User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2010/December

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Georgewilliamherbert. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

(catching up...)

Done. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

GWH, kindly explain if possible why you did not proceed with Rfc re Communicat conduct.

Kindly also provide the courtesy of a response to my other postings on this talk page, as yet unacknowledged.

Your requested responses/comments or whatever may be subject to submission as evidence in a current World War II arbitration case, evidence closure date being 7 December 2010. I'd very much appreciate it if you would respond timeously on my user talk page. Thanks. Communicat (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I've now read about your cold & migraines. Condolences. I'd still value a reply though, especially IRO apparenty lack of impartiality, and also about my IP change. Communicat (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello there! As you may or may not be aware, a recent discussion on the future of the Space-related WikiProjects has concluded, leading to the abolition of WP:SPACE and leading to a major reorganisation of WP:SPACEFLIGHT. It would be much appreciated if you would like to participate in the various ongoing discussions at the reorganisation page and the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. If you are a member of one of WP:SPACEFLIGHT's child projects but not WP:SPACEFLIGHT itself, it would also be very useful if you could please add your name to the member list here. Many thanks!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC).

I am requesting that the "Benny Hinn" article be unprotected. At "requests for unprotection" it says to ask the protecting administrator first. (I assume that is you.) I already made an "edit protected" request to fix several simple errors I found in a sentence there. As I looked further, I continued to find many more simple errors. It would be somewhat of a chore to list them all in another request. Now it says I'll be able to edit the article after 4 days. Similarly, I'm sure you could take a quick look at the page, and fix it up yourself. So though there's no urgent reason that I be permitted to edit this page, the protection just seems unnecessary. The protection log says you protected it in January 2009, almost two years ago. The fact that all of these minor errors exist seems to indicate that there just isn't that great a deal of interest in the article. As such, I would think that it could reasonably be unprotected at this time, even if only on a trial basis. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

After examining the "protection log" further, I now see that this page has been unprotected before, only to vandalized and again require protection. Under those circumstances, I certainly understand why you protected it, and would expect you to be wary of granting unprotection. I'm sure the desire to encourage all to contribute freely here has to be weighed against the damage that is thus made possible. I do see that each time before, it was protected for a short period of time. Having been two years since you "indefinately" protected it, maybe the people who continued to vandalize it have long forgotten about it. On the other hand, I'm sure it's entirely possible they haven't, and would just love another opportunity. So, I would like to informally change my unprotection request to an "unprotection suggestion", as there's clearly a case to be made for either side. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected, which means that anonymous IP editors and brand new accounts cannot edit, but accounts which have been used for a few days can edit it without further restrictions. This is generally felt to be a reasonable balance between allowing access for people to fix things, and keeping persistent vandals away.

In this case, every time the article was unprotected, violent threats and sexual libel and other defamatory content was posted in short order. Mr. Hinn apparently has some rather serious and unbalanced critics.

I see that you created your account yesterday, and presumably you're asking because the semiprotection is keeping you from making the fixes you describe above. If you can wait a few days, the "autoconfirmed" status on your account will kick in and you can then edit the article.

Hopefully you can wait those days patiently; I appreciate your desire to fix issues with the article. If you want to move things along faster, you can post suggested changes and/or errors you notice to the article talk page and another editor can implement them for you faster.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I certainly understand. I was inferring the numerous minor errors to mean an overall lack of interest in the article, and that's why I felt it may be safe to unprotect it on a trial basis. However, I'm sure you have a much better idea of what would happen if it were to be unprotected than I do, and I respect your decision. Looking at your page, I see that you have quite a lot on your plate right now, so I appreciate you taking the time to answer me. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI - A request for comments has been started on User:Colonel Warden. Since you participated in this ANI thread which preceded this RfC/U, you might be interested in participating. If so, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. Thanks. SnottyWong ^communicate 00:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

Just wondering if you missed this notification. Most everyone else named by Communicat when he filed has already posted. There's been some discussion of your absence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Workshop where Newyorkbrad said he saw no basis for making you a formal party, but that you were welcome to make a statement or add evidence before the 12/17 deadline. If you aren't planning on participating, perhaps you should let someone know. Thanks, and hope you kicked whatever crud had you down for a week. Edward321 (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Greetings,

Comments such as this on the Ura Koyama AFD discussion is inappropriate harassment and intimidation of independent editors:

The parrot wasn't actually voting, it was just pining for the fjords. No sockparrotry here! JJB 04:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ryoung122 18:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

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) 22:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Langston Bonasera and User:Rizzoli Isles - both blocked by you - might now be back as Logan Barek. Is already putting controversial info into Homicide: Life on the Street. Would you please check this? I am not sure how to go about it. But I saw the edits, then the name and am pretty sure it's him. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

Whether worthy of attention or not, I am certainly uncomfortable with this display. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi George! You are welcome to comment on my page, when you have time. (In the time being, I put the begin-hidden and end-hidden templates around our discussion.) Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi George. I am edstat, who you mentioned you don't know who I am on K.W's page. I'm on a wiki-break now, but I've said good-bye to editing any page Kiefer.Wolfowitz participates in along with three or four other editors who follow me from page to page that I edit, and essentially attack whatever I do. A typical exchange is found here: [1], but unless you have gotten over the migrains you may not want to read that page.

