User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2010/March

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

W33 (nuclear weapon)
do you know if this was called the M422A1? if so I know whats inside. but i dont know if its been declassed. Brian in denver (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

explosives
Sounds good. Some reference to use in explosives I gather makes sense in the indicated articles; I defer to you on form.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

hello
I'm am so sorry! i didn't read your message first(its the first time i'm using Wikipedia!) but i'm still skeptical. Because an Indian astronaut named Rakesh Sharma successfully completed a space travel, which means that there was a manned reentry mission by ISRO (Indian space research org). Therefore i added India on the list. Please tell me where i am wrong- jai002 and again, i apologize —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jai002 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

okay, thanx for correcting me

SPI goof?
You listed Brucejenner as being a suspected sockpuppet of himself. Maybe you meant to list Montystone as a suspect? Lady of  Shalott  02:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Putting Brucejenner in twice was late night thinko. I was intending to check User:Ballsdeepbob, I hadn't noticed Montystone matched, but on reviewing I see that he does.
 * I added Montystone to the request, he's clearly another good duck test candidate... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * er, to add a bit I thought I said at first (but apparently missed) - Thanks! Good spot.  I appreciate you  noticing and saying something about it.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. We all do stuff like that at times! Lady  of  Shalott  03:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Finger
Yes. I decided a stint in the sin-bin could do me a world of good.:) Crum375 (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

ongoing
Thanks George, and godo and all for the protection. Off2riorob (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:SanJoachinLightandPowerBldg.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:SanJoachinLightandPowerBldg.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 05:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:KnightsArmamentCompany-PDW-FOLDED.GIF
 Thanks for uploading File:KnightsArmamentCompany-PDW-FOLDED.GIF. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You know what, I do not mind!
I put some facts in my user space. I will not link to it, but sure you will find it. I guess by doing so I violated the topic ban. Ah, who cares? So, I guess it is a good reason to sanction me. Besides you've already made up your mind who is to blame,and who should be sanctioned. You know what, I do not mind. Please do sanction me, and lift topic ban from everybody else. Nobody is guilty, but me. I have started it, I have continued it, and now I am about to finish it. Please do block me, and block me indefinitely. I mean it. Thank you for your time and understanding. Warmest regards. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * oh really, you have not blocked me yet, and did not bother to respond either. Then let me give you some advise: It might be a good idea before next time you will write something like that "Mbz01 is the user looking at sanctions" to become a little bit more involved than you were, I mean at least involved enough to write my name right.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please take a 24-48 hour break

You've gotten to the point that you're hanging around pushing people's buttons in the recent dispute, and you're escalating the circle of people whose buttons you are pushing.

This is not constructive in any manner whatsoever. It doesn't help the encyclopedia, it doesn't help you win content arguments, it doesn't improve articles, and it certainly is not useful for your ongoing participation here.

If it's your intention to provoke someone into blocking you, I am not going to rise to the occasion at this point. I have far better things to do, since you did in fact not further escalate the underlying incident in those 24 hours. But if you keep this up you will cross the line with someone and you'll get put on enforced time out.

