User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2009/December

Comments to Redheylin

Please cease your intimidation and threats of an editor who is frustrated. You are not helping the situation and only causing disruption. If you can't bring yourself to mediate and alleviate the dispute, then just stay out of it. You have repeatedly made unacceptable and unconstructive accusations, and as has been noted before, your intervention has been wholly one sided. Please shape up GWH. This kind of behavior is not acceptable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Which where why? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The editor is not "frustrated", Redheylin (talk · contribs) is repeatedly violating WP:NPA. Cirt (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that this was about Redheylin - which CoM hasn't confirmed, Cirt, then...

ChildofMidnight, you know as well as anyone that making acusations of false sources on Wikipedia is very serious. You also know and have been around long enough to know what sort of standards of evidence we're looking for in cases of serious claims.

You also know that making serious accusations without evidence is not acceptable behavior.

I have been trying in good faith for almost 24 hrs to get Redheylin to answer with specifics regarding these claims. You've also been largely helpful so far. It would be extremely helpful if you would attempt to convince them to provide appropriate specific evidence and claims.

I understand that they're frustrated. However - that does not absolve them of responsibility to answer the question. If they want to take time off to calm down and answer later, ok, but Redheylin's continuing to attack Cirt as in the ANI edit you deleted (thank you for that) without providing specifics is not OK.

If you're going to be trying to help mediate things, you owe Redheylin a duty to step up to them and be frank and clear about what the problem is, so that they can address it. I have tried and am not getting good response. I would encourage you and others to try as well. I am attempting to give them every reasonable opportunity to resolve this without any sanctions, and so far they keep repeating inappropriate attacks without making specific information to support them. This cannot continue forever.

You put yourself in the middle of this, please be responsible enough to help convince them that they need to do the right thing and clear this up rather than escalate it further by making more attacks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Making accusations about using sources improperly is almost as bad as making accusations about collusion.

Someone should just archive that ANI discussion already. Your asking for more input on the underlying sourcing issue doesn't seem helpful to me. If you want to help mediate and look into the actual content and ciation issues then there are other places.

As noted above, I've found you behavior to be very provacative and counterproductive. Apart from your most recent ANI board comment, you've come off as threatening and intimidating to an editor who was frustrated and trying to get assistance in resolving a situation. Some of their concerns have finally been addressed, so simply attacking them for not expressing themselves in a more constructive way wasn't useful. Try taking a more collegial approach next time maybe? People tend to be more responsive when they're met with civility, especially when they're upset.

That said, I actually came by to remove my comment. But it's been responded to, so I'll leave it. I think it's accurate, but you don't seem receptive to constructive criticism, and I don't want to heighten the dispute any further. Your refusal to point Jusdafax and Cirt in a more productive direction is disappointing. The kind of battlefield approach they've taken isn't helping any more than your antagonism towards one party in the dispute. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not taking Cirt or Jusdafax' side; if any uninvolved administrator had just taken Cirt's side this would have ended yesterday night with a disruption block on Redheylin. Which would have been improper in not giving Redheylin a chance to address the problems and clear it up.

Any uninvolved admin is openly invited to step in on ANI, if they think they're a better more neutral party. I kept responding as Redheylin kept going, without actually addressing the problem. Anyone else could have taken over and stepped up and worked with him, but nobody did. His ongoing escalation made simply dropping it untenable, unfortunately.

You get the admins who are paying attention and care to intervene, not the ultimately most perfect uninvolved ones out there. Welcome to ANI. He's the one that went there in the first place...

The question about collaboration with Off2riorob didn't set an ideal stage for resolving things, but I have strenuously avoided even mentioning it to him after they both answered that the collaboration claim was false. I told him last night it was off the table and not an ongoing issue. He still brought it up on ANI in his latest comments. I can't help it if I say it's dropped, and he won't drop it.

I appreciate you having stepped up and tried to mediate. But you're not doing him good service if he doesn't understand what the problem is. I can't make you stay involved - but if you want to help him, help try and convince him.

I understand that the evolution of the incident has not been optimally fair to him, and that the collaboration question didn't ultimately help. But he can't keep pursuing this loudly on ANI and not face the problems he's caused in doing so. I've tried to be as clear as possible and offer him as many chances as possible to understand and respond appropriately.

