User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archive2007-08

Removal of my comments
A user is removing my comments from a talk page. Please intervene. --Ideogram 15:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The comments were entirely inappropriate, and disturbingly one-sided. See Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. Jayjg (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

He just doesn't get it. Now he has taken it upon himself to refactor the page. Please advise him not to touch other people's comments. --Ideogram 19:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just moved major standalone comment blocks to the bottom, and given them titles, for easier navigation. Must everything be a battle with you? Must you always assume bad faith and make uncivil comments about me? Jayjg (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to be civil. As an involved party you have no right to touch other people's comments. --Ideogram 19:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Huh? Where is that rule written? I haven't modified comments, I just re-organized the page for easier readability, navigation, and editing. I was quite careful with what I moved, to make sure none of them depended on previous posts, but were standalone comments. I'm getting the impression that your objection is not with what was done, but with the fact that I did it. Jayjg (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of bad faith. No matter how good your intentions are, you should not trust yourself to edit other people's comments in a debate you are involved in, and no one else should trust you either. --Ideogram 20:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't "edit" comments, I moved them into sections. And you haven't trusted me from the start, this has been one of the most egregious displays of bad faith I've seen. Your bad faith doesn't make me untrustworthy, nor does it mean that any action I take should be automatically protested. Jayjg (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that I think you are involved in POINT has nothing to do with telling you to not touch other people's comments. It is a basic principle of human nature that we cannot trust ourselves to be objective about matters we are emotionally involved in. You don't seem to grasp that. --Ideogram 20:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Enola Gay Article
George:

I posted the following on the Enola Gay talk page. I don't know if you monitor that article, but you might be interested in the vandalism issue.

I was wondering why this article was so spare, compared with its sister article on Bockscar. A hint was on this talk page, where I saw discussion of things that were not now in the Enola Gay article. When I searched History to see when they were taken out, I learned that at 16:02 on May 18, 2007, a vandal with the screenname of Eric1sr had replaced the entire World War II History section with "enola gay was a flamer." Within the minute, MartinBot had reverted the vandalism and graffiti. Two minutes later Eric1sr struck again, removing the World War II History section, and again eight minutes after that, removing the Subsequent History section. This time, MartinBot didn't catch it.

At 16:30 the same day, a live user, Nexonen, eliminated the graffiti, but did not restore the missing sections. For the next three months, people kept trying to add information to flesh out the article, but no one noticed that the problem was uncorrected vandalism.

HowardMorland 03:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Page Move Help
Hello, I need help with a move. Maple Hill Pavilion redirects to Maple Hill Mall. I would like for it to be the opposite, for Maple Hill Mall to link to Maple Hill Pavilion.

Maple Hill Pavilion is the current name of this mall, so I think that Maple Hill Mall should be mentioned in the article, but not be the title because the name is no longer being used.

Thanks for your help! --Nenyedi Talk Deeds@ 00:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

foam plasma pressure fallacy
I have written you regarding your refference to "foam plasma". I read the article, but unfortunately did not retrieve it. I am not a physiscist, nor a scholar by any means. I am however, a skilled mechanic, and Veteran Marine. As a cold war Veteran, I obviosly stay abrest of the potential of NBC threats.

I checked on your suggested article, 4.4.4.3.2. I also took a look at some simplified drawings(called 'schmatics') of the Teller-Ulam device. In particular, (as relating to your comments), I noticed in section 4.4.2, on page 6 of  4.4,elements of a thermonuclear device, a distinct depiction of a "POLYSTYRENE FILLED RADIATION CHANNEL"

As a simple heavy equipment mechanic, I can understand how radiation and pressure travels this channel very quickly, I do however, agree with you that the polystyrene is nothing ore than a material that simply vaporizes under fission detonation.

I mean, for crying out loud, a fusion bomb is just an advaced fission bomb, used to compress fusionable materials to critical mass.

The Teller-Ulam device is similar to early gun-type fission bombs. They simply used a fission reacton to compress different materials.

I don't know the math used at all, and I barely understand the Alarm Clock?Layer Cake thing, but I do know that I can obliterat polystyrene with my cigarette, cigarette lighter, acytelene torch, and my shotgun, and never produce fusionable plasma.

good job.

