User talk:Georgewilliamherbert

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

Archives

• 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

Defend each other

(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)

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

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

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)

Your RFA

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Congratulations!

Congratulations!
It is my great pleasure to inform you that your Request for Adminship has closed successfully and you are now an administrator! Useful Links: • Administrators' reading list • Administrators' how-to guide • • Administrator's Noticeboard • Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents • Administrator's Noticeboard for 3RR • Your admin logs: • blocks • deletions • moves • protects • uploads •

If you have questions, feel free to leave a talk page message for me or any other admin. Again, congratulations! Essjay (Talk) 03:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

Smile

AFUSCO has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

AFUSCO 19:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

RFCU on Flanders888

In doing clerking duties, I have moved your checkuser request to the "outstanding requests" section (requests awaiting checkuser action). Technically, the request is non-compliant because of improper coding but I have not placed it under the "non-compliant requests" section. This message is FYI, no response is required or requested. VK35 17:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

comments in the capacity of an editor, not in the capacity of doing any WP clerking duties

Why can't you just block Mrfggc88west for vandalism only edits? Checkusers' time is valuable because they get so many requests. Some requests take a long time to do. Again, no response is requested, just an idea for you. VK35 18:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked at some of Mrfggc88west's edits. This is just terrible!VK35 18:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain?

I noticed you restored Brown's gas although the AfD clearly stated it was meant to delete HHO gas and its equivalent Brown's gas. Since both are not supported by WP:RS I am confused as to why you think the AfD did not specifically address both articles because of WP:NN, WP:RS and WP:OR. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Brown's gas

The problem is conflating HHO and Brown's gas. Brown's gas is a longstanding chemistry term of the art, with clear historical background, and it's also still used in some materials processing industry. HHO is pseudoscience crap, if you'll pardon the mild profanity. If Brown's gas needs proper sourcing et al, then it should be sourced. Tarring Brown's gas with any HHO feathers is a mistake and a majority of the AFD voters seem to clearly realize that.

That they happen to refer to the same physical thing doesn't make both pseudoscience.

Anyways, that's my reasoning. We should fix/reference Brown's gas, sure. But it's not pseudoscience. Georgewilliamherbert 21:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not that simple. Both have aspects of legitimate science, aspects of protoscience/pseudoscience, and aspects of a hoax. Look at the Brown's gas claims of nuclear transmutation, for instance. (Oh wait, you can't; the article was deleted out of process...)

A lot of the bogosity like "sublimation" (actually oxidation) of tungsten has been claimed for both gases.

The welding part is perfectly legit, though not very useful in reality, according to some of the things I have read. (Can weld aluminum great, but can't weld steel...)

The water-fuelled car part is an obvious hoax. (Though this is mostly claimed by the reporters, and not the proponents themselves. Never trust a journalist when science is involved.) — Omegatron 01:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Hi there. I see that I was blocked last month by you and requested unblocking, it was declined by Viridae (here) stating that "the sockppuppetry alone is well worth 48 hrs". If you will look at this (copied from [[2]], no 84) you will see that a) I had explained away the alleged sockpuppetry, b) it had already been dealt with (and no ban was felt necessary), c) after I took steps to prevent usage of my wi-fi by other user/neighbours, it stopped, and in any case d) it had happened weeks before this ban. In your blocking of me you did not mention sockpuppetry. As for the incivility, I think I made good points, although should have made it clear I was quoting. Is there anyway to remove a block from the system after it has expired? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 12:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Aha

You are apparently one of those people who yells "abuse" immediately something happens they don't like? First, process for the sake of process violates WP:NOT. Second, despite your claim, after thirteen discussions already, this is in no way a "no consensus" issue. Third, removal of other people's comments is bad. Fourth, false accusations of abuse is also bad. Fifth, despite your claim I used no admin powers here. And sixth, you are an involved user with respect to this issue. All in all your actions here are highly inappropriate. >Radiant< 19:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• And your right to randomly accuse people you disagree with of abuse ends at the preview button. WP:CIV exists for a reason. >Radiant< 16:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation policy

Georgewilliamherbert, your recent edits to Double hull are in violation of wikipedia policy. Uncited-tagged passages may be removed at any time and are NOT subject to reversion WITHOUT providing the required sources. Please see the talk page at Talk:Double_hull. Alvis 06:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Gene Pool

You know, you're right. This is ridiculous. I refuse to participate in something so juvenile, and Gene obviously isn't going to listen to anything anyone says. Consider me out. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 19:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

One more comment, though: User talk:Gene Poole/genepooleisevil is nothing more than Gene attempting to justify abuse of other editors. There are something like two people on the page who have actually been blocked for incivility, so chances are good that Gene initiated the arguments in the first place. And everything on the page s taken completely out of context; for instance, he keeps adding (and I keep removing) a section that says " 'a dick'- Captain Wikify ". I did not call Gene a dick, I said that he was acting like a WP:DICK. There is a clear difference, yet Gene continues to add my name and make it look like I'm an abusive vandal. Honestly, I think the page shouldn't even exist - most of the people on it are legitimate editors who said one thing that was made to say another by Gene when he took them out of context. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 20:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I just took a while to type it out. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 20:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I know... It's terrible timing, as the dispute hasn't even ended yet. But from what I'm seen, Gene is stubborn enough to continue adding my name to the page, and I know for a fact I'm stubborn enough to continue removing it. We'd both be in serious trouble because it would escalate to one of us blatantly attacking the other or me breaking the 3RR rule over and over and over; I figured that I'd try and MFD the page as quickly as possible to prevent this by getting rid of the page completely. I would appreciate your comment on the MFD. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 20:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This is why I MFD'd it. I absolutely refuse to allow him to leave that there. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 23:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Courtesty Blanking

FYI, courtesy blanking is a rare but recurring event. We even have {{afd-privacy}} to use when it is done. It should be done when the blanked AFD content is privacy invading and harmful or is libelous. It should not be done lightly; WP:CBLANK (a section of Wikipedia:Deletion policy) says as a final caution "Courtesy blanking is extremely rare, and should not be performed lightly." GRBerry 15:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ooops...

