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 09:52, 25 September 2010 editIshdarian (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers7,181 edits →User:75.105.241.135← Previous edit Revision as of 17:39, 25 September 2010 edit undoCount Iblis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers12,827 edits →Thank you!: new sectionNext edit →
Line 168: Line 168:
:Have a good night! ] (]) 09:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC) :Have a good night! ] (]) 09:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
::Ok! Thanks! ]<b>&#124;</b><small>]</small><sup>]</sup> 09:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC) ::Ok! Thanks! ]<b>&#124;</b><small>]</small><sup>]</sup> 09:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

== Thank you! ==

I appreciate the feedback you gave on my comments on the AE page. You didn't see any problems with my comments but, in general, if you do see something that you think is not ok., giving a feedback with a precise quote and explanation why this is wrong, would be welcomed by me.

The problem with this whole "advocacy" thing is that it is rather vague. Sometimes people will have some vague perception that "I'm at it again" and mention that. But then, without pointing to specific problematic edits, there is little that I can change about this. Of course, I could decide not to get involved in issues relating to Brews at all, but I would oppose that. The reason I have been involved with him has to do with the way some technical articles should (or can) be editited and I should be able to have my say here. This is not about me always agreeing with Brews about specific edits or in specific disputes (I strongly disagreed with Brews on the Speed of Light page that was the subject of the original ArbCom case).

Basically, the core of the issue as far as editing Misplaced Pages is concerned, is where one should the draw the line in ]. This is obviously a judgement call that editors on different pages have different opinions on. While Brews and I share the same rather liberal view on this, the articles I've mostly been involved in (e.g. thermodynamics and statistical physics), allowed me to edit without much disputes. Brews, on the other hand, with a similar editing philosophy, has faced much more opposition on other physics pages (e.g. classical mechanics related pages). I have been involved on these pages too, but less frequently.

My observation there is that some other editors have an extreme opposite view on ] where even simple examples are not allowed (sometimes even regarded as OR). And Brews also gets quite easily drawn into escalating conflicts when facing opposition. The reason why the physics topic ban has been re-imposed was precisely because of such a dispute on one of the classical mechanics pages (Brews was appealing an article ban on speed of light, but one Arbitrator noted that there was a new dispute with Brews on another physics page, leading to Brews getting topic banned).


So, in conclusion, the whole issue with me being involved with Brews is not motivated by some unconditional support for him. Rather, there are real issues regarding editing Misplaced Pages here that are perhaps a bit hidden from view. And in such disputes, I always tell Brews to take into account opposition against his edits and try to make modifications to get the necessary consensus. ] (]) 17:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:39, 25 September 2010


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

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

Mass renaming of IQ articles without discussion

In light of the discretionary sanctions on R&I-related articles and what I should do about it when there's a problem, there's something going on now that I think really needs an admin's attention.

The issue is discussed here. WeijiBaikeBianji proposed that the R&I article be renamed to "Group differences in IQ by race" and his reason for this is "for parallelism with other subarticles of intelligence quotient." The only reason the proposed name is parallel to other subarticles of IQ is because WeijiBaikeBianji had just renamed four of them within an hour before posting this proposal, without any prior discussion whatsoever: . When I pointed out on the talk page for R&I that his proposed rename wasn't consistent with a bunch of other intelligence-related articles, giving Fertility and intelligence as an example, he immediately renamed that one also (and also without discussion).

The issue here is NOT that I'm worried he'll rename R&I too. This is the only page he's wanted to rename that he bothered discussing with anyone, and it's clear that there's no consensus. People on the talk page are disagreeing with his undiscussed name changes on the other articles, but no one seems willing to go to the trouble of undoing them all and risk getting into an war with WBB over this.

I think that what WBB is doing is both article ownership and POV-pushing. From my understanding of rename policy, it's not acceptable for someone to rename 5 articles in the space of an hour without any discussion whatsoever. And especially when he's using these new article names to justify renaming the R&I article, and then immediately renaming any article that's pointed out as having a similar name to Race and intelligence. Would you mind taking a look at this situation, and decide what (if anything) should be done about it? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please look at this soon? He's just now, once again, made a contentious article renaming with no prior discussion, despite others expressing displeasure (and reverting) his last renames. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I am going to look at this but I am busy... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I understand and respect that you're busy, but I feel that some of these things need to be dealt with swiftly in order for the discretionary sanctions to have any benefit on these articles. Do you have a recommendation about the best way to bring things like this to an admin's attention without dragging it to AN/I? For instance if you know of another uninvolved admin I could go to who has more free time and is also familiar with these articles. Thanks. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Opinion requested

Please see this. Thank you for your time.— Dædαlus 08:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk WWII

I replied at User talk:Paul Siebert#WWII Talk a couple hours before you posted on my talk page. When I made that edit I was trying to restore the Talk page to Nick-D's version. I was acting under the impression that Communicat had refactored Nick-D's comments. Thanks to Paul's posting, I realized that I accidentally removed this comment of Communicat's and apologized for my mistake at that time. As I said then; it was not an intentional removal of Communicat's comments on my part. Apologies for my mistake. Edward321 (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, did not see that beforehand, but that's a reasonable explanation. No problem. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the personal attack. I've changed the horrible part, it is probably better now. As for ANI, I didn't want to waste admins time with unproven nonsence when they have better things to do. I am quite new but have been reading Misplaced Pages for a few months. Stil need to know the ropes etc. Chetnik Serb (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi George!

