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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TellerUlamAblation.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teller-Ulam

Could you crush the cylinder a little more for the graphics on the right side? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.215.249 (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My 2005 talk page contents are archived over here.
• ...and the first half of 2006 is archived here
• ...and the second half of 2006 is archived here
• ...January, 2007 here
• ...Febuary, 2007 here
• ...March, 2007 here
• ...April, 2007 here
• ...May, 2007 here
• ...June, 2007 here
• ...July, 2007 here
• ...August, 2007 here
• ...September, 2007 here
• ...October, 2007 here
• ...November, 2007 here
• ...December, 2007 here
• ...January, 2008 here

(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]

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]

This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia

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

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

By the way, what's new with Liebman (from George 10/1/2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgewmherbert (talk • contribs) 15:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above account has been indefinitely blocked for having a username designed to imitate mine, and apparently being the latest Liebman sockpuppet. Georgewilliamherbert 21:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry i need to answer on your message. You said the changes of aicha are vandalism but i still think i have a privacy and i can choose my own privacy. If i don't want this on wikipedia i am free to remove this cause of my privacy! I changed it again.

Thanx!

Please check out Wikipedia:Debate camp. Thank you very much. WAS 4.250 17:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism from this IP address has picked up right where it left off when it was blocked for a month. All of their edits other than those to Covenant vehicles in Halo have been reverted, although it is possible that those should have been as well. 199.125.109.50 03:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...[2]? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My chief reason for hiding the account list is that I can't think of any other reason for Liebman to continue his nonsense. It's not like he's sneaking his edits in. What else could he possibly be doing at this point other than trying to accumulate the most socks ever? I may be on the right track since I deleted a bunch of the sock tags and Liebman retaliated by creating six new accounts. This seems like a perfect application of WP:DENY. Would you prefer the deleted list were kept elsewhere? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(continuing here for continuity) Liebman's been continuing all over, for a long time, on and off as he/she has time. I recommend you put the tags you deleted back on everything. If it's an active abuse case, and until it's faded enough afterwards that we're sure they're gone, we should leave all the tags active. The specifics are potentially important to id'ing new socks and new admins understanding what the case is about. I doubt that anything we could do would convince "Liebman" to just go away. We need to keep playing whack-a-mole or range-block the NYC library system. Georgewilliamherbert 04:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I initiated an IP request at WP:RFCU but don't expect much help there. The tags I've deleted are only the oldest accounts. I've personally seen examples where long-term cases have fizzled out but only after their vandalism monuments are destroyed. It's a natural reaction - just like good editors are fueled by editcountitis, vandals are fueled by LTA reports and sock lists. Even this conversation is probably keeping him going. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "long standing policy"? If it's so long standing and policy, how come it doesn't appear in the very article/guideline that discusses harassment? May I suggest that it's because if it were it could quite possibly allow the precedent I mentioned in my remarks? I still maintain that from what I saw of the conversation it didn't even come close to any definition of harassment that I'm aware of. Personally I believe that User:Kscottbailey is being treated unfairly, both in this instance and the wiki-lawyering he's be subjected to over the last day or so. ---- WebHamster 01:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HARASS is not a checklist, it's a policy guideline. This sort of abuse has happened before, and always been treated as a violation of the harrassment policy. We don't have to list every type of conceivable behavior in the policy.

The block was discussed on WP:ANI and not only supported by every admin who looked at it, but the unblock request was reviewed and denied by an uninvolved admin. If you (or Kscottbailey) insist on trying to interpret the rules this strictly (only what's explicitly written in the policy and guidelines) you're in for a rude awakening in short order.

It's quite possible for someone to be a good contributor in terms of vandal fighting and edit contributions, and be too rude or abusive or harrassing, at the same time. We cannot overlook the abuse just because he's a good vandal fighter. In particular, when it goes from vague and directed at vandals and IPs to focused and directed at another normal user, that is most particularly not ok. WP:CIVIL is very important. If he cannot behave in a civil manner to other participants, including responding in a reasonable manner rather than confrontational when reasonable complaints are made, then he's a liability to the project overall and should go.

It is my hope that he and you will come to understand this without further admin interaction. This stuff is important. Georgewilliamherbert 01:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my view it's an over reaction. A block wasn't called for, an admin-type slap on the wrists verbal warning maybe, but I suspect that you've been manipulated by someone with an axe to grind who was crying crocodile tears to get what he wanted, he couldn't get it via ANI, but he succeeded another way. Just for the record I have no connection to Kscottbailey, I don't know him and other than what I've seen and discussed on ANI I've never had previous communications with him. I'm basing all my comments purely on what I've seen and not on some idea of loyalty. As for the idolatry surrounding civility. IMV Civility should be earned not handed out to people who don't deserve it. And yes, it's very important to be civil to people who deserve it, less so for those who don't. Incidentally I'm not of the view that you were a "tame admin", but I do think you've been played. ---- WebHamster 02:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any experienced admin is going to take the word of someone complaining to ANI without researching. In the particular case, given the stuff above that complaint, I looked really hard. HiEv asked nicely for him to stop, and Kscottbailey verbally escalated the threats.

I didn't block him for a day. I could have just warned him, but the comments above indicated he was arguing with people extensively rather than take criticism as given. Given the escalating harrassment, I chose a short block as policy and precedent compliant (we usually block talk-page harrassers for a nominal 24 hrs, but Kscottbailey was not generally a normal user harrasser previously) but not overly harsh.

That Kscottbailey then felt it necessary to claim I was working for HiEv (who I never met before), send me a nasty-ish email, start badmouthing the uninvolved admin who rejected his unblock request, and posted another unblock request and abuse after the first one was turned down, show that he's operating past the "ok" line at the moment.

We can give users the benefit of the doubt, but when they start beating each other up, admins bear some responsibility if we let it happen. It's not ok. It's bad for the project, it's against the rules, it isn't something any of us appreciate seeing happen around. I want it to stop, in this case. The short block was unambiguous as a warning, but didn't interfere with Kscottbailey's normal editing to any significant degree. I hope he calms down and returns to vandal fighting. But the abuse has to stop. Georgewilliamherbert 02:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You posted the block something like 38 minutes after HiEv's last post on his talk page. You can see how I just MIGHT have been of the belief that there was some type of "friendly admin" thing going on. And given the fact that I never harrassed him, at any point, you can also see how I would be MORE than a bit frustrated when I was blocked for harrassment after I spent all afternoon yesterday defending myself from a pointless AnI and frivolous complaints from the same user who managed to get me blocked. I have had my userpage frozen for posting an explanation of a barnstar I was given that did not mention said user. I've been accused of harrassment, when I did not harrass anyone, and I've been pulled into a frivolous defense of an AnI that should have never been posted. If you can't see how a normal user, of even average temperament would become frustrated given all that, I don't know how to explain it to you.

And for the record, people can't just order others not to post on their talk page. It doesn't work that way. Harrassment is about the CONTENT of the post, not WHETHER it was posted. In principle, the block was wrong, it's as simple as that. K. Scott Bailey 02:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to the specific thing I wrote on HIEV's talk page that constitutes "harrassment." Are you (per your post on WebHamster's page) saying that any user at any time can simply say "stop posting to my talk page" and further posts (no matter the content) become "harrassment"? If so, that is one of the most ludicrous explanations of the term I've ever heard. Here's what I think: HIEV had lost ground on the field of ideas, so--in lieu of making any rational points--he simply found a friendly admin to block me. Very unscrupulous, to say the least, but especially so given his behavior in starting a frivolous and time-consuming AnI the previous day. K. Scott Bailey 02:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never met HiEv before. I was going entirely by the responses to the initial report in the (closed) ANI inicident above, the complaint, the specifics of what you posted to his talk page, and your edit history (I went back and scanned a fraction of your last 500 edits, and all the edit summaries etc).

I recommend that you go re-read the ANI threads. If you think that you "won" or he "lost" (or visa versa) you need to reread it again.

Yes, if someone says "stop posting to my talk page" and you continue, that has repeatedly and consistently been held to be harrassment.

Your last comment was clearly over the line:

That's rich. Now that your draconian edit summary policing has been repudiated--after forcing me to waste several good hours defending myself from your attacks--you have the gall to accuse ME of attacking YOU?!? That's rich. I'll tell you what: you desist from policing my edit summaries again, and I'll never post another message to your page as long as I work on the project. Fair? K. Scott Bailey 16:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You were, exactly and precisely, attacking and harrassing HiEv on his talk page, and the comment I'll tell you what: you desist from policing my edit summaries again, and I'll never post another message to your page as long as I work on the project. is a threat.

I want you to take this as a firm but polite correction that yes, there are rules on being nice to people on Wikipedia, and you went past them, and let this drop and go back to vandal fighting. You do that very well. You don't have to abuse anyone, particularly other WP editors who you get into arguments with, to do that.

As I said above, if you keep harrassing people, the harm outweighs any good your positive edits and vandal fighting contribute, and it will be better for everyone if you leave. If you want to keep contributing, and I hope you do, you need to do so in a civil manner. You can argue with people all you want, but don't harrass them, and don't threaten them. If you do those things, it's not ok.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 02:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from referring to what I wrote to HIEV as a "threat." He had asked me to not post to his talk page anymore, and I simply stated that basically, if he left me alone, I would reciprocate. That's not a thread, that's offering a deal of sorts. How you manage to interpret it as a "threat" is beyond me, and such an utterly far-fetched interpretation (given my history) that it strains all credulity. Additionally, users can not "ban" people from posting on their talk pages. Talk pages are a public space, and (aside from abuse) whoever wants to can post on any given user's page. You know this. You also know that I was not abusive in any way in my posts to him. Was he irritated with me? Certainly. Did you give him exactly what he wanted when he brought his fit of pique to you? For certain as well. K. Scott Bailey 02:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was not a series of abusive posts, you would not have been blocked for 3 hours. I blocked you; your unblock request was rejected by User:Madman. Admins were notified on WP:ANI and asked to review. Madman locked your page after your second unblock request and tirade against him. User:Viridae agreed with the block and the unblock denial and the talk page protection. Nobody else objected there, on my talk page, or unblocked you.

Three admins directly commenting, a whole bunch more who read and edited ANI in the meantime and didn't chose to get involved. Three strikes, you're out.