I don't know how to link to a specific part of a discussion page, so I apologize in advance for excerpting this comment I had to make about K.F's comments to me:

• These are the terms you have used in expressing your differing opinion on edits and citations, on this page alone!:"seriously distorting" "egregiously quoting" "repeated cautions" "damaged the quotation" "impossible to tell" "GROSS MISUSE Of SOURCES" "misquoted "refrain from editing" "repeated misuse" "repeated violations" "repeated and very clear warnings" "Yet another misuse" "gross misquotatoin" "misuse of sources" "misuse" "grossly misused" "formal procedure for banning" "Gross misuse" "selective quotation" "distorted" "gross misuse" "sloppy" "Relevance, schmelevance."

Again, I don't know how to link to just this paragraph, so feel free to hide/delete this after you have read it. I have been bullied by these four or five editors for a long time. In fact, I'm being told that defending myself is "attacking other editors" so to keep the peace I don't edit on any page where they are active. Now you know who I am, and I can only wish that you came on the scene a long, long, time ago.Edstat (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Three cases of Edstat's mis-use of sources were noted on the relevant talk page: The preceeding edits list specifics.

(On that page, apparent sock-puppetry by Edstat seems to have been revived.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Both editors Charles Matthews and Ed Johnson have given clear warnings to Edstat about disruptive editing and personal attacks. Because Edstat has followed my talk page, and seen Georgewilliamherbert's warnings to me, Edstat should remember the WP protocol of opening Request for comment (Rfc) about me, rather than continuing to complain across half a dozen talk pages. Synthesizing the warning about back-firing Rfcs bringing "close scrutiny on all involved editors" and Charles Matthews's warnings to Edstat about the consequences of his appearing at a Rfc, I would suggest that Edstat's prudent strategy would be to cease complaining about me on talk pages (given his repeated statements that he has stopped editing on pages where I am active). Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

about unblock-en-l. Dougweller (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

With reference to your query here[2]. Would like to inform you about the related discussion going on here [3]. - Humaliwalay (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

YGM an' all that ;) - Alison ^❤ 01:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi George,

Just checking in about this. Are you satisfied with the current state of the page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi George, I left a note for you here about the Mathsci block, in case you miss it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Please comment as soon as possible on Mathsci's unblock request. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have unblocked (reduced to time served) based on reasonable response and lack of ongoing preventive function to the block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The Downlink
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight	Issue 0, December 2010
Welcome to The Downlink · Reorganisation of Space WikiProjects · User Activity Checks Welcome to The Downlink Welcome to The Downlink, a new monthly newsletter intended to inform members of WikiProject Spaceflight about the latest developments in the project and its articles. Future issues will contain information on issues under discussion, newly featured content, and articles written by members of the project to appear in the newsletter. All members of WikiProject Spaceflight are invited to contribute any content that they would like to see in the newsletter. If you were not aware of being a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, membership of the former Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight and Space colonization WikiProjects was merged into WikiProject spaceflight during the reorganisation of the spaceflight projects, for more details, please see below. Reorganisation of Space WikiProjects The ongoing discussion of the future of Space WikiProjects has been making progress. WikiProject Space was abolished on 5 December 2010, with the Spaceflight, Astronomy and Solar System projects becoming independent of each other. On the same day, an assessment banner, {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} was created for WikiProject Spaceflight to replace the generic space one which had been used previously. On 9 December, WikiProject Space Colonization was abolished, with its tasks being subsumed into WikiProject Spaceflight. On 12 December, the Human spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight WikiProjects became task forces of WikiProject Spaceflight, whilst WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight became a working group. A number of issues are still under discussion: Introducing better defined assessment criteria and an A-class review process Setting clearer importance criteria for assessing articles Establishing a joint task force with the Astronomy and Solar System projects to cover space telescopes and planetary probes Defining the roles of projects, taskforces and working groups, and processes for establishing new ones Improving the profile and activity of the project Much of the current discussion is taking place on the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page, however there is still some discussion on the original proposal page. User Activity Checks A series of checks are underway to establish the numbers of users who are still active within WikiProject Spaceflight, its task forces and working group. All usernames on the members lists were struck out, and members were asked to unstrike their own names if they were still an active member of the project. If you wish to do so, and have not already, please unstrike your name from the master list, plus the lists on any applicable task forces or working groups Published by WikiProject Spaceflight, if you have any content you wish to include in future newsletters, please contribute

You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 16:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

I restored two sets of dispute tags; both because they were removed after being explained on the talk page - and the explanation was not responded to.

The current set were added when I looked at the sources for the section on ancient history and found that Thucydides was being quoted for the foundation of Massalia in 600 BC, when he gives no date. Another source was being quoted for trade with Rome in 500 BC when it discusses Roman trade around 125 BC. Both of these will be found on Talk:Marseille.

How does that add up to attempting to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, enforcing it consistently? Dispute tags should not be removed, certainly not within minutes; they should be answered, or consensus formed that they are unjustified. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have started the tagging on Dec 13th, well after the discussion was actively going.

Tagging in the first place given active discussion was at least suboptimal.

Are you replying on ANI? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have.

No, I tagged the content and explained the tags, before any discussion of the content had begun. This is entirely separate from the question of whether the use of Marseille is - as I continue to believe - tendentious; although it involves the same ownership behavior on the part of Mathsci. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I must consider you an involved admin with respect to any dispute involving me. On the other hand, if you want me to back off from any articles for a limited period of time, you need only ask; I have always been willing to do so. (Then again, I have always held that blocks should only be usued for those unable to back off when asked.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have changed your block because LAEC continued his crusade on his talk page. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)