Misplaced Pages

User talk:Georgewilliamherbert

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) at 14:58, 24 October 2010 (→Croatian language). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:58, 24 October 2010 by Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) (→Croatian language)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

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

Re Abd

Does your Topic Ban of Abd permit him to raise issues related to Cold Fusion at noticboards, such as WP:RSN? How about on his talk page? Thanks for any clarification. Hipocrite (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ditto this. Raul654 (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Hipocrite and Raul, these could be very useful comments/questions. Since GWH seems to be absent for the moment, I'll present my interpretation. Yes, it prevents noticeboard comments related to Cold fusion, generally (and specifically RSN), though he wasn't explicit on that, I'm taking it that way. I'm also taking it that I can't edit Stanley Pons. But BLP issues do trump about every rule. I first asked GWH here for permission or other guidance. He hasn't responded, so, since this is a very clear BLP issue, I posted a brief comment on the BLP noticeboard, asking for neutral eyes to look at it. Got a problem with that? I'm sure that ArbComm will find this quite interesting. Or they won't, telling me the real truth about the Misplaced Pages situation. I need to know.
As to my Talk page, unless he makes it clear that I cannot discuss the issues anywhere, I'm explicitly assuming that I'm allowed to discuss this there. If you can get another neutral admin to come up with a discretionary sanction that prohibits it, there you go. Nobody is obligated to read my Talk page. It is all likely to end up before ArbComm, which will determine my editing future as well as, possibly, that of a number of other involved persons. Or not. I have no crystal ball. --Abd (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I am up and reviewing. I have work to do but will respond later this afternoon. I just see the one BLPN post, and I agree that you've identified a legitimate BLP question if not issue to be resolved/fixed, and whatever happens in larger response I'm not going to take any action over that one posting. Please refrain from anything else until I've had a chance to respond properly later this afternoon, though. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, GWH. I assure you, I have no intention of repeating that. Unless, maybe, I find something worse! I wasn't looking to find something, I was writing about the history of this stuff on netknowledge.org, and was making a list of cold fusion related articles, and thus a list of articles on figures in the field, so I looked at it.... I did my duty by, first, asking you, and then, when there wasn't reasonably rapid response, by the noticeboard post, and I tried to keep it pretty brief. I appreciate you looking at this and recognizing the BLP problem, it's really encouraging.
The others above did raise an important issue. I'd mentioned before that I interpreted that I was allowed to discuss cold fusion on my Talk page, and presumably on the talk pages of consenting editors. You did not negate that, but .... the others raised that issue, so, please do be specific, so that neither they nor I waste more time worrying about this. --Abd (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I still owe you a real answer, but I just got done at work (ugh) and am going to go home and log in from there after I get some downtime. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
No problem, GWH, no rush. News: lenr-canr.org was delisted at meta, as a result of that request. If communicating with me becomes a burden, let me know, and I'll suggest an alternative that would require less attention from you. As long as we are working together, this need not escalate, and I'm hopeful. From what has come down, you might come to understand the conditions I've faced. Thanks for your patience. --Abd (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Request from Abd re self-reverted edits to articles under ban

I have long been interested in how experts and knowledgeable amateurs who have become banned -- it's common, if their understanding is contrary to that of a majority of editors -- could still make contributions, point out errors, etc., to articles from which they are banned, and hit upon self-reversion as a device well before it was about me. When it was allowed, it worked, and fostered cooperation between banned editors and others, including, I've seen, the very editors who had requested a ban.

I request permission to make self-reverted edits to articles covered by the cold fusion ban you established, accompanied by at most a brief notice/justification for the edit on the Talk page. Any lengthy explanation that might be needed would be placed elsewhere and linked. I was already using self-reversion for any edits where I expected controversy, due to COI. A self-reverted edit is a far more efficient way of proposing changes, especially minor ones, than describing the change on Talk, and the restriction as described addresses the core of the complaints about me, alleged domination of the Talk page with lengthy argument.

I would respect any additional restrictions you place, pending review. Naturally, if this causes problems, you could retract this permission, but self-reversion is simple to verify and places a burden on no editor to review what they don't want to review.

Almost every day, on various articles, I see small corrections, or even easily resolvable major problems, based on what's in reliable source. In the example above, Stanley Pons, I could have commented on the Talk page there, similarly. (As the article was protected, I could not now edit it, but I would use reference on Talk for anything lengthy, and I'd interpret "lengthy" very strictly.)

Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Here's my opinion and interpretation -
The point here is that this is a topic ban. It's not a "you need to be extra careful there", it's an enforceable request that you stay away from the topic, where the community and Arbcom have determined your contributions have a significant chance of becoming problematic.
If you notice a BLP problem or other serious policy problem, pointing it out to people neutrally is a slight topic ban violation, but can be done in a harmless manner. I would like to generally discourage your doing it again, but the one you did earlier was appropriate for the encyclopedia and harmless. Engaging in followup discussions would be a topic ban violation.
Edits to articles - of any type, even self reverted - is a topic ban violation. Again - the point is that we've reviewed and found that your contributions tend to become problematic.
Part of the point here is that it's important that you understand the community position, which I believe is what Arbcom intended in its prior case. I believe that you still disagree with Arbcom and the community positions that your editing was the source of the problems. Your efforts to wiggle around a bit here indicate that you think you can make positive contributions, that perhaps you need to be careful but that you can do so constructively. The topic ban is already past that point. It's pretty much a finding that we think that at the moment, any contribution is likely to be problematic, and that you need to stay away from the topic.
I think that this is a reasonable point for you to ask Arbcom for review on, relative to the current case. But, unless reviewed by them or a community board and overturned, please don't touch the topic area.
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I had a braino with the 'current case' comment, struck. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we are done with this stage. There are some serious problems to be addressed, that will require ArbComm review anyway, so, in a way, I'm relieved that you did not consent to this. Thanks for considering it. I appreciate your comment about the BLP action being appropriate. --Abd (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocking IP ranges

Hi,

This is me:

In the last few days, I tried to fix some minor errors on 2 pages, but I was unable to do so because of your blocking of entire IP range 93.142.x.x and 93.143.x.x. This is insane! I live in city of Split (city) and I never had IP address outside this IP range. So, you blocked some 300,000 people. Well done!

Of course, I have my account and I could log in, but this isn't about me. If I were new user, I could only bark on the moon. Because of your triger-happines.

If you bother to ask CU to check the number of people that use this IP range, he/she would probably tell you that the number of users is quite high. But, you didn't bother to ask, didn't you?

Please, read the basics and try not to do any harm to the protect in the future.

And, You might consider unblocking this IP range.

Excuse me for my language, but I have low tolarance for ignorance.

Thanks.

--Argo Navis (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S.

Don't bother to answer (at least not at my talk page), since I log in once every 6 months. --Argo Navis (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't logging in be less trouble than typing paragraph after paragraph of insults? Argo, sometimes we have no choice but to block large ranges in the case of long-term abuse from dedicated trolls. If you look at the history for just one of these ranges, that's what you see -- that and little else. Note that the ranges are blocked anon-only so logged-in users are not affected, and there are clear instructions on the block page letting innocent users know how to create an account. Sometimes Misplaced Pages has to protect itself against seriously disruptive users. GWH, sorry for butting in. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Nothing to be sorry about, Antandrus.
Argo - There is an extremely persistent extremely disruptive banned editor who has claimed they will reform and stop it repeatedly and who keeps coming back and disrupting Misplaced Pages. The IP range blocks are the only way to keep them from disrupting large swaths of articles.
We don't block that many IP addresses lightly, and I'm fully aware of how much of Croatia is affected. That is highly unfortunate. But, you and anyone else can continue to edit with accounts that you have, if you just log in.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Banned user "Leon E Panetta" is back.

Banned user Leon E Panetta is back under alias Leon pan and once more he reverted the Edgar Valdez Villarreal‎ article to his OR version. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi there, I have sent an apology to user (NawlinWiki) about blanking NawlinWiki's talk page and replacing it with my message re: not to delete the future radio station article. I did that because she kept putting the Article for Deletion request and was disappointed because I had just created it. What I did to NawlinWiki, this will never ever happen again and I promise!!! Thank you and take care. Webfan29 06:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC).

Ok. Thanks for that.
As I said, you can argue to keep the article at its AFD page. Please keep calm when you discuss it there, your discussion is more persuasive when you are calm about it.
Good luck editing going forwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Update: I had e-mailed the station for the information on the new radio station, 88.7 FM Campbell River, British Columbia and the new call sign will be CHVI-FM and they told me that they will be signing on in December 2010. The station also has a website for the new radio station. I had moved 88.7 Campbell River, BC to their new callsign CHVI-FM without deleting the AFD request just to avoid getting blocked. How do I access the AFD page to discuss? I started editing and creating articles on Misplaced Pages in 1997, more than three years ago and I have never experienced an article deletion for an article on a new radio station I had just created...new changes/rules? There's an editor named Bearcat who took care of a lot of radio station articles mostly in Canada and hasn't done so in awhile. He used to help me out a lot on them. Thanks for your message. Take care. Webfan29 05:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC).