I don't disagree with your conclusion that aspects of this sucked. But he won't let it go, and if he won't then some administrator needs to deal with it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a back and forth with you, but I doubt that anyone would have seen fit to block an editor for trying to get admin assistance in a content dispute, especially where their concerns are reasonable. The accusations have flown in both directions. Redhylin has responded extensively, so it's not fair to say he hasn't responded to your questions. You may not be satisfied with those answers, but that's no different than his not being satisfied with Cirt's explanations. You didn't exactly drop the accusations you made, you reiterated them in a way that looked pointy, while saying you wouldn't push them further. Redhylin is far from the only one who keeps pushing the dispute. Cirt and Jusdafax have been keeping the flames alive as well. And I came upon a wikialert involving Jusdafax as well. So there's a lot to the whole thing. At some point it would be good if we actually got down to discussing the content and sourcing issues in the appropriate venues. That's what article building is about, not all this arguing. I do apologize for gettign frustrated with it all and lashing out a bit. I'm not perfect either. Only Vince Young is perfect. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I was really ready to let this go. However, since my name has been brought up here by ChildofMidnight, as it was by them (in the same manner) in the ANI just before the final closure, making it impossible to respond to the comment, I feel the need to clarify CoM's possibly misleading statement both there and here regarding a wikialert involving Jusdafax, (2.11) which if left without a link looks as if I'm somehow tarnished goods. The exchange shows that I was taken to WP:WQA by Off2riorob even after I had complied with his request re: my mention elsewhere that he had previously been blocked, and that his report at was quickly closed as resolved by admisintrator Chillum when I pointed out I had already complied with the request to remove mention of his previous blocks. It may be worth noting that, unsatisified, Off2riorob attempted to reopen the notice, which was quickly again closed with a warning to him not to do so. Still unsatisified, Off2riorob argued the matter still further at substantial length on Chillum's talk page. I wonder if ChildofMidnight would call that "fanning the flames", and give Off2riorob the kind of attention he feels GWH, Cirt and I merit from them. So, to give only the information above (as at ANI) that I was 'involved' with a wikialert, but with no further information or a link, seems not only less than perfect behavior by ChildofMidnight, but open to question, as is much of the conduct by the parties GWH is in fact questioning. Georgewilliamherbert, allow me to commend you for asking hard questions when and where they need to be asked, which are inquiries that need to be made. In addition to the slanted information regarding me, I submit that CoM's opening paragraph in this thread, at least in my view, is amazingly out of line, and his apology to you is well-merited. But even in doing so, he gets his dig in at me. Jusdafax 23:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You're a Matt Leinart fan? You have my sympathies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, I assure you. Vince did my 49ers a good turn when he nipped 'Zona yesterday, though my expectations for the post season remain slim. Jusdafax 02:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

David Shankbone

George, so far I know, you've not been involved with David Shankbone. Would you mind reviewing his six-month block? I've explained the situation here. SlimVirgin 05:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet investigation

Please don't go overboard in the apology to make it seem the SPI was unreasonable. He accused me of stalking him for one edit. That's absurd: he made one edit to wikipedia and I somehow followed that? No way. He may not have been caught this time, but no one followed his one edit on wikipedia anywhere. Sure, it's good to apologize on wikipedia. But you didn't act overboard. He's the one who went overboard accusing another editor of stalking him through his first edit on wikipedia. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

• Election report: ArbCom election begins December 1, using SecurePoll

• News and notes: 35k donated, WikiProject for Wikipedia-Books, 2M rated articles, and more

• In the news: Reports of Wikipedia's demise, prescriptions for its ills, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• 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 · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Update

Hi George. Cirt has reinstigated the disruption with a new ANI report about the old conflict. As I mentioned you in one of the threads (calling for you to be desysoped) I thought I'd mention it to you here. Clearly if you had been fair in the original thread and reminded Cirt to be civil and to avoid disruptive behavior we could have avoided this mess. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Georgewilliamherbert. 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. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Georgewilliamherbert, may I request that the next time you want to quiz a user about some google stalking results, you send them your questions by e-mail, before you drop links on several wiki pages, as you did this time. The way you proceeded showed appallingly poor judgment. Regards, --JN466 19:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps my initial inquiry should have been via email. But there was no reason for you to have misled us in the first place - I don't see that you actually did anything which our WP:COI policy prohibits; other than not disclosing your connection, I agree that you seem to be largely editing neutrally. And you could have responded to either of my queries on your talk page with a request to take the discussion to email. It was more than an hour after you'd deleted the second inquiry without so much as an edit comment that I took it to ANI. I didn't know that there was personally identifying information on those links, you could have said so.

