a contributing editor on Wikipedia- I'm leaning towards "probably not", at this stage, which saddens me no end. Commander Zulu (talk) 10:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Of note

So in response to his block for personal attacks, Giano issues another personal attack [39]. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

come now, we're all funny little men, hammer! Anywhoo.. I thought I'd swing by here to ask you to review the AN/I thread if you get the chance, George - in particular CoM's comment - which whilst I wouldn't go as far to say you've been disruptive, I would sort of agree with the spirit of the point, that it's probably not best for you to review your own block. Perhaps you could indicate to someone generally considered fair and reasonable (User:Juliancolton springs to mind, as someone who's posted in the thread?) that you'll be happy to defer to their judgment at this point on this matter? I think that would help. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Stopped by here by chance, and I second PMs suggestion. Goodwill is never a bad thing. It's easy enough to reblock. Also of note is this comment [40] by an editor who seems to have special admin protection despite a string of malicious attacks (including outing) on various editors and continues to do so even after warnings. If that comment doesn't amount to incivility and a personal attack I don't know what does. But we'll see how fair justice is on Wikipedia. It seems to depend on who one's friends are? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If someone else wants to step up and do a block review, they're welcome - suggesting that an administrator can't discuss the block and consider alternatives in the discussion themselves is sort of bizarre. If someone else does, fine, nobody else formally did and I thought I should respond to the discussion and inputs. My response doesn't preclude other block review, any admin who cares can do so...

You seem to be suggesting it's best that the admin absent themself from the discussion, which seems just wrong.

Regarding the Mathsci comment - that looks sorta bad. I'll take a closer look. Sigh. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't take a closer look. Let the thing go. Maybe ask Caspian blue to exercise restraint and patience and show him some empathy that you find Mathsci's comment totally inappropriate.

An admin should make every effort to avoid disruption and to limit drama. So acts of civility and good faith are very helpful in that regard. Standing on some abstract principle of how right you are no matter how much opposition and trouble your righteous blocking musters is unhelpful. If you want to impress me, next time see if Durova's willing to be patient for a while and see if you can calm things down and avoid making a block and having the ensuing drama on ANI. How's that for a novel proposal?

The Mathsci situation wouldn't be half as bad as it is now if an abusive and overly aggressive admin hadn't encouraged his behavior, or his fellow admins had called him out on his and Mathsci's behavior. Yet the only parade was on my talk page telling me how bad the block was, but that I still shouldn't complain quite so assertively when someone comes calling me out with a heap of false accusations and personal attacks over a copy-edit I made on new page patrol. Give me a break. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oh and back to the original point, this "There seems to be significant experienced administrator input that the block was good and should run its (24 hr) course" isn't an offering of an opinion, it's a rendering of consensus by a conflicted admin. It showed poor judgment and a lack of restraint and respect on your part. Not to mention that it's an inaccurate and misleading representation of the consensus in the thread. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's how NOT to "avoid disruption and to limit drama": [41] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we please not have this sort of discussion emerge here, Bugs? It won't help anything tonight...

CoM - I just left a warning for Mathsci. He seems to have stopped for the night anyways, but I agree that it was clearly warnable NPA comments, so I did that.

I disagree with your read of the consensus on ANI. If I am misinterpreting it, any administrator could find differently, and I've explicitly encouraged that review by any admins who want to do so. Not that I have to encourage it - any admin has the right and responsibility to do so if they see a problem - but I have gone out of my way to encourage it. What happens happens. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Admins don't like to go against one another reverting or undoing blocks, which is probably a good thing, but it does call for the blocking admin to be especially considerate of other opinions. I think it would have been awfully decent of you to be the one to extend an olive branch and some goodwill (several editors suggested it was a good idea). That being said, I appreciate your kind consideration and willingness to discuss the issues collegially. In future I hope you'll keep in mind my new saying: civility is as civility does. Appropriate credit to Mr. Gump. Have a good night. And sorry I was rude a while back on my talk page, but I was pissed about that nonsense. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If CoM ever apologizes for the way he stabbed me in the heart on March 8/9, then I'll forgive him and never bring it up again. Meanwhile, your page has been on my watch list for a long time, thanks to the Liebman situation. But I think that's been effectively stopped now, so as of right now you are off my watch list and everyone should be happy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi GWH (hopefully that's acceptable). I just wanted to let you know there was a thread on ANI at this link about a block you made. (not the Giano one). I thought it was only proper that a person be notified when a thread was running and it involved an action that they had performed. I realize you may not know me, but I thought it only right you should know. Kind Regards, — Ched :  ?  17:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Peanut gallery