Uncivil editor

What to do with this uncivil editor user:Russian.science? For days he has been adding that Andre Geim is of Jewish family although he hasn't come up with any valid source for it. When I told him/her to stop adding it without providing a source he instead did this . Not only he is uncivil but he also blanked the sources I gave for him being of German family. He/she thinks I don't know Russian culture but that surely is wrong. I surely know that it's a very popular habit in Russia to point out people as being Jewish on the only grounds of them having a non-Russian name (for example Russian nationalists say that president Medvedev is of Jewish ancestry only because one of his ancestors had the name Veniamin - and all this to discredit). But there surely are many other nationalities in Russia, and not only Russian and Jewish as this editor seem to think. Närking (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

He/she continues against another editor here . Närking (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Another glorious victory for you . Could you put the light out when you leave the project. Thank you.  Giacomo  08:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

recent block

I suggest revoking talkpage-rights, he's spewing his junk. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Please help

I'm currently being harassed on my talk page by a AlexanderLiptak, and apparently you're fimiliar with him, as I see you have dealt with him ind the past, and am hoping you could please deal with him again, giving him a warning or whatever else you deem fit. As you can see, he has called me a thief, insulted me, and refuses to leave me alone despite my making it clear I did not wish to be contacted by him any longer. I have left all evidence on my talk page for your review. Thanks for any assistance. Fry1989 (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me

Why you are trying to beat a dead horse is beyond me, that conversation ended already. Also, I never stated that, so do not put words into my mouth. XANDERLIPTAK 06:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not, as you can see directly above your comment. He thinks you are, or were, still at it.
Read what you wrote on his page yourself. But please don't comment there again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
He makes accusations agaisnt my character and then practically says if I respond to his accusations I am harassing him. If he wanted the conversation to end earlier, all he had to do was 1.) stop accusing me of things, which I have a right to respond to, and 2.) stop asking me questions, which the appropriate thing was to answer when asked. The conversation was over before he even contacted you, and if you took the time to read his talk page, you would have seen that he was not being harassed and that the conversation was already over. Apparently you did not do that, and instead thought it better to merely come to my page and bully me around for without taking a look at the situation. XANDERLIPTAK 12:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I've made no insults upon his character. When you are blocked because of previous behaiviour, that speaks for itself. And yes, you did call me a thief, several times, which is factually incorrect. When I ask someone 3 times to leave me alone, I expect that to be respected. That's why I reported you, and clearly you wouldn't stop until I did. I have absolutely nothing else to say about this matter, except that I will not tolerate someone pestering me. Fry1989 (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • As a matter of interest... I call Xanderliptak's comments lies (demonstrably and objectively accurate), I get blocked. Xanderliptak calls Fry a thief (not accurate), he doesn't get blocked. Fascinating. → ROUX ₪ 21:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I was attracted by the section title, and the fact that it's on George's page :>) (Is my life that empty?) I just want to say Xanderliptak is headed for a block. In fact I am surprised he is not blocked already. Oh, but not for patient Admins.... ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I spent most of what were supposed to be my asleep hours last night reviewing, analyzing, and responding to newly released technical evidence on the apparent May 12, 2010 North Korean nuclear weapons test. I really have better things to be doing today than dealing with this. Honest. Plus, I'm sleep deprived, and thus grumpy.

Xanderliptak did, in fact, stop here when asked, other than complaining once on my talk page. That weighs heavily in the lack of further intervention.

As to whether his earlier behavior was OK or not, the answer is no. Blockable? Possibly. Blockable by me, while I was analyzing Xenon isotope decays and fairly unhappy about that? No.

Xanderliptak is arguably behaving in a manner which is likely to get him blocked for a long period of time in the near future. That I did not stomp up and down on him last night doesn't change that.

X, if you care about participating in Misplaced Pages, please calm down and stop poking people. You're over the line on acceptable behavior. There's considerable range between "over the line" and "blocked and gone from the project". You're somehwere in that range. It would help you, and everyone around you, if you find a course back to behavior that isn't over the line, that people can deal with and not find offensive or abusive and file complaints over.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop editing in a disruptive manner in these articles?

I was accused of being disruptive regarding judaism and bus stops, but I fail to see the disruption caused at Rachel's Tomb or the illegal settlements on the GH. But thanks for your opinion. Chesdovi (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)



The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals

Articles

A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles

Members

Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)

Editorial

In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Misplaced Pages

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:24, 21 October 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)

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)

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)