If you'd been honest to start with, and attempted to engage in discussion after and not sweep it under the rug, the ANI post would not have happened. But what you did was in every way to create suspicion of serious misbehavior.

I'm sorry that this happened, I now don't think you were doing anything seriously wrong to start with (you should have disclosed the COI but you don't seem to have abused that). The attempted coverup here was unnecessary, and was what caused the problem. You really didn't have anything to hide, but trying to hide it was a poor choice to respond once questions were being asked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I accept your apology and thank you for acknowledging that I edit neutrally. I didn't believe I misled you; I gave you the short answer to which I thought you, as someone I had only just met, were entitled.

As I have just said to Will, offline, what sticks in my craw is the assumption that editors who belong to a religious minority, or even those who ever have belonged to a religious minority, should make full disclosures here, with a 30-year spiritual CV, while editors like yourself or Will disclose exactly nothing about their religious or philosophical affiliation. How is that equitable? If Will is a Baptist, or a former Baptist, or a Catholic, this is as relevant to his editing religious topics than my having been an Osho follower, or a Sufi, etc.

As I said to Will, I come from a country where members of religious minorities were required to wear an identifying mark on their clothing within living memory. I abhor the concept of making editors submit to a similar regime here, yet the unconscious expectations often seem akin to that.

As for not mailing you myself -- frankly, I was outraged when you posted the links on my user page, and my first response was to e-mail two arbitrators. No action was taken, for whatever reason, but I felt disinclined to talk to you, especially as I was already working a 20-hour shift trying to make a deadline, and little needed the extra excitement.

Anyway, let's put this behind us, and let's hope that our future interactions will be more congenial. I am sure I could have handled this better too, and would have on a less stressful day. I am sorry if you felt I was being deliberately evasive and will be more upfront, if the situation should arise again. Regards, --JN466 21:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've overcome my resistance and added a statement to my user page. Sorry for the soapboxing. Regards, --JN466 22:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I was writing something up and edit conflicted, but most of it's rendered obsolete by your having done that. Thank you.

I never had a serious problem admitting who I am online. I've done so since I started. I know others are more private, but I felt it was fair that other people knew who they were dealing with.

We run a fine line here, trying to get enough information so people are aware of article content conflicts of interest, without unduly affecting people's privacy. Handling that line is an ugly mess at times. I could have assumed good faith better and inquired more privately.

I'm sorry this dropped on you on a bad day to respond, and I apologize that it seems to have come out fairly negatively despite the underlying situation not being a significant issue of note. I thought I allowed enough time for a response. If you'd said "please contact Arbcom" I would have done so.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Any objections to archiving the ANI thread? John Carter (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hang one, if you please.   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Think no more of it. I've learned something from all of this; the drama wasn't for nothing. --JN466 23:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

• From the editors: 250th issue of the Signpost

• Editorial: A digital restoration

• Election report: ArbCom election in full swing

• Interview: Interview with David G. Post

• News and notes: Wikipedia's death report premature, fundraiser, usability, new CSD, noms, and more

• In the news: Ron Livingston sues vandal, disclosure of IP address ordered, brief headlines

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• 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 · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Orphaned non-free image File:SeaLaunch Underplatform.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SeaLaunch Underplatform.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SeaLaunch OceanOdysseyDeck.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SeaLaunch OceanOdysseyDeck.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Meh

"but you broke the rules, and everyone has to pay at least a little penalty for this"

I agree with what you -did- because it is a reminder to them both that their conduct was unbecoming. However, the way you phrase it makes it seem more punitive ("pay" "penalty") than preventative ("reminders"). This is just a note for future reference. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• And I am here to protest strongly. It is specifically against blocking policy to issue punitive blocks. In no way can a 10 second block be regarded as anything but punitive. How could you possibly rationalize such a thing? This is unacceptable. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• The goal was to end the activity. To call it punitive you would have to ascribe an actual limiting effect that it would directly have on their behavior. Neither of them, practically, was kept from editing. Both of them were put on notice that they'd done something blockable and it needed to stop. It was my hope that a very short block would accomplish the putting on notice and ending the abusive confrontation, without keeping them from editing elsewhere productively.