You don't get to set the terms under which the community judges if you're abusive or not. We do. You were. Please don't do it again. Georgewilliamherbert 02:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not WP God, sorry. Just because three admins put their heads together (and Viridae is hardly unbiased, based upon his participation as the only admin supportive of the AnI yesterday) and deem me "abusive" doesn't change the facts. I was not abusive toward that user. As WebHamster pointed out above, you were played like a fiddle. You will never admit it, and that's fine. But your opinion on the matter carries no more weight than mine. And my words were what they were, and they were NOT abusive, your inappropriate block notwithstanding. Good bye and good riddance to the lot of you who think that wasting time on such matters is important. K. Scott Bailey 02:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you made this edit, I'm curious as to how you determined that you were reverting to the "consensus version." Did you take a poll? Did you count the number of editors on the talk page who argued in favor and in opposition to that version? The funny is, I actually did count them, and it appeared to me that I reverted to the "consensus version." But I didn't feel that I ought to make that claim, so I wonder why you did make it. --Gelsomina 06:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, there's already plenty of evidence and a couple of Arbcom case decisions that a few LaRouche activists do not a consensus make. Georgewilliamherbert 09:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My question, rather, is what does make a consensus, and how did you determine that you were acting on behalf of it? --Gelsomina 16:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. Gelsomina (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sock of banned user Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs), based on checkuser evidence and editing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you experienced with sockpuppets and therefore I would like for you to check into the following. I believe that User:72.84.31.214 is a sockpuppet of User:Linda9, due to the edits going on the Joaquin Phoenix article (see:[3]). Now, I am not experienced in this sort of thing, but I placed "sockpuppet" tags on both users pages. I would like for you to take a look and if you can fix what ever I may have done wrong. Thank you Tony the Marine 07:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GWH-- thanks for your input on hull matters. My question arose out of work on SS Christopher Columbus where depth was originally confused with draft. There is also a question as to whether a field in the standard ship infobox template should be entitled depth and whether that covers the area. If you have time, could you look at Talk:SS_Christopher_Columbus#Infobox and let us know what you think? Thank you. Kablammo 14:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The October 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I hope you don't mind my saying how very impressed I was with your contributions there. You said it much better than I could have done. Well done. --John 03:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you have photos and reports of Delta operators using different kind of pistols in Iraq ...can you send me what you have on my email  : dsgbvdsg@yahoo.com ....thank you --Blain Toddi 09:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, anything that might identify an operator is not going to be circulated further. Georgewilliamherbert 19:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK , the reports then and you could delete the names of the operators ...--Blain Toddi 07:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken as I have only uploaded the image two times. Please do not accuse me of uploading it more times than I have. ~iXetsuei —Preceding comment was added at 23:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just emailed the list but see you're already on the job :) Looks like an interesting case ... - Alison ^❤ 00:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, after reviewing some page histories, I see you unblocked the user mtralston after he had sent you a letter of apology. However, I would urge you to review this, since I am a student who works at the University of Puget Sound's office of information as a technology consultant, where the user also attends school, and I wrote him this morning when I tried to edit Wikipedia and found out our public IP was blocked. However, it appears that after the user had been unblocked by the administrators here at Wikipedia, he began writing me snide comments. For example, I told him I doubted his sincerity at all levels after he sarcastically said I should go back to playing World of Warcraft. He responded to this by asking whether the levels I was talking about could be found in World of Warcraft. He then added "blow me" to his comments. I am highly convinced this user is not sincere. He has not written or spoken to the Dean of Students as he said in his message to you. This user is lying and I would urge you to permanently ban him.

Thank you. Acumensch 06:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would perhaps be unwise to ban the UPS public IP. However, if the username is banned he can always create a new account and will not have learned any lesson. The student in question has written me several messages just recently, to which I have not responded. Since the student does not believe that this homophobic sensibility has any affect on his university - as evidenced by his comments that talking to the Dean of Students would have no affect on his behavior, that the students should "make a poster" and "have a table-setting" to talk about it - perhaps banning our wikipedia privileges could provide the necessary conditions to begin a discussion about either queerphobia or Wikipedia vandalism. Your call. Send me a message. Acumensch 06:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George, I was not inflaming anything , nor did I make a literal comment. The most I said were in edit summaries. At most it was slightly uncivil, but how you gather a personal attack out of it is beyond me. I made three edits, one reverting the userpage to the discussion stating in the edit summary that the templates were restated on the talk where I redirected it to, and two edits to the talk. The next two talk edits were removal of the excessive comments he made after he was blocked with the edit summary "remove crap" (something along those lines which undoubtly you are refering to as the 'attack' and another one removing the last comment I accidently didn't remove. I hope you know the blocking policy well enough to know that blocks are not meant to be punitive, or because you disagree with an editor. I would take that into consideration before you decided to make any attempt at blocking this account for reasons of 'personal attacks that are deleted now'. — Save_Us_229 01:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did remove the bulk of the messages he decided to post after his unblock was declined. I felt the were starting to get inflammatory because he didn't get his unblock, which was enough for me to insert myself and stop him from making vague threats like "Watch yourself". No, George, there was nothing personal in it and there was no attack upon him, slightly uncivil, but theres no definition on WP:NPA which says that comment was a personal attack by any means. I hold my position that it was ok, as I saw his comments as starting to get unnessecary. — Save_Us_229 01:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George. There's a discussion underway re the above which I think would benefit from your participation - see here.

One of the contributors has made some really good contributions to the micronations Wikiproject over a short period, but they seem to be in danger of losing perspective when it comes to Sealand. --Gene_poole (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check 'em out, if you haven't already. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to remember that in the future. Although, I'll be disappointed that I cannot practice the new "Scientizzle Doctrine" in your space... :) — Scientizzle 00:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries.

Regarding the doctorine naming... well, heck, isn't it true that there's no such thing as bad publicity? 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some details discussed in Talk:Boosted_fission_weapon where you might have sources that can clear things up. Would you mind having a look? Man with two legs (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexfusco5 22:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to this post [4] I think your assertion is mistaken. Arbitration had not started at the time Giano posted the secret email on November 22. The case was not brought towards ArbCom until the 24th. Catchpole 22:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The November 2007 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 01:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George,

Is this message system confidential, or are communications with you posted publicly? I've just started working on the "Recent Events" section of the IIDB (Internet Infidels) page, and wanted to make contact with you.

Patrick Harrigan

edit: saving this page answered my question above. I bypassed the preview screen while making minor edits on the IIDB page, thus my multiple edit counts. I was preparing sources when apparently a representative of IIDB deleted the whole "recent events" section on which I was working. It is an important matter to a subset of the secular freethought community and merits being added to the page in an acceptable format. I look forward to working on this and meeting Wiki's standards.

Hello this article needs some simplification as noted in Talk:Nuclear pulse propulsion, I left a note on the Physics project but so far it appears that the project is fairly inactive, you provided two of the images in the article and have worked with nuclear technology so it seems you are the most qualified person to help me, I would appreciate if you can help resolve this issue. 24.139.240.166 (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already warned him with a level 2 warning tag, you really don't have to do it again before s/he does anything new. If s/he does anything again, I suggest using the WP:WARN tags and if it gets to final level warnings(like uw-bv or any level4 stuff), you can go to WP:AIV to report him/her. I hate this user and knows that s/he uses this IP to get around the block, but policies are policies and we have to do things a step at a time. MythSearcher^talk 08:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I need AIV? I'm an administrator... My banhammer works just fine *flex*

There's a line of thinking that the standard stock warnings aren't as effective as personalized discussion. In cases where it bugs me, I use both (the subst:uw-vandalism3 etc, and a "Hey, what you're doing here is bad, please stop" personalized to the situation).

Anyways, good work. Happy holidays! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opps, sorry, I didn't notice you are an admin. I agree with personalized discussion as well, but this particular vandal seems to ignore all of those, so I only leave them there to tell others s/he is bad :P MythSearcher^talk 08:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>Hi. I saw that you removed your site from the unauthorized mirrors list. Can you confirm that you >changed the site to meta-redirect to Wikipedia, eliminating the mirror function? Thank you... >Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, site now redirects directly to wikipedia.

