User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archive2006-2

Archive for User talk:Georgewilliamherbert for the second half of 2006.

More bizarre stuff
More bizarre contributions from Wiarthurhu/matador300: almost verbatim entries on the F-111] and [[Robert Mcnamara articles: and . The section in question remains as the first 2 paragraphs of General_Dynamics_F-111. His credential claims are...bizarre to say the least. They're on his user page and his talk page as a response to my questions about glaring errors he's posted.

The poster indeed published 4 letters to the editor in the 1970's in Aviation week (pulled them off Proquest or Lexis-Nexis), which are actually much better than his contributions here. I won't post details as wiki frowns on posting personal info, but he has put his name in a few edit comments. --Mmx1 01:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Empire of Atlantium
Moved back. Why the hell aren't you a sysop? Just zis Guy you know? 08:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Minun block
has been blocked because of block evasion using his sockpuppets. He was originally blocked for (guess what) incivility towards me. He also had other things building up, including plageurism and removal of deletion tags. Cheers, H ig hway Batman! 20:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason I gave Minun a warning was because he blanked my message about why he was blocked, and changed his time stamp to try and hide the evidence. H ig hway Batman! 20:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Impostor...
Hi George.

Thought you might like to know that someone registered as (note one l) and started pissing around; he's been blocked indefinitely for the username (being a prat didn't help), but since you were the "impostee", it seemed worth letting you know... Shimgray | talk | 20:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Haha I was just about to write to you, and got the 'mew messages'. Yes, I've figured out he's an imposter. Very interesting. Good luck not being ...'imposted'? again! ThuranX 02:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * SO I think he's back. If you look at yours and my userpage histories, we find the same IP vandalising us both, and no one else. I suspect that he's back. How do we handle this sort of dedicated harrassment?ThuranX 04:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * George, it would appear that yet again he's returned. Is there a way to block this guy more permanently? ThuranX 00:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Conch Republic
It looks like Jonathunder may be trying to vandalize this article. He blind reverted all of my edits without any comment again, and deleted both our requests not to do so from his talk page. I've left him another warning, but do you mind keeping an eye on the article and restoring if he tries to screw it up again? --Centauri 22:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Need your help on F-14
Hello. I'm CQJ, and I'm attempting to figure out what the deal with the F-14 article is in regards to the Mediation Cabal request. I've read the talk page several times yet can't make heads or tails of what the exact content issue is, but from reading the talk pages and the article, you might be able to help me make some sense of it. If you could swing by my talk page and shed some light on the situation, I'd appreciate it. CQJ 08:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Lindsay
Thanks for asking for a rational from the nominator - but since the account looks like a sockpuppet created just for AfDs I am doubting you will get a reasonable rational -- Trödel 20:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Venture the Void afd
done, thanks. NawlinWiki 21:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, how do you know my reason for H in the pusher is wrong?
First of all, the statement and mechanism it preceeds is unreferenced. How do you know IT isn't original research? Second, my statement about hydrogen providing max rocket effect per given temp is NOT wrong, and can be massively backed up by citation (it is after all standard physics). So how do you know it's wrong when applied inside a nuke? Explain your reasoning, please. WP:NOR does not supercede WP:SENSE if the logic if flawless. IF the externally heated rocket mechanism described holds, THEN hydrogen is the best fuel/substance to carry it out. Again, I'm interested in your reasoning why not. S B Harris 06:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nuclear Weapons FAQ Sect 4.4.4 Implosion Systems
 * The problems with your hypothesis are:
 * There's no way to fit enough hydrogen into the radiation case to drive an implosion (density of LH2 0.07, density of HEU about 19)
 * Hydrogen is (nearly) transparent to the X-ray flux inside the radiation case
 * At radiation case pressures and temperatures, the photon gas will cause energetic ablation of the radiation case walls and of the pusher/tamper assembly. The only question is, is that ablation the secondary drive mechanism, or is something else.  Basic math analysis shows that even solid high density plastics (both hydrogen and carbon, and the carbon absorbs more X-rays) in the radiation channel won't generate enough plasma pressure to effectively implode the secondary, and that the pusher/tamper will still heat right on up since most of the X-ray flux go right through the plastic into the pusher/tamper.
 * See Teller-Ulam design; read that whole article, and the Nuclear Weapons FAQ, and work through a few sample designs using the info there and the usual advanced college physics textbooks.... Georgewilliamherbert 07:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. To which I say well, the density of H in plastic or hydrocarbon is 50% more than LH2, and also nothing prevents salting any plastic with X-ray absorbant material for x-ray opacity and thermalization. It doesn't take much high-Z material, % or weight wise, to do that (as in medical aps). And perhaps it's not necessary if the inner tamper first provides the thermalization to the photon gas. Perhaps we're arguing over the same mechanism, whether it's inside out or outside in. Basicially my question is: if some kind of rocket effect, or pressure enhancing effect due to low Z isn't doing anything, then what's all that hydrogen doing in there in the first place? Whether the high Z material's all in the tamper lining, or whether it salts the pusher, it's the same process as a helium cannon. Some conventional explosive to provide the thermal energy, then a low Z gas for the actual velocity. All gases have the same energy and momentum flux PER VOLUME or PER MOLECULE at the same pressure. But the same mass of low Z gas at the same temp gives you vastly more pressure (and thus momentum transfer). P = nRT/V where T and V are fixed, and all you get to change in your space is n, the number of moles per amount of vaporized stuff. I would think you might well get more n from a channel of plastic than a thin layer of U vaporizing from the inner tamper. S B Harris 14:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Again... the pressure, calculated from actual sample weapons (W-80 and Ivy Mike), is 10x higher from tamper ablation than from channel liner "foam pressure". See Teller-Ulam design and the FAQ.  These are not touchy-feely guesses, the numbers have been worked out, both from first principles and from Inertial Confinement Fusion physics work which is extremely similar to aspects of secondary design.
 * The hydrogen is there to retard early gas expansion from the hohlraum walls and pusher, which might prematurely close off the radiation channel while the photon gas was still coming to equilibrium. That, there's enough pressure to do.  But once you reach rough equilibrium inside the holhraum, then the walls and pusher are going to begin actively ablating and rocketing (out for the outer walls, in for the pusher/tamper).
 * You get more "propulsion" from ablating high-Z material because there is so much more mass of material to rocket off as exhaust. That's the density differential I was talking about earlier.  The rocket equation is a time integration of instantaneous momentum balance, not a pure pressure effect, and momentum goes with the mass..  Georgewilliamherbert 23:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Chevaline
Would you have a look at the Chevaline page for me? After a carefully crafted revision being especially careful to avoid POV because of anticipated dissent it has attracted the attentions a a determined vandal. In the context of UK government perceptions of a Soviet threat, real or imagined, I illustrated it with a reference to [Nikita Krushchev]]'s threats to obliterate London and Paris during the Suez Crisis. For the British, this event was as important to them as Pearl Harbor was to the US, and seemed an entirely suitable way to illustrate the UK government's determination to acquire nuclear weapons. This has been repeatedly vandalised. I then backed up the external reference with a reference to those two Wiki pages, but I see that this citation is also rubbished. The appears no rational basis for his conduct, and some later edits have an unpleasant threatening flavour that I'm determined not to back down from in the face of this bully. Its becoming clear where this guy is coming from. In the 1980's when I was politically active and an elected officer of CND there were lots similar people around in CND as an organised group. Other members referred to them as the 'Friends of Leonid Breshnev' and as an executive officer I found them a downright nuisance. They were an embarrassment, but couldn't be expelled while the heirarchy took a lenient view of them. But had the 'Friends of Ronald Reagan' sought membership they would be firmly shown the door. The world has moved on, but some never change, and this one seems determined to have his minority POV prevail by bullying others into submission. Well it ain't gonna happen buddy. Not while I'm compos mentis.

Because I suspected that a revision of Chevaline would be contentious I was espec careful to avoid POV, esp since the debate about replacing Trident is hotting up here. I also asked Fastfission and one other at Talk:United_States_Naval_reactor to review it and offer any criticisms; believing that a non-UK perspective would help defect any assertions of a partisan POV. I also asked a colleague, a non-wiki academic nuclear historian, Richard Moore, to review it to ID any probs from UK eyes. I drew heavily on his published work for the article anyway. I expect a result shortly.