Cowboyo31

I wanted to add that I believe the polystyrene "radiation channel" may be nothing more than an alignment tool for other components. Perhaps it is called a "Radiation Channel", becouse in the 50's, we had our coffee in paper cups. Velcro was first used on the Apollo 11 mission in '69 for Gods sake,

WP:BJAODN
The whole department was deleted, including its dozens of subpages. The Transhumanist 18:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, although you restored Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense, the page mostly consists of redlinks to deleted content at this point. --Hyperbole 18:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I answered on Transhumanists' page, but for anyone else... Yes, I noticed that a few minutes later. I'm in the process of undoing all the individual subpage deletes, too. Please be patient, it takes a bit of manual effort for each one. Georgewilliamherbert 19:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * the deleted redirects can be found (as redlinks) at Project shortcuts. The Transhumanist 19:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just going back through Alkivar's admin log and restoring from there. Georgewilliamherbert 19:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's improper of you do so with the DRV going on, particularly as you don't appear to have discussed the matter with Alkiver beforehand (this being, near as I can tell, your first communication with him). I'm asking you to reverse yourself pending the outcome of DRV. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I second Mackensen's request. You are wheel warring, which is inappropriate behavior for any admin.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see User talk:Mackensen. Georgewilliamherbert 08:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I do hope you're aware of the irony in your statement there?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Setting aside whether BJAODN should be deleted or not, I'd like to express my respect for you, that having perceived another admin's action as wrong, you have firmly reverted it and stood by your opinion, even when faced of accusations of wheel warring (which are false, because pure sanity, if not WP:WHEEL, requires multiple reverts to constitute a wheel war). Admins are not infallible and one must be bold enough to revert when feeling another's decision is wrong. Миша 13 13:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would have been far more appropriate to wait for the DRV to finish instead of restoring content that may be copyright infringement. (( 1 == 2 ) ? (( 'Stop' ) : ( 'Go' )) 16:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I started before there was anything at DRV, there wasn't a process short-circuit. Georgewilliamherbert 17:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately that is not quite true. Hisspaceresearch opened a DRV at 18:22 and notified Alkivar on his talk page at 18:26.  Your first undelete was at 18:40.  True, that's less than 20 minutes apart, but if you had attempted to disucss the issue with Alkivar first you would have seen the DRV notice.  You continued to undelete until 19:50, after both an MFD and a DRV had been filed.  See User:Thatcher131/temp if you are curious (and if I have made a mistake, please correct it). Thatcher131 18:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (cc'ed from User talk:Thatcher131)


 * Your timeline (of edits) is correct, but misses what I was doing between edits. As I have repeatedly stated, there was no DRV or MFD open when I started off on a loop of non-edit research that took me to the eventual start of the undeletes.  That research included looking at... I forget, reviewing last version before deletion history logs on twenty or so of the individual articles Alkivar had deleted, his admin logs for the last 500 edits, his edit logs to see if he was still logged in, and a couple of other things (in which I missed the AN discussion from the night before on first pass, but found it a bit later after I started the undeletes).


 * "Doing your homework" in something like this necessarily involved a lot of stuff that wasn't edits. One can properly fault me for not checking DRV again after the first major research scan, before starting the undelete.  But there wasn't anything on DRV when I started.  Georgewilliamherbert 18:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN Arbitration
I have the Arbitration committee to review the deletion and undeletion of BJAODN. Thatcher131 14:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

re User:Tmayes1999 and your report at WP:ANI
Hi. I am writing here since it appears that no other admin has commented at ANI. I note from the contribs history that Tim has gone quiet. Since blocking is properly a preventative measure I see no point in pursuing action against him at this time. If he starts up again then it will have to be looked at at that time. Do you concur? If he does make the same type of edits, please feel free to contact (and remind) me of this instance. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 20:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Strathvooey
I have a proposal for you-

If we can prove Strathvooey's existence within 2 months you will put the following on your personal page:

"Strathvooey is real- I am a Donkey for not believing it" and, obviously, add Strathvooey to the list of micronations.

In return- should we fail to prove Strathvooey's existence we will leave wikipedia alone for good- I figure this is a reasonable forfeit as there are alot of Strathvooey supporters out there who will gladly continue adding it to your list of micronations should you refuse this offer.

Yours, 172.142.127.73

P.S 

has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

roll eyes

Look, this is serious. We can't be having encyclopedia articles for subjects on which there is no available reliable information source. Please knock it off until there is some reliable verifyable reference information on it.

If you can source it, you can add it back in, no problem. But to do that, stop arguing with me, and go find the reliable sources... Georgewilliamherbert 00:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm done for now... I may change it again tomorrow if I can be bothered... then again maybe I'll turn to constructive editing... Wikipedia has been to me in the past- perhaps I will give something back to the community. I'll let you know how that turns out. Goodnight.

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 08:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/BJAODN
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/BJAODN. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost and BJAODN
You're listed as an involved party in the BJAODN case. The Wikipedia Signpost will be covering the events in this week's issue. Alkivar asked that I talk to him to avoid misconstruing his words, so in the interest of fairness I'm offering you the opportunity to do so as well.

I'd be happy to talk to any/all of you regarding the case, but I don't have any questions to ask at this point, and won't be able to write anything until Monday morning UTC, at the earliest. If you have any general statements you'd like to make to me, to clear up any misconceptions, or clarify your opinion, please feel free to e-mail me. Also, if you have any quotes in particular that you think best qualify your point, either published on-wiki, or sent to me via e-mail, I'd appreciate them. Since the case has many important issues that need to be mentioned, I want to make sure that I don't miss anything, or misrepresent anyone's views.

