User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archive2008-01

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:KnightsArmamentCompany-PDW-FOLDED.GIF
Thanks for uploading Image:KnightsArmamentCompany-PDW-FOLDED.GIF. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:KnightsArmamentCompany-PDW.GIF
Thanks for uploading Image:KnightsArmamentCompany-PDW.GIF. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops
Oh, I didn't wish to revert the page - I just wanted to re-open the case for Rebellion of 1857. DemolitionMan (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Trolling at Talk:Blood libel against Jews
You blocked 78.86.159.199 (talk) for trolling at the talk page. According to this edit, 85.92.85.2 (talk) claims to be the same user evading the block by using a different computer in the same residence. He continues to troll the talk page, which, based on his edit history, is the only thing he's interested in doing on Wikipedia. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Got 'im. Thanks.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Darko Trifunovic sockpuppetry
You recently blocked as a sockpuppet of. What about, who has just appeared on Talk:Darko Trifunovic? A ecis Brievenbus 23:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a new user, . Does he pass the duck test as well, or should he be CheckUsered? A  ecis Brievenbus 19:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

M-1 Carbine Revert War
The M1 carbine article is currently on lock down. An administrator has requested some discussion from memeber of the Firearms Wikiproject. Can you take a look? Sf46 (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I am Dr. Drakken -- possible sockpuppet?
Do you think might be a sockpuppet? That user account appeared less than three weeks ago. It has no user page or entries on the talk page. Within two days, the user is writing articles with tags and template boxes. Two weeks later, he's writing things like "You either misunderstand, or misapply what WP:NPOV_tutorial says as it relates to this article. Yes, we should list all points of view - but in the context of an article about a term, these points of view are of the form "The term J L means..." or "The term JL is used by..". They do not include any and all POV that happen to use the term.". That's not a newbie. This behavior is right out of "Characteristics of sock puppets" in WP:SOCK. Now what? --John Nagle (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Glock 38
Wikiproject firearms doens't create policy in relation to firearms, you can't go around doing what is tantamount to deleting articles because of some little discussion you've had when the articles meet all notability requirements and belong on Wiki in their own right! -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring
I've stopped the edit warring, the other guy you warned didn't, even after being warned. So, you're going to follow through, eh? --Asams10 (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Re-request to unprotect Interchange Fee page
Hello, last month and earlier this year I asked to see if you would lift the protection on the Interchange Fee page, since there have been a few developments that should be added to keep the page timely. I assume you are busy, although if I can't get a response soon, I will try asking someone at the Village Pump, if they have time. Thanks! --Livefeeordie (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Asams10 hostility
He's still at it. I post an overall agreement with his position and he missinterpreted what I said and got very hostile with me over it. Glock pistol discussion. Alyeska (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN discussion
There's a discussion of your blocks of several IPs on the Admin Noticeboard, here. Didn't see any notification given to you, so thought you might want to weigh in. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please watch Jewish lobby
Much to my surprise, a new editor, came along, read all the comments on the talk page, and did a nice job of overhauling the article. The talk page indicates that three other editors generally agreed with this. We're actually approaching consensus. Then simply reverted Jgui's changes with the comment "(rv, old version was much better.)", with no discussion on talk. I reverted that, but I don't want to get into another edit war. So I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at the article and its talk page, and take such action as seems indicated. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 07:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hiya...
What otrs ticket is related to here? Best, Mercury at 16:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would have to go digging through it. The incident seems to be resolved, however, so I unprotected the article.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunate news
George, the Jewish lobby article has become an issue again: Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement Jayjg (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy
Thanks for the PP. May I suggested a longer PP, as Jossi did the last time? He blocked it until "dispute were resolved." THe issue is a gigantic one and I assure you the editors there will not be able to cool down in 24 hours, if another attempt is made to repost the Psci box again against consensus. Thank you for considering my suggestion. Anthon01 (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I will extend if I have to... but I would really rather people try to talk to each other on the article talk page in the next day. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been at the page for awhile now. 24 hours and any real effort will not be forthcoming. Instead, most editors on either side of the divide will be chomping on the bit awaiting their turns to get their way. Indefinite, and everyone after a short break will actively participate in trying to resolve the impasse. Anthon01 (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The last block lasted about 30 days. It gave prospective and time to think. We had about two days of productive editing until SA came up with an edit that he knew would raise hackles. Anthon01 (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You should also tag it with the POV dispute or something. It is an obvious case. It could be nice to see that the rules about NPOV dispute really have a meaning other than editwar.--Area69 (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To my knowlege, this has been going on for ages. I think arbcom has even been involved. HalfShadow (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--Area69 (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Block the edit warriors. The page has been protected for months at a time. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Homeopathy
I can see that you have protected Homeopathy. You may have missed the protection history, and my comments in talk page, in which shows that I unprotected it yesterday after more than a month, and advised users that further disruption will result in blocks. I am unprotecting and pursuing that approach. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa
I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. I'm glad that our previous disagreements have long since past and that you are very supportive of me. Thank you!--MONGO 17:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" category
Reply - I respectfully disagree with labeling homeopathy with the category listing it as "pseudoscience". It is appropriate to place a quote within the article stating that it has been criticised by some (or many) who have called it "pseudoscience", but that is different than creating the impression - by using the "Category:Pseudoscience" - that Wikipedia has officially placed a value judgment upon the science of homeopathy.