I've made a determined effort to cool things down by citing additional source material, but appeasement hasn't worked, and I feel that I've now done all I can, and seek an intervention from an administrator.

I regret having to burden you with this. I'd much rather not have to deal with it myself either. Regards. Brian.Burnell 20:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi
 * After sleeping on this I've left a message for Max rspct on my talk page (so that its grouped with others). Basically it offers an olive branch and a compromise. But I won't be holding my breath. You might like to look at it.
 * Also, I believe that one way to help cool this down might be to temporarily remove the offending passage in-toto until a replacement text can be agreed, with an added insert to state why it is temporarily absent. It might be better if some other editor removed the passage though. I'd support that. But removing it myself would be a step too far for me given the abuse I've taken.
 * Passage starts << The origins of that requirement ....... .......ends with .....commonality with the US Navy. >> Brian.Burnell 08:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC on Wiarthurhu
I have filed a Request for Comment on Wiarthurhu Requests_for_comment/Wiarthurhu. as the next step to resolving the issues on the F-14 Tomcat page. Your input is requested. --Mmx1 05:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Why are you siding with Mmx1? He even admitted his 2 main points were wrong. I'm getting set up for a firing squad for standing up for the correct facts.--matador300 23:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Implosion diagrams
Thought you might like to know that I finally went back and re-jiggered those implosion diagrams I was working on. I realized I was way off of the geometry of the lenses so I re-did those from scratch. The entire series is at Commons if you want to check it out, give suggestions, etc. My hope is to eventually use them to illustrate step-by-step in an article specifically about the implosion design. --Fastfission 15:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Block of 203.87.64.214
According to the block log, they are not blocked. (The 24 hour block lifts any previous indefinite block.) Do I need to unblock them again? Are they perhaps range-blocked? The original reason for blocking them was probably vandalism which is no longer visible in their edit history, since both Curps and me blocked this IP address simultaneously. It was most likely a libelous edit summary (removed from the history) through a proxy-hopper, but that's just a guess: I remember we were getting a lot of those vandals a few months ago. Let me know if I need to do anything more. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I unblocked him again just to be sure. There is a bug whereby indefinitely blocked users sometimes remain blocked even though the block may seem to be lifted for one reason or another.  Antandrus  (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006
The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks
You're very welcome. :) G .H  e  21:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Block
No, I don't think anything more needs to be done for the person I blocked. He is well aware of his edits and the purpose of them and no doubt is aware that his actions are disruptive. He has now been blocked four times for either disruption, harassment or for other reasons.--MONGO 18:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion and the block was reviewed by two other admins and no one has unblocked him. If you aren't aware of the activities of trolls then stop assuming bad faith on my part and get yourself busy writing an encyclopedia. If you examine his talk page and the editing history thoroughly, he routinely removes comments to him by admins without archiving them. I have 20,000 eeits here and I know what I am doing and I am most definitely not in some kind of content dispute with this person...it is about his trolling. That you, once again, fail to understand the difference between someone who is doing the right thing in protecting Wikipedia and it's editors and one whose primary focus is trolling, harassment, POV pushing or anything along those lines, then I don't know what more I can say on the matter. I think you need to concentrate on you. I'm not going to spend time posting the obvious to him since his primary objective is to troll and waste people's time...so now please stop wasting my time with this crap.--MONGO 03:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * wow. SchmuckyTheCat 05:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for intruding, but I'd just like to say that if you as an admin (I presume) have any questions regarding my good faith, feel free to contact me or look at my contribs. I've been trying my hardest lately to open up lines of communication between myself and anyone who might have gotten the impression by another editor that I'm trolling in the hopes that I can demonstrate my good faith and set some minds at ease.  Thank you for your assistance. Karwynn (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Question
...unless I'm totally missing it, is there a way for a non-admin user to just delete pages complete off of their user subpages? I wanted to get rid of these three (no need for them, really):


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rootology/dev
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rootology/notes
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rootology/HipocriteRFCreply

Whats the right/best way? - rootology (T) 20:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you, I found db-owner it. - rootology (T) 20:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

extremely heated RfC, possible personal attacks by subject
Would you mind taking a look at this RfC? The talk page is getting absurdly heated, with the subject of the RfC and an admin apparently trying to discredit what appears to be a valid Outside View by painting the poster--in the words of the subject of the RfC--as "gutter trash". The RFC subject is also throwing wild accusations of sockpuppetry at everyone in support of the RfC to discredit them, I suppose. rootology (T) 20:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikistalkery
I will take your advice at face value after you review the actions of the requestor with specific attention paid to Harassment. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And let's also be clear - it is an RFC about me, being populated by multiply blocked trolls and politics edit warriors in wholy unrelated disputes with me. Of all the people who are supposed to leave it alone, I am perhaps the last one. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * However, if you fail to warn the requestor for this, I will ignore you forever. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I had already modified the two coments to which you refer. I, however, am ignoring your advice untill you deal with the above diff. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I'm ignoring your advice untill you take whatever action you intend to take on the linked diff. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'll see you on Monday. PS - it is your obligation to maintain the integrity of the articles hit by the Eyre clan - User:History21(disputed), User:Lilyana and User:Joan53, along with User:70.104.231.84, User:70.35.97.241 and User:208.22.177.10(disputed). Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

History21 is a sock
See this, this, and this. rootology (T) 00:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Breaca2
I blocked the user for inserting unsourced defamatory material which the article subject stated was patently libelous in an OTRS e-mail. If you wish to unblock, first be sure it's not a sock, per the other admin, and secondly, ensure that you make clear to the user that they *must* absolutely follow our policy on the biographies of living persons. FCYTravis 18:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:User:Breaca2
See this. Sasquatch t|c 20:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but under the circumstances, you have to be a bit suspicious... and why would he abandon his first account so quickly? Please note that the first account is still unblocked. Sasquatch t|c 22:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

GHe's RfA


Re: Nuclear weapons cleanup run
''Thanks for going through these; the articles have suffered a little from too much of the same people looking at them too long. Georgewilliamherbert 02:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)''


 * No problem. When I have some more time on my hands I will go through and fix some more. I was thinking that perhaps we could develop an infobox template for use on the numerous warhead pages. --cheese-cube 05:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

A short response
As the AN thread has been archived, I'll make a very, very short response: the fact that a minor was involved was already public knowledge courtesy of the minor herself and others. I revealed nothing new. I consider the matter closed. Mackensen (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, do you realize how hypocritical you are being right now? You keep on talking about how this should have been hushed up etc. while at the same time continuing to talk on and on about it. Frankly I think you're just using this as an excuse to launch some attacks against various administrators; if you actually meant what you said about keeping it hush-hush then you wouldn't be posting inflammatory comments on WP:AN. -- Cyde Weys 18:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It isn't in the nature of administrators to prevent issues whose roots are not within the parameters of the encyclopedia. They can deal with them, fix them, erase them, but nobody can stop something that they didn't see coming. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Despite what was said above (by the others), I do agree with your phrasing. I was looking at the thread on WP:AN and had no idea what was going on. All the mysterious-sounding comments that offered tantalising hints without actually saying what the heck was going on set off all sorts of alarms for me. The words "minors", "police", and "foundation complaints" sounded extremely serious, so I asked if there was anything on-wiki or on the mailing list describing this situation. Thankfully, someone responded to me and pointed me to a couple of pages and now I know. If they weren't so mysterious and, indeed, simply responded with "This is an office matter" (or whatever), I wouldn't have had all these alarm bells set off and I wouldn't have been more curious. I'm not going to assign blame on any one individual, but I just wanted to thank you for voicing, in general, what I was thinking. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Responded on my talk page. Mackensen (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

hey-yo
Hope all is well with you. I thought you might find this graph humorous: Image:US nuclear weapons yield-to-weight comparison.svg. I enjoy playing with data, especially trying to render different types of nuclear data in different ways. It doesn't always have pretty results (it is hard to use very large text sizes with very small graphs, as is required for display on a webpage, and make it all fit in well!) but it is always somewhat informative for me (I hadn't realized how many US weapons were actually pretty close to theoretical maximum efficiency in terms of kt/kg, and was surprised that none of the weapons currently in the stockpile are near that, and that the tactical ones like the W54 have relatively low ratios). Of course if you have any suggestions just send them my way, as usual. --Fastfission 22:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thruthseekers et al
Aloha. Unfortunately, I am not willing to unblock Thruthseekers. Meatpuppets are treated the same as sockpuppets and are not welcome here on Wikipedia, per WP:MEAT. Regards, Iola k ana |T  13:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Unblock Request, Plus...
Forgive me, George, but I'm really a nincompoop when it comes to Wikipedia. I know how to USE it to GET info, and I even was encouraged by the "edit aggressively" suggestion which was in play when I first tried my hand. I'm not sure if it is now, but that was then, this is now.