Hello, I see you've protected the Interchange fee entry so that only Admins can edit. Looking at the history, I can see why. However, I think sufficient time has elapsed since that vandal came through, and there is new news to update. I did a lot of work bringing the article up to the point where it is now this summer, and I'd like to be able to update it. Perhaps it could be protected only for new users? Please let me know, thanks. --Livefeeordie (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add, I notice that the page is protected partly due to an OTRS issue, namely that the page was derived wholly or in part from another copyrighted work. Well, this is no longer the case since I rewrote the page earlier this year. As noted above, it's my version that's currently protected, and the troll you warned, User:Maitrisent hasn't returned since you temporarily blocked them. Please let me know at your earliest convenience. --Livefeeordie (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on my page. Please let me know when you have reviewed the situation and, I hope, unblocked the page so I can continue working on it. Thanks again --Livefeeordie (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of whom is this supposed to be a sock: User_talk:Spindleshank? He's asking for unblock. When blocking a sock, please put {{sockpuppet}} on their user page. THanks. Pls respond at the unblock too. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least let me leave my picture there for now. This all started because of an english project at Purdue University. When I have more time I'll work on a better addition for the U.S. Soldiers (without them sites like this probably wouldn't exist). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmouser (talk • contribs) 02:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:KnightsArmamentCompany-PDW-FOLDED.GIF. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:KnightsArmamentCompany-PDW.GIF. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't wish to revert the page - I just wanted to re-open the case for Rebellion of 1857. DemolitionMan (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked 78.86.159.199 (talk) for trolling at the talk page. According to this edit, 85.92.85.2 (talk) claims to be the same user evading the block by using a different computer in the same residence. He continues to troll the talk page, which, based on his edit history, is the only thing he's interested in doing on Wikipedia. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got 'im. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You recently blocked AlexandarNYC (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet of Sh3 (talk · contribs). What about TalesGr (talk · contribs), who has just appeared on Talk:Darko Trifunovic? Aecis^Brievenbus 23:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a new user, Simple implication (talk · contribs). Does he pass the duck test as well, or should he be CheckUsered? Aecis^Brievenbus 19:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The M1 carbine article is currently on lock down. An administrator has requested some discussion from memeber of the Firearms Wikiproject. Can you take a look? Sf46 (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XXII (December 2007)
Project news The Intelligence task force has been created. The contest department has completed its ninth month of competition. The top scorer this month is Blnguyen, with 22 points, followed by Dreamafter, with 8 points, and Redmarkviolinist, with 6 points. Blnguyen also remains the overall leader, with 162 points in total. All project members are encouraged to submit the articles they're working on as entries. Help with converting deprecated infoboxes is needed; any assistance is welcome! {{WPMILHIST}} now supports an explicit tag (class=DAB) for marking disambiguation pages.	Articles of note New featured articles: Battle of Albuera Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081) Battle of the Gebora Constantine II of Scotland Francis Harvey Vasa (ship) Wulfhere of Mercia New A-Class articles: 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing Evacuation of East Prussia
Current proposals and discussions A discussion about minimizing terminological ambiguity has begun.
Awards and honors Blnguyen has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his efforts in improving the quality of articles related to Vietnamese military history, including the creation of numerous A-Class articles. Woodym555 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on topics related to the Victoria Cross, notably including the creation of featured articles, featured lists, and a featured topic. For their outstanding efforts as part of Tag & Assess 2007, Bedford, TomStar81, and Parsival74 have been awarded the gold, silver, and bronze Wikis, respectively.
Tag & Assess 2007 Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows: 1. Bedford — 7,600 2. TomStar81 — 5,500 3. Parsival74 — 5,200 4. FayssalF — 3,500 5. Roger Davies — 3,000 6. Ouro — 2600 7. Kateshortforbob — 2250 8. Cromdog — 2,200 9. BrokenSphere — 2000 9. Jacksinterweb — 2,000 9. Maralia — 2,000 12. MBK004 — 1,340 13. JKBrooks85 — 1,250 14. Sniperz11 — 1100 15. Burzmali — 1000 15. Cplakidas — 1000 15. Gimme danger — 1000 15. Raoulduke471000 15. TicketMan — 1000 15. Welsh — 1000 15. Blnguyen — 1000 Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes. We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-participants alike are very welcome and appreciated.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated, Anibot (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I am Dr. Drakken (talk · contribs) might be a sockpuppet? That user account appeared less than three weeks ago. It has no user page or entries on the talk page. Within two days, the user is writing articles with <ref> tags and template boxes. Two weeks later, he's writing things like "You either misunderstand, or misapply what WP:NPOV_tutorial#Moral_and_political_points_of_view says as it relates to this article. Yes, we should list all points of view - but in the context of an article about a term, these points of view are of the form "The term J L means..." or "The term JL is used by..". They do not include any and all POV that happen to use the term.". That's not a newbie. This behavior is right out of "Characteristics of sock puppets" in WP:SOCK. Now what? --John Nagle (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject firearms doens't create policy in relation to firearms, you can't go around doing what is tantamount to deleting articles because of some little discussion you've had when the articles meet all notability requirements and belong on Wiki in their own right! -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've stopped the edit warring, the other guy you warned didn't, even after being warned. So, you're going to follow through, eh? --Asams10 (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, last month and earlier this year I asked to see if you would lift the protection on the Interchange Fee page, since there have been a few developments that should be added to keep the page timely. I assume you are busy, although if I can't get a response soon, I will try asking someone at the Village Pump, if they have time. Thanks! --Livefeeordie (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's still at it. I post an overall agreement with his position and he missinterpreted what I said and got very hostile with me over it. Glock pistol discussion. Alyeska (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion of your blocks of several IPs on the Admin Noticeboard, here. Didn't see any notification given to you, so thought you might want to weigh in. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much to my surprise, a new editor, Jgui (talk · contribs) came along, read all the comments on the talk page, and did a nice job of overhauling the article. The talk page indicates that three other editors generally agreed with this. We're actually approaching consensus. Then Yahel Guhan (talk · contribs) simply reverted Jgui's changes with the comment "(rv, old version was much better.)", with no discussion on talk. I reverted that, but I don't want to get into another edit war. So I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at the article and its talk page, and take such action as seems indicated. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 07:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For defending Hajj Amin Elahi the greatest Tanbur lute master that ever lived Octavian history (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What otrs ticket is related to here? Best, Mercury at 16:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to go digging through it. The incident seems to be resolved, however, so I unprotected the article. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George, the Jewish lobby article has become an issue again: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration:Palestine-Israel articles Jayjg ^(talk) 04:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the PP. May I suggested a longer PP, as Jossi did the last time? He blocked it until "dispute were resolved." THe issue is a gigantic one and I assure you the editors there will not be able to cool down in 24 hours, if another attempt is made to repost the Psci box again against consensus. Thank you for considering my suggestion. Anthon01 (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will extend if I have to... but I would really rather people try to talk to each other on the article talk page in the next day. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been at the page for awhile now. 24 hours and any real effort will not be forthcoming. Instead, most editors on either side of the divide will be chomping on the bit awaiting their turns to get their way. Indefinite, and everyone after a short break will actively participate in trying to resolve the impasse. Anthon01 (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last block lasted about 30 days. It gave prospective and time to think. We had about two days of productive editing until SA came up with an edit that he knew would raise hackles. Anthon01 (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should also tag it with the POV dispute or something. It is an obvious case. It could be nice to see that the rules about NPOV dispute really have a meaning other than editwar.--Area69 (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowlege, this has been going on for ages. I think arbcom has even been involved. HalfShadow (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--Area69 (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block the edit warriors. The page has been protected for months at a time. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I can see that you have protected Homeopathy. You may have missed the protection history, and my comments in talk page, in which shows that I unprotected it yesterday after more than a month, and advised users that further disruption will result in blocks. I am unprotecting and pursuing that approach. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. I'm glad that our previous disagreements have long since past and that you are very supportive of me. Thank you!--MONGO 17:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I respectfully disagree with labeling homeopathy with the category listing it as "pseudoscience". It is appropriate to place a quote within the article stating that it has been criticised by some (or many) who have called it "pseudoscience", but that is different than creating the impression - by using the "Category:Pseudoscience" - that Wikipedia has officially placed a value judgment upon the science of homeopathy.

I would point out that there would be as much resistance if someone placed "Category:Pseudoscience" on the Podiatry or Psychoanalysis articles. If there was a "Category:Pseudoreligion" or "Category:Cult", there would be as much resistance if placed on the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons articles. All of these have received wide criticism, and quoting criticisms within an article is acceptable. However having Wikipedia insult the subject of an article with a perjorative category label is unacceptable, in my opinion. Arion 3x3 (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:ISRO-sre02.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon, Mr. Herbert.

I just wanted to let you know that I am making changes to the "Interchange Fee" article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interchange_fee). The "Discussion" tab is locked, so I am posting my reasoning on your user page and on the user page of Stymiee, with whom I think I am in a "revert war." In brief, I am trying to correct the bias of the article by inserting into the "controversy" section the other side of the Merchants' argument (of course, you can read the whole history here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interchange_fee&action=history).

I feel that the changes I made are consistent both with the explicit rules of Wikipedia and are in keeping with the spirit of the Wikipedia mission. My edits further the following Wikipedia values (taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_perfect_article):

• acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject.

My angle on the subject, which includes the activities and viewpoint of the Electronic Payment Coalition (EPC) is certainly part of the “controversy,” which is where I made most of my edits and EPC’s Web site (which I linked to in the “external links” section” is certainly relevant to people looking for external sources of information—at least as relevant as The Merchant’s Bill of Rights.

• is completely neutral and unbiased; it has a neutral point of view, presenting competing views on controversies logically and fairly, and pointing out all sides without favoring particular viewpoints. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views are given a lower priority; sufficient information and references are provided so that readers can learn more about particular views.

Words like “secrecy” are logical “poison pills;” they assume nefarious (or at least ulterior) motives. “Transparency,” which I used, is a more neutral term.

Also, Stymiee is deleting essential parts of the controversy; in a section dedicated to explaining an ongoing controversy, I am presenting one side’s documented argument, that “merchants are simply attempting to shift costs to consumers – costs that are a part of doing business, just as rent, salaries, or the cost of accepting checks,” which I state is an argument, not a fact (that is, it is a verifiable fact that one sides make the argument I present and that that argument is a part of the controversy—thus it belongs in the “controversy” section of this article).

• is precise and explicit; it is free of vague generalities and half-truths that may arise from an imperfect grasp of the subject.

I wrote “Some countries, such as Australia, have established price controls in this arena. The fees are also the subject of several ongoing lawsuits in the United States.” Stymiee edits this to “Some countries have established significantly lower interchange fees. The fees are also the subject of several ongoing lawsuits in the United States.” My language is more precise and explicit. I name a country and detail why they have a different interchange fee I do not use words like “significantly” or “marginally” or “nominally” lower; what does “significantly lower” mean? 10 percent lower? 50 percent lower? My language is more precise and explicit. I would also point out that interchange fees are negotiated between banks, they are not set by one group of banks (more on that below).

• is well-documented; all facts are cited from reputable sources, preferably sources that are accessible and up-to-date.

By linking to the EPC, I am adding to the cache of verifiable facts. People can go to the EPC for their side of the argument and to read the assembled statistics available on the site. I am already gathering more online citations for the facts that I have presented in my edits; currently, my information comes only from wood-pulp media.

I also believe that my edits are in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. For example, much of the "overview" section (before my edits) represented an argument and not verifiable statements of fact. In my deletion of certain passages, I tried to keep the article focused on verifiable, accurate statements of fact about the Interchange Fee, even to the extent of presenting both sides in the "controversy" section.

An example of this is that the article stated "Interchange fees are set collectively by the financial institutions which are stakeholders in Visa (currently an association of banks and other credit card issuers and acquirers) and MasterCard (a public company). Many of these banks issue both credit and debit cards. JPMorgan Chase is the largest issuer of both." In truth, interchange fees are negotiated, not set, (see, for example, http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/06-06/interchange.cfm, "Sears and large grocery chains, have negotiated special interchange fee deals."

Not relevant to the article are the following paragraphs, which serve more to vilify the payment card industry and do not help readers understand what the Interchange fee is, nor its history nor the ongoing controversy that surrounds it.

This post seems long enough and you are a patient man if you have read it in its entirety. Because the discussion page of the Interchange Fee article is locked, I am cross-posting this entry on your page, on my own page and on Stymiee’s for full transparency and I am going to revert the Interchange Fee article to my own edits. Though I hope the altercation I seem to be having with Stymiee can be worked out without any intervention, I hope that I can contact you again should the need arise.

