User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2011/May
 | 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. |
User page
Dear Sir, I don't know if you take comments on your user page here, but then, you really are a Jack of many trades! You seem to do amazing work off-wiki, and on-wiki too of course! Cheers, Yes Michael? •Talk 19:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- I take comments pretty much everywhere. Thanks for the good word! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
bin Laden protects
Please also protect the United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group article, it's the team chatter says hit the bin Laden compound. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Done for 3 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Please see
Please see my request on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Both_primary_disputants_topic_banned_for_72_hrs. Debresser (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, please show me the "personal attacks" and "incivility" you mentioned on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- You must be very busy, but in view of the fact that I have been topicbanned by you, and think that was a bad call, I'd respectfully ask you to make this a priority. Debresser (talk) 10:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Debresser has no good reason for clemency. He has been a very naughty boy. Chesdovi (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Since you have not had time or not seen fit to reply for about 36 hours, I have posted at WP:AE. Please understand that this is nothing personal, just that your prolonged silence left me no other option to seek what I consider to be justice and fairness in this case. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hello George. It seems to me that Chesdovi's topic ban is OK, but Debresser's is not because he has never been notified or warned under WP:ARBPIA. Otherwise, it's an ingenious idea, though what these guys really should try is dispute resolution. In my opinion, Debresser's topic ban could be replaced with a warning using {{uw-sanctions}} or with a block, if you think it is a serious matter. Please consider logging this change yourself, as it would save a bunch of paperwork at AE. The appeal is not in the right form, it should use {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}, etc etc. EdJohnston (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I must add that I was unaware that these pages would be subject to WP:ARBPIA and had no inkling at the time of my editing that it had anything to do with the I-P conflict. As far as I was concerned I was bringing categories into sink. Now I see how after SD and Debresser got invovled, it descended into a dispute associated with the I-P conflict. I am not contending my ban as it will be over by the time this has been sorted out. I don't intend to waste anyone's time more than has already been done so. Chesdovi (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Appropriate channel
Hi. I was wondering if you could inform me on what would be the proper environment to report an editor who has possibly violated a recent topic ban. Could I provide that information here, considering you were the admin who imposed the block? Thanks -asad (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sure! Go straight ahead. How much longer need we wait? Chesdovi (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Chesdovis topic ban
Isn't this against Chesdovis topic ban? [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Under the impression that I cannot edit pages related to the topics. Never been topic banned before; direct me to the rules and I will gladly adhere. thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- See WP:TOPICBAN, where it seems obvious that talkpages are not part of a topicban unless specifically stated otherwise. Debresser (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 2 May 2011
- News and notes: Picture of the Year voting begins; Internet culture covered in Sweden and consulted in Russia; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Physics of a WikiProject: WikiProject Physics
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Two new cases open – including Tree shaping case
- Technology report: Call for RTL developers, varied sign-up pages and news in brief
Jack Merridew
Please see my comment and consider reversing your block. I believe Jack is still editing within his restrictions, as there is not restriction to anonymous editing with the exception of open proxies, which applies to everyone regardless. N419BH 19:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please keep Jack blocked so he can stop feeding the idiots who prance around here, like for example certain marshmallow stuffed lard asses. He deserves better hobbies. 80.180.15.197 (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have undone the block. Firstly we don't indef an IP except in exceptional reasons. Secondly there is no clear consensus to ban jack so indeffing his IP in anticipation of this is premature and thirdly, civility blocks - which is the stated reason in the block log - don't work. The cited comment had been there a while and had been seen by numerous admins who did not consider it block worthy. Your approach to civility blocks is on the very extreme end of approach - in fact I can't think of another admin who takes such a draconian stance - and it is very bad practice to block someone for something that hastacitly been accepted by other admins. Spartaz Humbug! 03:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
RFC discussion of User:Philip Baird Shearer
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer. -- Parrot of Doom 11:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 9 May 2011
- In the news: Billionaire trying to sue Wikipedians; "Critical Point of View" book published; World Bank contest; brief news
- WikiProject report: Game Night at WikiProject Board and Table Games
- Features and admins: Featured articles bounce back
- Arbitration report: AEsh case comes to a close - what does the decision tell us?