I'm writing to you because I was genuinely impressed with your even-handed remarks on the User:Yamla/Samanello page (yay, I think I got that internal link right!) and that you were genuinely concerned as to how the Wikipedia administration might be perceived. You said something to the effect that even though the guy being blocked (samanello) was obviously belligerent, that he deserved fair warning and fair explanation first. Something which he hadn't got. Your taking responsibility for fairness and concern over how it influences perception was a rare act. And that's why I'm coming to you because I'm totally clueless as to why I'm blocked!

To my recollection, AND my history page's recollection, I tried editing one section on Guiness Book of World Records to include a link to what the Guiness Book of World Records lists as "The Longest Running Stage Magic Theater Group" - Le Grand David. It has also played at the White House 8 times. Well, even though the founder was THE PROTEGE of Abraham Maslow, Father of Humanistic Psychology, even though he was made an honorary member of the U.K.'s prestigious "Magic Circle" (of which only 6 were admitted, one being Prince Charles) and even though he has won every award possible in the kingdom of Magic some guy named Tregoweth undid it.

(To be completely fair, I don't recall having written precisely about each of those specific things but I did start to make mention of the magic company within that section while trying not to totally hog it or take it too far off the beaten track. But he explained himself clearly I considered that "end of story.  No big deal.")

But then Tregoweth noticed that I had newbishly put my user profile on my user talk page. My profile explained who I was as an internet marketer and linked to a bunch of examples of my sites. He moved them to my user profile page. He even said he removed some of the external links. I'm a 39 yr old adult, not a kid, so I just accepted his word for it. I don't recall anything unkind or belligerent being said.

But now, I just did a Google search for "Sam Freedom" because I'm branding this name and I see my Wiki account is indefinitely blocked. And it says for linkspamming...this is like 8 months later and for what? You are the expert here, can you help me even fathom why 2 people, User:AlisonW and User:Canderous0 would come through 8 months later and block me indefinitely under the accusation of "linkspamming"?!? I know people take WIKI seriously, but do they really take THEMSELVES this seriously? Like a cop that has a quota of tickets to give out, do some people just feel that unless they do stuff like this with barely even the slightest excuse, that they won't be doing their job?

I really just don't get it.

Anyways, I would really appreciate it if you could take a moment to look into this for me. Below is the copy of the letter I left on AliceW's discussion area but it's my feeling by the fact that she's directly involved, that I need someone who is neutral to at least have a look.

I received no explanations...no warnings...no nothings! lol And Sam Freedom is not just a flybynight, I've been on the web for 2-3 years building up this name...  thanks...letter to AliceW below. (Btw, I'll check back here, or you can email me at samfreedom2 AT gmail DOT com thanks again)

BEGIN COPY OF LETTER TO ALICE W

'''I was genuinely shocked when, out of curiousity, I had checked into Wikipedia and found that I was blocked for linkspamming? Forgive me if I don't understand Wiki as much as those who spend a great portion of their time here and who are really passionate about it but maybe I just missed a rule somewhere? Perhaps wrongly, I had assumed it was ok to write about myself with links to my various sites within my user profile.

That's all I can think of where someone who lives and breathes wiki might have found me in violation of linkspamming rules, but honestly, I just didn't know that was unacceptable. Now, when it comes to speeding, or being in possession of stolen goods, ignorance is no excuse, but can you just give me a break here?

I honestly don't even have a pressing need to be unblocked right now, but it's just a matter of principle. If that was the offense, it was an error sincerely made. For the record, though, I HAVE tried to contribute. I once tried to make mention, in the section titled MAGIC, of the world's longest running stage magic theater group (31years) which is in the Guiness book of World records and has played at the US White House on 8 occassions. Wiki says to edit aggressively and I didn't even think that was too aggressive but whoever was hanging out there thought it unimportant...guiness book of world records, and white house on 8 occasions = not important. ok...

Anyways, can you please unblock me and explain to me what the violation was. "Linkspamming" was the charge, but it was not specific. Was it my links to my sites in describing myself? Because this name is about to be branded. It's been around for 3 years and going strong. And I kept it to the user profile.

Thanks, User: Sam Freedom END MSG to ALICEW


 * Sam, I have also replied on your user page. One thing I should make clear: I am not a WP admin, so I can't unblock you.  I am on the English Wikipedia unblock mailing list, where we review people's requests for unblock appeals, so I do get involved in this stuff, but I can only research and request/recommend/advocate based on that research.
 * I don't understand the situation right now, and I have asked AllisonW for more information. Georgewilliamherbert 23:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see detailed response at User_talk:Sam_Freedom --AlisonW 16:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand how someone belligerent and controversial as described in Samanello can be said to be due a warning of some kind so that Wiki admins don't look like an overzealous group of fools in the eyes of some(paraphrased) and here I've been totally friendly in trying to figure out what happened and I still have no idea. I read Alison's response but I also mentioned that when someone who seemed to know what they were doing moved my whole profile from my talk page to my user page, there was no complaint then.  Not only did I not know I had done anything wrong, but to cement matters, Tregoweth's silence was, in essence, a sign that "everything was ok" - why would I have cause to think otherwise?  This is just odd and George, if you were concerned about Wiki admin looking overzealous in Samanello, well, I can guarantee you they will look overzealous in this matter.  Samanello was belligerent and seemed self-righteous or justified and entitled to what he was doing.  I'm just trying to get the simple benefit of the doubt for something I didn't even understand and look what it takes.  Thanks for trying...  PS Whatever happened to this:  []

Jethro B Cornhusk
The issue is being dealt with on unblock-en-l, to which I have sent a lengthy e-mail. Please do not unblock until such time as a consensus is achieved on this. Jayjg (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you thought about becoming an Admin?
George,

Thanks for the excellent work that you do on the Unblocking list.

I notice that you said that you have not been made an administrator.

Have you thought about becoming an admin?

Regards

Capitalistroadster 19:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006
The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Name that warhead, part 3?
Awhile back, if you recall, we were trying to figure out which warhead was shown in a RV vehicle on this LANL page at the top. I think at long last I might have an answer—according to this diagram it looks like it is the elusive W76 in an Mk-4 RV. What do you think? --Fastfission 21:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Copied from your comment here
Please stop turning a legitimate policy question into a personal atack on Cyde. Georgewilliamherbert 01:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions. -- N  scheffey   (T/C) 02:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Workshop
If an item appears on proposed decision but not on workshop you can copy it there and comment. Fred Bauder 20:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Anon block
Yes it was certainly meant to be anon only. As you say, the logs don't make it clear. I have unblocked for now anyway, since a.) one edit was good. b.) it had nearly expired and c.) to allow registered editing regardless. Rich Farmbrough, 11:13 17  September 2006 (GMT).