If they'd continued, myself or someone else blocking for a not-nominal 24 hrs or some such would have rapidly followed.

Unconventional, yes, but it seems to have worked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I cannot say I support short blocks. They have traditionally and specifically been prohibited. OTOH, if you want to cite IAR+results, I cannot argue with that much either. I'm not terribly happy about the choice, though.I strongly urge you to consider other approaches in the future. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 03:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

All I will say is that if GWH believes his 10-second block achieved anything other than generating even more ill will then he is deceiving himself. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your trust

Dear Mr. William Erebert:

This is my first time logging onto my account since our unfortunate blocking incident last November. Thank you for unblocking me and I hope that now you believe me that I was not a secondary account. Unfortunately, my quick block so soon after creating my first account on Wikipedia and the harrassment from that IP user left me feeling so ashamed and unwelcome that I turned to some heavy consumption of alcohol, and one thing led to another, and I got arrested on the 28th of November for driving under the influence. This violated my probation for possession and use of cannabis, so all in all I spent fifteen days in jail over this whole thing. But at least now I see my account has been re-instated. Thanks a ton, Gerbelzodude99 (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

wp:point

Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

List of states with nuclear weapons

Hi,

I was writing to request unprotection of List of states with nuclear weapons. I can see that the page has had some previous vandalism, but I can also see that the page has been protected for about 15 months. The article doesn't seem subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy, and it seems constructive edits may be locked out of the article.--71.156.89.167 (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Azwethinkweizm

Again, this user was supposed to be unbanned since the account was hijacked using a computer owned on an ISD property. This editor account is a useful editor who keeps logs on certain high school pages and cannot edit due to a ban from you that is not fair. Please revert the ban and allow the user to retain editing privileges.

This is the third time I have posted this on your page with no comment on whether or not the ban has been lifted. Please address this, I'm not looking forward to a fourth post with no response from you.24.32.49.200 (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved, but IP, you should read WP:SECURE. If an account is compromised, it should not be unblocked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The account has been taken off school servers to a private PC and is no accessible by anyone except the owner. This account SHOULD be unblocked because proper edits by this account cannot be performed while being blocked. 24.32.49.200 (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The proper procedure is to put an {{unblock|Reason for unblock request}} tag on the account's talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

How exactly do you do this on the userpage? 24.32.49.200 (talk) 05:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

georgewilliamherbert, why was my request for an unblock denied? I have told admins repeatedly that this account is secure and is under control by the owner but productive edits cannot take place while the account is blocked. 24.32.49.200 (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Help! (images)

I am intending to upload a couple of images, one photo and one vector. My problem is that I simply cannot find any information anywhere on how to do it and what file formats are acceptable. There should be a simple help page with this information on it but I cannot figure out where. Plenty of information about style and about not violating copyright, but nothing about what one actually does. Please could you point me in the right direction? And perhaps you can just tell me if .WMF is acceptable. Thanks. Man with two legs (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

On the left side of the screen, you should see a navigation box labeled "toolbox". The second to last entry in that box, "upload file", takes you to the image upload start page.

In terms of formats - you should review Wikipedia:Image use policy#FORMAT, and Wikipedia:Uploading images#Technical aspects. Preferred formats are JPEG or GIF for photos, though PNG is acceptable. Graphics in SVG are preferred if they're vector graphics, though PNG or GIF or JPEG are accepted alternates. Some other formats work, but if you can convert to the preferred formats it's much better.

