Jump to content

User talk:Georgewilliamherbert

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Captain Wikify (talk | contribs) at 05:40, 15 June 2007 (comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


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)[reply]

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

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

I understand now that I shouldn't have tried to defend myself when I was attacked by Synaptic on the Talk:VEST page, but it was not their first attack and no one pointed it out to me before. They keep doing it and I had never read the WP:COI before until you pointed it out. Thank you. It helped. It's very difficult not to react to such attacks and just sit there waiting for someone to care to respond. If no one ever responds, especially if they don't know what is going on, who is right and who is wrong, the attack remains there for everyone to read and possibly also to make different real life decisions assuming that you have nothing to say to it and that you left in shame. Where do we go to cry for help? Ruptor 09:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm following up offline with Doc, I will answer it after that's had a chance for some discussion. Reasonable question. Georgewilliamherbert 23:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I supported your RFA, but I'd like an assurance that you won't end up building a temple of hate to Arthur. Guettarda 17:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur has nothing to worry about. The whale, now... Georgewilliamherbert 23:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

I just looked at that report again. It seems clear to me that there were 4 reverts, all including the reversion to 'forced'. What am I missing? Crum375 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Ditto, congrats. The Rambling Man 08:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck. I hope you become a successful administrator. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 09:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You hope he becomes one? :) Have you seen how highly many people think of him? Congratulations George, I'm pleased to see that your RfA has been successful. Based on the opinions of others I trust I'm convinced you'll be (and have been) a valuable asset to the project. To the extent it can help you be an even better contributor, please do continue to consider the concerns raised. - Taxman Talk 14:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia

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

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

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 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 15:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Your note about 3RR

Hi George, can you please review this report (copied over from the user's Talk page) and tell me why it is not classical 3RR violation - I realize this block is now effectively moot, but I would like to get your opinion on this anyway for future reference:

Here is another summary, to make it even clearer. Melonbarmonster is disputing his 3RR block on Japanese people. For the benefit of any admins looking at this report, the violation was as follows:

Thanks, Crum375 18:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the first one doesn't count; it was a month prior to the current set of stuff, putting it outside the timeframe 3RR cares about. It's not an edit war if something is going back and forth on a one month timeframe. If he'd changed it back a couple or three days earlier, or even a week earlier, that would be a different issue, but if it was a month ago it shouldn't count. Georgewilliamherbert 19:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean by "first one doesn't count; it was a month prior to the current set of stuff, putting it outside the timeframe 3RR cares about". Are you saying that there is a time limit of the 'version reverted to', that demonstrates the editor's preferred version? If so, please point me to it, because I am not aware of it. My understanding was always that the only time limit that counts is the 24 hours during which the 4 edits are made, but I could always be wrong. Crum375 19:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty broad interpretation of 3RR to go back a month and focus down on two or three words, and say that the subsequent change is a revert to the older preferred version. He wasn't simply editing to defend that paragraph; he left it alone in an intermediate edit in mid-Febuary.
The 3RR block exists to stop short-term edit warring, not resolve long term content disagreements. That's what talk pages are for, and both sides here (among other people) are properly using the talk pages to discuss it. Georgewilliamherbert 19:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, and I would love to get input from others here, the intent of the 'version reverted to' is simply to show the editor's preferred version - it itself is not part of an 'edit war'. IOW, assuming his/her opinion about things is fairly stable, that opinion could easily remain the same for months, if not years. It is not strictly needed per WP:3RR, but it is required on the WP:AN3 page to make the reports as clear cut and as conclusive as possible. AFAIK, once you can show the above report, that an editor inserted his favored word (as demonstrated by an older 'version reverted to') into an article four times within 24 hours, each time being reverted by others, it is clear and unambiguous violation of 3RR. I think we really need to nail this one down, regardless of the specific case in point, because I can see it becoming an issue with others in the future. I think we need input from others here. Crum375 20:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
George, I'm concerned about your interpretation of the 3RR policy. That the user made exactly the same edit 35 days earlier means that his first restoration of that version on February 28 was a revert. This is as clear an example of a 3RR violation as I've seen in two years of enforcing the policy, so it's a bit worrying that it's being argued over. Perhaps you could continue this discussion on the 3RR talk page, and rather than concentrate on this particular example, discuss the issue of timeframe in general terms. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest the 3RR policy talk page anyways, but your note arrived before I got back here to answer Crum375's note. Off to Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule Georgewilliamherbert 20:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get a hand at Free Republic?