Thanks,

Anne Rush (Arush-JMP) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arush-JMP (talk • contribs) 22:09, 30 January 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 February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, was he not just enforcing what had already been agreed to by the probation? All he did was remove unconstructive comments. Whether jossi likes it or not, it appears that many who are editing the homeopathy page view him as an involved editor. David D. (Talk) 06:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad block. -- Ned Scott 08:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ned and I may not have seen eye to eye in the past, but I concur with his assessment. The block was unfounded and I believe that blocks given for a "cooldown period" should not be given (link) as they ". . .inevitably serve to inflame the situation." Which is ironic when you think about it. Also you'll need to log your block here. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, one day I wanted to know which is the correct word. They both mean the same thing, but incivil went out of common English usage in the early 1800's. Uncivil is the preferred version. Interestingly enough, both uncivility and incivility are both in common usage today in English (and mean almost the same thing). I noticed that you used "incivil" when blocking and or banning some Homeopathy individuals. Anyways, please don't take this post as anything more than a bit of interesting trivia to use the next time you're on Jeopardy!.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The January 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) 23:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to see how the diff you provided here [5] demonstrates "incivil edit comments and disruption." Should it be considered in a larger context, perhaps? Or in the context to other edits he made? --Ronz (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Yea, your right. I guess I was just mad that Israel gets a special place in that list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.107.254 (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do read WP:LIBEL. Material that is unsourced, gives undue weight to minority views, and is biased in tone should be removed on sight. I find it rather despicable you choose to ignore the obvious transgressions of those that violate a core policy of wikipedia, that of making sure things are sourced and neutral.Bakaman 04:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The actions of hdt83 are real. He is posing as several admins, and trying to get more. I am here to help wiki but by deleting my message and blocking me is only hurting wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.59.227 (talk) 06:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand everyone's desire for order and civility on the Homeopathy topic. However your banning me for 24 hours makes no sense to me. I was simply objecting to Filll's attack upon my response to another person's comments - calling my comments "meaningless drivel and spam". Why would my objecting to another's incivility and lack of repect be a reason to ban me? Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe other editors have bothered to make responses to 'BarryJamieson' at length (outside edit summaries) because his accusations are so bizarre and unsupported. You might want to take another look at the article history and of course, the article he cites to support his claims. John Nevard (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason there is an "edit war" going on at the current time is that Barry Jameson is insisting on using the word "adolescent" in the article's intro to make the claim that Perverted-Justice goes after adolescents, when that claim is patently false. I asked for proof to support the use of that word, and instead of discussing it on the talk page, he just edits it back in. I am not the only one who tried to remove that information from the article - it is just absurdly false, and his "reference" for the claim is an article that has absolutely nothing to do with the story.

On another note, I have tried repeatedly to take the disagreements with that editor to the talk page to no avail. Barry Jameson does not appear to be interested in building a consensus with others who may disagree with his edits and, after this latest one, I can't shake the feeling that he's either being intentionally dishonest and using Wikipedia to push a POV or he's being incredibly careless and lazy in sourcing. FrederickTG (talk) 07:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-reviewed and I see where you two are coming from. I'm asking him to cite it - if he does not do so within a reasonable amount of time, I will change the admin action applied here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

have gone low

Thank you. FrederickTG (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Jameson seems to gone low, apart from an edit removing the context of a section of the reactions to a debunking of a sacred cow of pedophiles who think that pedophilia was once normal and accepted, when do you anticipate taking action on the article? John Nevard (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's unprotected (well, reduced to semi-protection). Go ahead and edit again. I left him a warning not to re-insert the material without citing it properly and discussing it on the article talk page first. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that Barry Jameson is still perpetrating edit wars on the Perverted-Justice page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perverted-Justice&action=history FrederickTG (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you aren't able to help with this constant situation, could you please point me in the direction of a place where I can get some assistance? Thanks much. FrederickTG (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been busy working on further evidence for the Samiharris/Mantanmoreland issue. Since you were interested in examining the evidence (and less focusing on the personality involved), could you take a look at The evidence I'm compiling to support a possible WP:DUCK test match and comment? SirFozzie (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated location: User:SirFozzie/Investigation. SirFozzie (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You fully protected this template back in December. This is preventing us from updating it. Today WWE announced that they were ending their relationship with Ohio Valley Wrestling ([6]), so OVW needs to be moved down to the "Former Develeopmental Territories" section. TJ Spyke 00:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jhurlburt

That editor mostly edits while not logging in using his or hers IP. It is not a single purpose account. The Wales article is mostly semi-protected. Quack Guru 01:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained to you this person edits mainly without logging in. The Jimmy Wales article is semi-protected. Quack Guru 03:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edits on that page are disruptive, and the use of the account is SP and disruptive. I have no basis on which to review other use and see if they're behaving well, other than them commenting on their talk page and explaining. You can't do that for them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You described others as problematic but did not indef-block them.[7] Your blocking reason was a SP. You are mistaken. I explained above. Quack Guru 03:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru participated in that,... Please provide your evidence of edit warring on the Jimmy Wales article. I was not edit warring on the Jimmy Wales article and I am not Jhurlburt. Due to actions of QuackGuru related to this I asked for them to be checked against Jhurlburt, on general principles, but I don't expect that to prove anything. I disagree with your statement. It will show you have made a mistake to not unblock and another mistake for a checkuser. Quack Guru 06:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked Jhurlburt (I'd normally ask before unblocking but you said he was welcome to appeal, so I took it that you wouldn't mind). I think indefinite blocking without previous escalating blocks is a little bit extreme. As you've said there's nothing that can tell you that it isn't an SPA (although having an SPA isn't on its own a blocking ground) so I've encouraged him to login whenever he edits to dispel the SPA perception.

Please let me know if there are any further issues. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgewilliamherbert stated: "There were legitimate questions raised as to you and Jhurlburt prior to the incident that led to the block." Please provide your evidence. What questions are you talking about? What questions were raisied? I do not see any questions. Please provide the differences. I have no idea what you are talking about. Quack Guru 01:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to continue here at all. I am going to work on fleshing out essays at meta, where I won't be bothered. I may, in the future, contribute to Veropedia, but this won't involve "working" with any "wikipedia community," just removing the blatant nonsense from certain core articles and putting up reliable sources, so that it can then be shuttled over to Veropedia where it won't be vandalized by POV-pushing mobs.

Also, a question:

I would like to remove my threads from Jimbo's talkpage. I don't want to bother him. Would it be considered vandalism for me to remove my threads from there, including the comments made by other users (even Jimbo himself)? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Zenwhat has been blocked for a week because he posted something a Village Pump, recognised it might be disruptive, and then removed it and the responses (rather than archiving them). More details at AN/I. It looks like some admins are pretty determined to see him gone. Jay*Jay (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This blatant, organized and malicious behavior by admins only further shows that the entire project is a failure. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really think you should get more community input before unilaterally reducing such a block. Abusive sockpuppeting by a user in good standing makes it much worse in my eyes, because they have seriously betrayed the community's trust. If there is consensus to unblock or lower the block, of course I will be fine with that. Thanks for coming to me. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we've ever had a standard response of indefblocking for sockpuppetry, unless there was significant disruption that was caused. See Wikipedia:SOCK#Blocking - sockpuppets may be indef blocked (and routinely are), but main accounts may be blocked at the discretion of an administrator. Note the indefinite for the sock, but lack of indefinite for the main account.

This is normal abusive user response stuff. For someone who has edited constructively in general and has a history, we have to AGF to some degree, even if they are now known to have done something abusive as well. Normal abusive user policy is warn, warn, final warn, block, warn, final warn, block longer, etc. Indef blocking for established accounts should only happen for truly horrendous actions, at the end of a string of abuse with escalating warnings and increasingly long shorter blocks, or due to community consensus bans.

In a situation like this, I can see skipping the first set of warnings, straight to a block (3RR allows for that, etc). And I agree that a moderate length block is appropriate, not having to start with 24 hr. But straight to indefinite is outside normal admin block lengths. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just wanted to note that I've raised the question of the appropriateness of a topical ban in the ANI discussion. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Just to clarify - this was to the blocking admin, not to the owner of the talk page. Apologies for any confusion. For some reason I thought I was at their talk page when I posted this. Orderinchaos 10:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC))—I don't want to sound overly critical, but this action in my view showed tremendously bad faith given the size of the offence we're looking at - the sockpuppet user and talk page was completely uncalled for, we don't do that even to some of our worst so I don't see why we should start doing it with someone with a generally good edit history who seems to have a single offence on the file. Note I'm completely uninvolved in the disputes which led to this, but saw it at AN/I and was just blown away. Orderinchaos 06:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, but what he had done was a deliberate attempt to misrepresent me, which is not allowed on Wikipedia talk pages, so all I did was revert it back to the original conversation. This can be seen here along with my comments on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&action=history As long as he makes no more attempts to misrepresent me I do not plan to make any other edits to his talk page. Please see to it that he does not do this again. Thanks. --BillyTFried (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has done it again, saying (this is my talk page) - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&diff=prev&oldid=190710037<br\>

However Wikipedia talk pages are not the place for purposefully misrepresenting fellow editors in a bad light.<br\>

WP:Talk_page states that Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.<br\>

And I am certain they are also not meant to be used in the way Griot is using his. Please have him either remove all conversations between me and him from his talk page or leave the whole conversation exactly as it originally was. If you are not an Admin or cannot handle this for me can you please direct me to someone who can. Thanks. BillyTFried (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, and have I or have I not made any changes to his talk page since you told me not to??? --BillyTFried (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You took the complaint to ANI. That's called forum-shopping. If you want me to be more explicit - he's being rude, but you're badgering him on his talk page, and his being rude short of solidly breaking our other policies doesn't allow you to seek sanction on ANI or elsewhere. Bandgering him via ANI after I told you to leave him alone is not OK. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so you admit he is being rude but you plan to do nothing about his actions and just scold me?<br\>

• Rude Rudeness is the (apparent) disrespect and failure to behave within the context of a society or a group of people's social laws or etiquette<br\>
• Incivility Incivility is a general term for social behaviour lacking in civility or good manners, on a scale from rudeness or lack of respect for elders, to vandalism and hooliganism<br\>
• WP:CIVIL Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and 'talk page' discussions on all Wikipedias. Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. <br\>

--BillyTFried (talk) 07:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also rude and incivil to go pick a fight with him on his talk page.

It's his talk page. You can chose to leave any time. He can't, really.

You seem to feel that you're the injured party here. One more time - You're the one picking the fight. He's the injured party in that. His rudeness does not excuse your actions. If you keep it up I will block you.

