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
status update - i was away for some days due to illness, starting to catch up now.
Line 9: Line 9:


Hi, I'm George. Feel free to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert&action=edit&section=new leave me a new message!]
Hi, I'm George. Feel free to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert&action=edit&section=new leave me a new message!]

'''Status information''' - I was ill and off the net completely from Nov 24th through Nov 30th 2010 - This has obviously affected a number of ongoing activities here. I am back now, in the process of starting to catch up Tuesday afternoon (Nov 30th). I have a large number of emails, talk page comments, and other issues to deal with, and it will probably be some days before I'm done. My apologies to anyone who was affected by this outage.

Apparently, migraines and colds ''do'' mix - just not well. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert#top|talk]]) 00:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


== Communicat RfC/U ==
== Communicat RfC/U ==

Revision as of 00:00, 1 December 2010


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

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

Status information - I was ill and off the net completely from Nov 24th through Nov 30th 2010 - This has obviously affected a number of ongoing activities here. I am back now, in the process of starting to catch up Tuesday afternoon (Nov 30th). I have a large number of emails, talk page comments, and other issues to deal with, and it will probably be some days before I'm done. My apologies to anyone who was affected by this outage.

Apparently, migraines and colds do mix - just not well. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communicat RfC/U

Hi George, thanks a lot for starting this. I generally with the statement of dispute as it currently stands, but the main article in question is the World War II article, not the Aftermath of World War II article (which Communicat has only started working on in the last few days - though opposition to his or her edits seems to be developing). As such, could you please change this to World War II so it accuratly captures where the disagreements have been occuring? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will refocus that this evening. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nick -D is correct that he is also exhibiting the same behaviour in the Aftermath of World War II article, though the audience/target list is shorter. He has entirely rewritten the article in a short span of time and I don't think anyone's noticed. This was done based on advice given him by former EEML member, Petri Kohn[1]. --Habap (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had noticed. I was just disengaging for a bit after he filed the RfAr against me. Far from that calming Communicat down, it seems to have had the opposite effect. Edward321 (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for mistakenly labelling Petri as part of the EEML. I had mis-read the EEML discussion. I retract per Communicat's suggestion. --Habap (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George, are you going to tweak this RfC as you said you'd do above and certify it? It's probably expired and Communicat is claiming that this exonerates him or her. Nick-D (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can it have expired when it hasn't been formally listed yet? Edward321 (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GWH, in an above message posted to you by user Habap on 4 November, it is alleged that He (communicat) has entirely rewritten the article in a short span of time and I don't think anyone's noticed. This was done based on advice given him by former EEML member, Petri Kohn[1]. --Habap (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)User Paul Siebert then posted a message on Habap's talk page clarifying that user Petri Krohn is/was not an EEML member. As far as I can tell, Habap has failed to retract the false allegation which is clearly intended to discredit both me and Petri Krohn, and intended also to prejudice your opinion against me in particular.
You have been adroit in the recent past to block me on the grounds of WP:NPA. I would very much appreciate a demonstration of impartiality on your part by blocking Habap for the personal attack, and warning him not to do so again. (There have been other personal attacks on me by another individual user, of which more later, one thing at a time).
As for the allegation that I've entirely rewritten the (Aftermath) article in a short span of time and I don't think anyone's noticed: the implied meaning of which appears to be that I have been acting in a sneaky and/or non-collegial manner. However, you will see from the relevant discussion page that I gave a couple of weeks notice of my intentions and proposed edits of the Aftermath article, and neither Habap nor anyone else objected or responded in any way. I also made a point of stating clearly during the course of my Arbcom application, (of which Habap and others became parties to), that I was at that time in the process of editing/reworking the Aftermath article. So, in this additional aspect of attempts to discredit me in your view and in the views of others, I respectfully repeat my request that you demonstrate impartiality by instituting disciplinary measures against Habap, as you have done against me. Thanks. Communicat (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GWH, in addition to the above concerning personal attacks, please refer to my very recent post at NPOV talk Operation Dropshot concerning personal attack by Edward321. Thank you. Communicat (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the unresolved matter of Edward321 repeatedly accusing me of dishonesty and/or copyright theft concerning a photo at History of South Africa page. His repeated allegations are not supported by a shred of evidence. To wrongly accuse someone of dishonesty and/or copyright theft is IMO a personal attack. Kindly demonstrate your impartiality by taking disciplinary action against Edward321 this and other personal attacks. Communicat (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are in complete agreement when you state neither Habap nor anyone else objected or responded in any way. That is exactly what I said when I stated I don't think anyone's noticed. How is it an attack to state a simple fact that no one appeared to have noticed? --Habap (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Habap, you know perfectly well that your posting as mentioned above stated much more than the "simple fact" of nobody noticing. In any event, my posting was directed not at you Habap, but at GWH on GWH's own talk page. If I wished to address you, I'd have posted to your own talk page. But since you do happen to be here for some strange reason, allow me to observe that your posting above makes evident the fact that you are still not retracting your false and prejudicial claim that Petri Krohn is/was "an EEML member". I strongly suggest you address that particular matter, instead of obscuring the issues while disrupting this thread. Communicat (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. Did you miss the retraction that appears above [2]?
I was not implying anything and I find it disappointing that in every statement you read, you impute meaning that is not found in the statement. --Habap (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GWH, you might note that Habap refactored this thread, which is why I failed to notice his retraction. You might also care to note that it has taken Habap all of three weeks to make his belated retraction, despite a notification sent to him by another editor almost immediately after he made his false and misleading claim about Petri Krohn.
I am unable to account for why Habap is attempting to conduct a conversation with me on your talk page instead of my own. Communicat (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at...

this? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moot, now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The SRQ thread at ANI now requires a closure enacting community consensus; could you please deal with it? Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Communicat

Communicat has been making accusations and insinuations about me for weeks now. He continued those on the Rfc talk page, where I responded with proof (again) that his charges are false. Since you dismissed my doing so as "sniping" obviously you feel I did something wrong by this, so I am hoping you can take the time to explain what I should have done instead. Thank you. Edward321 (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George, are you going to complete and certify this, or have you decided to drop your involvement in the matter? (which would be fair enough...). I think that this situation needs to be resolved and the incomplete RfC/U isn't helping. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. I was at a conference for 4 days and on a panel Saturday; was catching up on sleep. Will be connecting back up with the case Monday. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks George. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assume bad faith much?

Where did I insist that Aircraft design process needed to be deleted? Or rather where did I insist that Aircraft design needed to be deleted? I'm not sure which article you're talking about because I'm not sure which one is being discussed at the AfD. That Afd is a hot mess now, but your characterization of my actions is way off. AniMate 19:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about your actions, sorry if you interpreted it that way. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reversed your archiving as I think the discussion has legs and i simply can't accept that there is no actionable disruption about making an AFD point at the wrong article for a substantial period. Spartaz Humbug! 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the "point at wrong article" was incidental and not intentional; however, I'm not going to re-archive in the near future. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • At 20.00 10 Nov the AFD was created for a page at Aircraft Design Process. This page was move moved to Aircraft design by Col Walden at 22.37 on 11 November. The redirect was then replaced by a stub article. The original article was then left orphaned at Aircraft Design. Animate left a note on Col Walden's talk page at 09.44 on 16 November querying what article the AFD should be discussing. Col walden took no action after this to clarify where the AFD was pointed. At 19.20 16 November Uncle G had tomove the AFD to reflect the location of the original page and amend the header to include both titled. This means that as a result of Col Walden's page move and lack of care the AFD was pointing at the wrong article for almost 5 days. Please explain how this is not disruption? Spartaz Humbug! 21:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh.