Could we get a hand from some Admins over at the Free Republic article? I asked for an Admin to weigh in 6 days ago. The specific issue is if a Free Republic rally that they hoped would draw 20,000 people and only drew 100 (AP) to 200 (FR) should have that aspect of the rally mentioned. I say definitely yes - and cite for precedent politician Katherine_Harris#Staff_resignations who had a campaign rally expected to draw 500+. When only 40 people showed up, it made ALL the newspapers and news shows. If 500 people HAD shown up, and she hadn't said or done anything controversial, it would not have been notable, and wouldn't have covered outside of local media. The lack of attendance is what's notable. Same with Free Republic's rally in D.C. Also - if a quote from Natalie Maines should be separated from the body of the text and paragraph and put in the lead to give it extra prominence. Thanks - FaAfA (yap) 02:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading list

The Thoughts of Chairman Jim

Essential reading for new admins, even those who have no rouge proclivities. See you at the admin lounge :-) Guy (Help!) 14:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Musical sockpuppets

I'm presently compiling the necessary evidence to support a checkuser request. It seems there may be up to a dozen sock accounts involved, The voluminous and largely incomprehensible nature of their contributions makes documentation particularly difficult. --Gene_poole 04:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Firearms userbox

A discussion on the WikiProject Firearms userbox is currently underway on the project talk page. Samples of various proposed userboxes can be found here and here. As a member, your input is valuable and appreciated. If you would like to contribute to the discussion or vote on your favorite, please visit the Userbox section of the talk page. Thanks! —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 01:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for taking a look at my post to AN/I and your comments. Also I wish to clarify I do not in any way claim that being blocked has my made my argument that it is improper to call Sparta a superpower more valid. I have offered numerous compromises (like moving the text calling Sparta a superpower to the middle of the page where there is other material about Sparta's victories and defeats) and suggestions like RfC and Mediation. I still stand by all those offers. Regards, NN 07:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got your post, thanks for the advice. Yes, I agree things would be better if they were cooled down a bit. I will certainly try to make that happen. NN 07:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The matter has been resolved, thanks for taking the time to make it happen. NN 14:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help please

A user is removing my talk page comments. --Ideogram 09:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we cannot remove personal attacks, how are we supposed to keep conversations on track? --NE2 09:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You derailed the conversation a long time ago with your comment about "dumbing down" for GA. If you feel a comment is not worthy of response, don't respond to it. --Ideogram 09:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please play nice on my talk page. Georgewilliamherbert 09:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and ...

BTW congratulations on passing RFA. You do know that I respect you, don't you? --Ideogram 12:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Scoobies"

In answer to your question on Tony Sidaway's page, you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Workshop for your answer. May I ask where you happened to see this term being used? Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it being used there, but I didn't see it explained. Will search more. Georgewilliamherbert 19:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See near the top, his proposed principle #1. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, see that, and your note below on that specific issue. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 19:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nev and the infamous one-hour block

Concerning the above, I would like from you to see the messages I left in User_Talk:Chris 73 and User_Talk:AniMate. You don't have to reply, just become aware of the second side of the story. Of course if you'd like to reply and leave me your thoughts, be my guest. Regards. Miskin 02:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually

- Actually, it took me FOUR HOURS to find the ANI page, so "almost immediately" (your words) is far from true. I was looking and looking and looking and eventually came across it. How can you say that four hours is almost immediately?

