Misplaced Pages

User talk:Georgewilliamherbert: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:50, 6 November 2010 editSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,256 edits →Arbitration enforcement action appeal by WookieInHeat: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 22:16, 6 November 2010 edit undoNick-D (talk | contribs)Administrators106,130 edits →Communicat RfC/U: cmtNext edit →
Line 239: Line 239:
::Nick -D is correct that he is also exhibiting the same behaviour in the ] article, though the audience/target list is shorter. He has entirely rewritten the article in a short span of time and I don't think anyone's noticed. This was done based on advice given him by former EEML member, Petri Kohn. --] (]) 19:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC) ::Nick -D is correct that he is also exhibiting the same behaviour in the ] article, though the audience/target list is shorter. He has entirely rewritten the article in a short span of time and I don't think anyone's noticed. This was done based on advice given him by former EEML member, Petri Kohn. --] (]) 19:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
:::I had noticed. I was just disengaging for a bit after he filed the RfAr against me. Far from that calming Communicat down, it seems to have had the opposite effect. ] (]) 00:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC) :::I had noticed. I was just disengaging for a bit after he filed the RfAr against me. Far from that calming Communicat down, it seems to have had the opposite effect. ] (]) 00:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

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


== Legwarmers == == Legwarmers ==

Revision as of 22:16, 6 November 2010


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

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

Pumpie

I am afraid Pumpie does not get it. He is continuing to demonstrate classic incompetence. He was unblocked almost immediately after making a statement that denied having any serious language problems and he has now resumed translating articles. It is occupying a lot of time to fix his stuff, and I for one cannot seem to get through to him. Perhaps you can. I am not known for my tact. In trying to fix his latest group of articles, since they were from Greek, which I can't read, I did a fair bit of searching, and discovered quite a few articles he had created that are still in a bad state years later. This is a detriment to the project. I am also not sure what you meant by the requirement you set, that he must discuss remedies with us; the unblocking admin took it that by responding he had fulfilled this condition, but as JamesBWatson had meanwhile observed, he shows no sign of being competent to do what is needed or even to fully understand it. Where do we go from here? Can you help in any way, either by talking to him or by intervening with Arbcom? At least one of them clearly did not understand how deficient his articles are, but I understood from the instructions that we weren't allowed to provide diffs yet. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your previous words to Pumpie. He did resume translating from both French and Greek and further words have now been exchanged on his talk page by all 3 of us. He continues not to get it and in particular does not seem willing to go back and really start fixing his earlier articles. I think at this point all of us are convinced he can't - that it is a classic case of incompetence. But he claims he "can't" leave en.wikipedia. I wonder whether a suggestion I made during our discussion before we put up the RfC page would help at all: that the auto-reviewed right (or whatever it is now called - the thing whereby his new articles are marked as reviewed at NewPages because he has created more than a certain number) be withdrawn so that the NewPages reviewers share the job of initially examining them and noting passages that do not make sense, differing versions of the name in the article title, lead paragraph, and infobox heading, and other stuff that he continues not to catch before moving on to create another article. It would increase their workload but that in turn might help the community grasp and convey to him that his translations are causing a problem. And it would spread the load that remains on the 3 of us who have been trying to fix his new output. At any rate, although that suggestion was dismissed as a punishment, it's less of a punishment than his being again indef-blocked. But it may well be that the latter is more appropriate, since it is indeed a clear case of incompetence. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The other 2 editors who are more active in fixing Pumpie's work than I have gone ahead and posted about him at ANI. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion attempt?