Good luck! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Man with two legs (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

reques for image upload on commons

Hello GWH, I have seen you uploaded the File:Bushmaster-acr-cropped.jpg. What I want to ask you is to upload it on wikimedia commons if you are allowed to. This picture would be a great illustration for the german, spanish, japanese and polish versions of the Bushmaster ACR. They were illustrated with a picture that is now deleted due to license violation. Your image is more current and I tried to upload it on commons with commonshelper. But CommonsHelper refuses an upload due to the licensing of that image, so I don't dare to upload it either. Please upload the file if you have Bushmaster's permission. Wishing you a blessed Christmas-time,--Fecchi (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: As English is not my mother tongue, I'm uncertain about the use of "demand". If it sounds offensive, I request you to tell me.

The image is not open licensed, it's used under our fair-use criteria for english wikipedia. It can't go to Commons. Sorry...

For your information, "demand" is a poor word choice in english for what you were asking, the word "request" does not imply a forceful insistence and is much more polite. No offense taken, thank you for being aware of that. I understand. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Then we will have to wait for another picture which is published und er a free license on Commons.

I will keep it in mind your advice in mind; the dictionary's suggestions were rather imprecise. I will change the headline to request for image upload on commons to avoid being thought of as rude by the quick reader. --Fecchi (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

• Election report: Voting closes in the Arbitration Committee Elections

• News and notes: Mapping geotagged articles language, import sources enabled, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• 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 · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right...

...it's just that I saw what that fool was saying and I about blew my stack. I was literally shaking with rage when I wrote it. I'll remove the comment; hopefully, he got the message. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

79.79.30.120

He's been doing that for several weeks now. I wouldn't bother treating it any more seriously than simple vandalism. I mean, give me a break - ten billion pounds? lolwut J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

We haven't been stepping on him hard enough, is why he's still doing it. NLT is what it is - we'd indef if it was accounts. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Merry Christmas.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 01:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And a Hippo Gnu year! Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi GWH. I don't understand the logic of your argument here [1]. When we lose patience with another editor it's okay to block them (if we're admins) and if the block is roundly rejected then the next step is to take them to Arbcom and try again? That seems outrageous not to mention highly disruptive. If Coren can't work productively with another editor why doesn't he just avoid that editor. Giano works fine with lots and lots of editors. A vendetta campaign from an Arbcom who's block was roundly rejected (and who's involved over the oversighted edit dispute) seems incredibly unhelpful. Coren should be taken to Arbcom from what I've seen of his abusive behavior. But what good would come of that? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you reading what I actually wrote? Please re-read, and read Coren's talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I read your statement (twice now). Since I don't approve of the unilateral way you enforce your personal opinions of civility and many other editors feel the same way about the disruption you cause and the incivility your actions instigate, should we have an Arbcom on you? Why? To what end? What will be accomplished? Are we here to play Model UN or to write an encyclopedia?

Can't we just go about improving the encyclopedia. Not everyone is going to get along. Why does Coren need to interact with Giano anyway? He should just mind his own business. He went and posted very aggressive and threatening messages and continues to act in a manner that is completely inappropriate, telling people they ar ehaving hallucinations. Arbcom members are the ultimate mediators (although they often act as judge jury and executioner) they're not daycare. There's no issue to be resolved it's just another silly pissing match. We shouldn't encourage this type of disruption. There are too many busybodies with overinflated egos here playing wikipolitics and going after editors they don't like.

I assumed the oversighting was jsut a mistake. But from what I've seen of the way Giano's concerns have been treated he has every right to be upset, and now I'm not so sure. Anyway, thanks for your response. Don't block good faith editors and cause any more disruptions. Thanks. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from distorting what I've said in order to threaten me. Your action was a clear violation of the civility policy and in the future I expect you to refrain from missrepresenting statements made by other editors. I've also tweaked my prior statement to accomodate your sensibilities. I trust you'll warn Coren for telling an editor they're hallucinating and having fantasies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

a real RFC - with real, enforcable proposals etc - be done. The fake RFC

I don't understand you comment on GC's talk page. Just so we don't misunderstand one another, you think the RFC Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#Request for comment is fake? If so, why? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Responding on 2/0's page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching the WP:NPA at the Logicus 2 RfC. I've seen so many similar comments that this one just slipped by me. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 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) 09:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

My editing of two article is done out of an "agenda"

Dear George (whoever you are)♠

RE: Editing so-called Jewish Exodus from Arab lands 1948-1971 article, is motivated by having an agenda.

