User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2014/January

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.

Are you all really so ignorant of real world standard practices with these things?

Nope. Do you really think couching an insult in question form is actually clever? Are you really so eager to provide solutions in search of problems by importing what even you imply are stupid real-world standards in your normally officious way? Wait, I think I already know the answers to both.

I voted for you for ArbCom: I already regret it. --Calton | Talk 15:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: You were trolled. You took the bait. Are you all really so ignorant of real-world standard practices with these things? --Calton | Talk 15:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I knew I'd been trolled last night, and said so. We still don't know if it was photoshopped or not, but may well have been. Doesn't change that a bunch of Wikipedians' first impulses were unacceptable customer service attitude. My apologies if insisting that we treat complaints as valid (or, at least, sincere) until we have proof otherwise seems wrong to you. I can't impose my standards on the mob. But I can tell you, most of those who responded would get fired for that behavior in any real customer service or web operations setting. If treating people with respect initially is officious, I plead guilty.

Try harder. It matters. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks George! Hopefully that will resolve the situation. ElKevbo (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Re your message, just a nit: IP addresses cannot send mail, so there's no access to revoke. LFaraone 07:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello GWH. As you know, I commend you for reminding editors and the closing Admin at the MilesMoney/TFD ANI of the requirements of CBAN. However, I'm concerned about your recent reference to MM and his use of "smiting" on his talk page. He's not talking about himself "smiting" anybody. He's referring to his perception as to the operating methods of Arbcom, should he need to file a case there. What concerns me is that a reader of your comment (and believe me I understand that you have reason to feel frustrated by Miles' feisty responses to various messages) would infer from your remarks that Miles has somewhere threatened to rain death and destruction of Biblical proportions on other editors or WP -- "smiting" them. It's pretty clear to me that in the context of his remark he was saying no such thing. Unfortunately editors throughout WP seem to skim comments and retain whatever strikes their attention and for this reason it's unfortunate that some readers might infer that MM is prepared to go on some kind of rampage. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I will re-read, but that is what I thought he meant by it (him doing that). If I misread I will strike and apologize. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

(for the record, for anyone reading here - I had mis-read MilesMoney's remark rather badly last night, and apologized on his talk page and struck the specific comment items that derived from that mis-reading. He had not threatened to smite anyone. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC) )

	The Admin's Barnstar
	It's not the prettiest barnstar, but it seems to be the right one. For diligent and principled execution of the Admin's mandate. SPECIFICO talk 05:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, George.

I pretty much (well, entirely) welcome part (1) of your proposed interaction ban. I don't think you are acting in bad faith, although I am not sure you are acting in full knowledge with your other proposed actions. Given my apparent issues with TRM, believe me, I don't think any topic ban is necessary in his regard, mine, or anyone else's. I've asked for the same interaction ban you have myself. I think it will work wonders, and hope it is established asap.

μηδείς (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ya know, old pal, TRM was already off my radar, in my self-imposed interaction ban, until you resurrected this topic again at ANI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to complete your unholy triumvirate, thanks so much for the breakfast block, your bad etc. Never mind, perhaps you'll find your name in lights after this disastrously phrased ANI passes out due to general apathy. A nice try, but all in all, a wholesale waste of time as it utterly fails to address the nub of the problem. Cheers for trying though. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

	A Tesla Roadster for you!
	Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Ahhhh. Ooh.

I commute past the Milpitas factory (ex-NUUMI) every day, and there are Model S's out test-driving all over when I do. I used to commute past their corporate HQ up in Palo Alto, and for kicks would blast past at around 9000 RPM in my RX-8. But I'd take a Model S, and drive it like it's supposed to be driven.

If I fit. Which at 6'5" is in question.

But, appreciated!...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello recently somebody asked here, the same place I was earlier complained about somebody requested for rev del of the talk page's history. I don't remember if I inserted her name in the talk page or not but still I request you take a look at this case and review it. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I think they are referring to deleting the revisions of my article since they contain the name of the daughter. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

email. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the very high quality close at Talk:Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools, though I might have left a bit more time for others to reply, since my late response was so late. But yeah, the sell-by date passed. --Lexein (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello George, I see the car-crash of an RFC you launched has been archived, presumably out of 'bot boredom staring at a thread with no further interest. I'm sure you would prefer to see this properly concluded so perhaps you could nudge one of your competent buddies to look into closing it appropriately. And no need to apologise for the false block, misread threads etc... these things happen to some admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that... I listed it at Requests for Closure (the thing transcluded into the top of the main WP:AN) yesterday for this reason. Yes, it's not helpful to have it archived without someone closing.