Nothing that has happened here so far has left any permanent marks - either on content, or on people's block logs. Taking a break will help put that in perspective and hopefully let you continue on without any longer term problems.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Empty words of so called uninvolved administrator, who has no idea what he's talking about. What people's buttons I'm pushing. Any differences so far? Please get off my talk page, if you have nothing else to add.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have something else to add please respond here. I will check on your response otherwise...--Mbz1 (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI
I have mentioned your name at here. Unomi (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Mbz1 block
I was hoping you could please point out to me where you see an indication of "significant administrator support for a proposal blocking you for a week and putting you on user interaction probation for three months." I'm having trouble finding any support for that except by one administrator who has been heavily involved in the dispute and clearly has a personal stake. Furthermore, I'm having some trouble with this sentence of yours: "the level of personal attacks and disruptive actions by all but one of the parties involved dropped off nearly completely". If after being warned, the parties involved have continued with ANY personal attacks or disruptive actions, they should be blocked. It's not a matter of who is behaving the worst. If the user Factsontheground made inappropriate accusations of racism which you yourself pointed out, after the interaction ban, then clearly he didn't get the message. But of course, as a result of this wikihounding and harassment of Mbz1, she is the only one who gets banned because all of the attention is on her. I hope you can take a step back and think about the message you are sending to Factsontheground (and also Daedalus969 who has continued to be completely uncivil on the AN/I.... as well as even Vexorg whose personal attack on an AfD is what started this whole saga). Breein1007 (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I may have misread the ANI support by uninvolved admins, but that's not relevant to my block. It was part of the overall warning associated with the block but had no bearing on the reason for the block, which was ongoing disruption.
 * We do not block everyone who violates policy or decorum in a slight manner on sight, as anyone who follows ANI can tell from the fact that most participants aren't blocked most of the time. Doing so interferes with the ability of people to resolve conflicts.  We warn when misbehavior is excessive or ongoing for extended periods of time, and block if we have to.  As I stated to Mbz1, after the earlier 24 hr interaction ban, everyone else involved stopped behaving in manners which exceed acceptable thresholds.  Mbz1 got worse afterwards, rather than better.  That's not even vaguely ok.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I must insist on this point. You are contradicting yourself. Let's be very clear here. Is accusing someone of racism not "behaving in manners which exceed acceptable thresholds"? If this behaviour is acceptable, then why did you yourself warn Factsontheground to stop doing it? This warning came after the 24 hour interaction ban. Breein1007 (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You will note that Factsontheground stepped away from that immediately upon being told to do so. The difference is, Mbz1 did not.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is correct. I'm not here to debate Mbz1's ban. I'm simply here to attempt to show you that only blocking her sends a very bad message to the other editors involved. The warning to stop the personal attacks should have been received from the 24 hour interaction ban. There is no reason why Factsontheground should have been entitled another warning a few days after that ban. It's like a get out of jail free card. How are editors supposed to know how many of these free warnings they get if there is going to be inconsistent sanctioning? Breein1007 (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If everyone were going to get no warnings, just an immediate block, after something like the interaction ban, Mbz1 would have been blocked a couple of days ago when I instead warned her and advised her to take a 24-48 hour Wikibreak. Factsontheground's actions came after that, and wouldn't have happened if Mbz1 had been blocked at the time instead of being here and commenting still.
 * You're arguing that Admins need to be harsher, because the person you support was the one caught out when we finally had to act, and the response was therefore not entirely symmetrical. As I noted on ANI, however, there's a fallacy that it takes two to tango.  Individuals can and often do on Wikipedia work themselves up into abusive / disruptive situations without another party being equally involved and responsible for the abuse.  Regardless of what I feel about who started what when, Factsontheground responded appropriately to warnings and requests to calm things down, and avoided a block simply and appropriately by not doing anything worthy of blocking.  That's entirely the point of warnings - we prefer to ask people nicely to behave, then warn them to behave, and then block only as a last resort.
 * Party A misbehaves a bit, listens to warning and stops. Party B misbehaves a lot, ignores multiple warnings, escalates the behavior.  B gets blocked.  That's how it works.  That's how it's supposed to work.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there George. Even though you showed considerable leniency towards Mbz1 given the long term circumstances she did indeed remove the block notification and then later after reinserting the block message lied by claiming she'd never removed the block message and further made an attack against you on the foundation of that lie. Considering this terrible attitude she displays I think 24 hours is far too short. Vexorg (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Further
If you are feeling particularly strong willed, you may wish to review User talk:LessHeard vanU. I am content to leave these matters in your competent hands. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Tetryl
You are very welcome —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acechem (talk • contribs) 18:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