I wonder whether you read my statement in the currently started ArbCom case? In case you hadn't I will reproduce the very first version (from July 12) of it here;

“ I recommend that ArbCom reject this second disruptive request from Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account that has regressed to a single purpose account. Abd is now a tendentious fringe POV-pusher. His editing of cold fusion and its talk page openly acknowledged off-wiki contacts with two advocates, Steven B. Krivit and community banned editor User:JedRothwell, neither of them recognized scientists. Abd has shown contempt for any other users with scientific training: the fact that he frequently addresses User:William M. Connolley as "Dr. Connolley" on talk pages was not a sign of respect, in the light of this request, which he has threatened for some time. Abd was page-banned from cold fusion and its talk page by WMC. He has engaged in discussions on the article on user talk pages, but not the mediation page. His misuse of secondary sources has been criticized by a number of experts in chemistry, including EdChem (talk · contribs) and Kirk shanahan (talk · contribs). The page-bans were given community support on WP:ANI. Abd's editing of cold fusion started roughly around the time of the "Fringe science" ArbCom case and was briefly mentioned in the "Abd & JZG" case, when his editing patterns were less clear. In this case, this needless escalation of dispute resolution should probably result in an indefinite community ban for Abd. His timing of this request might be another tactic. He might wish to attract the large circus surrounding the Obama articles. WMC has made some unpopular blocks there; and there is a peanut gallery which might share Abd's personal animosity to experts in science and grudges against WMC. The last ArbCom case directly involving Abd resulted in the disappearance of JzG (talk · contribs): Abd might be trying to do the same now with WMC. Abd's own editing patterns are highly problematic. At the moment there does not seem to be anything positive that Abd is contributing to WP. This long premeditated request is wholly negative. I hope that elsewhere the community can discuss an indefinite ban and that ArbCom reject this case. ”

Please note the sentences "He might wish to attract the large circus surrounding the Obama articles. WMC has made some unpopular blocks there; and there is a peanut gallery which might share Abd's personal animosity to experts in science and grudges against WMC." I have already been in contact with ArbCom members about Caspian blue's attempted baiting; and it seems your own intervention on my talk page was precipitated by ChildofMidnight. The "stirring of the pot" by Caspian blue and ChildofMidnight is exactly described in my statement. Were you aware of this discussion and the two ArbCom members evidently involved when you intervened? While I was sleeping a third, Stephen Bain, left a message on the ArbCom talk page; I accordingly withdrew one post and refactored another. Best wishes, Mathsci (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If you think that they are stirring the pot you can say so without insulting them or attacking them.

As multiple admins have warned you now, I hope you understand that you crossed the line and will avoid doing so again. It is particularly important to be on your best behavior when you're in an arbcom case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of links

Since you seem to be handling stuff dealing with Theserialcomma, here are two links where I've linked to just about everything in my dealings with them prior to and shortly after a number of admins got involved. I wrote a summary near the end of this thread and another that covered the later stuff here. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not aware of that. Sigh. Not going to go back and do anything with it now but it will stay on the record... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I probably didn't handle some of it terribly well but it was incredibly stressful and it seemed like so many people on the COI/N noticeboard were after me with torches and pitchforks due to the mess Theserialcomma started. I still don't feel comfortable working on the article Theserialcomma claimed I had COI with although I suppose I'll get back to it eventually. What I did discover in spending some time looking through Theserialcomma's contribs is I wasn't the first person that they had done that sort of thing to. Do you think there's any chance of clearing stuff up with Will Beback? --Tothwolf (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

With the blocking of User:Nukes4Tots for a month for attempting to clear his talk page from stalker comments who were attempting to goad him, and with the recent unpleasantness regarding User:Some guy and TheSerialComma and others as they clearly stalk WikiProject Firearms and MilHist editors, and since 3RR reports are now evidently called "snide whiney" comments by admins, such as here and are apparently ignored anyway if the POV push is towards a certain POV direction, a la User:SaltyBoatr, it's time for me to retire from Wikipedia. I no longer feel it is worth my time to waste any more time attempting to encourage NPOV goals in writing articles when even many admins are clearly pushing clearly POV agendas and imposing long blocks for trivial issues, while issuing no blocks for 5RR or even 6RR if the offending editor supports their POV goals. Nonetheless, just a quick note to say that I still consider you one of the good guys, and I wanted to say thanks for your help since 2005. I wish you well. Yaf (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Giano