So?

I trust you'll make careful note that every author supporting this so-called Exodus, occurring over a period of some 23 years, is Jewish. Yet you have the audacity to complain that I have an agenda? I don't see the application of the same principle to those "vested interests" that have written this article 'George.'

I look forward to your reply.

Jim 99.238.217.129 (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars kid...again.

Can you drop a few words at Talk:Star Wars kid#RFC about why we shouldn't include his name? Thanks. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

• Election report: ArbCom election result announced

• News and notes: Fundraiser update, milestones and more

• In the news: Accusation of bias, misreported death, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Orijentolog

I just want to tell you that I have only good intentions on Wikipedia. I didn't make any change without explanation on talk page, but there are still few people who constantly change my relevant edits and that's makes no sense... Best wishes, Orijentolog or --93.143.2.52 (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Please check this... --93.143.2.52 (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You are not currently welcome on Wikipedia, due to your extreme abuse of other users. If you keep this up we will block your entire netblock.

You are making some good contributions, which I appreciate. But the insults and threats against other users make your presence unacceptable. This project is not one where some good edits outweigh or allow us to overlook the abuse and threats and insults. If you make those insults and abuses you can't be here.

Please stop.

IF you really want to participate here on an ongoing basis - you need to entirely step away from insulting people or threatening them.

The best thing to do would be to temporarily stop editing the English Language wikipedia, participate somewhere else for 3 to 6 months, and then contact us here again under the Wikipedia:Standard offer terms, showing that you were able to contribute elsewhere without disruption or abuse.

If you aren't willing to wait that long, then put a request for a mentor and an unblock under mentorship on your main user page, and stop IP editing while that is considered. I don't know if anyone will accept you as someone to mentor, but you can certainly try that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, you have my word I won't change any page in next three months. If I see any problem, I'll just leave message at discussion section and that's all. Happy holidays! :) --93.142.181.116 (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Gerbelzodude99

Hello! You conducted a checkuser on this account after some suspicions of sockpuppetry. Please note that another user has raised suspicions as well. User:Drawn Some last edited on September 26th. User:Gerbelzodude99 first edited on November 27th. It is possible the same person abandoned the one account and started the new one. Given Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#Drawn_Some_and_Richard_Arthur_Norton_III, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive553#Wikistalking_and_edit_warring_by_User:Drawn_Some, and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive198#User:Drawn_Some_seems_to_be_wikistalking_User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29. In the most recent one an admin even proposed banning Drawn Some from Richard. Drawn Some subsequently stopped editing, so it is conceivable that the person behind the account switched accounts to avoid scrutiny when renewing the attacks on Richard's articles? For whatever reason, the Gerbelzodude99 account is going after Richard's article in a manner similar to how Drawn Some did. There may not be sockpuppetry in the sense of using multiple accounts simultaneously, but it is possible that it is a new account being used to evade what would have been a topic ban from Richard? Anyway, it may worth looking into. A number of the AfDs the account has started have already been speedily closed as other participants in the discussions are seeing an antagonistic pattern at the least. Anyway, I thought it was probably worth bringing to your attention. Happy holidays! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

• News and notes: Flagged revisions petitions, image donations, brief news

• In the news: Criticism from climate change sceptic, decade in review

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

McGraw-Hill AfD

I don't fault Cla68 here, but I do think there are a lot of people in that AfD focused on things besides notability. I think Wikipedia is at its worst when our content becomes a proxy for inter-user battles. The nominator and early comments about the nominator have made it very difficult to focus the AfD on WP:N. Cool Hand Luke 22:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Others may come to a different conclusion, of course. Cool Hand Luke 22:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking more at the article and older context than the AFD itself. Weiss' having come along in sock form and started a fight over it doesn't change the underlying issue there. Cla68 has a personal bone to pick with Weiss and has since the Mantanmoreland case's underpinnings started. He really should not be touching the topic of Weiss...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

List of states with nuclear weapons

I was writing to request unprotection of List of states with nuclear weapons. I can see that the page has had some previous vandalism, but I can also see that the page has been protected for about 15 months. The article doesn't seem subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy, and it seems constructive edits may be locked out of the article.--68.251.188.242 (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)