User:Bladestorm

Can you advise Bladestorm (talk · contribs) that removing personal attacks is not a good idea? --Ideogram 06:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue how or why he chose you to bring this to, but I think it's worth pointing out that this is in direct response to a dispute at the ANI about actions against another editor.
After numerous accusations and uncivil commentary, he then proceeded to try to track back my contributions in hopes of finding something to use against me. (this was, coincidentally, right after the other editor involved in his dispute accused him of being a stalker, which is starting to seem somewhat more plausible now)
That said, I am, of course, open to any suggestions you may have concerning my conduct (though I'd request that you read the entire discussion on the richard gere talk page before you jump to conclusions), but thought I should warn you in advance of an attempt to draw you into a rather nasty bicker-fest. Bladestorm 06:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Georgewilliamherbert has no particular love for me. If anything, I annoy him quite a bit. But on one point we do agree, which is that no one should remove another person's comments except in extreme situations such as libel or copyright infringement. You don't seem to be aware of that.
Since I am talking to you now, I might as well address your concern that I am trying to "find something to use against you". I don't think it's unusual for someone to look at the edit history of an editor they are conflicting with, in fact, how else did you find this message? Once I looked at your edit history, I found this action which I (and others) do not believe is proper. I decided to ask a neutral third party to recommend you cease these actions. Note that I am not asking for you to be sanctioned in any way, and I do not believe Georgewilliamherbert will harbor any ill-feelings toward you, I simply wish for the undesirable behavior to stop.
I currently consider our dispute over, and I promise you I will not seek you out in the future. I cannot hide the fact that I do not respect your views, and that I think you are incapable of understanding my point. Since there is no way to have a productive discussion between us, I believe it is best for us to cease our interaction. --Ideogram 07:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, I had the sense to read the section on removing the comments of others, specifically the current thoughts on the practice for personal attacks.
I take cautions to do such things "sparingly" quite seriously. Very rarely will I remove someone else's comments (unlike you, of course, who outright deleted my attempt to address this issue on your own talk page), but I really think that "rabid Richard Gere fans", "unable to cope", and "feel the need to suppress them at every opportunity" all qualify as personal attacks. (Well, to be fair, the last one is arguably more an accusation of bad faith) However, I did not touch his other comment on the same talk page. That didn't contain a personal attack (I don't think it was entirely helpful, but it wasn't solely personal attacks, so I didn't touch it).
There isn't any pattern of 'actions' to 'cease'. As a general rule, I don't touch others' comments. (Don't get me wrong; I'll chew people out for lack of civility, but by and large I don't remove the comment. You'll notice that I didn't remove your comment here that I'm "incapable of understanding" your point, even though you announced that you refused to even bother reading my own.)
I'm not sure how you intended this to stop any "undesirable behaviour". That said, you're probably right that we may as well cease interaction.
For the sake of not cramming george's talk page full of arguments he never asked for, I'll even give you the last word if you should so desire. Bladestorm 07:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A user is generally held to have the right to remove comments from their own talk page. Of course, there are differing opinions on this.
Since the tension level between us has dropped considerably, I will cautiously allow you to continue this conversation on my talk page if you wish. Note that if things go badly I may choose to disinvite you at any time. --Ideogram 07:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


User:Charoog10

I wonder if you could review user:Charoog10, especially at Hot Stuff (I Want You Back). He's been insisting on removing a chunk of text and changing a section title to incorrect capitalisation, refusing to respond to comments & requests on his Talk page. He's now started to add an uncivil edit summary (accusing me of lying, somewhat perplexingly). I'd be grateful for an outside pair of eyes, and possibly voice. Thanks in advance. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More comment removal

here. --Ideogram 16:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it's been resolved. --Ideogram 17:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again here. --Ideogram 18:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for your support during my recent (and successful) RfA. Short, simple, and to the point, too; reminds me of Alfred Hitchcock. Shimeru 16:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Ego

Which edit do you mean please? Your link on my talk page was non-specific, just pointing to his whole talk page. MarkThomas 19:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I take on board your opinion, but in the context of a robust exchange of views with a self-confessed neo-Nazi, I'm not really clear that it was all that offensive - I was referring to well-known actions of leaders in Nazi Germany who for example would reply to letters from would-be SS officers asking for promotion that the supplicant should "take charge by force" or "succumb to the power of the troops" and that their application for leniancy was "whining". I'm sure Billy Ego will recognize such sources. If I upset anyone though I naturally apologise. MarkThomas 19:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hans Reiser article protect

I've replied to your message at my talk page. --Slowking Man 02:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BITE

Oh you're absolutely right. I would hasten to add I'm not a habitual biter of newcomers although sporadically working the Recent Changes Patrol can give one a somewhat skewed view of contributors. The new user in question I was pretty sure was a sock-puppet of a user (who shall remain nameless) that I'd become frustrated with due to their persistant lack of compromising ability and co-operation, spawning pointless edit wars. I may well have been wrong though which certainly bites my conscience. Anyway, just thought it'd be polite to acknowledge your message. Suriel1981 13:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Boy

Hi there, I was wondering if you do me a favor. Howard Morland and John Coster-Mullen would like to get Coster-Mullen's theory of how the Little Boy bomb works in the Little Boy article. I think it deserves inclusion; a number of prominent people think it is correct (including Richard Rhodes) and it has been cited in a mainstream secondary source (in Robert Norris's Racing for the Bomb). But I don't really want to be involved here (Coster-Mullen doesn't want to deal with me because I prefer anonymity) and I don't really have time for this (and I have been taking a break for some time now). Anyway if you could look into this I would be most grateful — I think you are the most qualified for this around here, in terms of technical knowledge and people skills! :-) See my talk page for details; the images Morland linked to have the details of the theory if you aren't familiar with it, and you can find Coster-Mullen's e-mail on the web if you want to contact him. Thank you much... --Fastfission 00:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Boy diagram

Hi, the first message I tried to leave disappeared into cyberspace. I'll try again. Please contact Carey Sublette for my email address, and for my March 27 posting to the 400k list. It contains messages from Richard Rhodes and from Fastfission. I would like to hear from you. Sincerely, HowardMorland 04:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 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 19:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