But I apologised in advance. Besides I wasn't attacking, I was trying to make a valid point. T_T

Okay

I'm leaving things as is. I was planning on just letting the MFD run its course and opting out any sort of argument, but Gene has been pushing my buttons all day, and it's getting ridiculous. You've seen my comments on Radiant's talk page, the AN, and the MFD, so you know where I stand. Other than that, I've had it with Gene and his childish actions. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 23:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The only "childish actions" here are yours. You attacked and threatened and name-called me. You did so entirely without provocation. Had you not done so I would not even be aware of your existence, yet you chose to do so anyway. You were warned for doing so, yet you continued and still continue to do so. When you stop it and apologise the matter will be dropped. That's all there is to it. --Gene_poole 23:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point this out

[3] I'm no expert, but if you ask me, this constitutes as abuse. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 01:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Taken to AN: [4] --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 03:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for your level-headed response to GP and CW. Cheers, >Radiant< 11:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles

Response at Wikipedia_talk:Unreferenced_articles#Deleting_articles_is_wrong_approach Jeepday (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Macfan93

I understand that Macfan93 has been deleting contents from Mac OS X, however, I am just wondering what is the blocking policy. As Macfan93 was first given warning at 00:15, but his/her last edit was 00:14. It would be great if you can verify for me so that I would know when to report user next time. --Cyktsui 07:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

More User:Ron liebman

Another IP (Special:Contributions/149.4.108.51) has popped up this morning, in the same block of IPs in the sockpuppet report. I've reached the end of my 3RRs on a few of the articles already. Is there a better place to report this? Neier 23:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's blocked, and for a while. I've also asked Netsnipe to please do another range block, since the previous one only seemed to make Ron ornier. We shall see... *sigh* -Ebyabe 00:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Suppressor

I do not have access to the books cited for other facts in the article, by "Poulsen et al" as you write - did you mean Paulson? Since you reverted my tag saying the books clearly confirm the detail in question, can you please add to the article with the appropriate citation tag for this sentence? I can't add it myself, for I do not have access to these works. I'm putting the tag back up in the meantime, but please remove it as soon as you can confirm which book contains the citation. Alvis 07:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia content for children, and olpc

I'm glad you had a chance to hear mary lou speak; she's something else. I'd love to talk about this more -- we should create a wikiproject for it. Are you ever on IRC? I'll be online and meeting about just this tomorrow b/t 1200 and 1600 EST.

Also, the OLPC-related articles on here are a total mess. Please see Talk:XO-1_(laptop)#Requested_move_and_split and lend a hand if you can; I'd rather not hack at the article myself.

Until soon, +sj + 00:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps something like Wikipedia:WikiProject OEPC for the one encyclopedia per child project? Something that should be related to the WP:1.0 efforts (they would like to be involved as well). +sj + 02:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

To Georgewilliamherbert ((Unblock))

What do you want me to do to prove my SABR identity and to more along the "reinstatement" process. See my talk page. --199.219.151.206 17:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC) (Ron Liebman)

I believe he is also discussing the matter with Baseball Bugs. Perhaps you should contact him, Mr. Herbert, to acquire additional information on this matter. Thank you for your time. :) -Ebyabe 18:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A36 steel

My source is my own practice. A36 is used for rolled shapes other than wide-flange shapes -- angles and channels being the most common. A992 (a 50 ksi steel) is the preferred steel for wide-flange shapes which make up the vast majority of steel in most structures. Most plate is A36 or A572 Grade 50.

Take a look at AISC's steel availability site, and this 2003 article from Modern Steel Construction. MARussellPESE 03:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ron liebman

I've posted a thread at the admin noticeboard regarding his currently outstanding unblock request, since it seems discussion may have stalled. Looks like you've had some involvement in this, so I thought I should let you know. Feel free to comment. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:BWB-Composite.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BWB-Composite.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -N 22:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

I think perhaps both. :-) Cheers, Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 03:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile

--AFUSCO has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--AFUSCO 01:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

big page

you should consider archiving this long talk page--AFUSCO 01:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Cover art, and Template:album cover fur

There is in fact a widespread "using image for identification is OK" cnsensus. Please don't be damaging templates in this manner. Georgewilliamherbert 20:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There has been no discussion to support that. Asserting that there is consensus does not make it so. --bainer (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Additional Moog

Morning

I'm just writing to ask how my comment stating that there are in fact previous members of the "lo fi band" Additional Moog classes as vandalism?? There are ex members, surely the entry is incomplete if it excludes this fact?

Thanks

Vacuum energy, fluctuations in the quantum vacuum, electromagnetic quantum vacuum, ZPE fluctuations/sea of energy, ... a.k.a. 'Aether'

Dear Administrator: related to your edition [5] and to your comment [6] alleging WP:RS, please allow to indicate the Wikilink to my shared answer: [7]. In order to complement the answer please allow also to present a few words, from an aerospace engineer; words which very well convey my lay perception on this subject:

"The concept of the aether has returned in the form of the dynamic fluctuating vacuum energy that fills so-called empty space everywhere in the universe. The physics of the vacuum is shaping up as a major theme of frontier science in the 21st century." in [8]

Thank you for the attention that you have devoted to my editions.

P.S.: It was nice read at your user page, only afterwards, that you work in the aerospace engineering; i am a systems admin, not a physicist, but coincidently my brother works in the [British] aerospace engineering too. See you :-)

Info

Thanks for the info. I'll be more careful next time. Izzy007 00:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocks

Thanks - I've tweaked those two to a month each while I look at them again. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 03:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

In that case, does test5 still work? bibliomaniac15 03:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Closure

Pascal an admin? No. So you just closed a debate controversially that you participated in, and that after calling me insane. Doesnt look good, SqueakBox 20:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of my comments

A user is removing my comments from a talk page. Please intervene. --Ideogram 15:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The comments were entirely inappropriate, and disturbingly one-sided. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid#Ideogram's statement. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

He just doesn't get it. Now he has taken it upon himself to refactor the page. Please advise him not to touch other people's comments. --Ideogram 19:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just moved major standalone comment blocks to the bottom, and given them titles, for easier navigation. Must everything be a battle with you? Must you always assume bad faith and make uncivil comments about me? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to be civil. As an involved party you have no right to touch other people's comments. --Ideogram 19:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Huh? Where is that rule written? I haven't modified comments, I just re-organized the page for easier readability, navigation, and editing. I was quite careful with what I moved, to make sure none of them depended on previous posts, but were standalone comments. I'm getting the impression that your objection is not with what was done, but with the fact that I did it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of bad faith. No matter how good your intentions are, you should not trust yourself to edit other people's comments in a debate you are involved in, and no one else should trust you either. --Ideogram 20:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't "edit" comments, I moved them into sections. And you haven't trusted me from the start, this has been one of the most egregious displays of bad faith I've seen. Your bad faith doesn't make me untrustworthy, nor does it mean that any action I take should be automatically protested. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that I think you are involved in POINT has nothing to do with telling you to not touch other people's comments. It is a basic principle of human nature that we cannot trust ourselves to be objective about matters we are emotionally involved in. You don't seem to grasp that. --Ideogram 20:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Enola Gay Article

George:

I posted the following on the Enola Gay talk page. I don't know if you monitor that article, but you might be interested in the vandalism issue.