My friend I took the liberty of unblocking User:GiacomoReturned. I tend to shy away from the civility issues here, and I am certain you are more experienced than me at them, but it seemed like the entire situation had calmed down. Durova has extended a very nice offer of reconciliation, and I've just spoken to Giano by e-mail. I'm hoping this particular issue has died down for now. Best regards GWH, and please feel free to send me a note if you'd like to discuss things. I have to truck off to deal with a bleed shortly but I should be around after we get finished. Take care -- Samir 08:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That's all fine. Thanks for notifying me, it seems to have turned out well that you unblocked, and I'm glad the situation calmed down overall. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention

I believe your comments on my talk page to be dead on. I have attemted to step back during the AFD nomination but did make a few small edits on non-controversial material. While wikipedia is not mob rule, any editor with real consideration for the articles in question or Wikipedia in general, would have to agree. I will remain completely off the articles in question for the time suggested, and for the reasons mentioned.Thanks--Amadscientist (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There was not actual time period suggested beyond "When things cool down" so I will commit to two solid weeks in hopes that will be enough time....however I feel it important to check back with you before contributing to the articles again. Thanks--Amadscientist (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

IP edit war

The IP edit war over the glorious territory of ballistic missile submarine has broken out again. I've made a comment at its talk page. YLee (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

IP editing vendetta/Wikihounding

While stepping back from all articles surrounding the Stephen Moorer ANI as requested, I discovered that an IP editor has begun vandilising articles related to the area around Carmel-by-the-Sea. The Monterey, California article was heavily edited today, removing most images that I uploaded with the remark that images were "Ugly" (edit- he actualy said "bad" and then said "uhg", sense of humor I guess). Other minor edits that made no real contribution. This article has other editors that contribute and a consensus does exist on that page. Here is the article before editing today, [42] and what it was after editing [43]. I did revert the edits.

I will be checking through all articles I contribute to. I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know this was beginning to happen. Thanks--Amadscientist (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I did a quick check and it appears this IP user, 71.149.243.247, also reverted the image of the Forest Theatre which was the subject of a 3 RR block and a discussion on the Carmel-by-the-Sea talk page. (No revert made on that page) I will continue to keep a watchful eye.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

A quick check of my main articles that I contribute to seems fine for now. I realise this is not an ANI or a dispute resolution page but felt it important to notify you. Thanks--Amadscientist (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

BLPCAT

Hi. I know you had a hand in the crafting/interpretation of the guidance of WP:BLPCAT, so the discussion at [44] regarding its application may interest you.--Ethelh (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

• From the editor: Welcome to the build-your-own edition of the Signpost
• Board elections: Board of Trustees elections draw 18 candidates for 3 seats
• Wiki-Conference: Wikimedians and others gather for Wiki-Conference New York
• Wikipedia Academy: Volunteers lead Wikipedia Academy at National Institutes of Health
• News and notes: Things that happened in the Wikimedia world
• Wikipedia in the news: Assorted news coverage of Wikipedia
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Oregon
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 09:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Likely Rock5410

You probably already noticed the pattern in the IP address, but the anonymous editor making futile threats to block Central Board of Secondary Education sounds like block evading User:Rock5410. You did several rangeblocks related to this issue (and thanks again for that). But it looks like maybe another range slipped through? As much as I hate to admit it, I think part of what was removed was the correct choice, but clearly we haven't stopped him from making threats. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents, 2009

Wikifan12345 has resumed edit warring without discussion, despite your warnings. I thought we were supposed to discuss any changes from now on. Factsontheground (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was not edit-warring. Check the history. I did not read through the entire discussion because I was absent for 3 days. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

AMadScientist revert at Carmel-by-the-Sea

Could you render an opinion here? [[45]]. I will stand by consensus, but there does not seem to be one so, AMadScientist is attempting to call the shots. Did 2 weeks really go by? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)