I.was.doing.FACTS,.not.any,other.thing.....I.knew.this.was.correct....I.checked.everything. Never.think.of.me.doing.such.again..--76.123.187.211 (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Unkwown.Person,.I.will.Not.Tell.√[reply]

Longevity self-IDs

George (to use the reasonably parsed short form of your user ID), I had a feeling I could count on you to be a reasonable guy (to use "guy" to refer to the usual maleness of the reasonably parsed components of your user ID). Thanks for your apology. To review, my first insertion of names was in good faith in that I believe they were fully self-identified with one trivial exception, and thought they were useful party details as often relevant to the COI issues. (I admit the trivial exception was my own due-diligence failure.) The first reverter did not explain, so I researched, provided links, discovered one party was technically not self-identified, and concluded that the issue would be settled with the posting to RFARB of the links and the resolution of the one exception. My reply indicates this as well as the depth of my commitment to "not outing", but there was no response; as I said, lacking any other guidance, I proceeded with the second insertion.

The affected users are as follows, using my insertions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#End COI as a guide:

  • User:John J. Bulten, User:Ryoung122, User:12.144.5.2, User:Bart Versieck, User:Plyjacks, and User:Kletetschka all self-identify on their current talk pages and (with the exception of the last) many other places.
  • A minor variation for User:Plyjacks appears nontrivially in the self-written history of that user's talk page.
  • The IDs User:NickOrnstein and User:Petervermaelen are clearly inferable by a reasonable party to be construed as identical to the personal-name forms "Nick Ornstein" and "Peter Vermaelen", and these stylistic forms of the IDs are also accepted by the editors in conversation. (The reasonable-party standard is commonly used to waive capitalization and spacing variations in domain name disputes. The admission in this statement that the self-identification forms I quoted in these two cases happen to mirror the user-ID forms should not be taken as implying anything other than that bare fact, and should particularly not imply any conclusion about any other ID.)
  • User:StanPrimmer and an alternate name for User:Bart Versieck self-identify in their regular signatures.
  • User:NealIRC posted "his" identity at a minimum to WP:WOP and there was much discussion about these edits generally on its talk page.

Please confirm that this constitutes prima facie evidence of intent to project a personal-name identity in each case, and please comment on the suitability of reinsertion to ArbCom, or of alternately further highlighting a reference to the COI list at the WikiProject. Obviously if any of these were taken as failing a prima facie case, there would be a very large number of revisions and echoes to hide.

As you can see from my comments to Seddon, the remaining case technically not self-identified can go one of two ways; you can either formally conclude (and advise) that the case is truly trivial and needs no further action, or you can remove the name from its one remaining appearance on Wikipedia (findable per my instructions) and perform the revision hiding, which totals about 200 revisions. If you decide it's trivial, I will drop it immediately and nobody else need raise it either; but if not, those revisions do need hiding, and Seddon has taken a break after the initial reversion and revision hiding. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

If you would like to serve as backup in case further discovery of identities needs floating by an uninvolved party, please let me know; if not, please advise whether or not I should stop the collection of such self-identifications at the project COI list at this point. JJB 13:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand you're busy, I have emailed Oversight instead. Anyway, thanks for your attention. JJB 22:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Space Colonization activity

Hello there! As part of an experiment to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, some changes have been made to the list of members of WikiProject Space Colonization. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, we would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Space Colonization at 16:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Mikemikev

Hi George, this is mikemikev. I would like to go on record as stating that you are an embarassment to the discipline of science. You appear to be some kind of self appointed internet cowboy, who sadly has decided to police an encylopedia. Hilarity ensues as George demonstrates his total ignorance of the subject matter by blocking people simply because certain words offend his sensibilities. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.247.203 (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the elections!

Dear Georgewilliamherbert, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the election and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words and declare any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee). Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.

