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
ClueBot III (talk | contribs)
Bots
1,292,708 edits
m Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2011/June. (BOT)
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 51: Line 51:
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">'''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' &middot; [[Wikipedia:Signpost/Single|Single-page]] &middot; [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] &middot; [[User:EdwardsBot|EdwardsBot]] ([[User talk:EdwardsBot|talk]]) 00:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)</div>
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">'''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' &middot; [[Wikipedia:Signpost/Single|Single-page]] &middot; [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] &middot; [[User:EdwardsBot|EdwardsBot]] ([[User talk:EdwardsBot|talk]]) 00:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0153 -->
<!-- EdwardsBot 0153 -->

== WP:GUNS#Criminal use ==

Re [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29&diff=prev&oldid=436562875]. Please see my reasoning [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28policy%29&action=historysubmit&diff=436570251&oldid=436566027 here]. I am quite convinced that this is not at all compatible with site-wide policy and guidelines. I also couldn't find ''anything'' similar to the [[WP:GUNS#Criminal use]] guideline in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide]], especially not in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Content|the Content section]] which remains absolutely true to the spirit and wording of all site-wide P&G.

I'd also argue that everything policy-wise valid which WP:GUNS#Criminal use could ever hope to achieve is already covered in [[Wikipedia:GUNS#Pop culture]].

The arbitrary information inclusion threshold defined for Criminal use is, as far as I can tell, unique and it flies straight in the face of site-wide P&G. Like I wrote in my above-cited reply to GB fan, WP:GUNS#Criminal use specifies rare cases and then it says that everything that fails that very narrow threshold does not belong in a gun article.

I'd honestly appreciate it if you could point me to any guideline section, be it site-wide or project-related, that even remotely resembles the basic logical setup of WP:GUNS#Criminal use.

As to my intentions, please see my response to Berean Hunter [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABerean_Hunter&action=historysubmit&diff=436663291&oldid=436563015#WP:GUNS here]. --[[Special:Contributions/87.78.55.135|87.78.55.135]] ([[User talk:87.78.55.135|talk]]) 13:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

{{Collapse|1=Also, you wrote {{xt|You freely admit that this is an issue you've wanted to have resolved this way for some years}}. -- No. I truthfully stated that I tried to resolve this issue ''several years back''. I have not wasted a second's worth of thought about it since, until I remembered it out of the blue the other day and decided to gather opinions of uninvolved users at VPP who are generally interested in (but, as it turns out, woefully ignorant about) P&G issues.

{{xt|You took it straight to a noticeboard without notifying the article talk page, the project in question, attempting to re-add the edit, or anything else.}} -- Of course not, since that is not my current goal at all. I am simply looking for input from knowledgeable uninvolved users, who are interested in P&G issues rather than in slapping down an IP user with assumptions of bad faith, accusations of stupidity and/or ill intent and ignoring or misreading everything I wrote.

{{xt|It's not in violation of general Wikipedia policy.}} -- I beg to differ, based on the so-far unchallenged reasoning I have presented.

{{xt|It's been in place for some years.}} -- Because nobody cared to challenge it. Consider that even very established and highly regarded editors such as yourself appear to not quite understand the actual problem with that guideline section.

{{xt|It's not a monolithic block on any such inclusion, and specific exceptions could be argued on article talk pages, to local consensuses.}} -- Been there, tried that. Not only was it a monolithic block, but it was mirrored by the monolithic block that was the gang of GUNS members who simply pretended not to hear any of my sound arguments. --[[Special:Contributions/87.78.55.135|87.78.55.135]] ([[User talk:87.78.55.135|talk]]) 13:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
|2=Extended reply to your VPP comment}}

Revision as of 13:57, 28 June 2011


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]

If you had cold symptoms and what appeared to be one or more migraines, congratulations! There is a virus going round that causes precisely those symptoms. I've had it too, and so has one of my daughters. Hope you're feeling better now.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Interesting. I do get normal migraines, and the migraine medication supressed those symptoms, but a single source could explain it too.
I am feeling better now, it's just a deep hole to have to crawl out of.
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 June 2011