WikiProject Rocketry - Space WikiProjects reorganisation proposal

It has been proposed that WikiProject Launch Vehicles, of which you are a member, be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry per a proposal to reorganise space-related WikiProjects. The proposal will serve to clarify and expand the scope of the project.
Please post comments and support/oppose votes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/Reorganisation. Thanks --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 21:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment removal again

Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs) is removing my comments from article talk pages. Since these comments are announcements of an RFC about him, this is clearly a conflict of interest. Please get him to stop. --Ideogram 02:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply

Replied on community sanction noticeboard.--Certified.Gangsta 07:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an arbCom case involving me and Ideogram if you're interested to comment your interaction with Ideogram.--Certified.Gangsta 09:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP block 12.75.40.0/24

AO doesn't work, hasn't for a while. As I recall, I've only seen Jon Awbrey edit from that range. If you could get AO to work it would be helpful, but it doesn't. Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed it with the ranges he uses, and have had to reblock them many times, to no avail. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance with Harvardy and Doktor Who

Hi. Seeing as you've expressed strong views on the subject of my interactions with the above, I'd like to ask for your assistance in resolving the separate ongoing issues relating to them. My patience in dealing with them in a civil mannner while ignoring the constrant barrage of abuse and harrassment in response is well and truly at an end - particularly as they seem to have decided that ganging up on me is a good idea.

The matter of Harvardy is fairly straightforward. This account is an out-and-out sockpuppet of Johnski, who had an indefinite block placed upon him by the Arbcom for a long list of violations, mostly centred on massive ongoing disruption and tendentious edits at Dominion of Melchizedek. Numerous editors concur with this assessment, which can easily be verified by a simple comparison of edit histories and writing style. The account should simply be blocked as a violation of the Arbcom's decision. I and Davidpdx have drawn this to the attention of several admins previously, but there's been no response.

The matter of Doktor Who is more complex. I believe the ultimate account owner is Brian G. Wilson (who has admitted to being the owner of Sky-surfer). Brian G Wilson appeared in the middle of 2006 and started posting some strange rambling comments concerning the definition of ambient music on that article's talk page. His opinions were unverifiable original research, and were declared to be either irrelevant or inadmissible by numerous editors, including me. Brian G Wilson then disappeared, to be replaced by Sky-surfer, whose opinions, writing style and spelling/grammatical errors were identical. Sky-surfer's posts became increasingly strange and incoherent with time, until finally, after posting a surreal essay about how the House of Winsdor operate the world's largest drug cartel, accusing various editors of spying on him, and making numerous threats, he posted several apologetic comments admitting that he sufers from a paranoid condition requiring medication, before vanishing from WP. Some months later Doktor Who made his debut, and it was immediately obvious that his opinions, writing style, spelling and grammatical errors and tendency to explode with indignation whenever challenged, that he was another incarnation of Brian G. Wilson. He simply cannot seem to grasp the fact that his opinions are an eccentric, non-mainstream views, totaly unsupported by references. Every time I pointed this out to him he responded by accusing me of of "vandalism", "harrassment", "stalking", "abuse" and other equally crazy talk.

This time however he was quickly joined by two "friends" - Milomedes and Parzival418 - who just happen to share the his opinions, and who all spend lots of time writing long, rambling mutually-congratulatory essays on each other's talk pages, expressing amazement at how closely their opinions are aligned, and discussing how evil I am and how they should best co-ordinate their contributions to thwart me. It's almost slapstick stuff, and a child could see through it. The question, however, is how should it be addresed?

I've tried to open both a Checkuser and an RFC to address the matter head-on, but the first became a farce when all 3 active sock accounts posted such a barrage of contradictory nonsense and supplementary requests in the comments section that the reviewing admin declined the request (an outcome for which Doktor Who has since expressed delight), and the second fell through due to lack of certification. I am nonetheless attempting to put together a log of policy violations and evidence demonstrating the existence of sockpuppetry here. Perhaps you could take a look and let me know your thoughts? --Gene_poole 08:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I

Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately I have tried so many times to mediate with him. Nothing works. It is really frustrating to try to help him in the right direction when he continues to be a pushover and thinks he owns the place. I'm telling you. I have tried so many times. I don't know what to do. I almost left this site because of him. Well right now, I'm simply avoiding him. I am willing to stay far away from this user so I am willing to deal with him at a mere distance. What else should I do? --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I just wanted to stop in and say thanks for the block on 141.155.10.116. All of the changes he has made have been reverted, and a couple other editors and administrators and I will be keeping an eye on him. Of course, in keeping with the pattern, he went to another IP 141.155.26.196 and started right up again. I am not certain what the long term solution to this problem is, but I am open to suggestions. Thanks again for your time and attention on this matter. ---Charles 15:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for correcting me on my AIV report, you are right; I must have misread the time of something, sorry. GDonato (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting

Thank you for commenting on the Gangsta RFAR.