AfD
It does make sense, if you've read my comment: "Note that when you type something in the search bar, it automatically directs you to an article even if the capitalization may be incorrect. For example, typing in wiKIPedia or wikiPEDIA in the search bar will automatically bring you to the Wikipedia page, regardless if no redirect page already exists". Also, I'm not advocating for article to be kept, I'm advocating for it to be deleted.--TBC TaLk?!? 02:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, instead of redirecting then speedying that redirect, why not simply vote to speedy delete it on the AfD and letting an admin handle it?--TBC TaLk?!? 03:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Gerard Doyle
Doyle has every characteristic of a Tojo sockpuppet. His style is as follows: creates a username with a national flavour (Irish in this case), edits a few articles about Ireland and makes some noncontroversial changes to Parkinson's disease, then goes off the radar. Then - during the project-wide edit war with - he suddenly reverts Paul with an edit summary of rv, indicating that this inoccuously inexperienced editor knows how to revert (almost all Tojo's reverts were with rv as an edit summary). During that revert he also reinserted an external link to a site where Tojo stores his collected opinions on Parkinson's disease (the URL has since been blacklisted). I have previously blocked many users with exactly the same editing behaviour, and Tojo simply unleashed another army of sockpuppets until the ISP was involved.

I see no reason to unblock this account. I am not subscribed to unblock-l and would appreciate a copy of the full message. If you choose to unblock it would be against my advice and I would request you monitor edits from that account on a regular basis. JFW | T@lk  07:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I second JFW's assessment that Gerard Doyle is a sockpuppet of General Tojo due mainly to this edit where a link to viartis.net was inserted into an article while the Spam blacklist was temporarily disabled. --  Netsnipe  ►  07:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked Gerard Doyle per your recent block review. --  Netsnipe  ►  20:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much GeorgeW for failitating my unblocking. It really is good to see an Administrator with a sense of proportion and fairness. --Gerard Doyle 21:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No hard feelings, George, but as you can see from the sad record of the last few days, Gerard Doyle went down in the usual Tojo flames. He does make me very reluctant to do much work on the PD article. Long pointless dialogues - monologues - on near irrelevancies like hydrocephalus have a smell of pure ego-feeding. --Dan 23:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Conch madness, take 2
Further to your earlier comments on the Conch Republic, I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind revisiting the discussion. We are now in a situation where a group of editors are actually trying to steamroll into the article a statement to the effect that the Conch Republic doesn't actually exist because residents of the Florida Keys pay US taxes! This half-baked notion is directly at odds with every available reference source on the subject, including multiple references linked within the article itself, however the editors in question are simply ignoring this. A rational outside opinion would be highly valued at this point. --Centauri 04:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Hey George, thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really respect the hard work you do on the unblock list and so I really appreciated and valued your contribution to my RfA. Thankyou George. :) Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

R.A.A. Argument and related issues
Since this is getting somewhat off-topic I was hoping we could discuss this either at my talk page or yours. I believe that Jim's argument is essentially that most of the keep arguments brought up in the AfD would work just as well as keep arguments for the teachers and principals. Jim agrees with you that that the keeping of articles about the teachers would be absurd. The point of the RAA then is to question the validity of the earlier premises since they can also be used to get an absurd conclusion. JoshuaZ 03:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006
The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Evil-ted™ complains about his username block
Hi. The owner of the Evil Ted (tm) account complained to unblock-en-l about the username block on their account. I would like to initiate a query as to why you felt the username was inappropriate or inflammatory; it doesn't seem obviously either to me on first inspection. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 20:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The username Evil-ted™ contains a special character, the trademark symbol, which has to be entered as ALT+0153, making the username difficult to enter correctly. WP:USERNAME recommends using Latin-based alphanumeric characters in order to render correctly in browsers. It can be changed to Evil-ted (tm) easily enough, as in your example above.  This will render correctly in all browsers that are loaded with Latin-based character sets and requires no additional keystrokes in order to be typed out, as opposed to the existing name. (aeropa gitica)  20:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I passed the info along to him. Are you willing to unblock him during the name change? Georgewilliamherbert 22:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I will unblock the account pending the change of username following the process given in Changing username. Regards, <font style="color:#fff;background:#808;">(aeropa <font style="color:#808;background:#fff;">gitica) 22:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Conch Republic
Is it just me, or is this place going completely batty? Thanks for your considered comments concerning the attempted vandalism of the above. I'm currently schlepping my way around Thailand on holidays, and having to log on each night to address these issues is not something I really want to have to do, if I can avoid it. --Gene_poole 09:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * He's at it again and I can't revert the current vandalism attack any more. If you can keep an eye on it I'd appreciate it. --Gene_poole 12:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Eclipse 500 vs. V-Jet II
Thanks for your fact check note. I've reworded the sentence, and then in the section that deals with the detailed evolution, I've added a reference to a press release from Eclipse that discusses the details of how the elements of the V-Jet II were redesigned for use on the Eclipse 500. Akradecki 15:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Another trademarked username
Since you were involved in the issue above with the username that includes the TM symbol, I thought you'd be interested in taking care of this one, User:Kelly™. Though the issue didn't come up in your discussion above, one of the things that came up in Kelly's situation (see his talk page) is the fact that usernames are not supposed to be trademarked names, and adding a "TM" legally means the user is claiming trademark. Akradecki 15:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

no hard feelings... (school notability)
Hi George,

You put a lot of thought into your school proposals. Many of them had a lot of merit, and deserved to be heard. No hard feelings, I hope... in fact, I like your stuff better than what we have now. Later --Ling.Nut 00:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Tensile strength
Most materials don't have a clear yield point. I have yet to see one in all the tension testing I have done. According to my textbook yield is defined as 0.2% -The preceding post was made by 206.207.158.219
 * I agree with 206.207.158.219; in fact no material has a clear yield point unless it is also a rupture point.--Yannick 03:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I researched further and maintain what I said. I commented further on Talk:Tensile strength.--Yannick 03:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Also check out this test data at the bottom of the page that shows a 0.2% yield strength of A36 in the bathtub region of the curve, not at any "clearly defined" point.--Yannick 03:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Material standards
Hold up, George. Before you go too crazy with the lists of metal standards, can we talk about it? I get the impression you don't have much practical experience with these standards.--Yannick 03:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have an aerospace engineering degree from MIT, aerospace and nuclear experience, and a professional engineering license. I've designed structures in steel, aluminum alloy, copper alloy, and many other materials for spacecraft and nuclear reactors. A quick counterexample I can give you is ASTM B221, which I've often specified for aluminium alloy bar. Look up volume 2.02 of the ASTM specs for the full list. These are not SAE standards.

You've also created a few articles such as A500 steel presenting this standard as if it primarily defines a composition, whereas it primarily defines the HSS shape. In Structural steel, you presented the list of ASTM standards as a list of "standard commonly used structural steels," whereas they're more accurately "commonly used steel standards" since most of them don't really define a particular steel.

I did not find the stylized stress-strain curve you referred to.--Yannick 04:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I need to go to bed, so we'll continue this discussion another day. But in the meantime, I would ask that you reconsider how we present these standards. We want to write overview articles for a general audience, not just catalog the commercial options.--Yannick 05:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I took another look at ASTM A500, and it's much more specific about composition than I expected, and much less specific about shape. So you are technically correct; calling it a "type of steel" is accurate. However, it has the potential to mislead rookie engineers. In the encyclopedic articles we are building, I think it would be better to refer to standards simply as standards, and define types of steel by metallurgy. The standards change a great deal over time and from one country to the next; the metallurgy is more universal.--Yannick 22:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Conch Republic vandalism
It looks like the 3 stooges are up to their old game of co-ordinated vandalism of this article again. Can you take a look at it when you get a chance. I can't make any more reversions. --Centauri 21:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I see that FairHair is acusing you of being my sockpuppet. Do you think we ought to request a checkuser on this idiot? I'm getting a bit sick of his attitude. --Centauri 01:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't call him an idiot, it just exacerbates the situation. Even if it's over here on my talk page, he can read it, and it's likely that Lar and others eventually will.  Civility matters, everywhere...
 * Anyways, I think they're leaving the sock claim about me alone now. I've stated that I abandoned the sock worry I had about User:Averette and User:FairHair due to them having developed more clearly different other-article-space editing patterns.  If something suspicious comes up here again we can revisit that, but I think now that the initial belief was a false alarm.  Georgewilliamherbert 22:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently I'm also your sockpuppet. I think it's extremely suspicious that Averette and FairHair have used exactly the same terms, phrases and confused prose on a number of occasions. In particular, comments made by the former on the latest Empire of Atlantium afd, recently popped up on my talk page posted by the latter. --Gene_poole 00:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have some diffs with the similar language? Georgewilliamherbert 00:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to walk out the door, and won't be back until Tuesday. I'll work up the list for you then. --Gene_poole 01:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Username
Thanks for your input. I believe your reasoning, but in the end, wasn't convinced that the user's intent was not to be disruptive. I consulted other admins before reinstating the block. We concluded it wouldn't be too onerous on the user to ask him to register a new username. Many thanks, User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: WP:BITE
both WP:BITE and WP:Be bold dont apply to WP:VAN (Gnevin 02:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC))
 * And i quote "As per what you were told above, you've now been blocked for 24 hours for vandalism. --InShaneee 18:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)" User_talk:Ozzwald35 for the orignal . I did WP:AGF by asking the user to stop before i said "WP:3RR doesnt apply to WP:VAN" which is a  statement of fact.  An admin has proven me right end of (Gnevin 00:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC))

