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
Line 247: Line 247:
:I, for one, think that there's a fair amount wrong with the WP notion of "civility", and, in particular, the way that it is sometimes valued over more important things, such as competence and productivity ... but Malleus Fatuorum does not in '''''<u>any</u> way''''' represent me or my views. He is a walking, talking, life-size outlier of acceptable behavior, and should, in my opinion, have been permanently banished a long time ago. That he is, effectively, untouchable, is totally inexplicable to me, but is another thing that points to the system being broken in fundamental ways. Any system that says it values "civility", which allows MF free reign to say whatever he wants, whenever he wants, is clearly lacking in effective enforcement methods.<p>If MF is concerned that "civility" is unequally enforced, then the next time he is blocked by some admin who's finally had enough of his bullshit, he should let his supporters know that they shouldn't unblock him, because the biggest poster-boy for unequal enforcement of the civility standard is Malleus Fatuorum himself. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 06:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
:I, for one, think that there's a fair amount wrong with the WP notion of "civility", and, in particular, the way that it is sometimes valued over more important things, such as competence and productivity ... but Malleus Fatuorum does not in '''''<u>any</u> way''''' represent me or my views. He is a walking, talking, life-size outlier of acceptable behavior, and should, in my opinion, have been permanently banished a long time ago. That he is, effectively, untouchable, is totally inexplicable to me, but is another thing that points to the system being broken in fundamental ways. Any system that says it values "civility", which allows MF free reign to say whatever he wants, whenever he wants, is clearly lacking in effective enforcement methods.<p>If MF is concerned that "civility" is unequally enforced, then the next time he is blocked by some admin who's finally had enough of his bullshit, he should let his supporters know that they shouldn't unblock him, because the biggest poster-boy for unequal enforcement of the civility standard is Malleus Fatuorum himself. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 06:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
::It doesn't look like you read what I wrote with any care, Beyond My Ken; you're not addressing my point. But then I don't quite see why you thought a remark by me to GWH, on GWH's page, was a good time and place for snatching up the ball and running off with it. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 12:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC).
::It doesn't look like you read what I wrote with any care, Beyond My Ken; you're not addressing my point. But then I don't quite see why you thought a remark by me to GWH, on GWH's page, was a good time and place for snatching up the ball and running off with it. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 12:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

:<small>Any time I think I've been too pointed in my comments to someone, I check MF's latest donations to see how much worse it could have been. :) ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 15:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)</small>


== Dilma Rousseff ==
== Dilma Rousseff ==

Revision as of 15:38, 29 September 2010


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

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

Mass renaming of IQ articles without discussion

In light of the discretionary sanctions on R&I-related articles and what I should do about it when there's a problem, there's something going on now that I think really needs an admin's attention.

The issue is discussed here. WeijiBaikeBianji proposed that the R&I article be renamed to "Group differences in IQ by race" and his reason for this is "for parallelism with other subarticles of intelligence quotient." The only reason the proposed name is parallel to other subarticles of IQ is because WeijiBaikeBianji had just renamed four of them within an hour before posting this proposal, without any prior discussion whatsoever: [1] [2] [3] [4]. When I pointed out on the talk page for R&I that his proposed rename wasn't consistent with a bunch of other intelligence-related articles, giving Fertility and intelligence as an example, he immediately renamed that one also (and also without discussion). [5]

The issue here is NOT that I'm worried he'll rename R&I too. This is the only page he's wanted to rename that he bothered discussing with anyone, and it's clear that there's no consensus. People on the talk page are disagreeing with his undiscussed name changes on the other articles, but no one seems willing to go to the trouble of undoing them all and risk getting into an war with WBB over this.

I think that what WBB is doing is both article ownership and POV-pushing. From my understanding of rename policy, it's not acceptable for someone to rename 5 articles in the space of an hour without any discussion whatsoever. And especially when he's using these new article names to justify renaming the R&I article, and then immediately renaming any article that's pointed out as having a similar name to Race and intelligence. Would you mind taking a look at this situation, and decide what (if anything) should be done about it? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please look at this soon? He's just now, once again, made a contentious article renaming with no prior discussion, despite others expressing displeasure (and reverting) his last renames. [6] -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to look at this but I am busy... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and respect that you're busy, but I feel that some of these things need to be dealt with swiftly in order for the discretionary sanctions to have any benefit on these articles. Do you have a recommendation about the best way to bring things like this to an admin's attention without dragging it to AN/I? For instance if you know of another uninvolved admin I could go to who has more free time and is also familiar with these articles. Thanks. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk WWII