I was wondering why this article was so spare, compared with its sister article on Bockscar. A hint was on this talk page, where I saw discussion of things that were not now in the Enola Gay article. When I searched History to see when they were taken out, I learned that at 16:02 on May 18, 2007, a vandal with the screenname of Eric1sr had replaced the entire World War II History section with "enola gay was a flamer." Within the minute, MartinBot had reverted the vandalism and graffiti. Two minutes later Eric1sr struck again, removing the World War II History section, and again eight minutes after that, removing the Subsequent History section. This time, MartinBot didn't catch it.

At 16:30 the same day, a live user, Nexonen, eliminated the graffiti, but did not restore the missing sections. For the next three months, people kept trying to add information to flesh out the article, but no one noticed that the problem was uncorrected vandalism.

HowardMorland 03:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Page Move Help

Hello, I need help with a move. Maple Hill Pavilion redirects to Maple Hill Mall. I would like for it to be the opposite, for Maple Hill Mall to link to Maple Hill Pavilion.

Maple Hill Pavilion is the current name of this mall, so I think that Maple Hill Mall should be mentioned in the article, but not be the title because the name is no longer being used.

Thanks for your help! --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 00:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

foam plasma pressure fallacy

I have written you regarding your refference to "foam plasma". I read the article, but unfortunately did not retrieve it. I am not a physiscist, nor a scholar by any means. I am however, a skilled mechanic, and Veteran Marine. As a cold war Veteran, I obviosly stay abrest of the potential of NBC threats.

I checked on your suggested article, 4.4.4.3.2. I also took a look at some simplified drawings(called 'schmatics') of the Teller-Ulam device. In particular, (as relating to your comments), I noticed in section 4.4.2, on page 6 of 4.4,elements of a thermonuclear device, a distinct depiction of a "POLYSTYRENE FILLED RADIATION CHANNEL"

As a simple heavy equipment mechanic, I can understand how radiation and pressure travels this channel very quickly, I do however, agree with you that the polystyrene is nothing ore than a material that simply vaporizes under fission detonation.

I mean, for crying out loud, a fusion bomb is just an advaced fission bomb, used to compress fusionable materials to critical mass.

The Teller-Ulam device is similar to early gun-type fission bombs. They simply used a fission reacton to compress different materials.

I don't know the math used at all, and I barely understand the Alarm Clock?Layer Cake thing, but I do know that I can obliterat polystyrene with my cigarette, cigarette lighter, acytelene torch, and my shotgun, and never produce fusionable plasma.

good job.

Cowboyo31

I wanted to add that I believe the polystyrene "radiation channel" may be nothing more than an alignment tool for other components. Perhaps it is called a "Radiation Channel", becouse in the 50's, we had our coffee in paper cups. Velcro was first used on the Apollo 11 mission in '69 for Gods sake,

WP:BJAODN

The whole department was deleted, including its dozens of subpages. The Transhumanist 18:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, although you restored Wikipedia:Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense, the page mostly consists of redlinks to deleted content at this point. --Hyperbole 18:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I answered on Transhumanists' page, but for anyone else... Yes, I noticed that a few minutes later. I'm in the process of undoing all the individual subpage deletes, too. Please be patient, it takes a bit of manual effort for each one. Georgewilliamherbert 19:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

the deleted redirects can be found (as redlinks) at Wikipedia:Project shortcuts. The Transhumanist 19:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going back through Alkivar's admin log and restoring from there. Georgewilliamherbert 19:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's improper of you do so with the DRV going on, particularly as you don't appear to have discussed the matter with Alkiver beforehand (this being, near as I can tell, your first communication with him). I'm asking you to reverse yourself pending the outcome of DRV. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I second Mackensen's request. You are wheel warring, which is inappropriate behavior for any admin. >Radiant< 08:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Mackensen. Georgewilliamherbert 08:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I do hope you're aware of the irony in your statement there? >Radiant< 09:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Setting aside whether BJAODN should be deleted or not, I'd like to express my respect for you, that having perceived another admin's action as wrong, you have firmly reverted it and stood by your opinion, even when faced of accusations of wheel warring (which are false, because pure sanity, if not WP:WHEEL, requires multiple reverts to constitute a wheel war). Admins are not infallible and one must be bold enough to revert when feeling another's decision is wrong. Миша13 13:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would have been far more appropriate to wait for the DRV to finish instead of restoring content that may be copyright infringement. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I started before there was anything at DRV, there wasn't a process short-circuit. Georgewilliamherbert 17:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is not quite true. Hisspaceresearch opened a DRV at 18:22 and notified Alkivar on his talk page at 18:26. Your first undelete was at 18:40. True, that's less than 20 minutes apart, but if you had attempted to disucss the issue with Alkivar first you would have seen the DRV notice. You continued to undelete until 19:50, after both an MFD and a DRV had been filed. See User:Thatcher131/temp#Timeline if you are curious (and if I have made a mistake, please correct it). Thatcher131 18:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(cc'ed from User talk:Thatcher131)

Your timeline (of edits) is correct, but misses what I was doing between edits. As I have repeatedly stated, there was no DRV or MFD open when I started off on a loop of non-edit research that took me to the eventual start of the undeletes. That research included looking at... I forget, reviewing last version before deletion history logs on twenty or so of the individual articles Alkivar had deleted, his admin logs for the last 500 edits, his edit logs to see if he was still logged in, and a couple of other things (in which I missed the AN discussion from the night before on first pass, but found it a bit later after I started the undeletes).