I would point out that there would be as much resistance if someone placed "Category:Pseudoscience" on the Podiatry or Psychoanalysis articles. If there was a "Category:Pseudoreligion" or "Category:Cult", there would be as much resistance if placed on the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons articles. All of these have received wide criticism, and quoting criticisms within an article is acceptable. However having Wikipedia insult the subject of an article with a perjorative category label is unacceptable, in my opinion. Arion 3x3 (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ISRO-sre02.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:ISRO-sre02.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Rettetast (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Changes to interchange fee page
Good afternoon, Mr. Herbert.

I just wanted to let you know that I am making changes to the "Interchange Fee" article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interchange_fee). The "Discussion" tab is locked, so I am posting my reasoning on your user page and on the user page of Stymiee, with whom I think I am in a "revert war." In brief, I am trying to correct the bias of the article by inserting into the "controversy" section the other side of the Merchants' argument (of course, you can read the whole history here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interchange_fee&action=history).

I feel that the changes I made are consistent both with the explicit rules of Wikipedia and are in keeping with the spirit of the Wikipedia mission. My edits further the following Wikipedia values (taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_perfect_article): • acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject. My angle on the subject, which includes the activities and viewpoint of the Electronic Payment Coalition (EPC) is certainly part of the “controversy,” which is where I made most of my edits and EPC’s Web site (which I linked to in the “external links” section” is certainly relevant to people looking for external sources of information—at least as relevant as The Merchant’s Bill of Rights. • is completely neutral and unbiased; it has a neutral point of view, presenting competing views on controversies logically and fairly, and pointing out all sides without favoring particular viewpoints. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views are given a lower priority; sufficient information and references are provided so that readers can learn more about particular views. Words like “secrecy” are logical “poison pills;” they assume nefarious (or at least ulterior) motives. “Transparency,” which I used, is a more neutral term. Also, Stymiee is deleting essential parts of the controversy; in a section dedicated to explaining an ongoing controversy, I am presenting one side’s documented argument, that “merchants are simply attempting to shift costs to consumers – costs that are a part of doing business, just as rent, salaries, or the cost of accepting checks,” which I state is an argument, not a fact (that is, it is a verifiable fact that one sides make the argument I present and that that argument is a part of the controversy—thus it belongs in the “controversy” section of this article). • is precise and explicit; it is free of vague generalities and half-truths that may arise from an imperfect grasp of the subject. I wrote “Some countries, such as Australia, have established price controls in this arena. The fees are also the subject of several ongoing lawsuits in the United States.” Stymiee edits this to “Some countries have established significantly lower interchange fees. The fees are also the subject of several ongoing lawsuits in the United States.”  My language is more precise and explicit. I name a country and detail why they have a different interchange fee I do not use words like “significantly” or “marginally” or “nominally” lower; what does “significantly lower” mean? 10 percent lower? 50 percent lower? My language is more precise and explicit. I would also point out that interchange fees are negotiated between banks, they are not set by one group of banks (more on that below). • is well-documented; all facts are cited from reputable sources, preferably sources that are accessible and up-to-date. By linking to the EPC, I am adding to the cache of verifiable facts. People can go to the EPC for their side of the argument and to read the assembled statistics available on the site. I am already gathering more online citations for the facts that I have presented in my edits; currently, my information comes only from wood-pulp media.

I also believe that my edits are in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. For example, much of the "overview" section (before my edits) represented an argument and not verifiable statements of fact. In my deletion of certain passages, I tried to keep the article focused on verifiable, accurate statements of fact about the Interchange Fee, even to the extent of presenting both sides in the "controversy" section.

An example of this is that the article stated "Interchange fees are set collectively by the financial institutions which are stakeholders in Visa (currently an association of banks and other credit card issuers and acquirers) and MasterCard (a public company). Many of these banks issue both credit and debit cards. JPMorgan Chase is the largest issuer of both." In truth, interchange fees are negotiated, not set, (see, for example, http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/06-06/interchange.cfm, "Sears and large grocery chains, have negotiated special interchange fee deals."

Not relevant to the article are the following paragraphs, which serve more to vilify the payment card industry and do not help readers understand what the Interchange fee is, nor its history nor the ongoing controversy that surrounds it.

This post seems long enough and you are a patient man if you have read it in its entirety. Because the discussion page of the Interchange Fee article is locked, I am cross-posting this entry on your page, on my own page and on Stymiee’s for full transparency and I am going to revert the Interchange Fee article to my own edits. Though I hope the altercation I seem to be having with Stymiee can be worked out without any intervention, I hope that I can contact you again should the need arise.

Thanks,

Anne Rush (Arush-JMP) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arush-JMP (talk • contribs) 22:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)