I replied at User talk:Paul Siebert#WWII Talk a couple hours before you posted on my talk page. When I made that edit I was trying to restore the Talk page to Nick-D's version. [7] I was acting under the impression that Communicat had refactored Nick-D's comments. Thanks to Paul's posting, I realized that I accidentally removed this comment of Communicat's[8] and apologized for my mistake at that time. As I said then; it was not an intentional removal of Communicat's comments on my part. Apologies for my mistake. Edward321 (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, did not see that beforehand, but that's a reasonable explanation. No problem. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the personal attack. I've changed the horrible part, it is probably better now. As for ANI, I didn't want to waste admins time with unproven nonsence when they have better things to do. I am quite new but have been reading Wikipedia for a few months. Stil need to know the ropes etc. Chetnik Serb (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George!

It's Orijentolog here; I'm writing from collage because unfortunately you blocked mine IP address for one month, which is huge misunderstanding. First of all, as you probably remember you have advised me not to use Wikipedia for few month after my ban, so I did follow your advice. After few months or more precisely in early May, I contacted your colleague Dougweller who is also Wiki administrator but more active on history-related articles then you, because he was the most hostile toward my edits (beside you). In my message to him, I stated this:

Next time when I found some mistake on Wikipedia (like this or this) I'll inform you personally about it because I don't want you guys to consider it as vandalism. I know my situation and I don't have time for appeal to unblock my account, but some articles are important to me coz I'm working on one academic work so I use "what links here" very often - that's why I've found many mistakes. Cheers, vandal-killer! :)

He agreed with it as you can see it on upper link, and I've also noticed that since my IP is changing I'll always contact him, and that I won't bother him with banal changes. Since then (May 8), I participated in dozens of changes and every time I noticed administrator Dougweller: we have few disscusions and there was no absolutely any hostilities or contra-positions. Beside changes, I participated in "vandal hunt", discussions about categories and many other Wiki issues. You can see it on this list on Dougweller talk page, I listed it for you by dates:

After all signatures, I have added "(Orijentolog)" for clearly identification (you can check it). Also, to prove there was no even one my abusive edit or even one suspected abusive edit from agreement with Dougweller, you can check it on "User:Orijentolog" article by viewing history of suspected sockpuppets, confirmed socks or sockpuppet investigations casepage - as you can see, there is no any change after May 8.

So, talking about recent edits, I've made changes on article Cyrus Cylinder along with explanation on talk page; administrator Dougweller saw it even before I posted new message on his talk page, so on Cyrus Cylinder talk page he advised me about few things and I said "You're the boss", and I've followed his corrections.

I understand that you have hostile policy toward vandals on Wikipedia, but in this case you're wrong because as I prove it upper - I've followed your advices, and everything I've done was under supervision of Wikipedia administrator. If it's possible, it would be kind from you to remove IP block, and if you have further questions or demands feel free to post it here. I'll also notice User:Athenean about this whole issue. Cheers! --161.53.35.105 (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)(Orijentolog)[reply]

I don't agree with the large changes made a few days ago or today. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I hear ya.

Sorry. I'll get better. Thanks for your input. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biography page

                                          Hi George,
  i coincidentally have chosen you, from the list of about 1800 wikipedia's administrators, to ask you if you want to see my biography page that i created it. To move any thing in Wikipedia i must have administrator's help or send it by my self but unprotected there is alwais chanses for vandalism.
  So, my name is Igor Manev from city of Skopje, Republic of Macedonia. If you see on map my country is near Greece in Europe.
  I am journalist who finished medical school.During my studies i have worked in the field of journalism, in tv medias and news pappers.
  My intention, latter, is to publish it in the article: Skopje/culture/people from Skopje/list of people from Skopje/movie, television figures, models and journalists.

George, are you willing to send you my biography ?