I know you blocked Pumpie with account creation disabled, but the de.wikipedia admin clearly thinks User:Favorite Hobby is the same person. Does this mean what it looks like? I hope not :-( Yngvadottir (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the connection listed anywhere, not sure what it was...
I'm kinda busy, can you contact the admin on dewiki and ask them what the connection was? Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Croatian language

Georgewilliamherbert, is this edit by Kwamikagami (Hello_Kwamikagami) a possible violation of administrator privileges, due to his heavy involvement in the article Croatian language? --Roberta F. (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Croatian language 2

Georgewilliamherbert, sorry, can you give an answer to above question? --Roberta F. (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That edit merely maintained the status quo as GWH protected it, as the file was moved without a redirect. I offered to revert it if a redirect were created, or the revert war on that image were stopped. — kwami (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Georgewilliamherbert, would you be so kind and answer to above question. This is your talk page and I'm not interested in getting answers from other interested parties, but from you, else I would ask somewhere else. Thanks in adwance. --Roberta F. (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban violation

I very recently created Operation Damocles. These reversions and additions are a very clear provocation and a brazen violation of the interaction ban. I was blocked by you for far less at Maimonides Synagogue.

, , , , , , , etc...

Factomancer (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What interaction ban you are talking about? Also, how it can be called interaction? That user did not talk to you or do anything to your edits reverting or nothing... what do you think it means, interaction ban = any article you touch is banned for other user? Crazy. LibiBamizrach (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok I just found this interaction ban. It says "This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other." What are you report here then exactly? You are allow to contribute on same articles. Also, it says there that you are not allow to make any report until 12 hours after the supposed breaking of interaction ban. Your link here show that this happen just few hours ago. You are breaking terms of that interaction ban by writing this here. LibiBamizrach (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Interestingly, "LibiBamizrach", you arrived at Misplaced Pages on the 9th of September and then appeared to know about obscure Misplaced Pages policies such as "WP:UNDUE" and "WP:FRINGE" on the 10th - .
Be honest. Have you owned any accounts prior to "LibiBamizrach"? Have they been blocked for disruptive editing? I ask because in the short time you've been with us you've caused a lot of disruption. Factomancer (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, - this edit clearly violates the prohibition against "commenting in other venues about the other party". Also apologies for posting this a little early, that was a genuine mistake. I entreat you to enforce the _spirit_ of the ban and not the small print. Factomancer (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess I miss something here? This link shows Mbz1 post to another user page a link that says "FYI". How possibly you interpret this post as "commenting in other venues about the other party"? Is your name FYI? If you changed your username one more time from Factsontheground to Factomancer now this time to FYI, you should be update your signature so people will not be confused. LibiBamizrach (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, heh, I changed my username to Factomancer because GWH complained about my former username. I'd be very happy to change it back, but it was a gesture of goodwill and compromise. Not an attempt to avoid scrutiny. Speaking of which, I'm amazed (well, not really) that you know about this since I changed it about a year ago and you "arrived" in September. Just keep digging yourself deeper, "Libi".
Oh yeah, and you don't have to overtly use the other parties username to violate the interaction ban. I know since I've been banned quite a few times for making comments which weren't even about the other party, let alone explicitly writing their username.
Factomancer (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I dig myself deeper meaning what? I fail to understand what you mean, is it a threat? You accuse me of something because I am knowing how to read English? I said above how I found this interaction ban details (and FYI, you can too see it in case you need refresher, Mbz1 posted the link down under here). On that link it say very clear that you change your username. I didn't have to be too much investigator to figure this one out, amigo. LibiBamizrach (talk) 03:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Also just to add what you are saying here, you want Mbz1 to get block or in trouble because they post a link to a user's page notify them that someone talking about them on another page. You say before that you hope Georgewilliamherbert admin will enforce the _spirit_ (sic) of the ban. You now report Mbz1 in this circumstance? HAHAHA LibiBamizrach (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Other than noting that LibiBamizrach just got indefinitely blocked by another administrator, I'm not going to do anything here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

My interaction ban condition

as stated here are "This editing restriction shall include a complete prohibition from comments on the respective user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards, reverting edits on articles, commenting in other venues about the other party, or directly responding to each other's comments on article talk pages. This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other. The restriction is to be interpreted broadly." I did not violate any of those conditions. I did some work on the article, but I've never reverted anybody at all, not a single revert was done by me. I only added new sourced information. Besides adding some new info all other my edits were fixing my own mistakes, made in prior edits,fixing my English and/or moving my own additions from one place to another: , , , Some of my additions were removed altogether later on, and I have never added them back. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Croatian language

Hi,

Since your temporary full protection of Croatian language has expired, could you replace the previous permanent semi-protection? There's already been an anon. editor falsifying quotations. I hate to do it myself, as I'm involved and I'm sure the POV warriors will scream that I'm committing genocide or something. — kwami (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Courcelles got it. — kwami (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Xanderliptak

I have opened an RfC/U on Xanderliptak. Since you have attempted to deal with the concerns that I raise, I have mentioned you in the RfC. The RfC is not yet certified and may not be; currently I am the sole signatory, and any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". But I thought you should be made aware. Any feedback will, of course, be most welcome. --Moonriddengirl 20:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring my request?