Since you mentioned "mentoring" I do want to say I welcome any and all comments you wish to make regarding my behaviour, even if sometimes I don't agree. --Ideogram 22:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pasquino

FYI, I "upgraded" the block on Pasquino to to indef, for the reasons that outlined on User talk:Pasquino. Maury 14:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail

--Ideogram 23:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been taken care of. --Ideogram 00:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Name violation

There is a new user:Georgewilliamherbertlikesboys you may want to have it turned in. I am sure its a slam against you. Probably a IP you have had to deal with. Wonder if we turn it in at AIV? --Xiahou 02:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try turning it in there. Thanks for your time. --Xiahou 02:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its indef blocked. --Xiahou 02:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H-Bomb

It is not our job here at wikipedia to discriminate the content of obviously credible sources, such as the DOE document that I cited. YOU are the one that is cherry-picking information because I am willing to leave the widest range open (as indicated by the cited sources) but YOU choose to ignore a source that doesn't fit your POV. While I believe your intentions are good, I do believe you are acting out of line here--50-60 is a very decent compromise, all the more so because it is backed by ALL of the sources that we have provided--and the hallmark of good research is not "what the majority of articles say" but what ALL available credible resources say. Stanley011 03:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I realize that the above comment seems kind of harsh and I just want to state that I really don't intend to be harsh. I just truly and passionately feel that what's written should reflect the sources. But I am more than willing to here you make the case for 50-57. Thank you. Stanley011 03:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if "58" is, as you say, sometimes mentioned, shouldn't the range be extended to 50-58? I would be more than willing to compromise on "50-58." Stanley011 13:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

walther

You may want to have a look in on Talk:Walther P22 again. Griot has canvassed only those users who want to keep the VT mention in the article, so I am alerting those who were not yet contacted. There has been discussion on WP:ANI about the outcome of the previous polls. Your continued involvement in the discussion(s) would be welcomed. ··coelacan 22:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS

Just in case you aren't aware, a policy was recently implemented by the Wikimedia Foundation, regarding access to nonpublic data (see [2]) Please note if you do not comply with these rules you should remove yourself from OTRS volunteering where your name is listed. Otherwise, please ignore this message :) Kind regards, Majorly (hot!) 17:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indef IP blocks

Hi. I noticed your blocks log contains a number of indefinite blocks against apparently IP addresses. I don't believe the accepted practice is to indefinitely block IP addresses since they can change hands. Can you explain your rationale for these? --Random832 02:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPs being blocked indef.

Hi, I was wondering why you are blocking IPs indef.? Real96 02:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(combined answer to both of the above)

What I'm doing varies from user to user based on what info I have. In cases where it's a known school or other static site, if it's truly vandalism-only then I may indefinitely schoolblock. In other cases, if I can tell that it's a static IP address and the only user is abusing it (clearly vandalism only), it is bending current guidelines slightly to indef the user but it's within commonly actually practiced admin responses. On reviewing, I may not be tagging them consistently with the guideline-recommended tags, I should address that (and go back and do so for ones I have done). I will go back through the logs this weekend.

If you're concerned about any particular block or my overall usage, feel free to discuss in more detail here. If that doesn't satisfy you, please feel free to discuss with other admin(s) or take up a discussion on WP:ANI. I have no objection to review or correction if there are errors. Georgewilliamherbert 03:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do appear to have whacked a lot of IPs that don't properly deserve more than a month with indef today, on review of logs and reflection. There are 2 or 3 clear static long term blocks in there, which are ok, but I will downgrade the rest as time allows. Georgewilliamherbert 04:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's all of them, other than the long term persistent static ones, which are marked as such. Let me know if I missed anyone. Georgewilliamherbert 04:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't indef. block IPs which are vandalism only for the first offense. That's beside the point. You should do 24h/31h/etc. And, when I have time, I will take to WP:AN. Real96 04:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reduce indent) See this thread on ANI. Real96 21:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Thanks for catching the vandalism on my userpage

Your welcome and happy editing!--PrestonH(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!) 04:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange micronation AfD nomination