Igor Manev - Manka

Igor Manev - Manka 15:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor manev (talk • contribs)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies talk 19:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communicat, again

Hi George, Communicat has made yet more rude comments ([9], [10]) and inserted material into the World War II article claiming that all of Korea came under a US military government after the war (diff: [11]), despite there being a consensus at Talk:World War II#aftermath against this (with myself and other editors providing appropriate sources that demonstrated that North Korea was under Soviet occupation until 1948). Given his continued disruptive conduct, despite multiple warnings (I note that they also misrepresented the ArmCom case they initiated here), I think that an indef block may now be in order. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be involved in a content dispute. This is not the place to solve it. In fact, you coming here and trying to win a content dispute by blocking others is unwelcome.
As to the question of Korea: there is a strong argument for the view that U.S. rule in South Korea was occupation, and even worse, continuation of the Japanese occupation, while communist North Korea was not under Soviet occupation. There is some additional content in the version Communicat inserted compared to the version proposed by Paul Siebert. Now that you have replaced Communicat's version by Siebert you should take Communicat's text to the talk page for discussion. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being in a content dispute doesn't mean he shouldn't ask for help if someone violates the personal attack policy, Petri. We ask that people come get an admin...
Regarding the content dispute, however, I would appreciate it if the effect of Communicat ending up blocked for a couple of days was not used as leverage in the content dispute. Perhaps both sides not editing that section until Communicat returns? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all respect George and Petri, this isn't a content dispute: it's a long running disruptive editor deliberately paying no attention to other editors' views to push his own views, regardless of sources and regardless of repeated requests that he engage in working towards consensus text. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

intelligence history

Is Journal of Intelligence History a reputable journal? It has an interesting review of one of Stan Winer's books: [12].

67.119.14.196 (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Excuse me, do I know you?

Nice job turning down the heat, there.

You are not supposed to threaten established users with blocks for no good reason. Final warning. I like that. I guess I missed all the warnings leading up to the final warning.

You are given the power to block users so that we can get rid of vandals and suchlike. It was not so you, personally, can make threats against people who personally irritate you or to cut off content discussions that are not going the way you, personally, might not like.

I have been editing Wikipedia for many years now and have many thousands of edits. I have never been threatened in this manner and I don't like it. This is my hobby and you threatening to take that away from me for absolutely no good reason is chilling to say the least.

This is a very serious threat and goes way, way beyond any reasonable reaction to anything seen on any of the threads you refer to. Even the threat is a very serious abuse of your admin rights. I am certainly going to have to think this one over.

I see that your user page includes the notation "Trying hard not to let any power go to my head."

I suggest you try a bit harder. Herostratus (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus, User:HandThatFeeds gave you good advice at ANI. Don't freak out, just take a break for a while and/or find some other topic area to edit. Sticking around areas that get you into stress is masochistic. 67.119.14.180 (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ROTFLMAO!

I know. Can you believe my nerve? Honestly, it's almost midnight where I live, I go to reblock some doggoned vandal...and I see that PMDrive1061 has successfully blocked PMDrive1061. Being the of the type too embarassed to ask for help (or directions), I took it upon myself to unblock myself while a noodle boils merrily on the stove. Hey, at least it's nice to know that at least one admin would have given me a hand! Not so sure of others, tho.  :) Thanks for the laugh, George. I'm still smiling. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shshshsh used a roll back actually edited his own former edit Off2riorob -

PPls rotect Cinema of Andhra from edit and vandalism suspected vandalism by Shshshsh - In accordance with agreement

Protect Cinema of Andhra from edit and vandalism

suspected vandalism by Shshshsh - In accordance with agreement Shshshsh used a roll back actually edited his own former edit Off2riorob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 6poundhammer (talk • contribs) 04:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter

Hello, I have modified the filter that was disallowing your edit, and hopefully you should be able to make that edit now. There was a minor bug. Evil saltine (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Prompt response. Have a good night. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Evil saltine (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:75.105.241.135

Mea culpa. I didn't realize that impersonating other editors was blockable like that. Where should I report something like that next time? Ishdarian|lolwut 09:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't do anything wrong. If you want to report it, you can report it to the main administrators' noticeboard for incidents, WP:ANI.
Have a good night! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! Thanks! Ishdarian|lolwut 09:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

I appreciate the feedback you gave on my comments on the AE page. You didn't see any problems with my comments but, in general, if you do see something that you think is not ok., giving a feedback with a precise quote and explanation why this is wrong, would be welcomed by me.