You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! Skomorokh 20:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request

George, sorry to bother you when you must be in the midst of answering a slew of questions, but would you mind amending your nomination statement with language to the effect of "I have never edited Wikipedia from an account other than those listed here" or similar? I am asking all candidates to make their disclosures full and categorical. Thanks, Skomorokh 20:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Lar

Hi. Best of luck in your upcoming trial by fire. As in previous years I have a series of questions I ask candidates. This year there are restrictions on the length and number of questions on the "official" page for questions, restrictions which I do not agree with, but which I will abide by. I nevertheless think my questions are important and relevant (and I am not the only person to think so, in previous years they have drawn favorable comment from many, including in at least one case indepth analysis of candidates answers to them by third parties). You are invited to answer them if you so choose. I suggest that the talk page of your questions page is a good place to put them and I will do so with your acquiescence (for example, SirFozzie's page already has them as do the majority of other candidates). Your answers, (or non-answers should you decide not to answer them), that will be a factor in my evaluation of your candidacy. Please let me know as soon as practical what your wish is. Thanks and best of luck. (please answer here, I'll see it, and it keeps things together better) ++Lar: t/c 22:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm comfortable discussing my favorite color in public ;-)
Go ahead and put them on my questions talk page, I will answer at least most of them. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Communicat

I think you may have forgotten about this RfC/U. It spent three weeks in Wikipedia space with out being edited or certified. Perhaps its time to go forward or delete it. I know he's blocked, but we don't let these things hang out indefinitely. AniMate 01:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I'm a little busy but I'll poke it some direction later today. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

communicat -- recent block for block "evasion" & IP address

GWH, something quite useful has come out of the recent and now expired block imposed on me and endorsed by you for block "evasion". I have established that, previously unknown to me, a total of 36 people were sharing the same IP address as mine. (Apparently, this also accounts for a loophole through which one of the address-sharers has been stealing bandwith, which I'd not been earlier aware of).

The service provider is in the process of sorting out the mess, and I have been allocated a new IP address, which I trust nobody else is using.

I reiterate that it was not I who was responsible for posting at the Rfc/NPOV discussion an unsolicited item accusing you of "authoritarianism and rank buffoonery" -- though I agree with his other observations which seem quite valid. Communicat (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you or anyone else is interested, this is Communicat's new IP address. Please let me know if any a-hole decides to disparage you in my name. 41.135.78.117 (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communicat responds at last to your question

I refer to your question of 16 November posted at my talk page, which I was unable to respond to earlier because of successive blockings. I refer also to your remark at around the same time at NPOV Rfc discussion about my alleged contravention of wikepedia's "community values and social and behavioral expectations".

Your question: I need you to consider what it is about your interactions with other Wikipedians that is causing such significant negative reaction and response ... Have you considered that you may be engaging in a fundamentally inappropriate mode of discussion and debate for the collaborative environment here?

My answer: The negative reaction that you refer to is certainly not unanimous. It is confined essentially to just three editors: Nick-D, Habap, and Edward321. Other editors have been far less reactionary, and they include among others the late Tony Judt who described my work as "valuable" and another senior editor Novickas who in the same discussion described my work as "referenced and well written". I would suggest that the opinion of Tony Judt in particular carries more weight than that of all the milhist editors together.

The only difference between my behaviour and that of Nick-D, Habap, and Edward321 is the fact that my conduct is very open and upfront, whereas the conduct of Nick-D, Habap, and Edward321 is far more insidious and evidently unnoticed by you. They practise what is known as "mobbing" and "flamebaiting". Allow me to explain: I have attempted unsuccessfuly several times to engage each of them on a one-to-one basis on their separate and respective talk pages, whenever a content or other dispute has arisen. They refuse to engage with me on a one-to-one basis. Instead, they combine their efforts with the effect of forcing me to defend myself simultaneously on several fronts in differing forums and in deliberately ambiguated threads that serve to obscure and distort the real issues at stake. The end result of which is to overload me to the extent that I don't know whether I'm coming or going. Alternatively, they will restrain themselves from any discussion at article talk pages when I propose changes, additions or whatever, which silence is then taken by me as concurrence. And then, after I've put in a lot of work doing the proposed edits, one or all of them editors will revert my edits on the grounds that the edits have "not been discussed". Now, is this the kind of thing you have in mind when you invoke "community values and social and behavioral expectations"?