(Any uninvolved parties who wish to send me an e-mail can, of course, do so as well). Ral315 » 06:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A copy of an email which I sent to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org requesting that the duration of the 6 month block which you imposed on my account be reduced:
I am User:24.168.46.238 who was recently blocked from Wikipedia for six months by a Wikipedia administrator named "Georgewilliamherbert".

Since my user talk page was protected by "Mr.Z-man" only 4 minutes after the block was issued by "Georgewilliamherbert", I was denied the opportunity to post an unblock request. I'd like to request that I be give the opportunity to do so now:

I know that I was wrong for threatening legal action against "CyberGhostface", but I had asked him to stop bothering me by posting repeated warnings on my user talk page for minor violations of Wikipedia's rules, and he refused. I believe that he had a vendetta against me, as he seemed to be tracking my every edit, just waiting for me to do something in violation of Wikipedia' s rules so he could post another warning on my user talk page, which he knew would aggravate me and cause me to lose my temper. "CyberGhostface" had previously gotten me blocked for personal attacks, and I was stupid enough to fall for his ploy to get me blocked again. I lost my cool, and posted things on my user talk page that I shouldn't have. I know that there was no excuse for my behavior, and for that, I am very sorry.

I'd like to respectfully ask that you shorten the duration of by block, as I feel that six months is far too harsh of a punishment. I was initially issued a 48 hour block by one administrator, but 7 hours later (without me making any additional offensive edits or postings on Wikipedia), it was arbitrarily extended to 6 months by another administrator.

I promise that once my editing priviliges are reinstated, I will no longer engage in the kind of conduct (personal attacks, threats of legal action) that got me blocked. After reinstatement, I intend on creating an account on Wikipedia, and I will make constructive additions to the project. I invite you to check up on me periodically to see that I am keeping my word to you!

I also promise to you that will have no further contact with "CyberGhostface", and since I have no intention of violation Wikipedia's rules in the future, he has no valid reason whatsoever to contact me or to post warnings on my user talk page.

I feel that a reduction in the duration of my block is warranted, considering the questionable circumstances of how my block was arbitrarily increased from 48 hours to 4320 hours.

Again, please accept my sincere apology for my past behavior on Wikipedia, and thank you for your consideration!

''Note: I am using a friend's computer (IP Address: 64.38.198.61) simply to post this notice on the user talk page of the administrator who increased my block from 48 hours to 6 months. I am not a "sockpuppet", and I have no intention of using my friend's computer again.''

64.38.198.61 14:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to note, the statements made by 24.168.46.238 are false. Specifically, the claim 'I was initially issued a 48 hour block by one administrator, but 7 hours later (without me making any additional offensive edits or postings on Wikipedia), it was arbitrarily extended to 6 months by another administrator.'


 * 24.168.46.238 got the 24 hour block at 16:01, 16 August 2007 . At 16:41, 16 August 2007, he threatened 'I will, however, be in contact with a private investigator in order to find the true identity and location of CyberGhostface' . Edward321 14:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just so you are aware, the "minor violations of Wikipedia's rules" include blanking the page of User:Spirot, an editor who had left, with "Good riddance!" Nor did I have any ploy to get him banned. I could care less about this editor. I actually told him that once he stopped vandalizing Wikipedia, I would leave him alone. Before making any further judgements, I strongly suggest you look at this editor's contributions.--CyberGhostface 16:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked at his contributions, and up until his interaction with you, CyberGhostface, he seemed to be making positive edits and contributions to wikipedia. Now let's be honest here... aren't you gloating just a little bit now that 24.168.46.238 has been blocked? If you didn't "have any ploy to get him banned" as you claim, then you wouldn't have continued to antagonize an obviously irate editor. I would advise that in the future, you exercise a little better judgement in dealing with editors who you are having problems and/or an edit war with ...that's Mr. Sockpuppet to you! 09:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

DeLisle
Got a picture of the internals of the DeLisle carbine that could be turned into a diagram for that article? scot 21:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can scan and e-mail the originals, I can help with the line drawings. I managed to make Image:Long_range_tang_sight.png from a photograph in a couple of hours.  The adjustment screw and vernier scale were particularly annoying to get right...  scot 21:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Smile


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Hello, Please pass the Smile to three people:)AFUSCO 14:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Silly antics
Someone has boldly moved WP:BJAODN to Silly things without discussion. I would have moved it back, but the move tab is missing from the page!  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   03:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Civility Warning
Civility warning You have repeatedly made threatening and uncivil attacks on other Wikipedia editors on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships page. This is in clear and blatant violation of our civility policy and our no personal attacks policy.