Walk away from his talk page. Please. It's just going to get you in trouble. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Griot has requested via email that I post something to his talk page that he says will resolve the whole situation. His request seems reasonable enough so I will oblige him. BillyTFried (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper Article

I just wanted you to know that the reason Griot did this and that I am so VERY upset about his purposeful misrepresentation of me which you have done nothing about is because there is a Newspaper article about Wikipedia hitting the presses tomorrow morning here in San Francisco and Griot (who is currently banned for abuse) and his abuses and sock puppetry are the main focus of the article and this will surely bring traffic to his page which shows me in an unfair light thanks to him editing out our entire conversation and making it look like it happened in a way that it actually DID NOT. (he actually deleted 90% of his talk page except for the few items left he wants highlighted [inaccurately]) My Wikipedia user name (WHICH IS MY REAL NAME THAT MY HOME ADDRESS CAN BE GOOGLED FROM) is also briefly mentioned in the article referencing that event. Griot is of course an anonymous name. I find it completely unprofessional for his misrepresentation of our conversation to be left intact when it clearly violates Wikipedia's rules on what Talk pages are for and breaks incivility rules. I am asking one more time that you please address this issue before tomorrow when many people that live here in San Francisco will be reading this article, logging on to Wikipedia and then reading an unfairly edited chop up of a conversation I had with Griot that was chopped intentionally to make me look as bad as possibly... as if I was actually threatening him with GUN VIOLENCE, which was not what I was doing AT ALL, and that was ruled to be THE TRUTH by the admins after he REPORTED ME. I was NOT banned by the admins, though Griot said I was on his talk page, and when I removed that 100% lie, he didn't fight back. But his purposely editing out of the rest of the convo to make it APPEAR to be a violent threat with a gun will go over REAL WELL in San Francisco. At the very least please review exactly what has gone on here and ask yourself if what he has done is appropriate and that your allowing it is the right thing to do. Thanks. BillyTFried (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Georgewilliamherbert, I just posted the following on WP:ANI. Since you've been following the situation a little more closely than others I thought you might be interested:

here is the San Francisco Weekly article that BillyTFried refers to above. I don't think I would be exaggerating too much if I said that it attempts to out an anonymous Wikipedia editor, contains numerous insults that would, if they appeared on Wikipedia, be a violation of WP:NPA, and is by the sister of a banned sockpuppeteer (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Telogen) to boot. According to a previous thread on this board, the reporter (User:Marynega) was in contact with Wikipedia PR and a number of Wikipedians; I trust that nobody knew what the content of the article was going to be, but it's still a bit distressing that this piece got produced with the help of Foundation members. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me with a 3RR violation on this page? The 3RR report is here. It's over a Guy Fawkes photo from those Scientology protests. Two users (myself included) have put the photo, with explanatory caption and citation, in the "popular culture" section and User:Yorkshirian has reverted five times day already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Shankbone (talk • contribs) 20:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the assistance. --David Shankbone 20:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- would you be willing to take a look at another situation with User:Yorkshirian and give me some advice? In a nutshell, there's a content dispute over the use of a map. You can find history and an ongoing RfC at Talk:Mercia#Map, and Talk:Mercia#RFC: Map for miscellaneous medieval England articles if you're interested. I believe there's now well-established consensus for the map that Yorkshirian does not like. Should I go ahead and edit the relevant articles to that map? Or wait a bit longer? And what's the appropriate next step if he reverts?

Thanks for any advice. I don't usually find myself in content disputes, since most articles I edit are not controversial, so I'd appreciate a pointer to the right way out of this. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look later today, when I have some more free time again, and comment on what I find. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. There's no hurry; I appreciate any time you can spare. Mike Christie (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to refactor your RFAR statement per BLP? It was my idea to construct the investigation and RFC without reference to speculative offsite identities, and to seek the Foundation's advisement regarding that. It's a precedent from an unrelated case I dealt with a year ago. Durova^Charge! 02:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did and do not mean to taunt or bait Barresi or any user and I appreciate your giving me the three important items to review. I just have been feeling under attack and that the vulgar and abusive words though thy are blanked out were hurtful towards me. I do not know Barresi but he has threatened me. I would appreciate further feedback from you on how I might handle any situations in the future. Thank you. Fuzzyred (talk) 07:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was reviewing the unblock request of David Shankbone. I note that neither party here technically went beyond 3 reverts in any 24-hour period: they both did 3, but no more. I upheld the block anyway on the basis that (1) it was still edit warring, and (2) Shankbone was in the wrong as he was editing someone else's comments. But since there was technically no 3RR violation, I wanted to bring that to your attention, in case you didn't realize. I figure, if you think you wouldn't have blocked had you realized there were only 3 reverts on each side, then you should go ahead and unblock despite my review. Mangojuice^talk 20:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I counted 4 each, but it may have exceeded 24 hrs. In any case, they were clearly edit warring and disruptive, so I think I will leave it as is. Thanks for the note and checking, though. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment on David Shankbone's talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are listed as an administrator willing to help. After User:Orangemarlin made a revert that appeared to me to be contrary to the consensus of the RfC on the article's talk page, I asked him about his edit. When he did not respond, I asked him to participate in the discussion. His response? "I don't participate in discussions." I'd appreciate some help or guidance on this matter. Dlabtot (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're busy, but I would really appreciate some advice on this. The article is on probation, the editor made a revert that was, whether or not as I characterized it, contrary to the consensus of the RfC, at the very least, controversial, and when asked to discuss it, simply refused. Am I missing something? Isn't that a clear case of disruptive editing and stonewalling? What is your advice on how I should deal with editors who refuse to discuss their edits? Since edit warring is not an option, what is the correct course of action? tia Dlabtot (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the wrong way to ask for advice? Should I ask someone else? Dlabtot (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The February 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 fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to you here. --David Shankbone 14:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, Mary Spicuzza wrote an article about me in the SF Weekly called "Wikipedia Idiots: The Edit Wars of San Francisco". I'm trying to get a fix on what her motives were for writing this article. Back on Jan. 25, you wrote on my Talk page, "I'd just like to briefly say that I talked to Mary earlier this week as part of her information gathering for the article. I think it would be great if you have some time and can talk to her as well, but it's up to you." Did Spicuzza ask you to ask me to respond to her? I'm just curious how my name came up... Griot (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikzilla was here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.146.171 (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Image:COTS Approach.jpg and Image:TaurusII Wallops.jpg, I am still getting used to what types of copyright tags go to which kind of copyrighted material. It is quite possible that I may have put the wrong tag on the image. Any help with clarification in this area would be greatly appreciated. PistolPete037 (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a fair point. Cool Hand Luke 03:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I've seen Alanyst's code, and he's shared it with ArbCom. Cool Hand Luke 04:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're in perl. It's pretty straightforward. I'm sure he'd provide them if you asked—no script is more than a few kilobytes. They require download of the 6GB editing history file, but it's quite possible to replicate his results. I'll post a note on his talk page. Cool Hand Luke 04:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually posted a link to my work products on the evidence page just before you left your note. I wish I could be so prescient in my investing strategy. :) alanyst ^/talk/ 04:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I really think your block of Krimpet was inappropriate. It wasn't that uncivil of a comment, much worse comments have been let go with a warning, and it definitely reads more like sarcasm than a personal attack. Would you reconsider? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the stuff that's gone on today, blocking someone for six hours because of one frustrated comment is.. highly questionable. I strongly suggest you take that block back, reduce it to a warning, and get to reducing drama instead of creating drama. SirFozzie (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I re-read other comments that were made today, and this one stood out to me. However, I'm going to post this on ANI for review, as two people have now made similar comments that I may have misjudged it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, hopefully this can be sorted on AN/I. I don't want to unilaterally unblock, discussion is best. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please by all means, I encourage both of you go repost your comments and concerns there so the discussion's out there for wider review. Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate your openness about this. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there.. by the way, you may want to change that completely unintended insult to Krimpet (Krimpet's a female, not a male :D) SirFozzie (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the admin who unblocked. I've responded on AN/I (after several edit conflicts). If you have any further comments or questions for me, my talk page is always open (and likely less prone to edit conflicts ; - ) ). Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, and being a good sport about it. I think we all just need a time out from the stresses of the ArbCom case (and have proposed just that on the workshop.. (and I'll be the first one to do just that, cuz I wasn't doing so hot myself!... (oh and speaking of edit conflicts.. .:P at MZMcBride :)) SirFozzie (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Thank you for being receptive to community consensus and undramatic. That is much appreciated, by me and others. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the feedback, everyone. I goofed, I apologize, and I appreciate that the discussion and feedback were constructive and civil. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello George. I've felt rather astonished over the last two days over the behaviour of these admins. Yesterday, you made a comment to User:Maxim and, because I don't know you and won't be seen to be colluding, I thought I'd ask if you would raise it again with him as a disinterested third party. He deleted the last thread on his talk page where we'd both commented. On the AN/I thread he's reiterated that he hasn't read and doesn't care for the policy. If I pursue this further I'm going to appear petulant. But it should be pursued further. One user violates our civility policy, and the other violates our blocking policy, and then we walk away? That's just not right. Marskell (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsk tsk Marskell, you tried to use a third admin to communicate with me by proxy? And for stuff like I've felt rather astonished over the last two days over the behaviour of these admins. , can't you say that directly to me? Maxim_(talk) 00:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They protected my talk page. Why they not let me talk to you and Charles Matthews arbitrator. Why they trying to cover this up if as you say it is not fault of wikipedia. Nothing to fear from publicity if not your fault. You say armed blowfish not want world to know but then why published on wikipedia review. Why not published sooner. Maybe threats would not have become as bad if published sooner. Guest385 (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, George. Like Carcharoth said on my talk page, the second image was unnecessary and that's why it went (bad fair use rationale notwithstanding). Regarding fixing images rather than tagging them, I'd love to fix images - and do in subject areas where I'm interested in or where the fix is blindingly obvious, such as here or here - but there's a 20,000 image backlog right now with over a thousand images being added on every day, and it's quite infeasible to write out detailed rationales for every image as opposed to deleting them. I also saw a comment of yours on wikien-l and wanted to reassure you that I do check every image, its history, and its usage by hand - I just feed images I want gone into a deletion bot so I don't develop carpal tunnel. :-) east.718 at 05:47, February 27, 2008