Edit counting question
I saw your name added to "List of Non-Admins with High Edit Counts." I was just curious, did you count your contributions manually (using the "group by 500's I assume) or is there a working edit counter around here somewhere. The last time I checked, Interiot's tool was malfunctioning or blocked or something.  Not to encourage "editcountitis" but any info would be appreciated.  Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Elonka RFA
Hi. I appreciate your comments concerning the block threat. In my view, the suspicion is very well founded, and I think it's directly relevant to the RFA because people are voting based on Elonka's interactions with DreamGuy. Most people seem to have forgotten I successfully withstood attack after attack from Wik for several years before he was finally banned permanently by Jimbo, so I can pick his pattern of behaviour in my sleep. It's also very interesting that the sockpuppet allegation made against me by Calton came out of the blue from a Wik apologist. The last time the allegation saw the light of day it was made by Gzornenplatz. Just a few things to think about. --Gene_poole 00:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Structural steel
Hi: Regarding the gallery, I know what you mean. Can you think of another way to pretty it up? When all the pix were running down the side, then there was a long trail with no text beside it. That sucked too. Maybe there's no ideal way, but do you really think that the way it was before was better? --Achim 23:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Your response to me
Yes, that is what I meant. I guess not everyone has an ultra-wide screen. I also figured that the thumbs were small enough to begin with, don't you think? But you could have a go at it. I won't object to changes so long as the information is preserved. I think we can both agree that the information is OK, right? --Achim 01:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW: I had another look at the article and added some further explanatory text, in an attempt to flesh it out. Have a look please. What do you make of it now? --Achim 01:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I added another pic too. I think it looks cool now. What do you think? Any way to pretty it up any more? Achim 00:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

References in the J-35 Draken article
In reference to the following: Would you knock off deleting the section? Do you not understand how inline references (the, and then at the end in the references section the . You get a ref tag number at the location of the ref tag, and then the full citation information is displayed down where you put the tag.

What you've been doing to the Draken article is overwriting the same exact reference information and ripping out the proper citation code. Please stop. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 23:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

George, I merely wanted to have the reference written out properly; First of all, it is a general reference book on aviation, but it should at least be cited properly.

1 	^ Green, W, Swanborough, G (2001). The great book of fighters. MBI Publishing. ISBN 0-7603-1194-3.

The MLA form for this reference is: * Green, W. and Swanborough, G. The Great Book of Fighters. St. Paul, Minnesota: MBI Publishing, 2001. ISBN: 0-7603-1194-3.

The use of commas in citation is not current, as well, titles are written as given in the reference source, you have no place of publication. MLA citations are the most commonly used style in both academic and popular works. I apologize if I inadvertently removed a citation code. Check with Wikipedia guides to citations and you will find that the MLA style is not only acceptable but in wide use throughout the Wikipedia world. I have had this debate with others- using a template does not prevent a fully qualified librarian (as my 35 years in library services has provided me) to write citations. I am also a published author with five books on aviation so I do know something about the subject.

Bzuk 24:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary and many other issues
Can you explain what is meant by the edit summary you posted here. I was also wondering a few other things for which maybe you need to clarify. You stated that I shouldn't remove links to the encyclopedia website and also that it is a sad day. I will remind you that persistant questioning about the same thing over and over is disruption and that editor was clearly being disruptive on my talk page. If you have some personal beef with me, it may be best if you refrain from making wildly erroneous and accusatory judgement calls regarding my efforts and my actions on wikipedia to protect myself from harassment. In a nutshell, I am an admin and this is a polite warning in regards to your commentary. I recommend you start to assume good faith about my actions. Thank you.--MONGO 13:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

brought here from User talk:MONGO for contnuity
 * I have pointed out repeatedly in the past, elsewhere, in the RfAr, and in the ANI posts, that you have a tendency to engage in confrontational behavior that raises tensions rather than calming them.


 * Regarding what you did, you had to reasonably know there was going to be pushback and complaints when the actual ED link removals started. Letting another admin do them would have avoided you being involved in the argument or complaints that would ensue.  You instead chose to do it all yourself, which certainly was inviting more criticism on yourself.


 * You also have a tendency to keep arguing with someone until you lose your cool. I can't count how many times I've seen this now.


 * The ED link removals were not a problem (see Fred Bauer's talk page for my congrats to him for his widespread semi-automated removal run). That you did them and then were unprepared to remain civil in the argument that would certainly follow was the problem.


 * I do have a problem with you - you're confrontational in situations where it's not necessary. Someone else deleting ED links wouldn't have been as confrontational.  You doing it, and then either ignoring repeated complaints or remaining civil until the conversation died, would have been ok.  But I could have predicted in advance that someone would keep prodding and that you'd eventually do something like the ANI-post inducing flame.


 * The particular type of harrassment you're enduring takes two to tango. You are bringing it on yourself, over and over again, by playing their game.  And it's terribly bad for Wikipedia.  I don't know why you have such a hard time seeing this.  That you're policy-wise in the right doesn't mean that the incidents aren't generally avoidable.


 * When you have an ongoing pattern of getting yourself into incidents like this, it's a problem. Good faith has nothing to do with it - if I had any doubt of your good faith, we wouldn't be having this conversation.  It's entirely a question of your judgement in how you respond to provocations, and take actions which are likely to result in provocations.  Please stop.  Georgewilliamherbert 17:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the arbcom decision is a sort of finality of the situation and thinking that only those not involved in the situation are allowed to remove links to ED is preposterous. I made it clear that the only links I was mostly concerned with those that in userspace and article space and your comment above that "You instead chose to do it all yourself" is absolutely not factual. I did less than 20 removals out of hundreds and I had the right to do so and no one had any right to revert me as I have the arbcom case to back it up. I don't even need the arbcom case to back me up because the website itself is an unreliable witness to anything other than proof that it it exists and it fails WP:RS completely. Those that complained about me doing it (one person in fact aside form you) are absolutely wrong...there isn't a single thing contentious about me removing links to that website and I will continue to do so.


 * Secondly, the latest incident on my talk page (my talk page) was the repeated comments about why a link to ED had been removed from one article. I repeatedly told that person to go complain to arbcom, but that wasn't good enough. So I made it clear that he was to get off my talk page. Do you know what harasmment is? I think you do and I'm going to get to that in a moment.


 * Thirdly, civility only goes so far, and as shown in the converstaion with the aforementioned person, I was civil, but when it became clear that the questions were not going to end, I decided that I had two options...block him for disrupting my talk page and harassing me about that website or make it claer to go away. The latter worked as it usually does and that is much more civil than blocking.