You block me instantaneously when I "violate" the interaction ban for doing far less than what I pointed out above. Can you explain the double standard here? Anyway, I'm going to AE. Factomancer (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Vodomar at WP:AE

Hello GWH. Please see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Vodomar. You previously left a comment on this issue. The submitter of this request, User:Kwamikagami, has asked to withdraw his complaint in view of some negotiations that are occurring with Vodomar. I'm willing to go along with that, subject to an endorsement for any admin to restore full protection of Serbo-Croatian if the negotiations don't succeed. How would you feel about that proposal? You can respond at AE if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the message that you left at Talk:Croatian language#Enough. The article in the present case is Serbo-Croatian, though the issues are similar. As a closure of the enforcement request how about:
  1. All editors who have reverted excessively at either article would be notified under Digwuren (you state that some of them broke 1RR at Croatian language)
  2. Serbo-Croatian would be placed under 1RR (Croatian language is already under 1RR)
  3. The editors now working for a compromise at Talk:Serbo-Croatian would be encouraged to continue.
EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, I see that Tim Song closed the enforcement request as 'Withdrawn'. Since the recent editing of both articles seems acceptable, I am willing to wait and see. Anyone can reopen the request if problems resume, and we can 'catch up' on any notifications if needed. For that matter, any admin who is so inclined could go ahead and issue notifications anyway. At this moment, notifications might spoil the mood. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Please see: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued tendentious editing by User:Communicat despite warnings and blocks (I'm notifying you as a previously involved admin) Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

HIIII

Frequent False positive claims are being made by the user - Shshshsh and personal opinions are being made and original citations are being constantly removed by the user Shshshsh frequently over several National Film Award articles - Dubious edits are being made over citations of other users - Protection requested from the user october 28 edits. (61.2.74.223 (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)). thank you

Thank you

Hi George,

Thanks for the help out there. I was trying to get away from the Climate Change insanity, and then my own topic area of expertise went crazy too. Oh, the dramahz! I need some kind of way to express in writing a very weary laugh.

I don't think I could ever deal with being an admin and constantly wading into other people's problems, so I really appreciate your help. Awickert (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Georgewilliamherbert. You have new messages at Nableezy's talk page.
Message added 21:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

notice

hey again george, regarding your comments here, is there anything you would recommend that i should handle differently in the future? also, you said you reviewed some of the discourse between the other editor and myself, do you have any opinion? not trying to drag you into the fray, won't ask for further input on the topic, just curious. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Roux

As you unblocked Roux (Ryan Postlethwaite blocked him), I think you should be aware of this among other edits that are incivil and borderline personal attacks, which is what Ryan blocked him for. Roux was unblocked by the community, but it isn't working out. Roux has a major chip (hell, the whole damned tree) on his shoulder and the attitude coming from him is incivil at best. He is even butting heads with admins tonight. I will leave it up to you on what should be done, but something, even if it is a cooldown block, needs to be done. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this would go better if you actually told the whole story? Rlevse made this edit, in response to which I templated her--deliberately; I see absolutely no reason why it's okay to give new people mindless warnings with no personal input--here. Rlevse's response was to revert, and then post this gem (and an addendum). Neutralhomer also showed up to say this, for what reason I have no idea. I then warned Rlevse again, to be reverted again with a comment of 'some people never learn.' I made a final post to Rlevse's talkpage here, which granted was snarky but after the repeated crap from a sitting arbitrator I am indeed getting fed up. Somewhere in there I told Neutralhomer to stay away from my talkpage; he has since posted on my tpage twice. No idea what he said, and I really don't care. Edited to add for the sake of completeness, my edit that started the abuse from Rlevse and Neutralhomer. → ROUX ₪ 01:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
You can see by that post that the incivility and attitude are flying tonight. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Yup. Not necessarily from Roux though. Cut the goading. Shubinator (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(Point of information - I didn't unblock Roux; I blocked him briefly on Oct 4 for a civility incident, please read the logs correctly. I am going to briefly attempt to decode this frufru above, having just returned from the Space Manufacturing Conference 14 sessions today. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC))