As for the flamebaiting, viz., provocation intended deliberately to cause a negative knee-jerk reaction (and consequent blocking), there are many examples available as well -- the most recent of which have already been brought to your attention both on this page near the top above, and at the current NPOV/Rfc talk, to which I await your response.

While on the subject of behaviour, I would suggest respectfully that your own behaviour bears scrutiny. Despite a mediator having earlier pointed out that poor behaviour is general throughout the military history project and is noticeable at ALL milhist articles, (including articles that I've never worked on), you for some reason singled me out for special treatment. I was blocked the first time because I complained of snapping and snarling by some editors and which was reminiscent of a pack of wild dogs -- yet you did nothing about the editors who were persistently snapping, snarling and biting. Then I was blocked again because I told an editor his continual resurrection of a certain WP:DEADHORSE issue was becoming "boring" -- yet you did nothing about the constant revival of that WP:DEADHORSE issue (which consequently still keeps cropping up). I find it hard to believe that all this demonstrates impartiality on your part, and I'd be glad for you can prove me wrong.

IMO, there is one and only one issue involved here. It is the same issue that I have been trying for nearly a full year to have decisively resolved. Everyone seems determined, one way or another, to obscure and evade that issue. It is both a content and an NPOV issue, namely the question of why the WW2 article has nearly 400 references reflecting an orthodox Western position, and not even one reference reflecting a non-Western or Western revisionist or significant-minority position. The same applies to other articles where certain editors have actively been endeavouring to disrupt my neutral edits. All of which is in clear and continuing violation of the fundamental NPOV rule. Nobody wants to acknowledge this problem, and from this one basic problem stem all the other problems, in particular my "interactions with other Wikipedians", as you describe it.

I trust I have answered your question. I can provide all necessary diffs to support the above, if challenged to do so. Thanks for your time, (if you've not by now already declared this posting TL;DR). Communicat (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to comment here [3]. I supported a separate article for Controversial command decisions of WWII at this Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversial command decisions, World War II. Looking at this version of the Western betrayal article [4], before it was reverted by decision of the Afd closer, I see several topics that were familiar to me as command controversies: the Fall of Singapore, the slow pace of opening a second front, and Operation Sunrise (aka Operation Crossword). I didn't evaluate the references closely - most were book refs - nor do I know how much of that was authored by C; but in my view the topic coverage was well-written, and I saw nothing especially novel or startling. Probably not as NPOV as possible, but not too bad - fixable. Hence my support for a separate article. Novickas (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K-W

Hi Friend, I don't know who you are, or what authority you seem to have over K-F. He has hounded and stalked my every edit. I could go on and on, but I don't care anymore. I won't edit any page he is involved with, nor will I get involved in any discussion page he is involved with. He has an editing cabal of three or four other editors who he runs to, to get them to agree with him. I'm tired of being bullied, so again, I give up. He misquotes, he does NOT have subject matter expertise, he is VERY opinionated about material he is very ignorant about. If you DARE edit any page that he considers that he owns - good luck to you! Look at the pages he claims he owns - they are filled with pictues of people not relevant to the subject, paragraphs not relevant to the subject, etc., but he has stalked many of my edits to delete them. Sorry for rambling; a coherent comment would take too much time and K-W is not worth the effort. I tried, I quit, Wikipedia and K-W deserve each other.Edstat (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

military history POV-bias

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#military history POV-bias and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Editing stats - opting in request

Hi George. I am writing my own ArbCom Election voting guide. One of the criteria I am reviewing is candidate's activity. Would you consider opting in for this tool, so that we can see your monthly (and yearly) distribution of edits? Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World War II opened

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK 13:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert&oldid=399823605"