 * Lastly, and this is the last I am going to say on this matter and finalizes my comments in the second paragraph above. Your edits are prtedicatble...you wikistalk and make ridiculous accusations that are based partly on an inexperience in dealing with trolling and partly on some problem you must have with me. The one comment you make were you refer to it as a sad day is nothing more than getting a jab in and I don't and I won't tolerate it anymore from you. Comments that I escalate things is pure nonsense...I don't...you are the one who is always there, opinion in hand, even if you are a minority voice. I don't have to put up with that and I won't. Your commentary is based on your opinion, not any relaity of the situation because you are not me and you have no idea what is really going on that is not even wiki based. So here's the deal, you stop making wildly exaggerated misrepresentations of my motives and actions and start assuming good faith on my part, or I will be force to deal with your comments that oftentimes heighten the potential tensions and are harassment. There is the old saying, if you have nothing good to say, then say nothing at all....that is a core principle of civility. If you msut respond, do so here for continuity. Thank you.--MONGO 21:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Mongo-- I hope it's not inappropriate for me to chime in here to say I really am sincerely sorry that my discussion on your talk page had the effect it did-- namely making you feel annoyed, pestered, and harassed. I truly mean that.  I am sorry.  If I could go back in time knowing what I know now, I would have handled that conversation very differently.  It's obvious that I carried the conversation beyond the point where it was it was a productive discourse, and I should have been more sensitive to the signals that you were finding my discussion extremely aggravating.


 * My only defense is that I truly had no idea what a huge deal this ED mess has been. I know a lot of Wikipedia has been debating this issue for a long time, and at this point, it's basically settled, and everyone's sick of discussing it.  But I don't follow these sorts of things (ANI, AFD, Arbcom, etc), and I really had no idea how many words had been spent on this issue.  I saw the arbcom ruling you pointed me too, but a quick read of it doesn't in any way convey what a huge dispute this has been, how long it's been going on, how many flames it's involved, or the level of incivility to which you've been subjected.  To me, it was just another content dispute I stumbled across one day, I tend to talk these things out until I understand the other person' point of view or until they understand mine. When you repeatedly pointed me to the arbcom rulings, I certainly took that as conclusive proof that I should not edit against you-- but I failed to interpret it as a sign that I needed to stop discussing the subject with you, which I see now from your other comments is what you were trying to communicate to me.


 * I still tend to think that ED links should be acceptable in some cases, but the Wikipedia community, through their elected representatives, has disagreed with my opinion, and you can rest assured I will abide by that decision until such time as this situation changes (a time which, in all likelyhood, may never come). For my part, I will work harder to detect the effect my discussion is having upon people, and attempt to read a little more closely for signs that a discussion is causing unproductive aggravation.  I similarly hope that I've successfully communicated to you that content disputes of the sort we had can in fact arise when two good-faith editors legitimately attempt to communicate with each other, and I hope I've convinced you that my actions were in no way motivated by malice towards you, or out of any desire to anger, annoy, pester, or harass you.  Similarly, if it is appropriate, I hope my saying all this can help you see my POV, and if you do accept that I meant you no ill will, that my words might help you to be a little slower to invoke blocking threats / incivility / assumption of bad faith / accusations of trolling when situations like this crop up in the future-- instead reserving those behaviors for cases where another user's actions are truly explainable only by malice and not by misunderstanding, miscommunication, generally being "out of touch" with major Wikipedia issues, or having a good-faith difference of opinion.
 * Very sincerely, Alecmconroy 00:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Am I off base here?
I trust your opinion, in particular on this matter. Have I been stalking or harrassing Mongo? He is claiming so and threatening to do something about it. 

I think I'm on the "attemptedly constructive and legitimate criticism" side of the line, but I'd like a third party opinion. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 22:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The enemy is endless drama. That's what ED is all about. Fred Bauder 00:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ED makes it a game, but WP administration is quite seriously a matter of debate and disagreement, which is anything but a game. The consequences of playing this are severe, unfortunately.  But there are big issues at stake.  Georgewilliamherbert 00:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So here's the deal, you stop making wildly exaggerated misrepresentations of my motives and actions and start assuming good faith on my part, or I will be force to deal with your comments that oftentimes heighten the potential tensions and are harassment
 * that's just a threat from a bully who wants to lord his admin powers over you.
 * the enemy may be drama, but you aren't drama. you deserve respect, not threats. what is clear is that mongo says any questioning of him or his actions by anyone is harassment of him. and by extension, if you don't follow orders, you disrespect wikipedia.
 * why do you hate wikipedia, george?


 * What's going on here? With respect to Damatica, not an error, deliberate misspelling. Fred Bauder 22:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You know more about this than I do, and I would appreciate your help.
''Hi, GWH.

I picked up your name through your gentle chiding of another user for mucking about with references, which shows that you are: a) not that likely to flame me, and b) able to help me.

I contributed some of the data on the P-51 article, particularly that relating to the original RAF specification and the work that the MAP did to ensure production of the Merlin-engined Mustang in the US.

Much of my material comes from a book written by my father about his uncle, Wilfrid Freeman (qv). I would be greatly obliged if you could either explain to me in words of one syllable how I use the reference tool (cos I don't understand the Wikipedia explanation) or add the reference for me.

From Amazon:'' Wilfrid Freeman: The Genius Behind Allied Air Supremacy, 1939 to 1945 (Hardcover) by Anthony Furze (actually Furse)

Product details

Hardcover: 384 pages Publisher: Spellmount Publishers Ltd (22 May 2000) Language English ISBN: 1862270791

The Amazon page is http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1862270791

Francis Schonken
[Steve, the RFCU seems to have been unneeded as you claimed that edit, but there does appear to be a 3RR violation there on your part. The same changes are made 4 times. What is the falsity in that claim? Georgewilliamherbert 00:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)]


 * George, thanks for getting back to me so soon. you have to look closely at the History to see that the inadvertent IP revert was my third, and that i only corrected it thereafter with notice in the edit bar. there was no fourth revert.  he knows this and proceeded to file a false report anyway.  Stevewk 00:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ok George, thanks again. its actually the first chronological edit that is =not= a reversion.  this one:
 * 00:26, October 23, 2006 Stevewk (Talk | contribs)

you'll see that it is a normal edit, not a reversion. Stevewk 00:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * George, hey thanks for taking the time to tread through all that. sorry you had to spend the time. i would like to proceed against Schonken. what is the next step? Stevewk 01:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Harrassment
Hi, and thanks for your help jumping on that sock. I think it's very interesting to see the exact same pattern we saw previously with Gzornenplatz being played out again by DreamGuy. By this I mean the business of instigating personal attacks and article vandalism using multiple socks with names derived from his handle and mine (eg Genetauri, Geamdry). This is classic Wik / Gzornenplatz behaviour. Given recent developments I've escalated my concerns about DreamGuy to Jimbo. If you could keep a general eye on things I'd really appreciate it. --Gene_poole 04:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Schonken at it again

 * George, i just looked at the Republic page again, and Schonken is back whining about my "comments", and has just reverted. i know what you said about letting it go, and i was willing to try that, but not after this.  At this point, what are my options?  thanks, Stevewk 15:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka
Thank you for expressing an interest in my recent RfA. As a followup, I wanted to let you know that unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate that you took the time to monitor the discussion. My current plans are to continue contributing in a positive manner to Wikipedia, and if there is anything that I can do in the future to help address any concerns you may have about me, please do not hesitate to let me know. --Elonka 19:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006
The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the flooding
It's just that I have been dealing with this since practically the day I joined and no one has been willing to help me. I am scared and exhausted and have probably lost all judgment by now. I must be masochistic to even care at this point. I was barely using Wikipedia anyway because it is impossible to have a train of thought being attacked all the time. I appreciate your advice and I will take it. Thanks! I'll relax and turn off the computer. Timmy12 00:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks - I really appreciate your comments. It seems that Wikipedia mirrors the real world in valuing mob hysteria over reason. --Centauri 01:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Block of shared ip 207.165.196.1
Done, thanks. :) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 21:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

RFA
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="afd" style="margin: 0 5%; padding: 0 7px 7px 7px; background: #FFFAEF; border: 1px solid #999999; text-align: left; font-size:95%;"> Gamaliel would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Gamaliel to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

( dude...if/when you're not busy... )
Re: Editor review/Ling.Nut

I have been a heavy-duty contributor to Wikipedia talk:Schools (some would say far too much.) I would be honored to hear the opinions, pro and con, whether we agree or not, of anyone who has participated in this discussion, about my Editor review/Ling.Nut. In fact, con opinions are almost more welcome than pro (though pro certainly make me feel better), 'cause I am very interested in evolving in ways that will help Wikipedia.