User:DMSBel

This user is topic banned from from human sexuality broadly defined [1]

Is abortion not human sexuality? And thus should their editing not be restricted? Many of the comments at the last ANI [2] where from at least one sock puppet and another currently banned IP. Many of his recent comments verge on uncivil. Your opinion? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW it is tagged by WikiProject Sexuality on the talk page Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has been on ANI twice. In my opinion and consensus on ANI that is not a human sexuality topic.
If you believe he's being disruptive you can seek consensus to either expand the topic ban or add an additional one. That was pursued and failed 3-4 weeks ago on ANI, but you are welcome to try again if you want. I am remaining neutral on that point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries my concern is that sockpuppets have been involved in the debates. And on the talk page. I do not see the consensus that abortion is not related to "human sexuality boardly determined". Would you be so kind as to link the discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DMSBel has just violated the 1RR restriction on Abortion, and although many of us didn't know about the 1RR restriction, he did. Why isn't he blocked, banned, and exiled from the project? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that perhaps the community shouldn't act, but I am not paying nearly enough attention to the Abortion page to be able to tell who's doing what and fairly investigate at the moment.
If it NEEDS an uninvolved admin review and possible action, I can try and investigate that sometime this weekend. Or you can ANI and ask for a community ban. I just don't have enough background on that page to know the players and the history at this instant. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pretty simple 1RR case right now, though if you want to make it wider, I would welcome it. Might you take a look at WP:AN3? NW (Talk) 19:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for further input from the community here [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Georgewilliamherbert. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 07:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

WP:GUNS#Criminal use

Re [4]. Please see my reasoning here. I am quite convinced that this is not at all compatible with site-wide policy and guidelines. I also couldn't find anything similar to the WP:GUNS#Criminal use guideline in Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide, especially not in the Content section which remains absolutely true to the spirit and wording of all site-wide P&G.

I'd also argue that everything policy-wise valid which WP:GUNS#Criminal use could ever hope to achieve is already covered in Wikipedia:GUNS#Pop culture.

The arbitrary information inclusion threshold defined for Criminal use is, as far as I can tell, unique and it flies straight in the face of site-wide P&G. Like I wrote in my above-cited reply to GB fan, WP:GUNS#Criminal use specifies rare cases and then it says that everything that fails that very narrow threshold does not belong in a gun article.

I'd honestly appreciate it if you could point me to any guideline section, be it site-wide or project-related, that even remotely resembles the basic logical setup of WP:GUNS#Criminal use.

As to my intentions, please see my response to Berean Hunter here. --87.78.55.135 (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended reply to your VPP comment
Also, you wrote You freely admit that this is an issue you've wanted to have resolved this way for some years. -- No. I truthfully stated that I tried to resolve this issue several years back. I have not wasted a second's worth of thought about it since, until I remembered it out of the blue the other day and decided to gather opinions of uninvolved users at VPP who are generally interested in (but, as it turns out, woefully ignorant about) P&G issues.

You took it straight to a noticeboard without notifying the article talk page, the project in question, attempting to re-add the edit, or anything else. -- Of course not, since that is not my current goal at all. I am simply looking for input from knowledgeable uninvolved users, who are interested in P&G issues rather than in slapping down an IP user with assumptions of bad faith, accusations of stupidity and/or ill intent and ignoring or misreading everything I wrote.

It's not in violation of general Wikipedia policy. -- I beg to differ, based on the so-far unchallenged reasoning I have presented.

It's been in place for some years. -- Because nobody cared to challenge it. Consider that even very established and highly regarded editors such as yourself appear to not quite understand the actual problem with that guideline section.

It's not a monolithic block on any such inclusion, and specific exceptions could be argued on article talk pages, to local consensuses. -- Been there, tried that. Not only was it a monolithic block, but it was mirrored by the monolithic block that was the gang of GUNS members who simply pretended not to hear any of my sound arguments. --87.78.55.135 (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert&oldid=436675072"