I am fairly new to editing, thank you for keeping me in check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaizeAndBlue86 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I realised I'd accidentally reverted content removal on a user page, not an article, about 2 seconds after I did it. I did attempt to put it back and apologise in the edit comment, but had got beaten to it by maxim. Given I'd then realised he was tidying up cluttering his page with an appology didn't really seem appropriate either. Oops. --BrucePodger (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I cited that discussion, must;'ve been a brain fart on my part. A new discussion was on the UCFD page, nommed in mid-February. See here. Sory about that. Wizardman 03:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikzilla is apparently still angry about his earlyer blocks and continues to use Ip addresess and acounts for attack. please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/71.247.1.142 & [8] [9][10] for more information.Freepsbane (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, Wikzilla seems to be quite persistent. Freepsbane (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So are we. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing you are persistant at you ugly bastard is fucking the TROLL Freepsbane The only thing you are persistant at you ugly bastard is fucking the TROLL Freepsbane

I blocked this user that you left an NPA3 warning for. Their attacks looked concerning enough to warrant a temporary block. If you have a problem with the block please let me know or feel free to undo it.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GWH, per your suggestion and our conversation on the Mantanmoreland proposed decision page, I added some evidence of abusive COI sockpuppeting. I assume you saw it since you just commented in that section, but would you mind commenting on the evidence directly? Thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The February 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) 04:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would very much appreciate increased third party involvement in the article. Especially from admins. A couple of points:

• I am in no way trying to "whitewash" anything - you will see from my last edit that I have highlighted the criticism he has received from various Bosniak groups. However, I have also tried to balance this by giving Mr Trifunovic's side of the story. I cannot see how this in any way could be construed as WP:POV. Please see my last version of the article.
• If I have violated WP:BATTLE I am truly sorry. I believe that I have been civil and refrained from any personal attacks (including any on Mr Trifunovic).
• I also believe that I have tried to participate actively and constructively in the Talk page to improve the article and reach consensus. However, I have deleted/reverted what I believe to have been obvious WP:BLP violations (per Wikipedia WP:SD policy).
• Finally, I believe that the current, protected, version of the article is an obvious violation of WP:BLP. The "Srebrenica Genocide Denial Controversy" is not appropriate in its current form. A number of reasons for this. One, fhe subtitle "genocide denial" a weasel word, specifically used to tarnish Trifunovic. Two, the text states that Trifunovic is the "author" of the report when the report actually states that it was "prepared" by Darko Trifunovic, it is therefore not clear what role he played in chosing its content. Thirdly, the text misrepresents the report in saying that it states that "only about 100 Bosnian soldiers were killed" while in fact what the report is saying is that about "2,000" Bosnian Muslim men were killed, mainly in combat, and that about 100 Muslim Soldiers were summarily executed (se p 33 of the report). Fifth, claiming "genocide denial" is WP:OR since nowhere does the report bring up the issue of genocide or not. Please remember that according to the ICTY, genocide is not a matter of numbers killed. Finally, the current text does not provide any rebuttal of the accusation.

Please consider WP:BLP, especially the part stating "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals" in light of my arguments above. Regards, Osli73 (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to make sure you saw my late response to your question. Perhaps you were only looking for POV pushing evidence that Mantanmoreland's socks were used abusively. I think the evidence outside POV pushing is all by itself sufficient to find abuse. Just follow the diffs and the link to SirFozzie's evidence page, where there are more diffs. I was particuarly annoyed to see the socks voting at the Judd Bagley AfD -- while I was putting some effort into arguing, Mantanmoreland/sammiharris was voting twice. Noroton (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikizilla seems to try and continue to edit the Fourth generation fighter page. This time it is through a sleeper account Philbaaker‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) like PTgreen created shortly after Wikizilla’s ban and activated after the fourth generation talk page became semi protected. WZ sees to be quite a persistent fellow.Freepsbane (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

interestingly but not unexpectedly Wikizilla seems to have come back using a new account just after the block of Phil. the new account has virtually no contributions Getitrightnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and jumped into wikizilla's favorite straw poll. Apparently some people just don’t know when to quit. Thanks for all of your help.Freepsbane (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well to be honest I just undid before I looked at what he reverted. It was my vote and I thought that anyone could vote. But since you mentioned it I noticed someone accused spentcosts and downtrip to be sockpupets. I must admit I did not know much about sockpupets until I did the research. I still fail to see how you decide who is and who is not. It really all looks arbitrary to me but what do I know. I will say though that I do agree some of the points raised and I see no reason to supress the arguments made as they are on point. Do you seek the truth or do you worry who the messenger is? At any rate, if it really bothers you and some other editors that much I will not revert anything, not re-instate my vote and move on. It’s really not worth the hassle. Good day. --Philbaaker (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following the report on AN/I a few days ago of edit warring and BLP problems on Darko Trifunović, on which you commented, I've rewritten the article from scratch. Your views on the rewrite would be appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikizilla seems to be obsessed with the thread in question. Two new accounts have poped up and taken the same actions WZ did Getitrightnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Thomthumb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are the accounts in question, thanks for your time. Freepsbane (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your block here Do you have a diff that you could cite as evidence (if you are already typing something about this to an/i or somewhere else then please excuse me). daveh4h 05:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, sorry! I should have figured you were typing it up on an/i. Sorry for jumping the gun, I was a bit shocked by it. daveh4h 05:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was an entirely appropriate query - Given the overall situation with the Arbcom case, it is an extremely high visibility action, and I think it pretty much required a notice on ANI or elsewhere. Nothing wrong with asking about it at all. No worries! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George, you may want to reply to my queries on this on ANI. I think you may have really jumped the gun, a bit. Lawrence § t/e 06:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an indefensible block, GWH. As you have mentioned elsewhere, that this seperate email address did send a seperate email to you, and because it sounds like Judd Bagley, you're going to block a two year old account, that if I'm not mistaken, is OLDER then WordBomb itself? WB's account was created 7/6/2006, and Mackan's was created on or before 6/23/06? You have two options. Undo your block, or have it done for you. I think you owe Mackan a really sincere apology. SirFozzie (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your ANI posting you said you would unblock if he identified himself to the AC or WMF. Under what possible authority does any admin have to ask for that, let alone the AC or WMF? Lawrence § t/e 06:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We routinely have individuals provide ID to unblock-en-L or arbcom or the Foundation for multiple purposes, including confirming who they are or aren't. Those are one set of conditions under which an unblock would be unambiguously proper. They're not a requirement for an unblock. Other conditions for unblock may well exist, including the ever-present potential of a mistake on my part. But I haven't changed my mind on that part. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to that, I have taken a look at the CheckUser data. While WordBomb has likely used proxies or the like in the past, there is no indication based on IP evidence alone that there is a connection. Mackan79's IPs are geographically distinct from WordBomb's, and do not appear to be proxies of any kind, as far as I can tell right now. Dmcdevit·t 06:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC). From your ANI thread. Now are you willing to admit your mistake? SirFozzie (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what--so on some private mail list we force people to provide... what, scans of drivers licenses? As a condition of unblocking? Can you explain what exactly you mean here? Lawrence § t/e 06:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelieveable. You cannot admit you've made a mistake, can you? You've now had THREE checkusers tell you, 2 on the ANI thread that they are geographically seperate, and that there's no sign of proxy use, and you still say "Well, you SOUND like Bagley".. that's really beyond the pale, GWH. Really. You owe Mackan a full apology. SirFozzie (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have eroded all confidence I have in your abilities as an admin. Bstone (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One last question, sorry: do you feel that policy application should be the same for any and all users? If not why? It seems your standards for determining if sockpuppetry occurred operates on different standards for different users. Your threshold for the MM/SH case appeared incredibly high, compared to the Mackan79 case. Would you be willing to discuss why that is? Lawrence § t/e 06:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one, Wordbomb's already banned rather permanently. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mackan79 however isn't. Why did you apply to Mackan79 a different duck standard than Mantanmoreland? Both are/were editors in good standing at the time. Why was Mantanmoreland given more leeway than another long-term user with just about the same amount of contributions? Lawrence § t/e 06:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo the block immediately, George - I think you've stuffed up badly here..... Privatemusings (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think an immediate unconditional apology is in order, George..... please consider apologising - I think that would be a great signal for everyone to start moving on.... Privatemusings (talk) 06:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with PM as above. Bstone (talk) 06:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I inquire whether I'll be hearing further? Mackan79 (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The situation on-wiki has inconveniently concluded for now without you providing or allowing me to provide the email in toto for others to consider and comment on, and without anyone uninvolved in the Arbcom case to weigh in on the underlying facts.

I always entertain the possibility that I make mistakes. I prefer a situation to be resolved in a way that I can either tell that I was correct and that others agree with me, or tell that I was wrong and I'll apologize for a mistake. As you were unblocked by an involved admin, the supporting comments were all by involved admins, and you inexplicably want to keep the rest of the email private I don't see this situation as having resolved to either outcome. You're unblocked, but you also haven't actually answered the question.

I'm happy to discuss either in public or private to come to a conclusion either way. My ego survives making mistakes and apologizing for them. If you can convince me sufficiently unambiguously that I did so here you'll get a public apology. But I'm not willing to do so now, because I believe a preponderance of the evidence I have available to me still shows that you could well be Judd Bagley operating off a server remotely from his residence.

I clearly don't know that to be true for an unambiguous fact, but I also don't have sufficient evidence to disprove. It's up to you if you want to try and convince me. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify what you are looking for GWH? If you'd like to make some point about an email, please make it, but I don't write private emails to be publicly posted. If you'd like to say I used some phrase WordBomb used, then say that as well, if you think it is important. Otherwise you didn't even think you'd received the email when you raised this, and now suddenly the email is supposed to be the whole issue. I will concede that I am not impartial, but I question how you think this is an appropriate way to approach another editor. I also question why you blocked me as an involved editor, specifically the one whose comments I criticized, and are now saying other people involved in these discussions should not act. Mackan79 (talk) 07:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were absolutely not blocked in any way for criticizing me. Quite a large number of people have done so over the years without appearing to be Bagley in the process. I have publically and privately defended the right of several of them to say critical things, including of me, and I believe in a vigorous open debate.

You were blocked precisely and soley because you used similar phrasing to Judd Bagley in the first cited diff and referred to emails, which he has sent me. Your email from December was sufficiently dissimilar to your on-wiki comment, and the on-wiki comment was sufficiently similar to Judd's comments, that it jumped out at me as a clear match. You still haven't convinced me that it's not a match.