Thanks --Ling.Nut 04:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My timing is terrible and my request is trivial. Please ignore me. :-)
 * Best reagrds --Ling.Nut 00:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's not trivial, I do see it as useful. I am sort of busy right now, but I'll help when I get some bandwidth... Georgewilliamherbert 00:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Range blocks
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I responded to the block victim on the mailing list. Cheers. Dmcdevit·t 01:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Good luck
Best of luck with your admin nomination. I'd like to support you, but I expect you'd be inundated with opposition if I did. Seems to be open season on my collaborators and friends at the moment. Did you notice that Averette and his sock FairHair are accusing you of being my sock, and are speculating about how they'll enjoy it when you slip up? --Gene_poole 03:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My real name is rather boldly known, and anyone who bothers can find a few hundred media references for who I am and what I do. It would be a little hard for anyone to believe such a claim, especially since I'm quite verifyably in California, as are the businesses I own.  I'm interacting in email with a lot of the WP people, and at least one of the really senior ones knows me from over 10 years ago.  I have very little worry about these acusations...  Georgewilliamherbert 04:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Rocketry proposals
Hi George.

Could you drop by and have a look at Articles for deletion/Direct Launch Vehicle? My gut feeling is that it's not a significant or well-discussed design, but I'd be more than happy to bow to someone with more active knowledge in the field (and I haven't been reading sci.space.* lately). Shimgray | talk | 18:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:GlobalEagle groundeffectfull.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:GlobalEagle groundeffectfull.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --– Quadell (talk) (random) 21:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You told me to stop posting at AN/I
You wrote:
 * What is going on here for real, is possibly a serious problem, but you can't flood AN/I about it. People are looking at it now.  Please calm down for a bit.  Georgewilliamherbert 00:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. As you noted, you should relax for a bit; others are now very aware of the situation and will scrutinize to see if it's meeting our definition of linkspam, and if so, take appropriate action.  Georgewilliamherbert 00:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, absolutely nothing has happened. The harassment continues unabated. I give up. I have offtered the person(s) harassing me a deal -- I will check the edit histories of all articles and not touch any article that belong to him and his friends. If he takes the deal I will be able to continue here. That is my only chance. I am exhausted from all this  Timmy12 08:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Harvardy/Wik has been unblocked
I'm not sure why - but a permanent block obviously needs to be re-imposed before the trolling starts again, as it will as sure as day follows nite. --125.253.33.48 11:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition to creating numerous socks, Harvardy has now progressed to direct vandalism at Empire of Atlantium. Look at this diff in particular, which uses a misleading edit summary to disguise the blanking of one reference and numerous other subtle vandalisms. --125.253.33.249 12:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comments
Thanks for your comments. As you can appreciate, being attacked so nakedly by a group of people who have consistently opposed a good percentage of my contributions to the project has left me feeling decidedly less than amenable to assuming good faith lately. Under the circumstances I think my response has been exemplary in its level of restraint. --Gene_poole 21:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Empire of Atlantium
Just a head's up to let you know I've added a picture to this article. No doubt Wik will respond with another of his trolling/vandalism apoplexies. --Gene_poole 22:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was right. True to form he started trolling as soon as he got back online. Taxman and Jonathunder are apparently respectively tacitly and actively encouraging it. Do you mind contacting me via email? Use emperor@atlantium.org. I'd like to discuss how to knock this on the head once and for all. --Gene_poole 02:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for block of User:Respect My Authoritah!
the reason that this name was blocked was because it is agaunst WP:USERNAME this is an innapropreate username. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 21:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * true it might be a quote but having that for a username is offensive. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 21:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ps what is that IRC channel? Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 22:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Adminship
It is my regretful task to inform you that your recent request for adminship failed to achieve consensus to promote, and has been closed. Please do not be discouraged; a number of users have had their first RfA end without consensus, but have been promoted overwhelmingly in a later request. Please continue to make outstanding contributions to Wikipedia, and consider requesting adminship again in the future. You may find Guide to requests for adminship helpful in deciding when to consider running again. If I can be of any help to you, please do not hesitate to ask. <font color="#7b68ee">Essjay <font color="#7b68ee">( Talk )  02:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I second Essjay's comments here.--MONGO 06:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Classy. Miltopia 09:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For whatever a newbie's comments are worth; I third them. --Ling.Nut 07:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Although some of the opposition was dissapointing, I was also really encouraged by the constructive criticism, particularly the very engaged and positive give and take you gave me, MONGO. I can't recall seeing such a constructive or engaged oppose to a RFA in the last year; it gave both of us a chance to revisit some conflict in a much more positive light, and I certainly learned something both about how I was seen and came across, and hopefully it helped clarify in your mind where I'd been coming from. It would have been so easy for you to just oppose and walk away; you didn't, and that was a real class act. I pinged Lar about doing something on enwiki along the lines of the meatball wiki "Defend each other" and I'd like to invite you to discuss it. I am certainly not ultimately discouraged; I got supports from a lot of people I respect a lot, and some I didn't think would support me. I learned a lot from the opposes and they give me some stuff to work on as it were. I'll send out the usual cute thank yous when my bandwidth allows, but I wanted to make sure I did something more personal first for some of the particularly valuable participants in the discussion. Again, thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 09:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC) You're very welcome, although it's too bad your nomination didn't succeed. I will, however, wish you the best of luck in the future! Happy editing and peace profound, --Merovingian ※ Talk 05:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Bad luck, George. Do try again, I think maybe the problem was that the wounds are still just a little raw right now. I thought your answers re the MONGO incident were reasonable and sufficient, but clearly others did not (or did not read them).  Such is life, I guess.  It's funny how my inclusion standard for admins seems to be well below community norms while my inclusion standard for content is evidently above the average.  I'm sure there's a lesson in there for me...  Guy 11:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't be discouraged, and do please try again. I think with a bit more time you'll pass handily and I look forward to working with you in whatever capacity. As I said before, your contributions on the unblock mailing list are remarkably helpful. ++Lar: t/c 06:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I was very disappointed by the outcome and I will certainly support you if you try again. --A. B. 12:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Block of
It looks as though I've neglected to allow anonymous editors to register an account with that block. Sorry for that oversight. I've since unblocked the ip, and reblocked anonymous editors only for a further 48 hours to keep in line with the original week long block imposed. Anons are permitted to register an account now if they so choose. Thanks for bringing this matter to my attention. That ip is a heavy source of vandalism as the block log shows. -- Longhair\talk 03:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: autoblock problem at 218.186.8.13
I'd be happy to, but it looks like somebody already disabled it. I'll look into this a bit more in the next few minutes. For the most part, though, I have no objection if somebody reverts clear collateral damage caused by my blocks. Thanks for your time. :) Luna Santin 02:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Defend each other
Thanks for your thanks! I saw your note to Lar and your mention of it above reminded me. It's a great idea. Do you want or need any help with it? --Guinnog 05:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Count me in, please. --Guinnog 06:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

RFA thanks, the reprise
I'm not a big fan of the RfA thank you's (and I do wish people would at least include their user name in the section heading so I can tell them apart), but you're the first one spamming me with them. Now maybe you can tell me where I can get a WikiSpamFilter. :-P —Doug Bell talk•contrib 05:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No offense, it was just when I got the second copy that I thought maybe a spam filter would be useful. :-) —Doug Bell talk•contrib 06:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to see that you failed; I've noticed you arguing correct positions all over the place. Hope you'll try again in three months. Everyking 06:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Fuse or Fuze
Georgewilliamherbert, what got me, was you just reverted as if "be dammed", I made a good faith edit, based on personal education, experience and backgroud, anyway moving on...

The origin of the use "Fuze" is unclear, it is likely to have been an adaption from the use fuse. I accept in some regions fuse=burning fuze=munition(mech/elec etc) types of fuse, but it is not a clear 100% adoption of the word usage. A lot of NATO materials use fuse in the nomenclature for artillery shells etc, but I concede that fuze is also used.

Most dictionaries list fuze as an alternate spelling to fuze. My personal concern is that if such a easily referenced source such as wiki makes the distinction, then the consensus will be to use the word fuze, when it is still correct to use fuse. What I would like to see, is the word fuse used for munitions, but the spelling fuze explained to show some regioanl differences"TheNose | Talk" 09:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion (Public service) :-)
Don't think twice about the RfA. It will be different next time.