Hi. Thought you might want to take a look at this. There are a few other strange edits by the same editor to Principality of Sealand and some related articles, some of which I've reverted. --Gene_poole 10:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Did you learn nothing from last time we met? Don't use external links to canvass, don't canvass anyway, and please don't assume conspiracies every time somebody nominates a micronation article for deletion. You'd be better off spending your time adding quality references to the articles and then they wouldn't get nominated, would they? --kingboyk 11:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's at it again. On top of which he's also been slapping deletion notices on multiple graphic files I uploaded which clearly state that I was the creator of the images and licensed them under GFDL (see my edit history for the long list). He's also trying to get New Utopia deleted by underhand means, by re-naming it and slapping an AFD on the re-named article - despite the fact that the last AFD consensus in March was a clear keep. Presumably all of the above are grounds for reporting him for deliberate disruption of WP? --Gene_poole 09:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you could put micronation, Coats of arms of micronations and Flags of micronations on your watchlist it would be appreciated. Kingboyk is now openly vandalising these articles by expunging all references to Principality of New Utopia from them, on the grounds that it is "not a micronation" ! I can't tell if he's trolling or just thick. --Gene_poole 11:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit miffed. I don't see anything in the micronations article about Moosylvania. Wahkeenah 11:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 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 13:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Image:Sn2006gy 3panel.jpg

I noticed you uploaded this image with a claim of PD. Unfortunately it seems that this is not the case, per this page: http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/image_use.html "The images on this web site may be used for non-commercial educational and public information purposes." I've tagged this image as not having a license, since maybe a fair use argument can be made. I would further suggest uploading only one of those images to reduce the amount of copyrighted work, preferably one of the images credited solely to the Chandra group (this image seems to be made by people without any NASA affiliation, and is part of the montage you uploaded). Thanks. --Tom (talk - email) 01:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can't accept exclusive use licenses. Images must be free for anyone to use for any reason, or they are tagged as non-free/restricted-use. The presence of these kinds of images are generally frowned upon. See Wikipedia's non-free content restrictions page, and be sure to read the official policy regarding these images. Also, all non-free images must meet every one of the requirements laid out in the previous link. Thanks. --Tom (talk - email) 20:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets User:Ron liebman User:Moe kaplan etc

For further info, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ron liebman. Wahkeenah 23:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User talk:Moe kaplan, I think you need to go back one more level to find the root of the puppetry. User talk:Ron liebman is likely the actual name of the contributor who is making those changes, based on how the Ron Liebman article is changed with that info (check the contribs around March 30, and many times since then). I'm not sure if there's a procedure to follow in placing the sockpuppet tags; but, since you tagged the four accounts already, I figured I'd let you know. Special:Contributions/149.4.108.215, Special:Contributions/149.4.108.72, and User talk:Irene liebman are three others which have been used to make similar edits to various articles. Neier 22:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, User:Ron liebman is where this started. A new one has also just popped up, User: Evelyn m. begley. There are also various IP addresses, all emanating from New York City. There is also a specific set of articles that editor keeps messing with and refusing to provide documentation for, so I take it to be a "game" of some kind that he's got many editors pulled into. Wahkeenah 23:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ron's account has been reported for a username violation (see Ron Leibman - not allowed to impersonate famous people with WP accounts). Assuming that gets processed, I will have a checkuser run on the whole set of them.
In the meantime, keep notifying me of the socks. If I don't respond, post this to WP:ANI. Georgewilliamherbert 23:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The actual Ron Liebman (the researcher, not the actor) is a member of SABR and I assume it is unlikely he would behave the way this character is. My assumption, as is yours apparently, is that this character has latched onto Liebman as a guise. Wahkeenah 23:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And lest I forget, thank you for your help on this. d:) Wahkeenah 23:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, ditto that, and then some! Shoulda done it ages ago, but it's easier to hit the revert button. In the long run, though, this is way better. Much danke-ness! :) --Ebyabe 23:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... Content moved to sockpuppet page. Wahkeenah 23:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has invented a new one today, User:Ted ditullio . He's also using his User:Ron liebman, which has not been blocked yet. Wahkeenah 21:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your help in this situation. FYI, there actually is a Ron Liebman in SABR, who's from the New York area just as the vandal is. Ted Ditullio and Evelyn Begley are also SABR member who live in the New York area, and I'm guessing that's the case with the other names also. I'm hoping, for the sake of SABR's reputation, that the editor in question has hijacked these various New York members' names in an effort to somehow try to establish credibility. This is one of those situations (once suggested by Garry Moore or Steve Allen, I forget which, for handling rude fan mail) where one is tempted to write to the troublesome editor's namesake(s) and report that "some idiot" is impersonating him/her. Wahkeenah 06:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to send you an e-mail about this matter, but I don't know how to. Wahkeenah 07:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, he's got another one: User:149.4.108.154. I've been reverting most of his edits. He's even gotten mildly abusive, about which I warned him, nicely. Some people never learn... *sigh* -Ebyabe 17:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ngiyabona! Check my talk page and you'll see what that means. ;) -Ebyabe 17:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I spoke too soon, he's using a new IP. Check Special:Contributions/149.4.108.130. And he's getting unpleasant again towards me. Gosh, what did I ever do to him, hmm? -Ebyabe 18:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the www.sabr.org site, and offhand I'm not finding an obvious way to e-mail them about this kind of thing. However, there is this: [info@sabr.org] as an e-mail address... if someone feels like taking this another step. Wahkeenah 00:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, No Guru protected the Victor Pellot page for a while. Might it be worth protecting at least a few of the others? It know it'd be only a stopgap measure, but it could give us all some breathing space for a bit. Just a suggestion. -Ebyabe 00:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might be better than continuing to block IP addresses, as the user is apparently bound and determined to get every New York IP address blocked and possibly try to "prove a point" about wikipedia. Wahkeenah 00:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went looking for what SABR had to say about the Matsui streak, which is what started this Ron Liebman impersonator on this track originally. Lo and behold, SABR says 518. [3] and I added a blurb to the article about it. The sockpuppet queen is constantly dropping SABR-member names. Let's see him get out of this one. Wahkeenah 00:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on his latest John Henry Lloyd entry, he issued a vague threat ("You're looking for trouble, sir!!"), so I threw one back at him, advising him we're going to report him to SABR for impersonating some of its members. Wahkeenah 00:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is this page with mail addresses for people related to SABR's biography project. That may be the best place to start contact with them. Neier 04:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for continuing with the sockpuppet blocking; you da man! :) Have you noticed his strategy's changed? He's using sockpuppet accounts more than anonymous IPs. I wonder if it's b/c he got so many computers blocked, he figured it'd be easier to use one computer and operate all his socks from it. So my question is, might there be a way to find that computer, and block it? I know user accounts are at least semi-anonymous, but could there be a special way (available only to admins and higher) where a WHOIS or similar trace could be done? A random thought, that's all... ;) -Ebyabe 20:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No vandalism