I will re-note it at the main AN requesting a closure if nobody gets to it in a day or two...

I did apologize and was trying to apologize again when you nuked the section of your talk page, so I left it alone.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I have had it with TRM and his continual personal attacks on anyone he disagrees with. I have asked that the interaction ban be implemented ASAP. If we're lucky, maybe he will be banned from interacting with others he's attacked recently. But one thing at a time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Bugs, please show me the "personal attack"? Was it similar to being told that I get kicks out of "trashing a dead woman"? If so, I'll take it. If not, get a grip. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know that user The Rambling Man called me "sick" today. I find his behavior strange for an experienced user.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Because you implied that me stating the death of a girl through cancer was "beneath me". You got it wrong BabbaQ, so very wrong. You were told as much by other editors. Now stop forum shopping. It achieves nothing, but makes you look silly. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

As you misunderstood my comment as I did not mention Eva Ekvall at all I think it is time for you to go back and check through the messages again. I messaged you about your in my opinion inappropriate comment about Monica Spear, while you went on a tirade about Eva Ekvall. I have asked George about input on your comment about me being "sick" now user Drmies got to it first and he agreed with me that you were out of line. I still aksed for georges opinion about your comment which is within my rights. You are the one looking silly. Misunderstanding comments and going on tantrum-fueled tirades. Move on. You made a mistake and you can not own up to it.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Please swallow your pride and move on.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, time for you to check again. You said this comment was "beneath me". That my comment that a girl who died early from cancer was "tragic" is "beneath me"? Oh dear. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Clear case of you not wanting/willing to understand that it is the entire comment which is inappropriate. It is not my problem if you misunderstands and goes on a tantrum filled tirade. Sorry but I do not take responsibility for your actions. :)--BabbaQ (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Why link to part of the comment then? Your mistake. And you've been advised such by others. Bye! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said, its not my problem if YOU mistunderstands the link. And then goes off on that:) take some responsibility mate. Bye!--BabbaQ (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Georgewilliamherbert. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Jeh (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you or any other administrator please block my account for two months when my AE request is closed, regardless to AE decision (and annotate this block as block made by my own request). I have had enough, but unfortunately can not stop editing myself because of my addiction. Thank you very much in advance, My very best wishes (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)<

(talk page stalker) Sorry to hear it, MVBW. I'll block you if you wish. Please read my terms carefully and confirm on my page or by e-mail that you accept them. Perhaps you might as well wait until the AE request actually is closed, both to make sure you don't change your mind in the meantime, and to save me keeping a lookout for it. In any case, I always like to leave a bit of reconsideration time after the first request for a block.

George, please just send me off with a flea in my ear if you prefer to handle MVBW's request yourself, but I noticed you're not listed in the category. Bishonen | talk 16:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC).

Yeh, I just noticed last comment by Sandstein on AE. Given that, I completely withdraw this request. My very best wishes (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Supposing I was in a mutual interaction ban with someone, would one of us following the other's edits and making corrections qualify as a violation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Supposing one of the other two editors gave erroneous answers at the ref desk, would one us be able to correct this? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I, for one, welcome fact corrections. When Cuddlyable3 was driving everyone else crazy with petty corrections to other users' grammar and spelling, I invited Cuddly to repair mine on sight. I would welcome your own corrections. Just not the attendant personal attacks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Well it appears the interaction ban would prevent that (both the corrections and the attendant personal attacks)... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not ignoring all of you who have posted above in the last 24-48 hrs. I still have a fever and am sufficiently grumpy as to not think rendering any public opinions is wise at the moment, other than that Bish on my talkpage is absolutely fine (though the specific incident seems self-resolved). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The Ivy Mike comparison was made as the article (before I edited it today) stated that the combined yield to orbit would be 10 megatons. As Ivy Mike's yield of ~10.4 was ~70% fission, I thought the Ivy Mike comparison would help readers put "10 megaton of fission fallout" into perspective. You disagree? A number of Soviet atmospheric to HANE shots were conducted in the ~20 megaton range that would be an even more apt comparison as they were airbursts and produced about 50% of their yield via fission reactions, but there is very little in the way of English sources that discuss them, and there is no wiki article to link to. 86.46.191.135 (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It depends on which sized Orion, and with which pusher bombs; not your fault, but the article glosses that over badly. The exoatmospheric horizontal thrust component fallout half escapes Earth as well, and that's much of the total pulse usage. So flight profile matters as well.

