Hi, I'm George. Feel free to leave me a new message!

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

(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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

    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)[reply] 

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Show me my incivility.

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

[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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 'That was extremely uncivil RMHED. Please do not be rude to George. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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