Jump to content

User talk:Georgewilliamherbert: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Re: Mbz1 block: Factsontheground stopped when told - Mbz1 did not, and escalated instead
Acechem (talk | contribs)
128 edits
→‎Tetryl: new section
Line 137: Line 137:
::I must insist on this point. You are contradicting yourself. Let's be very clear here. Is accusing someone of racism not "behaving in manners which exceed acceptable thresholds"? If this behaviour is acceptable, then why did you yourself warn Factsontheground to stop doing it? This warning came after the 24 hour interaction ban. [[User:Breein1007|Breein1007]] ([[User talk:Breein1007|talk]]) 18:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
::I must insist on this point. You are contradicting yourself. Let's be very clear here. Is accusing someone of racism not "behaving in manners which exceed acceptable thresholds"? If this behaviour is acceptable, then why did you yourself warn Factsontheground to stop doing it? This warning came after the 24 hour interaction ban. [[User:Breein1007|Breein1007]] ([[User talk:Breein1007|talk]]) 18:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
:::You will note that Factsontheground stepped away from that immediately upon being told to do so. The difference is, Mbz1 did not. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert#top|talk]]) 18:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
:::You will note that Factsontheground stepped away from that immediately upon being told to do so. The difference is, Mbz1 did not. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert#top|talk]]) 18:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

== Tetryl ==

You are very welcome

Revision as of 18:25, 19 March 2010


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

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

Return of the Sockpuppet

A sockpuppet of Orijentolog has returned as none other than the dastardly IP 93.143.26.133! If you would block that individual it would much appreciated. You have previously protected the page United Against Nuclear Iran for his disruptive, vandalistic edits. Much appreciated. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zzzzap. Let me know if more show up. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, thanks. But this is a wild one!!! Hold onto your pantaloons because here comes 93.143.45.125. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got him as well. I'm not going to be up all night, but if they keep coming I can keep blocking them for a while yet... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please blast the next copycat - DowJonesFan. Thanks! Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

hello

I'm am so sorry! i didn't read your message first(its the first time i'm using Wikipedia!) but i'm still skeptical. Because an Indian astronaut named Rakesh Sharma successfully completed a space travel, which means that there was a manned reentry mission by ISRO (Indian space research org). Therefore i added India on the list. Please tell me where i am wrong- jai002 and again, i apologize —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jai002 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

okay, thanx for correcting me

SPI goof?

You listed Brucejenner as being a suspected sockpuppet of himself. Maybe you meant to list Montystone as a suspect? LadyofShalott 02:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Putting Brucejenner in twice was late night thinko. I was intending to check User:Ballsdeepbob, I hadn't noticed Montystone matched, but on reviewing I see that he does.
I added Montystone to the request, he's clearly another good duck test candidate... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
er, to add a bit I thought I said at first (but apparently missed) - Thanks! Good spot. I appreciate you noticing and saying something about it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. We all do stuff like that at times! LadyofShalott 03:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finger

Yes. I decided a stint in the sin-bin could do me a world of good.:) Crum375 (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ongoing

Thanks George, and godo and all for the protection. Off2riorob (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Replaceable fair use File:SanJoachinLightandPowerBldg.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:SanJoachinLightandPowerBldg.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 05:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:KnightsArmamentCompany-PDW-FOLDED.GIF

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:KnightsArmamentCompany-PDW-FOLDED.GIF. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.
  • If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I do not mind!

I put some facts in my user space. I will not link to it, but sure you will find it. I guess by doing so I violated the topic ban. Ah, who cares? So, I guess it is a good reason to sanction me. Besides you've already made up your mind who is to blame,and who should be sanctioned. You know what, I do not mind. Please do sanction me, and lift topic ban from everybody else. Nobody is guilty, but me. I have started it, I have continued it, and now I am about to finish it. Please do block me, and block me indefinitely. I mean it. Thank you for your time and understanding. Warmest regards. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh really, you have not blocked me yet, and did not bother to respond either. Then let me give you some advise: It might be a good idea before next time you will write something like that "Mbz01 is the user looking at sanctions" to become a little bit more involved than you were, I mean at least involved enough to write my name right.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a 24-48 hour break

You've gotten to the point that you're hanging around pushing people's buttons in the recent dispute, and you're escalating the circle of people whose buttons you are pushing.

This is not constructive in any manner whatsoever. It doesn't help the encyclopedia, it doesn't help you win content arguments, it doesn't improve articles, and it certainly is not useful for your ongoing participation here.

If it's your intention to provoke someone into blocking you, I am not going to rise to the occasion at this point. I have far better things to do, since you did in fact not further escalate the underlying incident in those 24 hours. But if you keep this up you will cross the line with someone and you'll get put on enforced time out.

Nothing that has happened here so far has left any permanent marks - either on content, or on people's block logs. Taking a break will help put that in perspective and hopefully let you continue on without any longer term problems.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Empty words of so called uninvolved administrator, who has no idea what he's talking about. What people's buttons I'm pushing. Any differences so far? Please get off my talk page, if you have nothing else to add.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have something else to add please respond here. I will check on your response otherwise...--Mbz1 (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I have mentioned your name at here. Unomi (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mbz1 block

I was hoping you could please point out to me where you see an indication of "significant administrator support for a proposal blocking you for a week and putting you on user interaction probation for three months." I'm having trouble finding any support for that except by one administrator who has been heavily involved in the dispute and clearly has a personal stake. Furthermore, I'm having some trouble with this sentence of yours: "the level of personal attacks and disruptive actions by all but one of the parties involved dropped off nearly completely". If after being warned, the parties involved have continued with ANY personal attacks or disruptive actions, they should be blocked. It's not a matter of who is behaving the worst. If the user Factsontheground made inappropriate accusations of racism which you yourself pointed out, after the interaction ban, then clearly he didn't get the message. But of course, as a result of this wikihounding and harassment of Mbz1, she is the only one who gets banned because all of the attention is on her. I hope you can take a step back and think about the message you are sending to Factsontheground (and also Daedalus969 who has continued to be completely uncivil on the AN/I.... as well as even Vexorg whose personal attack on an AfD is what started this whole saga). Breein1007 (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may have misread the ANI support by uninvolved admins, but that's not relevant to my block. It was part of the overall warning associated with the block but had no bearing on the reason for the block, which was ongoing disruption.
We do not block everyone who violates policy or decorum in a slight manner on sight, as anyone who follows ANI can tell from the fact that most participants aren't blocked most of the time. Doing so interferes with the ability of people to resolve conflicts. We warn when misbehavior is excessive or ongoing for extended periods of time, and block if we have to. As I stated to Mbz1, after the earlier 24 hr interaction ban, everyone else involved stopped behaving in manners which exceed acceptable thresholds. Mbz1 got worse afterwards, rather than better. That's not even vaguely ok. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must insist on this point. You are contradicting yourself. Let's be very clear here. Is accusing someone of racism not "behaving in manners which exceed acceptable thresholds"? If this behaviour is acceptable, then why did you yourself warn Factsontheground to stop doing it? This warning came after the 24 hour interaction ban. Breein1007 (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You will note that Factsontheground stepped away from that immediately upon being told to do so. The difference is, Mbz1 did not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tetryl

You are very welcome

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert&oldid=350831455"