User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2011/June
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Georgewilliamherbert. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Signpost: 30 May 2011
- News and notes: ArbCom referendum goes live; US National Archives residency; financial planning; brief news
- In the news: Collaboration with academia; world heritage; xkcd; eG8 summit; ISP subpoena; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Royal Railway
- Featured content: Whipping fantasies, American–British naval rivalry, and a medieval mix of purity and eroticism
- Arbitration report: Update – injunction from last week has expired
- Technology report: Wikimedia down for an hour; What is: Wikipedia Offline?
Slimvirgin, poetlister
I've started a discussion here: [1] Mindbunny (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
|
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 June 2011
- Board elections: Time to vote
- News and notes: Board resolution on controversial content; WMF Summer of Research; indigenous workshop; brief news
- Recent research: Various metrics of quality and trust; leadership; nerd stereotypes
- WikiProject report: Make your own book with Wikiproject Wikipedia-Books
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Two cases pending resolution; temporary desysop; dashes/hyphens update
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
RE: ANI
I'll respond there. m.o.p 03:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
RE: Abortion, my ban and my tagging of two sections on the page
Hi, sorry to trouble you. I have in response to issues re-raised continually from a couple of IPs placed POV tags and a "may not be factually accurate" tag on two sections of the abortion page. I have undid the removal of these tags according to my understanding that the dispute is not resolved. I am involved in the discussion myself and agree that the issues the IPs have raised are genuine and need to be addressed. I disagree with so far proposed alternative text to amend the sections. If you could take a look at the article and discussion, I would be grateful, as I am being accused of gaming the system. Thanks DMSBel (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
You have another reply on my Talk page.
Your reply is appreciated, thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I think you should consider further topic banning this editor for his continued personal attacks. I may be uncivil. I may say "fuck" as frequently as I choose. I do not attack other editors. That ends today. Apparently admins don't care about personal attacks on me, since the Talk:Abortion#POV tag section is filled with them from DMSBel and others. This place is utter bullshit. I get warnings from you and others, but you admins do nothing about the personal attacks on me. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- You "do not attack other editors"? Really? How about this comment[2] relating to FT2: "I don't fucking care what you say, because you can't speak the truth about anything. You were fucking wrong, and you know it. You have the moral fiber of an ant." Chester Markel (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Re: the ANI regarding me.
I see this is now closed, and yet I still feel somewhat irritated that it was brought to a noticeboard at all. I had contacted you as soon as a question about the scope of my ban was raised. Obviously I can't and don't expect you to respond to everything immediately. Yet the editor who opened the ANI knew full well I had contacted you, and another editor questioned him about the prematurity of going to a noticeboard, before you had responded. The editor who opened the ANI, did not cite any diffs only that I had made quite a few comments recently in the discussion. He said I was editing "a ton" on both the article and the talk page. I don't know if "a ton" is exactly the correct manner to described the ammount of comments I have made on the talk page - but it surely is grossly exagerated in reference to the actual article. Once again as I said on the ANI actual changes to the content of that article that I have made are absolutely minimal, I do not recall making any substantial changes there, apart from in response to concerns from other editors, and those changes were not content changes. Opening an ANI then failing to cite any diffs wastes an awful lot of time. I won't speculate on what OrangeMarlin was hoping to accomplish. Also remark being now construed as a personal attack is not that. It may count as a personal remark, but not an attack. By the standards OrangeMarlin is using how do his own remarks measure up? DMSBel (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 June 2011
- News and notes: Wikipedians 90% male and largely altruist; 800 public policy students add 8.8 million bytes; brief news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Aircraft
- Featured content: Featured lists hit the main page
- Arbitration report: More workshop proposals in Tree shaping case; further votes in PD of other case
- Technology report: 1.18 extension bundling; mobile testers needed; brief news
The Signpost: 20 June 2011
- News and notes: WMF Board election results; Indian campus ambassadors gear up; Wikimedia UK plans; Malayalam Wikisource CD; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Elemental WikiProject
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: One case comes to a close; initiator of a new case blocked as sockpuppet
This user is topic banned from from human sexuality broadly defined [3]
Is abortion not human sexuality? And thus should their editing not be restricted? Many of the comments at the last ANI [4] where from at least one sock puppet and another currently banned IP. Many of his recent comments verge on uncivil. Your opinion? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- BTW it is tagged by WikiProject Sexuality on the talk page Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- This has been on ANI twice. In my opinion and consensus on ANI that is not a human sexuality topic.
- If you believe he's being disruptive you can seek consensus to either expand the topic ban or add an additional one. That was pursued and failed 3-4 weeks ago on ANI, but you are welcome to try again if you want. I am remaining neutral on that point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- No worries my concern is that sockpuppets have been involved in the debates. And on the talk page. I do not see the consensus that abortion is not related to "human sexuality boardly determined". Would you be so kind as to link the discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- DMSBel has just violated the 1RR restriction on Abortion, and although many of us didn't know about the 1RR restriction, he did. Why isn't he blocked, banned, and exiled from the project? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that perhaps the community shouldn't act, but I am not paying nearly enough attention to the Abortion page to be able to tell who's doing what and fairly investigate at the moment.
- If it NEEDS an uninvolved admin review and possible action, I can try and investigate that sometime this weekend. Or you can ANI and ask for a community ban. I just don't have enough background on that page to know the players and the history at this instant. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's a pretty simple 1RR case right now, though if you want to make it wider, I would welcome it. Might you take a look at WP:AN3? NW (Talk) 19:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- DMSBel has just violated the 1RR restriction on Abortion, and although many of us didn't know about the 1RR restriction, he did. Why isn't he blocked, banned, and exiled from the project? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- No worries my concern is that sockpuppets have been involved in the debates. And on the talk page. I do not see the consensus that abortion is not related to "human sexuality boardly determined". Would you be so kind as to link the discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 07:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
clarification
You have been included in a list of involved parties regarding a request to Arbcom for clarification. Communikat (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)