"Doing your homework" in something like this necessarily involved a lot of stuff that wasn't edits. One can properly fault me for not checking DRV again after the first major research scan, before starting the undelete. But there wasn't anything on DRV when I started. Georgewilliamherbert 18:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN Arbitration

I have the Arbitration committee to review the deletion and undeletion of BJAODN. Thatcher131 14:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

re User:Tmayes1999 and your report at WP:ANI

Hi. I am writing here since it appears that no other admin has commented at ANI. I note from the contribs history that Tim has gone quiet. Since blocking is properly a preventative measure I see no point in pursuing action against him at this time. If he starts up again then it will have to be looked at at that time. Do you concur? If he does make the same type of edits, please feel free to contact (and remind) me of this instance. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 20:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Strathvooey

I have a proposal for you-

If we can prove Strathvooey's existence within 2 months you will put the following on your personal page:

"Strathvooey is real- I am a Donkey for not believing it" and, obviously, add Strathvooey to the list of micronations.

In return- should we fail to prove Strathvooey's existence we will leave wikipedia alone for good- I figure this is a reasonable forfeit as there are alot of Strathvooey supporters out there who will gladly continue adding it to your list of micronations should you refuse this offer.

Yours, 172.142.127.73

P.S

172.143.176.232 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

roll eyes

Look, this is serious. We can't be having encyclopedia articles for subjects on which there is no available reliable information source. Please knock it off until there is some reliable verifyable reference information on it.

If you can source it, you can add it back in, no problem. But to do that, stop arguing with me, and go find the reliable sources... Georgewilliamherbert 00:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm done for now... I may change it again tomorrow if I can be bothered... then again maybe I'll turn to constructive editing... Wikipedia has been to me in the past- perhaps I will give something back to the community. I'll let you know how that turns out. Goodnight.

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 08:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost and BJAODN

You're listed as an involved party in the BJAODN case. The Wikipedia Signpost will be covering the events in this week's issue. Alkivar asked that I talk to him to avoid misconstruing his words, so in the interest of fairness I'm offering you the opportunity to do so as well.

I'd be happy to talk to any/all of you regarding the case, but I don't have any questions to ask at this point, and won't be able to write anything until Monday morning UTC, at the earliest. If you have any general statements you'd like to make to me, to clear up any misconceptions, or clarify your opinion, please feel free to e-mail me. Also, if you have any quotes in particular that you think best qualify your point, either published on-wiki, or sent to me via e-mail, I'd appreciate them. Since the case has many important issues that need to be mentioned, I want to make sure that I don't miss anything, or misrepresent anyone's views.

(Any uninvolved parties who wish to send me an e-mail can, of course, do so as well). Ral315 » 06:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A copy of an email which I sent to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org requesting that the duration of the 6 month block which you imposed on my account be reduced:

I am User:24.168.46.238 who was recently blocked from Wikipedia for six months by a Wikipedia administrator named "Georgewilliamherbert".

Since my user talk page was protected by "Mr.Z-man" only 4 minutes after the block was issued by "Georgewilliamherbert", I was denied the opportunity to post an unblock request. I'd like to request that I be give the opportunity to do so now:

I know that I was wrong for threatening legal action against "CyberGhostface", but I had asked him to stop bothering me by posting repeated warnings on my user talk page for minor violations of Wikipedia's rules, and he refused. I believe that he had a vendetta against me, as he seemed to be tracking my every edit, just waiting for me to do something in violation of Wikipedia' s rules so he could post another warning on my user talk page, which he knew would aggravate me and cause me to lose my temper. "CyberGhostface" had previously gotten me blocked for personal attacks, and I was stupid enough to fall for his ploy to get me blocked again. I lost my cool, and posted things on my user talk page that I shouldn't have. I know that there was no excuse for my behavior, and for that, I am very sorry.

I'd like to respectfully ask that you shorten the duration of by block, as I feel that six months is far too harsh of a punishment. I was initially issued a 48 hour block by one administrator, but 7 hours later (without me making any additional offensive edits or postings on Wikipedia), it was arbitrarily extended to 6 months by another administrator.

I promise that once my editing priviliges are reinstated, I will no longer engage in the kind of conduct (personal attacks, threats of legal action) that got me blocked. After reinstatement, I intend on creating an account on Wikipedia, and I will make constructive additions to the project. I invite you to check up on me periodically to see that I am keeping my word to you!

I also promise to you that will have no further contact with "CyberGhostface", and since I have no intention of violation Wikipedia's rules in the future, he has no valid reason whatsoever to contact me or to post warnings on my user talk page.

I feel that a reduction in the duration of my block is warranted, considering the questionable circumstances of how my block was arbitrarily increased from 48 hours to 4320 hours.

Again, please accept my sincere apology for my past behavior on Wikipedia, and thank you for your consideration!

Note: I am using a friend's computer (IP Address: 64.38.198.61) simply to post this notice on the user talk page of the administrator who increased my block from 48 hours to 6 months. I am not a "sockpuppet", and I have no intention of using my friend's computer again.

64.38.198.61 14:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, the statements made by 24.168.46.238 are false. Specifically, the claim 'I was initially issued a 48 hour block by one administrator, but 7 hours later (without me making any additional offensive edits or postings on Wikipedia), it was arbitrarily extended to 6 months by another administrator.'

24.168.46.238 got the 24 hour block at 16:01, 16 August 2007 [9]. At 16:41, 16 August 2007, he threatened 'I will, however, be in contact with a private investigator in order to find the true identity and location of CyberGhostface' [10]. Edward321 14:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Just so you are aware, the "minor violations of Wikipedia's rules" include blanking the page of User:Spirot, an editor who had left, with "Good riddance!" Nor did I have any ploy to get him banned. I could care less about this editor. I actually told him that once he stopped vandalizing Wikipedia, I would leave him alone. Before making any further judgements, I strongly suggest you look at this editor's contributions.--CyberGhostface 16:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked at his contributions, and up until his interaction with you, CyberGhostface, he seemed to be making positive edits and contributions to wikipedia. Now let's be honest here... aren't you gloating just a little bit now that 24.168.46.238 has been blocked? If you didn't "have any ploy to get him banned" as you claim, then you wouldn't have continued to antagonize an obviously irate editor. I would advise that in the future, you exercise a little better judgement in dealing with editors who you are having problems and/or an edit war with ...that's Mr. Sockpuppet to you! 09:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

DeLisle

Got a picture of the internals of the DeLisle carbine that could be turned into a diagram for that article? scot 21:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can scan and e-mail the originals, I can help with the line drawings. I managed to make Image:Long_range_tang_sight.png from a photograph in a couple of hours. The adjustment screw and vernier scale were particularly annoying to get right... scot 21:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Smile

AFUSCO has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello, Please pass the Smile to three people:)AFUSCO 14:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Silly antics

Someone has boldly moved WP:BJAODN to Wikipedia:Silly things without discussion. I would have moved it back, but the move tab is missing from the page! The Transhumanist    03:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Civility Warning

Civility warning You have repeatedly made threatening and uncivil attacks on other Wikipedia editors on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships page. This is in clear and blatant violation of our civility policy and our no personal attacks policy.