you've sent me a message about vandalism, but i haven't done any why?--Jac16888 10:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok then. i'll ask again. Would you please explain why you have given me a warning, because i can see no reason for it.--Jac16888 14:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Third and last time, Can you Please give me some explanation for the warning you gave me. if i don't get one in a week, i intend to just delete the warning and forget it--Jac16888 15:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pair-instability SN

Thanks for adding to the Pair-instability supernova page, your contribution there is great and impressively rapid. --Keflavich 17:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Micronations trawl

Slow progress, apart from the subcategories I'm still on the letter A. This note, though, is to say that I was pleasantly surprised by the Empire of Atlantium article. It could do with some more citations, and I think the sources are a little weak, but overall it's not bad at all. That's quite a relief since I know who the boss of that organisation is and would prefer not to have another run in :) --kingboyk 20:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1-1-Diamino-2-2-DinitroEthylene.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:1-1-Diamino-2-2-DinitroEthylene.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Isilanes 14:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


lazarus loong

why is not membership and date of fundation added in the box for new utopia ? any of you actuly read the updated website or the new devlopm,ent plan ?


hi look like you edit new utopia artickel in discussen at least but why if it is fraud dont you /yours make in info on what happen to the citizens and lawsuites agisnt new utopia that is rumerd to be made ? and if sombody rasi that worrys in the discussen pages abut new utopia why do quastibn linke that delted? i mean if its a scam should not sombody guive information abut what who wher abut lawsiutes or things happen in if he get sued by a citizen in virgin island, germany or hounduras ? or (as it look like ) some of the govonouers jump the ship and keep ther citizens infomation/network/adressbok informtaion as a eh way to make a new project in buy island /gated comunity/re? or for fraud ?(if they hade 3200 citizens its a lot of peronal infoamtion that can be abused .. just look on what have to be written in the passport papers...)

do you anwser my quastin her or do i have to sue some kind of pst msg system ?--125.24.137.30 05:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Little rouge book.jpg

Hello, Georgewilliamherbert. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Little rouge book.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Georgewilliamherbert. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 05:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit on my contribution to the entry for my father -- Robert Christy. I appreciate improvements to the clarity!

Hi George. Thank you for starting the deletion review. I have been going through the Wikipedia info to try to find out what I could do next. You got to it first. It would be more helpful if I was emailed outside of Wikipedia, but what am I to do. The copyright issue that seemed to cause the AFD seemed like a very minor reason for deletion. I can change that if necessary. Regardless, the FAST work goes on in the form of RAMP, a group of universities working together to provide a platform for hardware prototyping in computer architecture and other related fields.Su johnd 06:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

George, simply thanks for the support and the welcome. I think the kind comments that have come out of the RfA have been fantastic, and in someway make me want to try all the much harder to maintain this respect. So thanks again, and any pointers tips, or general What the hell are you touching that for? would be greatly appreciated. Cheers Khukri 16:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Infobox Drive for the Firearms Wikiproject