For anyone following here but not elsewhere, 2 warnings issued to Roux and Rlevse, and asked Neutralhomer to disengage for the moment. I also pinged Sandstein for another uninvolved review and in case this blows up again before I get online in the morning. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
After a brief review of your messages, George, I believe I can broadly agree with them. Everybody will probably feel better about this if they take your messages as a signal to disengage and enjoy the weekend.  Sandstein  10:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You appear to have entirely the wrong end of the stick here, GWH and Sandstein. At no point whatsoever did I make anything even close to a personal attack. I commented only on content and actions, and not on Rlevse personally. Rlevse, on the other hand, made quite deliberate personal attacks. Had I said what Rlevse said I would have been blocked without a second thought; had any other non-admin non-arb said what Rlevse said they would have been blocked without a second thought. Usually I think Malleus and Sandy go too far when they complain about admin abuse. Now I am not so sure. Further, Neutralhomer showed up out of nowhere to continue the goading, baiting, and personal attacks. I was deliberately baited by the two of them, and somehow I get warned? This is patent nonsense, and outright maltreatment of me, yet again, by editors (one of them, I remind you again, who is a sitting arbitrator and should know better) who walk away without a single consequence, and I get told to have an interaction ban? I did nothing to either of them. They showed up to harass and attack me. → ROUX ₪ 10:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • It appears as though Rlevse's outbursts were symptomatic of other, or larger, problems. In that case, while I still contend that your grasp of the situation is in grave error, I am quite willing to forget this mess. This is a sad state of affairs, and I hope that the diff I linked is merely a moment of pique. If not, I do--though this may surprise some--wish Rlevse the best and hope that he gets over whatever is apparently bothering him. I would post the same sentiment on his talkpage, but... → ROUX ₪ 11:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm somewhat dissapointed that you aren't reflecting on your own contributions and taking any responsibility here, Roux. The incident seems to be over, and I am not going to beat anyone up further for what's now firmly in the past, but you've had a long series of problems with uninvolved admins and other editors calling you on similar behavior now. You really need to understand that we find this behavior highly problematic and that if you continue it indefinitely it's going to get you in indefinite trouble eventually. I very much want to see you avoid ending up that way.
I am glad that you don't wish Rlevese ill. I am going to comment on his talk page later. I will pass your sentiment along and understand why you don't want to directly. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess I wasn't clear. Let me try again. Rlevse decided to attack me with complete impunity. Neutralhomer piled on. Perhaps you could explain exactly what I did there? Nobody 'called me' on anything; Rlevse merely decided to make personal attacks when I had done nothing but comment on content. I thought that's what we were supposed to do here, or are you now going to tell me I'm simply not allowed to comment on anything? Plenty of people in that thread used language and phrasing as strong or stronger than I did. The choice to template Rlevse was quite deliberate; I am sick and tired of newbies around here getting the short end of the stick, which includes impersonal templated messages. The notion that somehow regular editors deserve nicer treatment than the newest people here is both bizarre and distasteful. Rlevse followed that up with further personal attacks, including calling me childish. I am vexed in the extreme that you don't comprehend my frustration here; in the face of being baited and goaded I stuck, hard, to commenting solely actions and content, and did not comment on the contributor. And for that, I get holier-than-thou lecturing? There is no similar behaviour that I have been called on. I was colouring well within the lines here, your apparent predisposition to assume the worst about me notwithstanding. How about you try this mental exercise: imagine If I had said what Rlevse had