You are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia. You are not welcome to continue abusing or threatening other editors here. If you do so any further, you will be blocked for a brief period of time and warned again.

This behavior is unacceptable for contributors here. If you chose to behave in a mature and responsible manner, and continue constructively editing, then you'll be welcome here. You're free to disagree and argue with other editors - just don't attack or insult them. If it would be unacceptable behavior at work, it's unacceptable behavior here.

If you are not willing to meet our personal conduct policies, then please stop editing on your own. If you reject them and force us to block you then the situation will simply be regrettable on all sides.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 22:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

I suggest you mete out your grave warnings in equal measure. This is a direct result of unsolicited email harrassment perpetrated by your own TomTheHand. By condemning me you condone your Wiki Administrators attacking users in private using email so as to avoid the embarrassment of revealing their own childish behavior in a public forum. As for me, I had the character to stand up, and do so in public, and defend myself from his attacks. If punitive action is to come my way while excusing the causal acts of your Administrator, who might I contact with a more formal complaint? Xl five lx 23:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xl_five_lx"

B43/Ticonderoga

Thanks for the cite & clarification on these articles. I was guessing it might have been a CVA-56 - don't know why a squadron designation, rather than a ship one, didn't occur to me. One other question: I notice the article uses 'B43', but the referenced source seems to use 'Mk-43'. I am slightly familiar with Mark designations from working on ships articles, but the layman likely wouldn't be; is it worth clarifying the correlation in the article? Maralia 19:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I am slightly familiar with Mark designations from working on ships articles, but the layman likely wouldn't be; is it worth clarifying the correlation in the article?

You might be surprised at how many average joes expect to see, and understand, the mark references. OK, maybe I should have stopped at 'expect to see'. Xl five lx 20:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The switch from Mk-xx to Bxx / Wxx in warhead naming was... I have to go look. I'll look into it. It would be good to be consistent or at least explain ... Georgewilliamherbert 20:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN

The Arbitration Committee has adopted a motion in the above arbitration case, stating, "As the underlying dispute has been satisfactorily resolved by the community, and as no evidence of bad-faith actions by any party has been presented, this case is closed with no further actions being taken." This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 03:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that was fun, guess we can get back to work now! — xaosflux ^Talk 04:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The Surreal Barnstar

		The Surreal Barnstar
		Without your wildcard act, the BJAODN MfD would never have received enough community input to decide the fate of that seven year old project. As the nominator of that MfD and for playing a significant roll in prompting 113 unique editors to participate in that MfD, I hereby award you The Surreal Barnstar. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"mutual harassment"

I don't mean to harass Shankbone, and if you look at his talk-page you will see that I have repeatedly asked to disengage with him and sought to WP:COOL, even when he threatened me off-wiki. The problem is that he is not disengaging with me: twice, after I reached out to him, and got an agreement from him that all of our issues are resolved, he brings new frivolous complaints about me to multiple pages and refuses to stop. I don't know how I am possibly harassing him when he is following me around to articles he has nothing to do with, and all I have done is ask in response that David stop raising false complaints about me. (Cf. this arbcom precedent). If you can point to a diff of one of my edits that is objectionable, I will understand what you mean better. THF 03:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"mutual harassment"

Hi George - I'm not engaging. Today I did a lot of clean up, and wrote a mighty fine article on Reality film - check it out! THF is continually going off half-cocked. I asked Mark a question, and THF, who feels entitled to make a mountain out of every molehill, a wiki-link to policy and guideline in every sentence despite his not following the same, went and opened a COIN on himself, and went around ranting. It's nice he can reference my Talk page, because he rips off all the arguments he gets in off his (sans archive). I think if you were to look at how many arguments I've been involved with in the last week, you would see they all pretty much involved THF. If you look at all of THF's arguments (where he hotkeys wikilinked policies and guidelines), they involve multiple editors (at least five, and I'd even say up to ten). Yet, I'm the problematic editor and harasser? I think THF has that wrong. When everyone else is the problem.... --David Shankbone 03:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And I'd also like to point out, George, that the arbcom precedent THF proudly displays he is in violation of himself. "Wikipedia is not a battleground by undue focus on Wikipedia articles regarding them or organizations affiliated with them, or on their editing activities" and "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine and Wikipedia is not a battleground." I could supply the diffs, and get people to back this up. But THF's disruption takes so much time. All I want to do is create! --David Shankbone 03:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Zionism and anti-Zionism (resources)

Hi,

I just got your message about this article. I'm aware that there are many (thousands?) of list-based articles, but aren't they mainly lists of Wikipedia-based links, or facts, etc.? I wasn't aware that articles consisting only of lists of books and web-links were commonplace, hence my prod. Please correct me if I'm mistaken!

Regards, Oli Filth 01:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

List of private spaceflight companies

I noticed you tagged the article with "attention from experts needed". I think I qualify. What sort of review are you looking for?

The only comment I have is that there's still no entry for my company Venturer Aerospace, but we didn't win a COTS contract and aren't really active now, so that's ok. 8-) Georgewilliamherbert 06:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, anything at all that you could add to the article would be great. If you feel up to the job, it'd be great if you could clarify that the list is correct so far, possibly supplying references, add more companies and add information to fill wherever you see a questionmark.