For you
For the unfair block to satisfy four wikihounds, for falsely claiming in this block explanation that "there is significant administrator support for a proposal blocking you for a week and putting you on user interaction probation for three months" while in reality the so called proposal was supported only by four wikihounds, one of which happened to be an administrator, for blocking me in the time my case was discussed at AN/I that prevented me from defending myself, for not providing any single difference to confirm so-called "disruptive" editing in the same block explanation, and for falsely claiming I removed block message while in reality I never had, I am slapping you with a wet trout.If you'd like to respond the message may I please ask you to respond here? I will check on it myself. Thanks. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Topic and interaction ban for me, Mbz1 and Factsontheground
I posted a very similar comment on the ANI page, but you may well miss it as it lie between many other comments. In your proposal to ban us three you wrote that we all violated the guidelines of WP during the last 24 hours prior to your proposal and that we all were warned in the past. As for me, just wanted to ask-when exactly I was officialy and specifically warnned by admin on I-P issues? The last time ANI was submitted against me, which is also the first, (excluding one I-P relatively recent wikialert case which was resolved with nothing) was about half year ago over edit warring on a totaly different article which is unrelated to the I-P topic and dealed with other users (and ended very shortly). I can't see how from this ANI my name was raised to topic ban and interaction ban. What, because I made too many comments? Did I make any PA that jusitfy such far reaching sanctions? If I did please tell me. I realy have no intend to comment on this page again-just asking for an answer. If this comment violating any policy of WP that I'm not aware of, please remove and ignore it.--Gilisa (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Block
Hi mate, today I tried to edit an article on en.wiki without logging in and found out that I am not allowed due to your block of ip range (Orijentolog disruption). Although blocking ip range is usefull tool there are some good users also blocked because of it and I will be glad if you consider it next time. Thanks and regards -- Las ta  10:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Snorks5678
I had no idea this user was a sock. Anyways, he came on IRC and was not very civil, so I support the indef block. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please respond
Hi George, I'd like to ask to explain your latest blocks please because I consider taking this to Requests for comments.

user:factsontheground
The user made only three edits to the post that discussed the user. I would have understood, if the user was blocked or topic-banned for PA at the user's talk page, for edit warring on the articles, but to call the user conduct at AN/I "disruptive editing" was a very, very big stretch. There were no PA in the user's edits, and no disruption.

user:Mbz1 me
I did not initiate the thread at AN/I, as a matter of fact I have never ever ever ever initiated any thread at AN/I about any editor involved in I/P conflict editing. I was not going to comment there, but, when not just one, but three different users mentioned me ; ; I took the bait. Silly? Probably. Blockabale? No. There were no PA and no disruptions in my edits.

User:Gilisa
Yes, the user made few comments, so what. No matter how many comments the user made there were no PA and no disruption. The user should not have got blocked just for commenting at AN/I.

Interaction ban
Please see here: ;;;. As you see I was one of the lucky ones :), who did not get that kind of message at my talk page. So your "interction ban" between the user and two of us seems not good enough.

There was absolutely no valid reason to block any one of us for what we were blocked! I do not know about other two users, but, if instead of blocking me, you have banned me from AN/I, I would have gladly surrender to the sanction.

George, you really should give it another thought, or maybe two before you pushing the button, you should remember that you pushing not a button, but people, and it hurts, when it is so unfair.

So please do respond my questions. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To GWH: The whole mess might well need topic bans all round for bullying etc (remember a few years back this kind of rubbish was so routine in I/P that no-one thought it was a problem) but more immediately Cptnono is already under a sanction (WP:ARBPIA) to stop him from pursuing users. Is that straightforward grounds for a block/topic ban or does it have to be taken to AE?

Replaceable fair use File:Sajil-missile-3_8802301396_L600.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Sajil-missile-3_8802301396_L600.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Response
Thanks for your message. Yes, I have been whacking away at a variety of topics for about 5 years - many of them militarily-related. I don't think my brother does any Wiki work - puts his efforts on the AFM site... Mark Sublette (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Norse Am Legend
Norse Am Legend is failing to win friends and influence people at at WT:N. I see that s/he's been issued a 'final warning' at User_talk:Norse_Am_Legend, but I'm not sure whether it was intended to be specific to interactions with Collectonian. Could you take a look? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI
--Mbz1 (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Return of the Sockpuppet
A sockpuppet of Orijentolog has returned as none other than the dastardly IP 93.143.26.133! If you would block that individual it would much appreciated. You have previously protected the page United Against Nuclear Iran for his disruptive, vandalistic edits. Much appreciated. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Zzzzap. Let me know if more show up.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hah, thanks. But this is a wild one!!! Hold onto your pantaloons because here comes 93.143.45.125. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Got him as well. I'm not going to be up all night, but if they keep coming I can keep blocking them for a while yet...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please blast the next copycat - DowJonesFan. Thanks! Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppets take VII (1) 93.143.30.190 (2) 93.143.2.118. Thanks again. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked 93.143/16 for 72 hours this time. Eventually they'll get the message.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish to appeal this blockage. I don't know that Orijentolog guy nor do I care about him, but you've blocked an ISP's entire client network which I find unacceptable. --Arny (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)