It's Orijentolog here; I'm writing from collage because unfortunately you blocked mine IP address for one month, which is huge misunderstanding. First of all, as you probably remember you have advised me not to use Misplaced Pages for few month after my ban, so I did follow your advice. After few months or more precisely in early May, I contacted your colleague Dougweller who is also Wiki administrator but more active on history-related articles then you, because he was the most hostile toward my edits (beside you). In my message to him, I stated this:

Next time when I found some mistake on Misplaced Pages (like this or this) I'll inform you personally about it because I don't want you guys to consider it as vandalism. I know my situation and I don't have time for appeal to unblock my account, but some articles are important to me coz I'm working on one academic work so I use "what links here" very often - that's why I've found many mistakes. Cheers, vandal-killer! :)

He agreed with it as you can see it on upper link, and I've also noticed that since my IP is changing I'll always contact him, and that I won't bother him with banal changes. Since then (May 8), I participated in dozens of changes and every time I noticed administrator Dougweller: we have few disscusions and there was no absolutely any hostilities or contra-positions. Beside changes, I participated in "vandal hunt", discussions about categories and many other Wiki issues. You can see it on this list on Dougweller talk page, I listed it for you by dates:

After all signatures, I have added "(Orijentolog)" for clearly identification (you can check it). Also, to prove there was no even one my abusive edit or even one suspected abusive edit from agreement with Dougweller, you can check it on "User:Orijentolog" article by viewing history of suspected sockpuppets, confirmed socks or sockpuppet investigations casepage - as you can see, there is no any change after May 8.

So, talking about recent edits, I've made changes on article Cyrus Cylinder along with explanation on talk page; administrator Dougweller saw it even before I posted new message on his talk page, so on Cyrus Cylinder talk page he advised me about few things and I said "You're the boss", and I've followed his corrections.

I understand that you have hostile policy toward vandals on Misplaced Pages, but in this case you're wrong because as I prove it upper - I've followed your advices, and everything I've done was under supervision of Misplaced Pages administrator. If it's possible, it would be kind from you to remove IP block, and if you have further questions or demands feel free to post it here. I'll also notice User:Athenean about this whole issue. Cheers! --161.53.35.105 (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)(Orijentolog)

I don't agree with the large changes made a few days ago or today. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I hear ya.

Sorry. I'll get better. Thanks for your input. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Biography page

                                          Hi George,
  i coincidentally have chosen you, from the list of about 1800 wikipedia's administrators, to ask you if you want to see my biography page that i created it. To move any thing in Misplaced Pages i must have administrator's help or send it by my self but unprotected there is alwais chanses for vandalism.
  So, my name is Igor Manev from city of Skopje, Republic of Macedonia. If you see on map my country is near Greece in Europe.
  I am journalist who finished medical school.During my studies i have worked in the field of journalism, in tv medias and news pappers.
  My intention, latter, is to publish it in the article: Skopje/culture/people from Skopje/list of people from Skopje/movie, television figures, models and journalists.

George, are you willing to send you my biography ?


Igor Manev - Manka

Igor Manev - Manka 15:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor manev (talk • contribs)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies 19:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Communicat, again

Hi George, Communicat has made yet more rude comments (, ) and inserted material into the World War II article claiming that all of Korea came under a US military government after the war (diff: ), despite there being a consensus at Talk:World War II#aftermath against this (with myself and other editors providing appropriate sources that demonstrated that North Korea was under Soviet occupation until 1948). Given his continued disruptive conduct, despite multiple warnings (I note that they also misrepresented the ArmCom case they initiated here), I think that an indef block may now be in order. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be involved in a content dispute. This is not the place to solve it. In fact, you coming here and trying to win a content dispute by blocking others is unwelcome.
As to the question of Korea: there is a strong argument for the view that U.S. rule in South Korea was occupation, and even worse, continuation of the Japanese occupation, while communist North Korea was not under Soviet occupation. There is some additional content in the version Communicat inserted compared to the version proposed by Paul Siebert. Now that you have replaced Communicat's version by Siebert you should take Communicat's text to the talk page for discussion. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Being in a content dispute doesn't mean he shouldn't ask for help if someone violates the personal attack policy, Petri. We ask that people come get an admin...
Regarding the content dispute, however, I would appreciate it if the effect of Communicat ending up blocked for a couple of days was not used as leverage in the content dispute. Perhaps both sides not editing that section until Communicat returns? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
With all respect George and Petri, this isn't a content dispute: it's a long running disruptive editor deliberately paying no attention to other editors' views to push his own views, regardless of sources and regardless of repeated requests that he engage in working towards consensus text. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

intelligence history

Is Journal of Intelligence History a reputable journal? It has an interesting review of one of Stan Winer's books: .