Also, you could always create the Venturer Aerospace or S-550 articles, if you wanted? Having said that, why document history when you can create it..? Get out there and finish your rocket! :P — Jack · talk · 19:14, Friday, 31 August 2007

Reply

I'm inclined to reply "what user?" but I take your point. I would just also suggest that Wikipedia does support a policy against trolls. Wikidea 19:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, he was a troll. Clever troll, eloquently expressive troll, a troll knowledgeable of Wikipolicy, but a troll all the same. Did you come across this before? Of course he made one or two productive contributions (the Andijan massacre, as he seemed to keep pointing out!), but so far as I was concerned, and from the pages I saw, it was a matter of him insisting that the whole world was nuts or bias or both, and expecting others to "clean up their act" in His marginalist image. It's the old philosophical problem of how far one tolerates the intolerant. Is that another personal attack? Hmmmmm. I'll stop there. Wikidea 20:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: No Personal attacks warning

Hi George, I replied to your message at AN/I --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 00:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

I would like to know how I have insulted anyone in the past couple days. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be this. Georgewilliamherbert 01:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, that was an opinion and it was dealt with. But that was today, not the "past couple days". - NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

An opinion that crossed the line into potentially actionable personal attack. You need to tone it down. Georgewilliamherbert 01:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yay, ponies. Glad everyone is having fun with this. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

TA Page

Thanks for keeping an eye on this. I did not originally put that quote in, and just assumed it was the exact quote. It is a pretty good paraphrase. Funny thing of course is that our sockpuppet master had also referenced Murphy, but actually reinterpreted what he said. I put in the quote word for word now. So, he will have to focus on something else, and I am sure he will.Sposer 01:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

NPA Issue

George, thanks for looking into this. I truly hope the personal attacks from the said user will cease now. Regards Sinhala freedom 02:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Suppressor

Okay, if you want the article serves as yellow pages. — Indon (reply) — 06:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not my objective either, but I'd prefer a more balanced review and discussion than just removing them all. Let's talk about it on the article talk page. Georgewilliamherbert 06:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Libertarian Party

Well, you got me. I don't have a source stating that they're left-wing on social issues, but I also see no cited sources for the current Center-left claim...Also, on the Wiki article which covers it, the Democratic party is described as Center-left. I propose that the mainstream of the Libertarian party is well left of the mainstream of the Democratic party when it comes to social issues. How this difference can otherwise be shown is an enigma to me. -- GiZiBoNG —Preceding unsigned comment added by GiZiBoNG (talk • contribs) 09:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The halloween remake

Hey buddy, just was hoping if you or whoever is responsible for making the page protected to stop making it that way and change it back so that anyone can edit the info. Also change in the plot about the character of Annie. She was not stabbed, she was brutally beaten and she survived the film. No one cares of about the cyber vandals or whatever. People care about seeing the correct info and if there is something not correct, then they have the option to change it to make it correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.2.238 (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nipping this in the bud

Stupid vandals... you should probably semi-protect this page, that's about all I can think of that can stop this. You must have really pissed someone off to got to such lengths to do this to you. Gscshoyru 01:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Smile

AFUSCO has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--AFUSCO 02:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hope the vandalism stops :)--AFUSCO 02:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the advice. Could you please tell me how exactly I can get help from Admin when next time I saw a troublemaker messing up with the page? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiechen01 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I got it. Thanks a lot for the information! Jia Chen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiechen01 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 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 09:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

WP meetup

Sounds like Sunday, September 16 is the best day for a September SF-area meetup -- hope to see you then! Check the meetup page for details and to suggest a location and time. -- phoebe/(talk) 04:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Santiago: a Myth of the Far Future

An article that you have been involved in editing, Santiago: a Myth of the Far Future, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santiago: a Myth of the Far Future. Thank you. --B. Wolterding 11:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette

I have raised your remarks at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Epbr123 00:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A further comment has been left at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Epbr123 00:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to call a truce. Some of the articles deserve to go and some of the articles, in hindsight, deserve to stay, but I assure you my nominations were made in good faith. I won't be commenting anymore on those AfDs. Epbr123 01:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much conflict into this; I think the big-bust list nomination was WP:POINT but I believe that the others were all good faith. Something can be both good faith and a really bad idea, though. There's nothing wrong with making some mistakes as long as you learn something and don't make them again. Georgewilliamherbert 01:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:HWDEF

Perhaps I'm missing something really obvious, but what exactly makes User:HWDEF a sock of User:Pioneercourthouse? If you'd rather not post it here for some reason, feel free to email me. Mr.Z-man 20:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked as their username seems inconsistent with the other socks and they were editing very different pages. The socks went after Pioneer Courthouse Square almost exclusively. HWDEF has never edited that page and has edited many different ones. I will stil watch them, they were blocked originally for being disruptive. Mr.Z-man 21:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Steyr M Series undo

Hi George,

netfotoj and myself are a couple of wikinoobs from steyrclub.com that were hoping to flesh out the Steyr_M_Series entry. I see that it has reverted back to after my entry. Can you give us a pointer on the offending tracts so we can get it right. Also if you could point me to a good example of a pistol page .Cheers PP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polymer Proselyte (talk • contribs) 21:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

you recenly accused my friend user:arthurdent42 of vandalism,

i would like to inform you that it was just a joke

don't take user pages so seriously, or at least not mine

-Jordan042 04:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

i understand that, but i would like to ask, What are you doing on my user page stalker

-Jordan042 21:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC filed against User:Epbr123

I noticed that you've had issues with the erratic behavior of User:Epbr123. Due to events that have occurred since his AfD nominations of Usenet personalities, an RFC has been filed against Epbr123 and you are invited to participate in determining the course of action that should be taken regarding resolving the issues that surround the user and his contested actions. --Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 19:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Benny Hinn

OK. --Blasio27 19:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

wth?

why did you delete my post? no sign of notability.... it's a drinking game... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisoner8 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha ha

You are a butt ugly real-life Comic Book Guy! Kill yourself already! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.141.128 (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• That's cruel. Epbr123 19:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • And pretty weak. They've also accused me of being fat and old, which are respectively not true (I'm 15 lb over ideal body weight for my height and build) and true but amusingly irrellevant (it happens to everyone who doesn't die young and stupid 8-). Unlike comic book guy, I have all my hair in front, naturally, too. More appropriate insults might be "Why are you wasting your time reverting vandals all day when you have several jobs to do?", but the only reply there is "It annoys the vandals." Insults that would be weak for high schoolers are pretty lame. Georgewilliamherbert 19:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Suck my wart-infested cock, bitch!

Personally I'd go for a {{UsernameHardBlocked}}. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I was in a hurry, but I agree, and fixed it. Georgewilliamherbert 00:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Micronations

Hi George, its Yanpagh, I would like to know why do you believe it was for any personal reasons that I might have deleted some info about microwiki.