You are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia. You are not welcome to continue abusing or threatening other editors here. If you do so any further, you will be blocked for a brief period of time and warned again.

This behavior is unacceptable for contributors here. If you chose to behave in a mature and responsible manner, and continue constructively editing, then you'll be welcome here. You're free to disagree and argue with other editors - just don't attack or insult them. If it would be unacceptable behavior at work, it's unacceptable behavior here.

If you are not willing to meet our personal conduct policies, then please stop editing on your own. If you reject them and force us to block you then the situation will simply be regrettable on all sides.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 22:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

I suggest you mete out your grave warnings in equal measure. This is a direct result of unsolicited email harrassment perpetrated by your own TomTheHand. By condemning me you condone your Wiki Administrators attacking users in private using email so as to avoid the embarrassment of revealing their own childish behavior in a public forum. As for me, I had the character to stand up, and do so in public, and defend myself from his attacks. If punitive action is to come my way while excusing the causal acts of your Administrator, who might I contact with a more formal complaint? Xl five lx 23:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xl_five_lx"

B43/Ticonderoga
Thanks for the cite & clarification on these articles. I was guessing it might have been a CVA-56 - don't know why a squadron designation, rather than a ship one, didn't occur to me. One other question: I notice the article uses 'B43', but the referenced source seems to use 'Mk-43'. I am slightly familiar with Mark designations from working on ships articles, but the layman likely wouldn't be; is it worth clarifying the correlation in the article? Maralia 19:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I am slightly familiar with Mark designations from working on ships articles, but the layman likely wouldn't be; is it worth clarifying the correlation in the article?

You might be surprised at how many average joes expect to see, and understand, the mark references. OK, maybe I should have stopped at 'expect to see'. Xl five lx 20:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The switch from Mk-xx to Bxx / Wxx in warhead naming was... I have to go look. I'll look into it.  It would be good to be consistent or at least explain ... Georgewilliamherbert 20:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/BJAODN
The Arbitration Committee has adopted a motion in the above arbitration case, stating, "As the underlying dispute has been satisfactorily resolved by the community, and as no evidence of bad-faith actions by any party has been presented, this case is closed with no further actions being taken." This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 03:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that was fun, guess we can get back to work now! — xaosflux  Talk  04:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"mutual harassment"
I don't mean to harass Shankbone, and if you look at his talk-page you will see that I have repeatedly asked to disengage with him and sought to WP:COOL, even when he threatened me off-wiki. The problem is that he is not disengaging with me: twice, after I reached out to him, and got an agreement from him that all of our issues are resolved, he brings new frivolous complaints about me to multiple pages and refuses to stop. I don't know how I am possibly harassing him when he is following me around to articles he has nothing to do with, and all I have done is ask in response that David stop raising false complaints about me. (Cf. this arbcom precedent). If you can point to a diff of one of my edits that is objectionable, I will understand what you mean better. THF 03:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"mutual harassment"
Hi George - I'm not engaging. Today I did a lot of clean up, and wrote a mighty fine article on Reality film - check it out! THF is continually going off half-cocked. I asked Mark a question, and THF, who feels entitled to make a mountain out of every molehill, a wiki-link to policy and guideline in every sentence despite his not following the same, went and opened a COIN on himself, and went around ranting. It's nice he can reference my Talk page, because he rips off all the arguments he gets in off his (sans archive). I think if you were to look at how many arguments I've been involved with in the last week, you would see they all pretty much involved THF. If you look at all of THF's arguments (where he hotkeys wikilinked policies and guidelines), they involve multiple editors (at least five, and I'd even say up to ten). Yet, I'm the problematic editor and harasser? I think THF has that wrong. When everyone else is the problem.... -- David  Shankbone  03:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And I'd also like to point out, George, that the arbcom precedent THF proudly displays he is in violation of himself. "Wikipedia is not a battleground by undue focus on Wikipedia articles regarding them or organizations affiliated with them, or on their editing activities" and "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine and Wikipedia is not a battleground."  I could supply the diffs, and get people to back this up.  But THF's disruption takes so much time.  All I want to do is create!  -- David  Shankbone  03:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

List of private spaceflight companies
I noticed you tagged the article with "attention from experts needed". I think I qualify. What sort of review are you looking for?

The only comment I have is that there's still no entry for my company Venturer Aerospace, but we didn't win a COTS contract and aren't really active now, so that's ok. 8-) Georgewilliamherbert 06:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest, anything at all that you could add to the article would be great. If you feel up to the job, it'd be great if you could clarify that the list is correct so far, possibly supplying references, add more companies and add information to fill wherever you see a questionmark.


 * Also, you could always create the Venturer Aerospace or S-550 articles, if you wanted? Having said that, why document history when you can create it..? Get out there and finish your rocket! :P — Jack · talk · 19:14, Friday, 31 August 2007