said and vice versa. You cannot honestly tell me that if that were the case my block log would not be an entry longer, and Rlevse wouldn't have been commended for restraint in the face of outright deliberate baiting. Or to put it another way: how about treating me the same as everyone else gets treated? That includes actually doing something about it when I am being deliberately baited and goaded. As I have tried to explain to you before--though it appears to have fallen on deaf ears--my frustration is due entirely to the fact that nobody gives a flying fuck when I'm harassed. But should I make the mistake of being less than absolutely fucking perfect, BAM, I get the smackdown. And when there is any dispute of any sort, you and other admins make the immediate default assumption that I am to blame. Either start A'ing some GF with me or stay far, far, far away from me until you learn how to, please. What part of this is not getting through to you? → ROUX ₪ 23:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Roux - you're the one who started using abusive language by suggesting the whole project was crap. You didn't aim that at any one user, but you took the conversation south and it just kept getting worse from there.
As I said, you did carefully not make personal attacks despite getting very angry with the responses. The message to you was carefully crafted specifically mentioning that and keeping it in mind. As you avoided personal attacks, despite having aggressively commented and made the situation worse, your warning was much less severe than the one to Rlevse.
If you call a major Misplaced Pages project Crap and call for its removal, you cannot then play innocent with the hordes of upset people that get upset with you. Constructive criticism requires civility, so that the people both involved and outside the criticized group will accept the input and opinion.
Civility here doesn't by policy require that all criticism be constructive. But if you use confrontational and rude criticism it's going to have the results you saw.
If you really don't understand that, there's something fundamentally wrong with your understanding of interpersonal relations and how the community works.
My assumption of good faith here is that you didn't realize that you were being that confrontational initially and are still reacting emotionally, not seeing what you did clearly.
Your statement that nobody cares if you're harrassed is absolute bunk. I just came close to blocking a then-active arbcom member for harrassing you, and did leave a very strong warning, as you may have noticed. I've previously blocked the then-OTRS coordinator for a personal attack and have gone on record that I'll do it to anyone on the project up to and including Jimbo for a clear and strong enough personal attack.
Taking it seriously is one thing. Taking your word that you were purely innocent of provoking a reaction in the situation, without looking at it as an uninvolved party and rendering my own opinion on that, is completely another. I didn't take your word on that, I didn't take Neutralhomer's word on what he saw either. What I saw was you insult a bunch of people by calling their project crap. You doing that explains and justifies them getting angry with you. It did NOT justify the personal attack you got which I warned Rlevse for strongly. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you re-read my original statement on ANI. You appear to be misinterpreting it. I notice a distinct silence on your end regarding the multiple other users who made similar statements. And, sorry, "I almost did X" doesn't cut it. Very, very easy to say that you came close to doing something that you didn't do. You have told me explicitly--indeed, when you blocked me for making perfectly accurate statements about Xanderliptak, if memory serves--that it doesn't matter whether I've been provoked. Yet somehow provocation is okay when it's someone else? Perhaps you could also show me where I stated I was, using your words, an 'innocent party'? Ah well, we both know the truth, don't we? Rlevse was an admin and an arb, I'm just a peon. → ROUX ₪ 23:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that you're asking for the Moon, as it ain't gonna happen. The best we peons can do is to retreat and live to fight another day; you ain't gonna win this one in the current climate. Not saying that you're wrong, just saying. Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Roux-related Talkback