I also would like to know what is wrong with my text on the Nation of YAN? We are some individuals here at the moment and we did not quite understand. Is it untrue? not factual, missing information? My best regards.

I dont know where is the talk button or where shoud I write, so I took the liberty of writing here.

My best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanpagh (talk • contribs)

Hello again George,

Because I am not aware of a bnetter place to reply, I post here where I posted before.

You did not anwer me on my question about the reasons I deleted the info about microwiki being personal. I would like to know more about that.

"[edit] Yan micronation

Can you please provide some press coverage or other reliable reference sources for your project, related to placing it on the Micronations article and the YAN (project) pages? Lacking independent, reliable, and verifyable sources we will have to remove the article and entry in the Micronations article. These are important Wikipedia policies and we just need you to provide adequate reference sources. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 18:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)"

You asked me if I had any source, press or links about the micronation. Were the 4 links, 2 with the press kit from the exhibition not enough? The link from microfreedom did not satisfy you? You know, I am extremely dissapointed, as I intend well on posting here, but perhaps I shoudnt, since now you my article once more.

As I must assume you didnt even bothered reading the text as I explained clearly (and as we are known as) the people from "whY A Nation" (and therefore it shoud be spelled as YAN, not Yan, that is my name)

is the link from Palais de Tokyo itself enough? Or the page of the project? The pdf file format info from the press kit? Me and others here are inquiring.

perhaps I shoud let other members of the nation write? I just like doing the job myself is that wrong here in wikipedia?

I do not think you are acting out of good will on this case.

the links were there and I have a copy of the text here, so I did not as others here with me did not understand what lack of sources, links or information about the project would be missing.

And could you provide me a link to further inquire about what I may or may not post myself here? Because I read the one given and did not find anything wrong.

Once again, my best regards.

Yan Pagh. (not to be confused with YAN) :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanpagh (talk • contribs)

I'm going to leave you replies to the issues one at a time, please be a bit patient...

Regarding the Micronations wiki reference link, your edit summary was: "microwiki is badly moderated by a tendencious moderator." With those two edits you removed the reference link. That didn't establish any independent review showing that the site is not reliable or relevant; it's just your personal opinion. That's not a valid reason to remove a reference link. If there's a wider legitimate problem with the source then external review and commentary should be available. Georgewilliamherbert 20:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi George.

Sorry but my issue with microwiki was not personal at all.

On the contrary if you could provide me of an email to contact the administrators there I would gladly explain any misunderstanding.

As for the rest, thanks for explaining me a bit more about how it works on wikipedia, I thought that there was something wrong with my computer as I was writing the text and me and others here were going bananas here.

I think I understand it now.

Thanks for your patience, not everyone is an expert on internet.

My best regards.

Yan Pagh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanpagh (talk • contribs) 21:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

However, I may add that these sources I gave were pretty accurate.

I am not on The Financial Times yet, but this does not mean that the sources I gave are not good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanpagh (talk • contribs) 21:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, and the image posted is really my creation:

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v467/lordlicious/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanpagh (talk • contribs) 21:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Explain yourself.

George you are way off bas here. Please kindly indicate what you have miscontrued as a Ron Paul campaign. I for one have not contributed a single dollar to that man. My purpose is to simply get the facts straight...by your comments this does not seem to be your goal.

-Brett —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettzwo (talk • contribs) 13:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War Update

George:

I just updated the Iraq War with the Congressional opposition that was led by Ron Paul. If you still think it is political, then please let me know. We can work out an agreement as to acceptable wording. Do not simply delete it as you did the last time. That is unacceptable and leads me to belive that you might have your own political agenda. It is a significant event in the opposition that led up to the Iraq War and is noteworthy history that should not be left out.

Thank you,

-Brett —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettzwo (talk • contribs) 14:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Moderated nuclear explosion

I created a stub for Moderated nuclear explosion, based partly on your comments at Talk:Critical mass#Moved from Ref desk: science. Feel free to expand. -- Petri Krohn 15:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I started a rewrite of the article at User:Petri Krohn/moderated. You could help me with two questions:

• What was the amount of uranium used in the Ruth and Ray test explosions?
• How powerful a primary is needed to ignite a thermonuclear weapon? Will 200 tons of TNT do?

-- Petri Krohn 16:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The amount of Uranium used in the Ruth and Ray tests was classified, along with the exact configuration of the weapon assembly including implosion assembly and reflector/tamper configuration. There's no wikipedia-usable reliable source for what the insides of the weapons looked like, and I can't comment on unreliable sources.

The primary needed to ignite a thermonuclear weapon depends on how big the total weapon is and how big the thermonuclear secondary is and how efficiently compressed you want the secondary to be. There's a discussion of the ablation process and energy density / secondary compression in the Nuclear Weapons FAQ that gives representative overall energy levels for the Ivy Mike device and a W-80, see [11]. 200 tons of TNT equivalent is about 2% of the likely energy of the W-80 primary (Carey uses 5 kt as his example, but the actual value is probably closer to 10 kt). Ruth and Ray probably, according to public sources, used a 56 inch implosion assembly (same as the early Mark 3 [{Fat Man]] weapons, the Mark 4 nuclear bomb and Mark 5 nuclear bomb derived from them. A fusion weapon with an outer casing enclosing those and a secondary would have extremely low energy density and would compress very inefficiently, if it even got to the point of being able to ignite fusion reactions at all. One might use a two stage pure fission weapon driven by a Ruth or Ray device, with the secondary just fission instead of mostly fusion powered, but there aren't any public design studies of those concepts either. Georgewilliamherbert 21:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What did I do that was spaming

I included relevant information about moder architectural columns and the materials that they are made of, why is that considered spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.73.223 (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Subst

I noticed here you forgot to subst the UsernameBlock template. It's always a good idea to subst user talk templates, just so you know. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes. You're welcome. That was quite username! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Enlighten me...

Where's the personal attack? Ossified 01:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

You got the wrong person. From looking at CheckLips editing I would conclude the person is an experienced wikipedia editor, more experienced than myself. I agree there is something fishy here. Is there a way to check?

You really need to pay a bit more attention to detail rather than seeing things that are obviously placed in front of you. Shanebb 03:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiki History

Hi GWH, I have picked you randomly on my wanderings. I notice in your discourse with 208.65.188.149/"El Jigue" that you claim "I went back 500 edits, then walked forwards..."