ANI
I have raised your actions on this tread. --Domer48'fenian' 18:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Your input is requested
here or here regarding whether Abortion falls under his restriction of "topic banned from the topic of human sexuality, interpreted broadly, including talk pages and Wikipedia space pages." DMSBel has been involved somewhat in a bit of an edit war, supporting the position of Anythingyouwant regarding a questionable image. Please note I have a view on this image, and have made one edit on the article regarding the image inclusion (removal) so I am not neutral. The relation of Abortion to sex is clear, but not whether Abortion as an article falls under the topic of sex, broadly construed. We can discuss on my page and place finding on article talk page; discuss on article talk page, or you can offer your opinion here; please do choose one location for discussion moving forward, thanks! KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 01:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 May 2011
- WikiProject report: Back to Life: Reviving WikiProjects
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Motions - hyphens and dashes dispute
- Technology report: Berlin Hackathon; April Engineering Report; brief news
Anglo Pyramidologist
I noticed that you posted a notice on User talk:Anglo Pyramidologist banning him from editing evolution and related topics. Are you aware that he has removed this notice from his talk page, indeed has completely blanked it? Is it in order to remove such bans? Emeraude (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's fine and normally allowed. The restriction is logged at the central edit restrictions page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Arilang1234
- excuse me, But Arilang1234 also made a personal attack after your warning at 06:51 , saying "ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is not telling the truth"ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- part of my comments after that were a response to this specific accusation, posting english langauge sources, I apologize if I went off board with other postings.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- he was the first in violation of not making more personal attacks, I did not comment between your warning and his new personal attack, it was after hisΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- you warned at 6:20, 31 minutes earlier.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I apologize for bothering to respond to his new attack anyway, I should not have taken the bait, and should have not posted the other comments either.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't realize he'd posted after I warned to stop, and have warned him about that comment (the "not telling the truth" bit).
- Thanks for understanding that it's time to disengage. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I need your advice as you are at the moment the only uninvolved third person on this ANI. There are a few points I like to point out:
- (1)I would not have titled the ANI with the term "racist" had ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ not post here on 22.32 18 May 2011, and on 23:57 21 May 2011 I opened an ANI on him. Because ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ raised the already discussed and uncalled for "racist remarks", I then added the term "racist" on the title.
- (2)The only purpose of me opening an ANI is to try to engage ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ into a meaningful discussion of how to keep the neutrality of Boxer Rebellion, as it is obvious that I have failed, because ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is only interested in attacking me, using years old material. He refuse to admit that I have changed for the better, I am no longer into content dispute, nor into name calling, I am only interested in implementing WP rules, such as WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. I am very sad to learn that ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ rejects WP rules in this way, and I am tired of all his personal attacks.
Could you give me some advices? Arilang talk 14:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I counted at least 2 false accusations by Arilang1234 against me which you can easily take a look at (meaning its not muddled up or confused with random edits). #1 Arilang1234 claims I did not respond to Smallchief- I did #2 Arilang1234 claims I did not respond to John smith's concern about neutrality- I did
- This is not just an ordinary mistake, or slip up by Arilang1234. My response to Smallchief and John Smith's was right there in plain english- and Arilang1234 deliberately went into the edit history to select and post specific edits I made before I responded, to make sure users were unable to see that I did respond to their concerns later. If he had posted a direct link to the section as it is now, all the users would have been able to seen my responses.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ
ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ doesn't want to stop attacking users. He's now having a go at me. I'm trying to make him understand that he's making things worse for himself, but he doesn't care. Perhaps you could deal with it? Cheers, John Smith's (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
User:John Smith's doesn't understand that WP:CANVASSING of editors with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered disruptive behavior
canvassing by arilang1234
and I consider This post to be a personal attack, since Arilang1234 falsely claims this is not a content dispute, when he was the one who posted conspiracy theories on the talk page of the article linking chinese high school text books, marxists, black panthers, and vietnam, to a peasant spiritual movement in China in 1900ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
You might want to look at
WP:ANI#Problems on British National Party Page where Anglo Pyramidologist is complaining about other editors and I've quoted you. Dougweller (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 May 2011
- News and notes: GLAM workshop; legal policies; brief news
- In the news: Death of the expert?; superinjunctions saga continues; World Heritage status petitioned and debated; brief news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Formula One
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Injunction – preliminary protection levels for BLP articles when removing PC
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Incivility question
You beat me to a warning of Cody, though I did chime in with you.[5] I do wonder, though, why Tarc would not receive a similar warning for his repeated sarcasm and personal attacks on the same page? It seems that there are the same group of editors from the MoMK article which make borderline uncivil remarks until the new guys blow up and get punished.LedRush (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)