The problem with this whole "advocacy" thing is that it is rather vague. Sometimes people will have some vague perception that "I'm at it again" and mention that. But then, without pointing to specific problematic edits, there is little that I can change about this. Of course, I could decide not to get involved in issues relating to Brews at all, but I would oppose that. The reason I have been involved with him has to do with the way some technical articles should (or can) be editited and I should be able to have my say here. This is not about me always agreeing with Brews about specific edits or in specific disputes (I strongly disagreed with Brews on the Speed of Light page that was the subject of the original ArbCom case).

Basically, the core of the issue as far as editing Wikipedia is concerned, is where one should the draw the line in WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. This is obviously a judgement call that editors on different pages have different opinions on. While Brews and I share the same rather liberal view on this, the articles I've mostly been involved in (e.g. thermodynamics and statistical physics), allowed me to edit without much disputes. Brews, on the other hand, with a similar editing philosophy, has faced much more opposition on other physics pages (e.g. classical mechanics related pages). I have been involved on these pages too, but less frequently.

My observation there is that some other editors have an extreme opposite view on WP:NOTTEXTBOOK where even simple examples are not allowed (sometimes even regarded as OR). And Brews also gets quite easily drawn into escalating conflicts when facing opposition. The reason why the physics topic ban has been re-imposed was precisely because of such a dispute on one of the classical mechanics pages (Brews was appealing an article ban on speed of light, but one Arbitrator noted that there was a new dispute with Brews on another physics page, leading to Brews getting topic banned).

So, in conclusion, the whole issue with me being involved with Brews is not motivated by some unconditional support for him. Rather, there are real issues regarding editing Wikipedia here that are perhaps a bit hidden from view. And in such disputes, I always tell Brews to take into account opposition against his edits and try to make modifications to get the necessary consensus. Count Iblis (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Georgewilliamherbert. You have new messages at Stevertigo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Recent admin addition

Hello. I am trying to understand what factors you are weighing, and what exactly you are trying to determine, at this recent Stevertigo ANI. Also, are you looking at multple issues which will help determine the degree of enforcement? In addition, I am inclined to file for enforcement of the 1RR restriction at WP:AE. However, if you have decided to do this I will step aside.

Furthermore, I have piece of new evidence (a diff within the last 28 hours) that indicates Stevertigo, may be irredeemable at this time. Hence, based on this indication I feel that a total block of some duration is neccessary. The point I am trying to make is I would like to enter this diff, and make this statement, based on the diff. However, it appears with your intervention, an involved person such as myself is unable to add this to the ANI. The other avenue of course, is to make this statement with the diff at the request for arbritration. So (respectfully) what is allowed here since you have joined the discussion?

Feel free to reply here. I now have your talk page on my watchlist. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the "uninvolved admin" section, then as it says, that section is admin-only and you shouldn't post in it. You can still post in the other sections (or create a new section) and so you should post your diff in one of them. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I hope you are correct 67.119.... (thanks) ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question re: Stevertigo AN/I

GWH: I note that Stevertigo commented in the section for uninvolved admins you created there. Since he's neither univolved or an admin, I thought his placement was incorrect, and thought about moving it, but I don't want to make an undue fuss or be a dick about it. Still, it seems to me to be a bit in line with his opening an ArbCom case on himself when the AN/I discussion was still active, or trying to rename that case "Punishment" instead of "Stevertigo 2" -- just a bit too close to "working the refs" or "gaming the system" for my taste, trying to manipulate circumstances to get an edge instead of engaging in straight-forward open discussion.

In any case, is it usual to allow the subject to comment in "uninvolved admin" sections? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually not, but let the admins deal with it. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's why I stopped myself before I moved the comment elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Georgewilliamherbert. You have new messages at Stevertigo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Georgewilliamherbert. You have new messages at Stevertigo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Georgewilliamherbert. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Response_to_Georgewilliamherbert.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Georgewilliamherbert. You have new messages at Stevertigo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Couple of things

  1. Thanks on the block. The chap had not seemed to have learnt, despite the other 3 discussing. Hopefully he will.
  2. There was another query I had (which I didnt notice during edits on the article page, but just took note of on the talk page) User: JonathanMFeldman commented at Talk:Swedish_general_election,_2010#Analysis, but earlier on Swedish general election, 2010#Analysis there was a quoted passage (that was disputed by someone hence he had the respected caveats of the author/source (which was fair)), but now it seems the person quoted who wrote the article on the source is the same user who is editing the page and referring the quoted text as "his." Now, i dont think its off-base per se, but maybe something to look at..
Hes also only edited said pages [13]. and then had ownership issues [14]Lihaas (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up

You wrote at the ANI: "Nothing is "enough to discredit the views of editors who rejected your proposed changes outright", Steve. You seem to be indicating a profound lack of understanding for and respect for Wikipedia's core value of consensus, here." - You make a good point. What I meant to say is if there were any who held the view that my suggestions were without merit, the one fact alone (that "person"/"personhood" was not in the human article) amply negated such views.