You aren't wrong, but it's not simple, and I'm worried that a simple comparison makes it seem simpler than it is. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, however the article does make it clear that it's the 4000 to 5000 ton sized Orion vehicle and the fallout from that vehicle would be mostly the global fallout from airburst explosions and HANE, therefore not directly comparable to the surface burst Ivy Mike. But, the article does say that it is a kind of worst case "pessimistic comparison", which it is. How do you think we should proceed?

86.46.191.135 (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ahh... Ok. Good enough for now, perhsps start a talk page discussion on the article talk page to work out how we proceed.

I am not entirely happy with it now, but it's not your fault, and it's not worth urgently trying to fix it. Eventually is good enough. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I've edited the article to make it clear the Ivy Mike comparison is not perfect. Hopefully that will do for now?

86.46.191.135 (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That is ok for now. We can take our time considering the wider issues. Thank you! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Your warning to me is inappropriate and the timing suggests you are attempting to punish me for commenting in the Alfonzo Green case. The implication is also that I am not allowed to edit any article if it has been branded pseudoscience. Since I have edited in the Pseudoscience, Energy medicine, Mediumship, National Spiritualist Association of Churches and Electronic Voice Phenomena. (Pluse a few edits on biography pages.)

I request that you remove both the warning and my name from your little hit list! Tom Butler (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No.

You are a single-purpose editor advocating in that general area, including suspicion of off-wiki collaboration with others, and you are both acting and advocating for treatment exactly opposite of the Arbcom case finding and Wikipedia policy. You are exactly in the expected set of people who are covered by those sanctions and notification requirement. My apologies if you object to that or find it offensive in some way; that is the standing policy and decision and precedent, however. Editing on Wikipedia is contingent on doing so in alignment with our core values and community processes, including policy and arbcom findings.

That said, the notification is not a formal warning that some particular edit has done something that I would seek to sanction at this time. Your pattern of behavior rises to the level that the notification was required. That is not the same as a formal warning, topic restriction, or block.

In leaving the warning I neither provided nor meant to imply that there has been either one or a pattern of edits which would result in immediate sanctions or warnings. I am concerned enough to make the notification on the record, and I hope you refresh yourself with the Arbcom case and other Wikipedia policy. The manner in which you and others, including Alfonzo, are seeking to challenge the Arbcom Pseudoscience case findings and sanctions is not going to work. You are essentially arguing that the case findings do not apply to you or should not be decided that way, because you don't like them. That is not going to happen.

You can file a new Arbcom case or motion to change the restrictions, seek to have a topic area excluded, or the like. The Arbitration Enforcement admins and noticeboard will continue to enforce as decided until such time as a change is made.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to congratulate you and the others for finding an excellent way to eliminate editors who are trying to find a middle ground that complies with the arbcom decision while still rationally explaining the subject to the reader. While I see "pseudoscience" as a derogatory term coined to deprecate subjects that the skeptical community disagrees with, I am 100% in agreement with the need to distinguish good science from failed efforts to practice good science. The difference is that I also see the need to permit research to determine the difference. The policy of trying to red-letter anything that does not seem to fit onto the skeptic's flat earth view of the world is far more harmful to society than any supposed pseudoscience.

Trusting that you speak for Wikipedia, I can see that this is an "official" Wikipedia policy now and will find other ways to try to help outside of Wikipedia. Thanks for making this clear for me. Tom Butler (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You protected James Delingpole, and the protection is about to expire. Is there perhaps some sense in gauging the nature of discussion on the talk page (and BLPN) to determine whether an edit war is likely to resume when protection expires? I haven't edited the article myself and don't really want to -- but the discussions that are currently taking place give me the sense that some editors are poised to pick up exactly where they left off. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I want to see what happens when protection times out. May be bad again, but may not. I am concerned but not going to extend based just on talk controversy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D, Zawed and Hawkeye7 look at recent releases

Did we ever run into each other there? I created sci.archaeology.moderated (never very active) and was involved in creating several rec.food.* newsgroups - in fact the people who created those still have an active mailing list as they became their own community. And I read rec.arts.sf.written occasionally but avoid it now as I have so many ebooks now I'll never finsih them all! Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It's possible, I was active from 1987 to 2004ish, but usenet was a big place. I didn't read the food or archaeology groups. I did Rasfw from time to time but it was so super active, could never keep up. I always used my full name over Usenet-ways. I did all the sci.space stuff, comp.arch, random alt. groups, talk.bizarre. I also helped run new newsgroup creation at times - UVV, related policy activity. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Huge at that time. I guess the only place our paths might have crossed was policy or newsgroup creation. Dougweller (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)