I made a request earlier which I regret. It is trivial. I have an alternative suggestion (but it's not a request) which is not so trivial. Moreover, it's not just for me; it's a public service.

Several people mentioned in your RfA that you are a solid contributor to unblock-en-l (as well as other lists, but that one seems to stand out). As a project (and this is a suggestion, not a request) you could perhaps gather together the gist of your contributions and write them in FAQ or "Intro to" format. Perhaps you can ask others which of your comments they found the most helpful.

Cheers, --Ling.Nut 15:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Your rfa
You're welcome. <font color="SeaGreen" face="Verdana">Snow <font color="MediumSlateBlue" face="Verdana">Shoes  <font color="RoyalBlue">talk here 19:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Your rfa
U r a good editor and always stood for truth. That may be a reason for ur Failure in the recent RfA. Here often knowledge fails but ignorance gain through conspirasy,cocus and groupism. I 'm a victim of groupism in Kerala wikipedia. I'm standing for truth. So enemies are more. Best wishes.With love... Nileena joseph (Talk 06:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Your msg re: User:216.221.81.98
Thanks. That was a short block, it already expired. Next time I'll do anon-only. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
...for your recent efforts at quenching the fires of an incipient flamewar. I've done what you suggested in other situations, but I think I panicked because the "offender" is a good editor, and I was afraid he'd say something to earn a block before I could calm him down. As to the rest, well...I'm actually a big fan of the "pay-it-forward" philosophy : ) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 08:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006
The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei RFC
After lots of NPOV problems, I have recently done a major rewrite on the Opus Dei article and am requesting comments on its talk page. I think the new page is better, but there are a lot of single-purpose accounts who have been edit warring with me over it. Could you look over the page and comment on whether the rewrite is an improvement and maybe help out in the ensuing discussion? --Alecmconroy 11:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

disruption on page Juan Cole
Hi - I'm contacting you because you commented [|here] when I was reported for "disruption" of the Cole page by Armon. Please look over the [|latest discussion] if you can. I have tried to come to some kind of agreement with Armon on the issues on the page, but it has now led to another revert war, with him making his third revert in twenty minutes. In the discussion he has been asked to justify the edit he is insisting on, but he refused to, making the issue into something else and demanding that I answer an unrelated question. He still has not justified his edit but he continues to revert. I have only reverted twice but I don't want to keep playing this game with him; I also fear that he will again turn me in for "disruptive editing" if I continue along these lines. Do you have any advice about what to do in this sort of situation? I don't think he is technically violating any policy but I do think he is gaming the 3RR and trying to provoke hostile reactions. I am trying to come to some kind of agreement in good faith. csloat 19:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

re SETI controversy
Jim Wales said it himself "It's all a matter of what's relevant to readers." - just think to yourself before blatantly deleting items "If I was a typical user looking at this page, would I want to know this?" --Danlibbo 01:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * do your research before you enter an argument eh? you tried to argue my point exactly, and then tried to argue against me except with basic argumentative flaws; primarily, you still haven't addressed how to handle the concept of a conspiracy. for instance should not the conspiracies surrounding, say roswell, new mexico, be mentioned? against it the argument has the fact that there is no reliable source for any conspiracy, but the page for the town is surely lacking without a mention of it - so i simply ask for consistency; either require reliable citations for the accept for the roswell ufo incident, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Area 51 etc, OR remove all information which does not have verifiable proof (consider this carefully as it means all trivial details, most biographical data (at least on recent persons) in a cursory study of several random featured articles (GNU/Linux_naming_controversy, Floppy_disk, Short-beaked Echidna and Medal of Honor i found more than 150 unverified claims which, if removed, not only leave the article almost unreadable but also remove important data which people just haven't been bothered to reinforce (that's an average of more than 38 uncited claims per article, surely SETI can have one))
 * on your other claim, that reliability is important to wikipedia; if it is so crucial, and your loyalty to it is so high, it becomes a conundrum that wikipedia, through it's loyal editors, like yourself, allow such disgraceful pages. the answer is that wikipedia follows the school of thought that all vandalism can be reverted and, as wikipedia ages, people will get bored of their ability to change the information outright and the wikipedia project will come to rival britannica and encarta. that's simply foolish, for a start the majority of the most serious vandals are most probably teenagers (or younger) as evidenced by the constant vandalism at 'name pages' (eg Daniel, Jordan etc) and the number of children (with access to wikipedia) is only going to rise for all practical purposes in perpetua. secondly, even if the vandalism does slow, it is all the more likely that those wishing to simply vandalise for no real gain will start to make smaller, less significant edits to those countless unverified claims (such as dates and other measured values) that you won't be able to revert, and you won't be able to stop (without protecting all the pages - which, in itself, would be hilarious).
 * i really don't know what response you're expecting to the blocking threats from you and chairboy - see my response here --Danlibbo 02:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * first off - wtf? there is no moderation on wikipedia? what do you call all the editing? moderation is a perfect word for what they do - the lack of identities known specifically by the term moderators doesn't mean that it doesn't happen - see Moderation system
 * and i think you mean edit warring (which, in itself, is a less-than-adequate phrase) - my threat to do so remains if, and only if, yourself and chairboy revert either without reasoned discussion or explanation for doing so - by making it clear that i will have the conspiracy theory mentioned, i was attempting to simply let you two know that if you fail to act (or argue) appropriately i'll just go around you
 * finally - i offered fair argument and discussion (i still do and always will) provided those who get involved DO THEIR RESEARCH - that means chairboy not jumping to the conclusion that i have any leaning whatsoever on the truth of the theory, as well as you not making incredulous leaps that i'll start the edit war immediately despite providing my view in clear black-and-white over a more-than-reasonable period
 * so - what's happened now: i've edited the SETI article to include a mention of the conspiracy, if you, chairboy or any others wish to remove it, make a reasoned argument on the talk page - if you do your reading you'll know my views and we can discuss it further
 * --Danlibbo 22:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC) and ps - i fully understand the blocking concept and abilities...and don't patronise people, it only pisses them off

btw - i think you might have missed this --Danlibbo 22:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Conch
Please do not restore this without adding a source. It is really is false. --Moby 10:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * well it looks like the page is now referring to Franklin Mint-style gewgaws instead of conch shells, so I'm done with it. --Moby 07:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

FairHair
I can't decide if this one's a sock of Wik, Averette, Jonathunder or Johnski - but one way or other it needs to be blocked. Any ideas? Admins seem reluctant to take any action. --Gene_poole 21:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Danger Will Robinson! He's on another vandalism spree. --Gene_poole 23:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * At last - some action; Netsnipe has put an indefinite block on the account. --Gene_poole 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Metacentric height
I was trying to find out about "righting arm" on WP, but couldn't find it. I've now put in a bit about it in Metacentric height, taking shameless advantage of the "share alike" license with which you released the existing Image:MetacentricHeight.png. I'd be very grateful if you looked it over – both for accuracy and to make sure I've done your original image justice. Many thanks. --Moonraker88 18:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've just skimmed your user page: Naval Architect! Please be patient with my effort. --Moonraker88 18:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it over, I appreciate it. --Moonraker88 12:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ireland at AN/I
Thanks for your support there. Which brings me (ahem) to the "Defend each other" thing. I haven't really done anything about it. Thought a lot about it I suppose, and instances like this bring it to mind. Do you have any ideas for how we should take it forward? Sorry I've done nothing... --Guinnog 06:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006
The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear Legality Template== ==

Hi George,

I've replied to your message at my Talk Page: thanks for getting the debate started! --Jim (Talk) 19:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

List of unused highways
Please avoid neologisms like "ghost ramp". Thank you. --NE2 08:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no reliable source for the term "ghost ramp", which you have re-introduced into many places in the article. The other stuff from the introduction should go into unused highway, which is the article about the concept. --NE2 10:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you wish to include the "stub ramp" reference, please do it in unused highway, not list of unused highways. --NE2 12:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think list of unused highways is a bad idea for an article, but look where the deletion discussion went. Unused highway is an attempt to cover the concept without a huge list of examples. --NE2 20:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)