Hello, Georgewilliamherbert. You have new messages at Neutralhomer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Georgewilliamherbert. You have new messages at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious editing by JPMcGrath on Gun laws in the United States (by state).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎

I appreciate your recent comments there. Communicat continues to make threats on the RfAr page. Edward321 (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

communicat

Hi, thanks for your messages, the contents or which are noted.

I hope you have issued similar warnings to those who have been aiming low-level personal attacks and miscellaneous sniping at me for some time now in the ANI discussion, and there has also been some procedurally discourteous prejudgment of issues and outcomes re arbcom.

I trust in particular that, in demonstrating a committment to impartiality, you will tell Nick-D to stop making false and provocative statements, as he has recently done at ANI discussion, where he refers to: ... Communicat's disruptive conduct (at RFarb) ... Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It is unacceptable that I should be disallowed from setting the record straight. I have exhibited no "disruptive conduct" whatsoever in my arbcom statements, and in fact my statements allege rampant disruption on the part of Nick-D and one other. Thanks for your interest. Communicat (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

RfAr

Petru Krohn has refactored Communicat's edits there for readability. Good faith, IMO, but a bad precedent. Communicat is still making threats. Edward321 (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Pumpie's talk page. Thank you.— Dædαlus 01:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


Regarding Pumpie, they are still acting as if they are going to be unblocked. It seems they still haven't gotten the message the original block belayed; that the need to go take an English class, leaving wikipedia for a year. I feel that the only way to make them understand this is to revoke their talk and email access for a year, forcing them to actually leave wikipedia. This has other reasons too, however; with the single diff shown in the ANI thread, I don't believe they can be trusted with either, given that they were waiting 'for a newbie admin'.— Dædαlus 21:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Been Watching that discussion all day. hopefully they can drop the Stick nowThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

dummy section

For spacing due to cookie interference. .

.

.

.

.

Hey, now, cookies should interfere. Either with disputes, or with waistlines, possibly both. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson

This was the comment I was about to make but had an edit conflict due to your request. To be clear, PMA said "unless I had something novel". This is novel.

No, you have not answered the question about "the comment I made that you characterized as a misrepresentation of policy" is a mischaracterization of policy. This was my initial comment in the discussion and, your reply to it in which you characterized it as a misrepresentation of policy:
I'm asking specifically about the highlighted words: "Misrepresenting policy, as this post does". How is anything I said in that post, the one time stamped 11/1 20:03 (since that's the one you were referring to) "misrepresenting policy"?

As to your claim that you've already answered this here and at the article page, you have not. Do you really not realize that there has been no discussion about this particular comment/reply here or at the article page? Well, I've asked you to explain it , but you did not seem to understand that when I asked about where I misrepresented policy, I was referring to the comment/reply (quoted above) in which you accused me of doing so, because your answer did not address that at all. I also referred to the misrepresentation here on your talk page a few times, but there has been no explanation provided here either. However, now there should be no confusion at all about what you're being asked, and here's your chance to finally provide basis/explanation for this incredible accusation! --Born2cycle (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line is that PMA made derisive accusations about me in an RM discussion, did not provide basis/explanation at the time, or even in extended discussion afterwards. We finally got to a point where I thought there was an understanding about a misunderstanding, but he still will not back off his position that I misrepresented and disagree with policy. Why is that acceptable? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I am acutely aware of his civility problem; check his block log. This incident didn't rise to that level in my opinion.
I'm not ordering you to drop it (though I suggest that). I am telling you, it's reached the end of useful discussion on his talk page. If you feel it's unresolved and worth admin review beyond mine, WP:ANI is thataway...
Another admin may chose to intervene where I judged it not worthy. I don't think so, but it's up to you.
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree this incident does not rise to the level of a block. All I wanted was confirmation from him and/or an admin that it was broaching that level, to nip this kind of thing in the bud. I'm tired of him making borderline uncivil comments like this for years. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Communicat RfC/U

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

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

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

Legwarmers

I've followed up with them on their talk page. It may be more a case of WP:COMPETENCY than wanton abuse... I've explained that they can upload photos they physically took themself all they like but that the older photos (which they don't own copyright for) will need an OTRS e-mail from the copyright holder. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Israel-Palestine editing

Hi Georgewilliamherbert, following the recent deterioration in editing of the Israel-Palestine set of articles, I've set up a page to discuss the problem and possible solutions at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. Your input would be appreciated. PhilKnight (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Xanderliptak

Hello GWH, thanks for not banning Xanderliptak. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Community was fairly loud on that point, and I agree - he's had good contributions at times and I hope he can work back into being productive, if that's what he wants. AGF. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

For you

The Admin's Barnstar
To Georgewilliamherbert for always being there for editors when they need it the most. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by WookieInHeat

Hello. A block by you has been appealed to WP:AE#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by WookieInHeat. Regards,  Sandstein  20:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)