I blocked you because I came to believe you're Judd. You still haven't convinced me otherwise, though as I said I always keep the possibility of error in mind. An administrator blocking someone to gain advantage in a dispute is abusing their power - an administrator blocking a sockpuppet, in the middle of a dispute, is acting properly. I could not possibly have gained an advantage in this dispute by blocking you, with dozens of other parties arguing for Mantanmoreland's banning. The nature of the dispute, with off-wiki and on-wiki participation by Byrne and Bagley, has made a large crowd of admins and all of Arbcom acutely aware of the risk of sockpuppetry. I balance the possibility that I saw a shadow and jumped at it on one side, with the possibility that you are Judd and getting away with it because people who already agreed with you didn't consider it seriously on the other.

Ways to resolve this are a large crowd of uninvolved admins showing up and telling me I was clearly wrong (difficult now, you're unblocked and the ANI thread closed/archived), you cooperatively convincing me I was wrong, or me finding some additional evidence and convincing others I was right all along.

I am neither going to focus my life on stalking you and digging up some marginal evidence to try and re-raise the case, nor close myself to civil discussions to change my mind on the mistake angle. I and others have been and will continue to review various activities for risk of sockpuppetry. If I happen to come across anything more implicating you I'll hand it to Arbcom for processing and leave it alone myself. If you help change my mind and I am convinced it was a mistake you'll get a public apology.

That's where things stand, as far as I'm concerned. You've been polite, if not entirely as cooperative as I would ask for, and I'll continue to hold an open mind and discuss in public or private as you prefer, if you prefer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George, will you agree that any comment I've left today is no different than the other comments I've since shown you that I left criticizing your comments on Bagley? I adopt a somewhat formal tone when I'm addressing someone for the first time by email. On Wikipedia I generally refer to people by the first part of their name. In any case, it clearly wasn't a dissimilarity to my initial email that caught your interest, since you didn't even know you'd received the initial email. While I wouldn't say you've blocked me for disagreeing with you either, you blocked Krimpet suddenly and inappropriately the other day, and you did block me here based on a comment I made criticizing you. You then told another editor he was too involved to unblock. I'm not sure if it helps convince you to point these things out, but it's about all I can do. I have just emailed Alison personal information, which she can hopefully confirm is credible. Mackan79 (talk) 08:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George - did you know that Mackan's blog log now identifies him as incorrectly diagnosed cockpuppet? - now crack a smile, and say sorry. You've stuffed up here, and high falutin' talk of remote servers and 'i could be rights' doesn't become you. Here's the rub. Even if Mackan is wordbomb, you should apologise. Ah go on.... Privatemusings (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"[..] a preponderance of the evidence I have available to me still shows that you could well be Judd Bagley operating off a server remotely from his residence." - to be honest, checkuser does not support that hypothesis at all. Seriously - Alison ^❤ 08:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your note at Viridae's talk page George - I think you should apologise immediately. Please do - it's the right thing to do. Privatemusings (talk) 07:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George, this block was very badly judged, and your continued defensiveness is just making you look worse. A public apology - on AN/I and on Mackan's talk page - is urgently needed. Jay*Jay (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

when in a bit of a hole, it's sometimes a good idea to stop digging. honest!

Jay is correct above, George, and please give some thought to the perspective that the control in resolving this matter is entirely yours - I think the eyes on this matter right now would welcome a calm, unconditional apology. We can chalk it up to experience, and move on, knowing that georgewilliam may be fallible, but he'll say sorry when he should..... Privatemusings (talk) 08:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for making mistakes. I have done so before and it's on the record. Rather inconveniently, the way this has been resolved has still failed to actually answer the concerns I had at the moment I blocked. I would rather they be resolved one way or the other, but to do that requires more information. Mackan79 is being civil and he may help provide that information and resolve this one way or the other, and if it's resolved to my satisfaction as a mistake on my part he'll get an apology. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen you issue "cool-off" blocks, and objected (I see at least one on your talk page here). I never saw you respond to the objections. Between those blocks, this one, and your subsequent reaction, I'm seriously starting to wonder if you're in the recall cat. . .I'm not there quite yet, but I'm starting to wonder. . .R. Baley (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ahead of you - I've already checked, and he isn't. Jay*Jay (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to bang on too much (it's a bad habit that I'm well aware I suffer from) - but I thought I would just quietly say that I don't think you should apologise for thinking Mackan is wordbomb - as silly or accurate as that may be, but rather for the clumsy and disruptive way you went about it. Your thoughts are your own, and always will be, its your actions that are clearly wanting in this situation. You indef blocked without leaving a note, or raising concerns publicly anywhere. You've interacted with Mackan considerably, and in ways which have the appearance of a dispute. You've put yourself in the position of appearing to hold double standards, and by far the worse crime in my book is failing to immediately find it hilarious that Mackan is not a cockpuppet.

Your actions have made your ability to be a great administrator questionable. It would be truly wonderful if you could take some of this on board, and offer something along the lines of 'I understand, and I'm sorry for the disruption'.... you see that kind of introspection is almost always a massively valuable experience - which is my motivation for encouraging you towards it.... I think I've said enough now, so I'll stand back, and offer you best wishes, and a sincere request once more that you apologise fully out here in the open.... Privatemusings (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Priavtemusings...cool it...go work on some articles and stop stirring up more drama.--MONGO 08:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO. the only person who should go work on some articles and stop stirring up more DRAHMA is GWH. This was absolutely horrible judgement. SirFozzie (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record here, Mackan79 has contacted me via email (as have you) and has followed up by a phone conversation. I have now sufficient evidence to state categorically that I know who Mackan79 is in real life and can state that he is absolutely not Judd Bagley. I am treating the information he has provided as private and confidential per WMF policy on privacy and shall make a statement to ArbCom myself as to this in the morning. it's past 2am here now so it's time for bed :) Can we please end this now and clear this man's name here? His block log is already indelibly marked and this accusation still hangs unjustly over him. Let's put this behind us and move on - Alison ^❤ 09:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mackan is in the clear which is good but I don't think that should be the end. This is one of the worst blocks I have ever seen, particularly given your comments in the Mantanmoreland ArbCom case. Your behavior since the block has arguably been worse, holding off on an apology and continuing to snipe at the user you unrighteously blocked. Many people who look at this situation will lose confidence in your admin abilities (I was apparently not the only one who checked to see if you were in the admin recall category) and you should seriously consider explaining yourself. I for one have several questions.

1) In the Mantanmoreland case you argued for an incredibly rigorous WP:DUCK standard. You remained skeptical for quite some time despite a mass of evidence. In response to Mackan above you say, "You were blocked precisely and soley (sic, emphasis added) because you used similar phrasing to Judd Bagley in the first cited diff and referred to emails, which he has sent me." How can you possibly conclude Mackan is a sock on the basis of some off-wiki linguistic similarity (as you see it) when you did not conclude (at first at least) that Mantan was socking on the basis of far more evidence? Please note that "WordBomb in banned, that's the difference" is not the correct answer. We know that, the question is how you can apply one standard for DUCK, which is what we are talking about here, to one user (Mackan) and another standard for another (Mantan/Sami). They were both longstanding users. I think it's very important that you offer an explanation for this apparent inconsistency.

2) You said to Mackan, "I blocked you because I came to believe you're Judd. You still haven't convinced me otherwise..." Given that several editors (involved, true, but so were you George, which is part of why this block reeks to high heaven) promptly disputed your block (actually no one agreed with you) and then lifted it, why is Mackan still required to prove to you that he is not WordBomb? Is not the burden of proof on you in this case, or can admins really say "no, trust me, I have this one e-mail and it sounds the same as this other thing so this long-time user is blocked" and then we leave it there?

3) Similarly, after the block was lifted you said Mackan was "not entirely as cooperative as I would ask for." Do you think it's advisable to complain about a user you just blocked (unjustifiably in the view of several others, including checkusers) and their lack of cooperation? Do you really expect a user you incorrectly blocked to send you private information to clear them self? Obviously Mackan has now cleared their name via Alison.

This incident, combined with the recent block of Krimpet, makes me think you have no business being anywhere near a block button. I have a feeling others agree, and thus it might be a good idea to explain yourself a bit. I'm certainly open to legitimate explanations.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only just noticed this entire aberration, and spent a few minutes reviewing what happened. George, this was a horrible, horrible block, and one that was particularly so given the high standards of assurance you called for on the Mantanmoreland case. I note your apology, which is good, but it's useless unless you learn from your mistake. Please take more care with the block button in future - continuing bad blocks tend to lead to a desysopping, and I think the project would benefit more from your continuing to wield the mop (with care) than not wielding it. Neıl ☎ 12:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had to strike out "I note your apology", as I don't believe you have actually made one. Neıl ☎ 12:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Neil here. One of the specific concerns here for me is that someone was named in the block log, which is a permanent record. That is something that should be avoided unless there is absolute certainty, and maybe not even then. Carcharoth (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George, you and I have worked together cordially and productively in the past so it really pains me to say this but I think you messed up, big time. I think you owe a full recantation of what you said, and a full apology. Further, I'd urge you to in future not apply inconsistent standards... similar wording in an email is sufficient for a block vs. thousands of posts analysed to find multiple similarities is not sufficient??? That's not really a good approach. ++Lar: t/c 14:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you open to recall? —Random832 14:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way you would voluntarily resign your position as admin? Bstone (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth (and it's probably not worth much! Am I a respected user?) I view George as a victim in this. Mind you, I supported the unblock of Mackan. However, George has gotten caught up in an off wiki dispute that has spilled onto Wikipedia. The dispute on Wikipedia should have been taken care of two years ago, with the banning of the disputing parties. If that were done, this division of the community would not be taking place. I would feel bad for George if he were desysoped or recalled for getting caught up in this mess. It never should have gotten this far—but it has and it is time to end it. For your consideration. daveh4h 21:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really quick here, as I'm off-line most of today. I firmly believe that we're nowhere near the de-sysopping stage at all here. Let's please at least wait to see what George says here and take things from there. I'm certain that in the light of day, he'll see what happened here and will know what to do. Honestly, there's already been too much baying for blood in this whole MM/SH sorry saga, from all sides of the situation. So please, let's not do this - Alison ^❤ 21:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of day (IE, having to think about it for a while) I have to agree. GWH has made a horrible mistake. This was an ill-considered block.. but as long as GWH A) Realizes his mistake, B) Apologizes fully to Mackan, and C) doesn't do this kind of stuff again.. there's no reason to take it any further. SirFozzie (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Alison. Further, I wish GWH would apologise but we typically don't hold people hostage for apologies. If he won't, he won't ++Lar: t/c 23:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he does not then it shows he does not regret his overly hasty and baseless block of an excellent contributor. As such, in my opinion, he doesn't deserve the mop. Don't we hold admins to a higher standard? Bstone (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He apologized, which is fine with me. I think it was poorly thought through for several reasons, but I'm not sure there's a serious history of this problem in particular, so in that sense I also agree with Alison and others. Hopefully he'll be more cautious in the future. Mackan79 (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll add for myself then that I hope he considers that someone other than Bagley is actually concerned about the many incdendiary statements ("dangerous stalking and harassment," saying he's on par with jailed stalkers), whether one person believes them or not. That discussion can perhaps continue later or elsewhere. Mackan79 (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Mackan79 - I don't dispute at all the idea that someone other than Bagley might be concerned about the statements. The unfortunate coincidence of phrasing was what fooled me. Either you were Bagley, in which case you should rightly be blocked for being him, or you were not, in which case you had every right to comment. You weren't.