67.119.14.196 (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, do I know you?

Nice job turning down the heat, there.

You are not supposed to threaten established users with blocks for no good reason. Final warning. I like that. I guess I missed all the warnings leading up to the final warning.

You are given the power to block users so that we can get rid of vandals and suchlike. It was not so you, personally, can make threats against people who personally irritate you or to cut off content discussions that are not going the way you, personally, might not like.

I have been editing Misplaced Pages for many years now and have many thousands of edits. I have never been threatened in this manner and I don't like it. This is my hobby and you threatening to take that away from me for absolutely no good reason is chilling to say the least.

This is a very serious threat and goes way, way beyond any reasonable reaction to anything seen on any of the threads you refer to. Even the threat is a very serious abuse of your admin rights. I am certainly going to have to think this one over.

I see that your user page includes the notation "Trying hard not to let any power go to my head."

I suggest you try a bit harder. Herostratus (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Herostratus, User:HandThatFeeds gave you good advice at ANI. Don't freak out, just take a break for a while and/or find some other topic area to edit. Sticking around areas that get you into stress is masochistic. 67.119.14.180 (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO!

I know. Can you believe my nerve? Honestly, it's almost midnight where I live, I go to reblock some doggoned vandal...and I see that PMDrive1061 has successfully blocked PMDrive1061. Being the of the type too embarassed to ask for help (or directions), I took it upon myself to unblock myself while a noodle boils merrily on the stove. Hey, at least it's nice to know that at least one admin would have given me a hand! Not so sure of others, tho.  :) Thanks for the laugh, George. I'm still smiling. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Shshshsh used a roll back actually edited his own former edit Off2riorob -

PPls rotect Cinema of Andhra from edit and vandalism suspected vandalism by Shshshsh - In accordance with agreement

Protect Cinema of Andhra from edit and vandalism

suspected vandalism by Shshshsh - In accordance with agreement Shshshsh used a roll back actually edited his own former edit Off2riorob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 6poundhammer (talk • contribs) 04:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit filter

Hello, I have modified the filter that was disallowing your edit, and hopefully you should be able to make that edit now. There was a minor bug. Evil saltine (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Prompt response. Have a good night. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem! Evil saltine (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:75.105.241.135

Mea culpa. I didn't realize that impersonating other editors was blockable like that. Where should I report something like that next time? Ishdarian|lol 09:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong. If you want to report it, you can report it to the main administrators' noticeboard for incidents, WP:ANI.
Have a good night! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok! Thanks! Ishdarian|lol 09:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

I appreciate the feedback you gave on my comments on the AE page. You didn't see any problems with my comments but, in general, if you do see something that you think is not ok., giving a feedback with a precise quote and explanation why this is wrong, would be welcomed by me.

The problem with this whole "advocacy" thing is that it is rather vague. Sometimes people will have some vague perception that "I'm at it again" and mention that. But then, without pointing to specific problematic edits, there is little that I can change about this. Of course, I could decide not to get involved in issues relating to Brews at all, but I would oppose that. The reason I have been involved with him has to do with the way some technical articles should (or can) be editited and I should be able to have my say here. This is not about me always agreeing with Brews about specific edits or in specific disputes (I strongly disagreed with Brews on the Speed of Light page that was the subject of the original ArbCom case).

Basically, the core of the issue as far as editing Misplaced Pages is concerned, is where one should the draw the line in WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. This is obviously a judgement call that editors on different pages have different opinions on. While Brews and I share the same rather liberal view on this, the articles I've mostly been involved in (e.g. thermodynamics and statistical physics), allowed me to edit without much disputes. Brews, on the other hand, with a similar editing philosophy, has faced much more opposition on other physics pages (e.g. classical mechanics related pages). I have been involved on these pages too, but less frequently.

My observation there is that some other editors have an extreme opposite view on WP:NOTTEXTBOOK where even simple examples are not allowed (sometimes even regarded as OR). And Brews also gets quite easily drawn into escalating conflicts when facing opposition. The reason why the physics topic ban has been re-imposed was precisely because of such a dispute on one of the classical mechanics pages (Brews was appealing an article ban on speed of light, but one Arbitrator noted that there was a new dispute with Brews on another physics page, leading to Brews getting topic banned).


So, in conclusion, the whole issue with me being involved with Brews is not motivated by some unconditional support for him. Rather, there are real issues regarding editing Misplaced Pages here that are perhaps a bit hidden from view. And in such disputes, I always tell Brews to take into account opposition against his edits and try to make modifications to get the necessary consensus. Count Iblis (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)