This seems to confirm that there is no extant tool that would let me pick an arbitrary piece of text and say "who/when/why did this first appear?". Is the only way by human inspection of a series of diff's? There is an evident simplicity in creating such a tool and also evident vast complications. Are you aware of any such efforts?

Thanks Franamax 01:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: No Personal Attacks

Oh how I love you Wikipedia admins, finding new and excting ways to say "Screw you, I don't care, don't bother me again you insect." to the normal editors every time. My two articles are locked for no reason. They were locked by an admin who refuses to discuss anything. Just what the hell am I supposed to do? I don't know why I'm asking though, at best I'll get redirected somewhere else where nothing will get done for a week or so, and at worst you'll just completely ignore this, possibly deleting and shoving another worthless message on my Talk page. I wouldn't blame you though, it's the true Wiki Admining thing to do. - The Norse 02:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War and Congressional Opposition

George:

First, let me say that you have overstepped your admin privileges. Looking at the other posts, I am clearly not the only that has had this problem with your activities. Some internal investigation would be appropriate on your part.

Regarding the Iraq War...You have offered *no* explanation as to why you think the Ron Paul led opposition in Congress is not significant. Keep in mind, this cannot have anything to do with political advertisement since it happened back in 2002, which was before the 2004 Presidential elections, in which he did not even run for President. I did not mention anything that indicates his current campaign or anything that could be construed as political advertisement.

What I am proposing is to put the significant historical facts out there so that all of the relevant history can be seen. You seem to want to only report on the history that is convenient for perhaps you and your viewpoints. If you don't think a Congressional led opposition to the Iraq War is significant, THEN YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN YOURSELF.

Don't give me irrelevent, mumbo jumbo that you haven't though through such as what you gave below with my comments inserted.

---

George: In the scope of the overall article, and the course of the war and the buildup to the war, Ron Paul's actual individual actions and contributions are not notable enough to mention.

Comment: How does Congressional opposition by Ron Paul, 6 other Republicans, and some Democrats constitute individual actions and contributions. Keep in mind Ron Paul represents a large constiuency in Texas. In combination with the 6 other Republicans and several Democrats, we are talking about a large portion of people. This oppositon by definition is *not* individual. As a result, your remarks are thoughtless.

George: In terms of his presidential campaign, adding Ron's contribution to major causes to unrelated Wikipedia articles when we don't already make appropriate mention of other candidates' actions is political advertising.

Comment: Keep in mind, this cannot have anything to do with political advertisement since it happened back in 2002, which was before the 2004 Presidential elections, in which he did not even run for President. I did not mention anything that indicates his current campaign or anything that could be construed as political advertisement.

George: We don't have the space, nor would it be morally appropriate, for us to allow every candidate to insert a position statement into every issue article related to their campaigns. This is an encyclopedia.

Comment: This is absurd and thoughtless. See my previous comment.

---

The bottom line: You need to explain yourself with ponderance before deleting historical information.

I am awaiting a thoughtful response. Don't forget you are providing a service here and as an Admin, you are here to serve me and others as the the customers and the burden of explaining lies chiefly upon your shoulders. If you are not comfortable with this, then you need to reconsider your Admin role.

Thank you,

-Brett —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettzwo (talk • contribs) 13:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Assumption

Would I be correct in assuming that you are a little on the nerdy side? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storyinto (talk • contribs) 22:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

West Marin towns

Feel like uploading a new version of , with Tomales and Dillon Beach included? Rracecarr 02:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Moderated nuclear explosion

Hey, User:Petri Krohn as made some rewrite on the article and I think the Moderated nuclear explosion AFD would largely benefit from your re-review of the article. In my opinion it is changed to worse. As now it is not only a non-notable neologism and original research but also synthesis which seems to be intended to prove the old theory that nuclear reactor is a ticking nuclear bomb.

Your input is highly appreciated. Suva Чего? 07:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hamroll

His only edits were to create false articles, and to insert references to those false articles into pre-existing genuine articles.

Blocked as hoaxer, liar, vandal, whatever you want to call it. He's not a useful contributor. DS 01:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Micronations

Hello again George, I don't know who tried to make yesterday's edit to the Aerican Empire on the list of micronations, but I saw your response. I'd like it to say soemthing other than what it does now, but since you and I have come into conflict in the past, I thought I might just ask what you would and wouldn't consider to have valid sources. Given the accepted blurb on micronation, what part of the change made yesterday did you disaprove of? Timcrow 12:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Although, in retrospect, moving this topic to the List of Micronations discussion page isn't so good if no one actually checks there or comments for two weeks... Timcrow 15:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Little Boy Design

Repeated from my Sandbox Talk Page (just to get your attention). Feel free to erase this and we can continue the discussion there.

Howard;

Re the counter-intuitive design, I'm not sure that's the most accurate way to phrase the design considerations.

As criticality goes with density squared, a hollow well-reflected static target can be subcritical as well. The classical solid rod projectile model we thought Little Boy used until Coster-Mullen's work had, with the numbers we believed we had accurately, a subcritical ring assembly inside the tamper/reflector.

The detailed tradeoffs for shooting one part or the other part are pretty complicated. It's somewhat heavier the way it seems LB actually worked, though a detailed criticality/gun mass analysis would have to be done to trade them all off. It is somewhat simpler (lower pressure gun, easier to work with) the way they did it. But somewhat heavier.

Lighter weight guns can, of course, shoot the inner cylinder, annular outer cylinder, or all or part of a tamper/reflector assembly... Georgewilliamherbert 00:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

George,

So what's your theory about why they did it the way they did? Chris Payne tells me that NRDC sees it the way I described it. Even if your calculations were correct, it seems that the hollow projectile design is the only one that maximizes the possible amount of fissile material. What do you think? HowardMorland 01:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

An apparent troll

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)

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)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

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)

Changes

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!

Wikipedia:Debate camp

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

60.240.22.251

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)

What does this mean...

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

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)

(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)

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)

Talk pages and harassment

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Harrassment defined?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Your edit summary

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

Request

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:[13]). 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)

Matters nautical

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)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

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)

User talk:Betacommand

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)

Delta Force pistols

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)

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

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

Reuploading of image GEnx.jpg

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)

Yamla's request

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)

User mtralston

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)

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)

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)

RfA

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)

Principality of Sealand

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)

Mooooovies

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