To Lar - My apology was waiting on receiving enough information to disambiguate the situation as to whether I was factually wrong or operating with insufficiently convincing evidence. Alison and others provided enough to convince me I was wrong. I owe Mackan79 an apology and he's gotten it. I actually agree that admins not willing to apologize for mistakes is a community civility problem, and I hope that I am doing the decent thing here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad for the apology, but can you explain, as you see it, exactly why you are issuing a mea culpa as you say? Were you wrong to make the block based on the evidence you had, or was it an appropriate block in your view but it just so happened that you were wrong in the end, i.e. both you and Mackan were victims of circumstance? If the former, i.e. if you think the block was a poor one, a simple acknowledgment that you made a mistake and will avoid this type of block in the future puts an end to it I think. I'm really not trying to draw this out - I just think folks would want assurance from you that this kind of thing will not happen again.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer that honestly at the moment, though I can talk about it. It was clearly incorrect and against an innocent editor, for which I owed an apology at least and have done so. I have a pretty good track record at successfully IDing sockpuppets and have been handling a bunch of long term persistent abuse cases over the last year. I always keep in mind the possibility of mistakes. Apparently by random chance, there was a rather similar turn of language used.

Most of the time we see apparent similarities, they're legitimate and real.

I'm open to the question of whether I either was looking too hard for something here or used wrong criteria or judgement. A lot of people are grumpy about the MM case and the Duck test at the moment, but it's what's used actively by the admins who fight the long term abusers (of whom Wordbomb is statistically a very very small part). Admins who are actively fighting long term abusers have made some pretty bad missteps - Durova a few months ago, me here. I don't know if that's symptomatic of an attitude shift coming from doing too much wielding the banhammer.

Very few of the editors or admins involved are doing that job and have that perspective. But doing the job and having the perspective may ultimately put one at risk of wandering off the playing field.

So, I don't know. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George, evidence was submitted in the ArbCom case that SlimVirgin inappropriately and wrongly blocked WordBomb and she and David Gerard wrongly retaliated against and attacked editors who appeared to take WordBomb's side. So, in spite of this evidence of bad faith actions on the issue by other administrators, why were you so quick to block someone that you thought might be WordBomb? Mantanmoreland has behaved very badly, has contributed to the destruction of the reputations of SlimVirgin, David Gerard, and others who have acted in bad faith, but apparently feels absolutely no remorse for having done so. Thus, if you're looking to block someone, I think Mackan79 probably was the wrong choice. Cla68 (talk) 06:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...one block that was ill conceived is now considered to be a desysoppable offense...I wonder where the WR partisans were when Krimpet did her idiotic 3 day block on me? I didn't see them threatening her with desyopping or suggesting she recall, nor was their any cries of concern from them regarding my block log. In fact, Alison was rather defensive of her...no surprise. Cla68, surely Slim and Gerard's reputations are intact, regardless of your ongoing efforts to blemish them...maybe if you didn't follow her to animal rights related articles (oh, surely that is one of your editorial interests), your wikistalking might be less obvious.--MONGO 17:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GWH for your honest answer above which makes a lot of sense. And quickly to MONGO, though I can't speak to the Krimpet case you mention, I think part of the concern here was George's initial reaction after the block as much as the block itself. Now that he has apologized and admitted it was a mistake (which did not happen at first) I doubt anyone is much interested in talking about desysopping. I certainly think we can move on and simply see it as unfortunate fallout from the Mantan ArbCom case, which has indeed caused a lot of grumpiness as George says.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GWH wasn't acting maliciously and that is the key...but that is not how others seem to want to believe. If everyone would step outside their own little boxes and view things more objectively, then there wouldn't be these ongoing screams for sanctions...the lack of good faith is incredible. But as always Bigtimepeace, you bring calm and peace to almost every situation and that is commendable. Thank you.--MONGO 18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, please - the facts! If you check above, it's quite clear that I'm petitioning for GWB to not be de-sysopped. Shame when the facts get in the way of another good rant - Alison ^❤ 07:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You recently blocked 24.18.108.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for disruptive editing, and it seems that he's reset his router or logged on from elsewhere and is back as 64.46.9.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I'm basing this on the similar ranged of articles they've edited and the fact that the new one is bringing up just the same comments. The WHOIS traces to Vancouver instead of Olympia, but it's not out of reason he might have traveled there or contacted a friend to act as a meatpuppet. Given that he threatened to come back, this seems quite likely to me, though further input is welcome. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Allegations against WordBomb are thick on the ground, but no-one will give any details. Did WB murder someone? Did they do it before being blocked on July 7 2006? Or did they run over someone in a car? See how easy it is to make allegations, worthless ones? It should be just as easy to provide some proof, some facts, not just opinions. Can you do that, as a favour to me? (I am not a sock, of anybody, and I hope we can be friends.) --Newbyguesses - Talk 04:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's the official bogeyman around here, the subject of regular two minute hates. As such, no actual facts or evidence are actually necessary, and such things are to be discouraged because they might get in the way of a good intense hatred. *Dan T.* (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but I've been bold here.

You justifiably blocked Dr.Jhingaadey (talk · contribs) on March 1. The editor has returned several times, via new accounts & rotating IPs. Rather than block the most recent incarnation, I've very recently offered to try to coach what I think may have been a case of an over-zealous, policy-ignorant newbie into an actual editor. I've laid out clear information on how to proceed effectively on the usertalk of an account I encouraged the user to make: Ramaanand (talk · contribs). I've explained further my actions & intent to other editors here and here, and am keeping a close eye on the situation. I will not hesitate to block the account if the prior disruptive activities resume. Please let me know if you have any objections, questions or comments about this plan. Thanks, — Scientizzle 21:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused as to what's going on here. After an uncivil comment from the aforementioned user on my talk page when I explained some edits of his I reverted, I come to find out he had an indef-blocked sock that you blocked, a few suspecteds, and yet no block was placed upon the puppeteer's account. If the exchange on my talk shows that Wfgh is going to be uncivil because fact disagrees with his interpretation of history, and he has a history of socking, could you explain to me why he was never blocked? MSJapan (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Swinton circle, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swinton circle and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. 217.134.225.37 (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consider lifting that rangeblock--or at least make it a soft rangeblock. I just checked, and that rangeblock took out a good chunk of New York City. Blueboy96 14:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The one on the range 71.247.0.0/16 ... it resolves to Verizon. That rangeblock has locked out a bunch of users in New York City. Blueboy96 18:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is set anon-only. Wikzilla is confirmed to have used used IP's in ... 71.247.6, .7, .10, .13, .15, .224, .230, .231, and .234. If there were many innocent IP-only users, we haven't heard much from them on unblock-en-l, which is where the block note message says to go... If you have or know of specific sets of people affected and are reasonably sure they aren't Wikzilla in a wig, let me know, we can reach out to them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George: The change by Nabokov to Nuclear weapon design seems to be nonsense. He made the same change to the W48 article. Check out my comments here. What do you think? HowardMorland (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and reverted the changes. HowardMorland (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The March 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) 01:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klingon Empire (Star Fleet Universe) is up for deletion. just want to let you know. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I read that you'd be somehow able to retrieve these images and use them here under a fair use policy? That'd be fantastic if possible, I'm kind of discouraged with Commons, after having made so many requests to manufacturers and having to wait weeks for a single reply, only to have them all removed with one fell swoop. The AK-74 images were also removed, if we could get those back that'd be great. BTW, I have the FN/IWI photographs on my HD, if you want to upload them, shoot me your email and I'll send them over. Koalorka (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate bother you again but two new accounts without prior contributions have dropped by to cast their vote at fourth generation page. As you well know WZ was very active in his vote stacking efforts in that straw poll, most likely this is just some new attempt to force his way through.Freepsbane (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Here you undid my insertion of www.seastead.org, adding this explanation on my talk page:

Please don't insert it into the main Micronation article until you have a reasonable level of reliable sourcing and can justify it as being one of the 3-5 most notable projects in the general micronational classification of new-country projects, which is our criteria for inclusion in the main article.

The very notable Peter Thiel just pledged $500,000 to get the new Seasteading Institute up and running, i guess that would make it more notable than the ones already listed. Joepnl (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been bold. Joepnl (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Georgewilliamherbert:

I saw your name on the Wikiproject Ships.

Please take a look at USS Mizpah (PY-29). I chanced on this and I think it is fantasy, but I'd like a second opinion.

Also the other US ship edits by User:Rbbloom. I think this person is a specialist in nonsense.

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please intervene with regard to the user Quorty. What bugs me is the tone he takes in every dispute. Without much investigation, he slams every tool at his disposal at articles and users who work on them. Every user page request is mean-spirited, no one is ever given benefit of the doubt. I post now from my IP so I won't get beat up by him on my registered page -- in an hour or so there will be a marker put on the IP page showing where it's from and implying some kind of misdoing or accusing it outright.

Quorty is a very powerful user, and there's really nothing regular joes like me can do about his nonsense. Is there anything a higher end user like you can do? Or somebody, just to get him to dial it back a notch or two? It's not the Spanish Inquisition -- it's a bunch of people working for free on a community encyclopedia project. I know I'm super-discouraged from creating new and notable content just for dread of having to spend my time wrangling with him instead of actually working on Wikipedia. 72.241.98.90 (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2008 (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 [11]. 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 [12]. 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]