BTW, I appreciate the effort you put into a fair review of the ANI. Now that Arbcom appears to be taking the case, I am sure that Arbcom will appreciate your general take on things. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 20:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Communication

George, I believe that when you communciate with Stevertigo you are being non-judgemental and that you are aiming to discover the best possible conditions for him. I agree with this. However, I notice that if you communicate with him on Wikipedia others are free to jump in and chastise or lecture. I believe this is not conducive to what you are trying to accomplish. Hence, I strongly reccomend that you and Stevertigo communicate only by email, or even one on one chats in real time. I think in this instance, it is important that you create a safe enviornment for him to communicate. I think the benefits of doing this are readily apparent. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone cares, I left a comment at Jehochman's talk that mentions the ANI and the arb request.[15] 67.122.209.115 (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonating administrators

I noticed your comment at WP:ANI#User:Combo Pwner (diff) where you said that it is against policy to impersonate administrators (in connection with a user who apparently had placed an admin userbox on their user page).

Would you care to comment at WT:User pages#Deliberate misinformation on user pages where a proposal was made to prohibit deliberate misinformation on a user page, with "I an admin" being the misinformation example. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about personal attacks

What happens if these attacks continue by the user???15jan19932010 (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:85.210.97.32

The above user is currently attacking you on their talk page. I'm not sure if it's necessary to continue warning a blocked user? Brambleclawx 01:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage privileges revoked for the duration of the block. Acroterion (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some people just don't get it. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, we protect-conflicted

Sorry, didn't see you there. Here's my rationale for full protection, but I don't mind if you downgrade to semi. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's worth arguing over. I'm fine with full protection, too. No worries, stepping on each other by accident happens. Thanks for letting me know, though. Always appreciated when communications are clear! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the understanding. I just noticed this ANI thread; I assume that was what drew you to the article, whereas I had been directed there by a RFPP request, which probably caused the double protection. In any case, I'll leave a note on the ANI thread just so everything's cleared up. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Georgewilliamherbert. You have new messages at Tnxman307's talk page.
Message added 03:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Another slight request,

Could you please add your opinion, as an uninvolved administrator, to this thread?. Thank you for your time.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus

I was about to post in this ANI thread, but since the discussion now seems to be moving off of Malleus Fatuorum, I won't drag him back in. However... I disagree with what you said. Malleus doesn't represent a "tiny community fringe viewpoint" that the whole idea of civility on Wikipedia is flawed and/or wrong. He represents a big, bouncing, alive-and-well broad viewpoint that the Wikipedia notion of civility is flawed, wrong, and used by the more powerful to lord it over the others. Bishonen | talk 06:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I, for one, think that there's a fair amount wrong with the WP notion of "civility", and, in particular, the way that it is sometimes valued over more important things, such as competence and productivity ... but Malleus Fatuorum does not in any way represent me or my views. He is a walking, talking, life-size outlier of acceptable behavior, and should, in my opinion, have been permanently banished a long time ago. That he is, effectively, untouchable, is totally inexplicable to me, but is another thing that points to the system being broken in fundamental ways. Any system that says it values "civility", which allows MF free reign to say whatever he wants, whenever he wants, is clearly lacking in effective enforcement methods.

If MF is concerned that "civility" is unequally enforced, then the next time he is blocked by some admin who's finally had enough of his bullshit, he should let his supporters know that they shouldn't unblock him, because the biggest poster-boy for unequal enforcement of the civility standard is Malleus Fatuorum himself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like you read what I wrote with any care, Beyond My Ken; you're not addressing my point. But then I don't quite see why you thought a remark by me to GWH, on GWH's page, was a good time and place for snatching up the ball and running off with it. Bishonen | talk 12:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Any time I think I've been too pointed in my comments to someone, I check MF's latest donations to see how much worse it could have been. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dilma Rousseff

Hello, George! Here it is:

"A luta armada fracassou por que o objetivo final das organizações que a promoveram era transformar o Brasil numa ditadura, talvez socialista, certamente revolucionária. Seu projeto não passava pelo restabelecimento das liberdades democráticas. Como informou o PCBR: 'Ao lutarmos contra a ditadura devemos colocar como objetivo a conquista de um Governo Popular Revolucionário e não a chamada 'redemocratização'.' Documentos de dez organizações armadas, coletados por Daniel Aarão Reis Filho e Jair Ferreira de Sá, mostram que quatro propunham a substituição da ditadura militar por um 'governo popular revolucionário' (PC do B, Colina, PCBR e ALN). Outras quatro (Ala Vermelha, PCR, VAR e Polop) usavam sinônimos ou demarcavam etapas para chegar aquilo que, em última instância, seria uma ditadura da vanguarda revolucionária. Variavam nas proposições intermediárias, mas, no final, de seu projeto resultaria um 'Cubão'."
"Ao contrário do que sucedeu nas resistências francesa e italiana ao nazismo e até mesmo na Revolução Cubana, onde conservadores e anticoministas se integraram na luta contra a tirania, as organizações armadas brasileiras não tiveram, nem buscaram, adesões fora da esquerda. A sociedade podia não estar interessada em sustentar a ditadura militar, mas interessava-se muito menos pela chegada à ditadura do proletariado ou de qualquer grupo político ou social que se auto-intitulasse sua vanguarda. A natureza intrinsicamente revolucionária ds organizações armadas retirou-lhes o apoio, ainda que tênue, do grosso das forças que se opunham ao regime. Elas viam na estrutura da Igreja católica e na militância oposiocionista de civis como Tancredo Neves e Ulysses Guimarães um estorvo no caminho da revolução. Eles, por seu lado, viam na luta armada um estorvo para a redemocratização."
Now the translation: "The armed struggle failed because the final goal of the organizations which promoted it was to turn Brazil into a dictatorship, perhaps socialist, certainly revolutionary. Its project did not have as an objective the reestablishment of democratic freedoms. As the PCBR informed: 'When we fight against the dictatorship we must put as an objetive the conquest of the Revolutionary Popular Government and not the so-called 'redemocratization'.' Documentos from ten armed organizations, collected by Daniel Aarão Reis Filho and Jair Ferreira de Sá, reveal that four of them proposed the substitution of the military dictatorship for a 'Revolutionary Popular Government' (PC do B, Colina, PCBR and ALN). Other four (Ala Vermalha, PCR, VAR e Polop) used synonymous or established steps to reach that what, in the last instance, would be a dictatorship of the revolutionary vanguard. They varied in their middle proposals, but, in the end, their project would result in a 'Big Cuba'."
"Unlike what happened in the French and Italian resistances gainst the Nazism and even in the Cuba Revolution, where conservatives and anticommunists joined forces against tyranny, the Brazilian armed organizations did not have, nor were after, adhesion outside the left. The society could not be interested in supporting the military dictatorship, but was far less interested by the arrival of the Dictatorship of the proletariat or of any social or political group that entitled itself its vanguard. The intrinsically revolutionary nature of the armed organizations took away from them the support, even if weak, of the vast majority of the forces that opposed the regime. They [the armed organizations] saw in the structure of the Catholic Church or in the opposionist activism of civilians such as Tancredo Neves and Ulysses Guimarães a hindrance into the path of the revolution. They [the Catholic Church and the civilian activists], on their side, saw the armed struggle as a hindrance for the redemocratization."
Source: Gaspari, Elio.A ditadura escancarada. São paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2002, p.193 ISBN 8535902996

As you can see, there is no POV in the source. The communist armed groups had as goal the creation of yet another Cuba, China, North Korea or USSR, not the restoration of democracy. Nowhere the text that was removed claimed that she supports a communist dictatorship nowadays, but she did in the 1960s and 1970s. It really, really bothers me when "editors" appear to whitewash history in Wikipedia. I've seen that in the article about Hugo Chávez and I am trying to stop that in here. The article on Dilma Rousseff - as we speak, a presidential candidate - is nothing more than one piece of political propaganda. I am not even trying to deal with the entire article since my interest in here is only Brazilian history (as you can see in my user page). But the way it is written now, simply stating that she fought against the Military dictatorship, will lead the reader to believe that she was fighting for the democracy, which she wasn't. --Lecen (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert&oldid=387741298"