Hello Georgewilliamherbert. The Firearms Wikiproject is having an infobox drive. The purpose of this is to ensure that most (if not all) of the articles within our scope have the relevant infoboxes. The start date will be May 28th. If you choose to participate, go to our project page and pick an article under the To-do list's Infobox section or look for firearm articles that need an infobox. Before you start editing an article, please cross it out on the list so that we don't have editor's work clashing. The drive will last for five days. If you are interested, please RSVP to LWF. Thank you, the Firearms Wikiproject. --Seed 2.0 09:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for keeping up with the vandalism on the WJHL-TV page. I do greatly appericate it. Take Care...NeutralHomer T:C 03:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

You recently compiled and listed a case at sockpuppet investigations. A checkuser or clerk has asked that you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the sockpuppet investigations page. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed in a timely manner. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{1}}}|here]].

RE: Thanks

Sure thing, I just figured that it was a slight error in judgment that could easily be rectified if acted upon quickly. No real harm done on the part of the blocking administrator, and everything appears to be "back to normal", so to speak. Thanks for dropping me a line! Cheers gaillimhConas tá tú? 02:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my Talk page! Cheers, --MCB 03:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you block my public proxy server?AFUSCO 21:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)AFUSCO[reply]

Here you go

The Barnstar of Diligence
I believe this is well deserved MONGO 21:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply

I think the one that has gone far is the IP annonymous user. He reverts every edit users make in the Dominica Republic without caring about what other user believe. I been in wikipedia for past half a year and have made numerous articles and he is the first person that gotten me angry. Wikipedia is suppose to be a place for concensus not self edits like the annonymous sure did...Right now they are 4 people(counting me) that go against his policies and then he warns us of vandalizing the Article.

WE are dominican and we knoe the history of our country while he blames us that we are only racist and go against African Blood..I think you should warn him too the same way you did to me because the only one responsible of my acts is him.

You could ask users like User:Dominican,User:VirtualDelight and others that know the truth and that they always back my points while IP User:64.131.205.111. I never have come here to disturb and always got along with other wikipedians like User:Moebiusuibeom-en.

He Accussed more than twice about vandalism and i think that if you neutral enough you should warn his of being blocked too...He comes up here and make himself seem as an innocent editor while he is truly not.

Thats all i have to say and i'll say one thing more..If he continues acussing me i will continue offending him the same way i've done it before(because he is not the only one here with priviledges).EdwinCasadoBaez 21:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi George. I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. It was closed at surprising 75/0/0, so I'm an admin now. MaxSem 22:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Micronation stuff

Hi George. Just a heads up to let you know I've started to work on addressing some of the problems introduced into several articles during the recent rash of micronation AFDs. To begin with I'm looking at New Utopia. Feel free to take a look at my comments at Talk:New_Utopia for further detail. --Gene_poole 23:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Micronation Wikiproject

I've published a proposal to gauge interest in setting up a micronation Wikiproject. Your comments and suggestions are welcome: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Micronations --Gene_poole 01:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Care to point me to this "procedure"? Preferably some sort of policy. Guideline, even. If you have no real complaint other than me not following this mysterious, unwritten "procedure", then please don't revert me. ' 02:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you familiarize yourself instead. That is not a policy page; it simply describes what a merge is and how to do it. You also conveniently overlook the sentence, "Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed." Your arguments and complaints are completely baseless. ' 08:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Testing

Testy test test See User talk:Philip Baird Shearer#rv of Dokdo --00:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Hinn icon

I have left you a reply on my talk page. Cheers. Unschool 03:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint regarding Cleo123

My rationale for moving the complaint was, basically, ignorance. I am still more than a little green in this area, and thought from the statements on the pages that maybe it belonged on the latter page. If I was wrong, which I acknowledge is very easily possible, you have my sincere apologies and thanks for calling the matter to my attention. John Carter 13:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!!!!

i am new and do not know how to do anything can you give me advicePutmedown 21:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well

My message was from before last night, and at that point you had made several threads about how "out of process" the issue was. I would suggest you focus less on process and more on content in the future. >Radiant< 12:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Putmedown 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.

Putmedown 23:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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) [reply]

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 NescioGnothi seauton 20:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [[4]], 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.Skinnerwot|I did 12:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Gene Pool

I honestly wasn't trying to be a jerk to him; he was just saying really awful things to Radiant for no reason. He's already got a heafty block log, and - although I'm not an administrator - I can see he's pushing his luck. --Captain Wikify Argh! 05:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't very much appreciate this edit of Gene's. I said on his talk page that he was acting like a dick, in obvious reference to the Wikipedia rule, and he made a completely ridiculous edit to his "page" (which I also think should be deleted) that implied I am a vandal. I may not have been as kind to Gene as I should have, but I never did anything quite that heinous. --Captain Wikify Argh! 05:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert&oldid=138293399"