User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2011/April

The Signpost: 4 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 09:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

AK-200 and QBZ-03
These articles have no image. Could you upload some images to them?

Here are the links for AK-200.        

For QBZ-03.  --Kungfu2187 (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Those images don't have their original copyright information available for them, that I can tell. We have to be careful about using images without proper copyright.  We have a whole huge policy here to keep us from stealing other people's content...
 * If you know where they came from (other than "thefirearmblog.com", I mean the original photographer or magazine or wherever), then that's the place to start asking for proper permission...
 * Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you search AK-200 and QBZ-03 and also ST Kinetics CPW, RPG-16, RPG-27, RPG-28, RPG-30 and RPG-32, use Google. --Kungfu2187 (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI
Sticking my admin hat on for a moment; so as one admin to another. Your interaction with Giano is negative. Your comments at the current ANI thread simply look bad faith atempts to haver yet another go at Giano. I don't like you - you don't like me. That's fair enough. But try to be a smidge professional and not intervene in a situation that has all the apperance of you just wanting to have your three pence, without understanding the deeper conversations. Ta. Pedro : Chat  22:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't dislike you, and I appear to have accidentally looked like I was taking a swipe at Giano (the stream of insults and ANI comment) that I intended to point at Blofeld.
 * I clarified who the subject of that particular comment was on ANI and apologized if I confused anyone. The ONLY part of my comment there I intended to be critical of Giano was agreeing that perhaps there was too much OWN, but that a talk page discussion was the appropriate venue for that.
 * To the degree that appeared to be a swipe at Giano, I'm sorry for making the comment. I understand why someone would be concerned that I might be sniping at him, but that was entirely not my intention, and I am sorry that I wasn't clear enough to start with.
 * I actually get along better with Giano and Malleus than a lot of people seem to think. They're just as deserving of my praise (rare, but happens) and support if someone starts abusing them (has happened with both) as any other editor.  My disagreements with their civility approach don't reach to the level of disrespect for their participation or contributions or personal dislike.  I'm not sure either of them entirely believe me on that point, but I really don't resent them and I'm really not out to get them.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As an aside - I am offline for work meetings for a couple of hours now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarifications. Pedro : Chat  22:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As Blofeld is still posting on this matter in relevant places: I have commented on the matter here . I trust that Arbs and Admins will ensure that this is the end of the matter. I don't intend to be insulted or trolled by this person again. I hope it will not be necessary for me to have to comment further. I will try to leave it to the Admins and Arbs as I always being told to do. Giacomo Returned 12:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

AK-200, Not from "The Firearm Blog"
For AK-200 http://www.gun-world.net/russain/kalash/ak100/newak37.jpg http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/1716/3357331.jpg --Kungfu2187 (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion
Dear Sir:

I happened to stumble across this old page from "forever ago":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive553

... wherein you refer to an indef on User:Mrwick1. Seems something got worked out on this after the above post, as I've seen him around since under same name. Therefore, this post is probably meaningless.

In any case, I have no doubt whatsoever that your concerns were legit. Only reason I even bring it up is just to let you know (and presumably, through you, other "honchos" and "dieties", etc.) that this user is TRULY one of the PIONEERS in his field (cancer pathology). Absolutely no question about it. Having him around is sort of like having Wayne Gretzky editing hockey articles, or having God edit on cosmology. No doubt you get my drift :-)

Best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * He was unblocked a couple of days later by another administrator after the issue with copyrights was worked out. Indefinite does not mean permanent around here.  He seems to have been a very constructive contributor around here since then!  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Your assessment at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

 * As you may or may not have seen, I replied there (disagreeing with your assessment of my actions). And this right here is exactly what I mean about harassment, and about only one of us not being able to let things go. I am not the one you need to be warning/telling to move on. Flyer22 (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom request
Letting you know that I mentioned your name in this ArbCom request. Cla68 (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Tricastin leak and 'fissile'
You are as confused about this issue as the user who is war editing the article to continue his long-running campaign of trying to censor as many incidents as he can from the list. The IAEA issues INES warnings for nuclear incidents because they reach a significant severity. They issued one for Tricastin. By your logic, that because there is massively dilute uranium in the oceans, the IAEA would issue an INES warning because the oceans exist. But they do not. That should give you a huge clue.

Do you really think the French would have "...banned the drinking of water, fishing and consumption of fish in three rivers and three ponds. Swimming and water sports were also forbidden as was irrigation of crops with the water containing the toxic material." if ocean water had leaked?! Your reasoning is nonsensical.

Also, multiple events on the page could be excluded if the criteria was that the material that leaked must be in a form that would be capable of sustaining fission. But that is not the criteria - it simply says that the event "should involve fissile material". Uranium is a fissile material. The leak came from a civilian nuclear facility. The Tricastin event very clearly meets the criteria for inclusion.

Re. war editing. Why are you accusing me of it when two people are reverting the repeated edits of one person? You give the appearance of being biased - especially given your attempt to redefine the scope of the article. Also, you should note that the other user has a long history of war editing this and other nuclear pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nailedtooth#STOP

Again: the Tricastin incident involved significant release of uranium and therefore clearly complies with the scope of the article: "The event should involve fissile material" from a civilian nuclear facility. Please reinstate the edit. AzureAnt (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to redefine the scope, the scope is explicitly listed in the article already.
 * Again - You seem to misunderstand the word "fissile". Rock contains uranium at 2-10 parts per billion typically - is rock fissile because it has uranium in it naturally?  Is seawater fissile because it contains uranium?  Are the Fiestaware plates in my kitchen (that I do not eat off of...) with Uranium oxide yellow glaze fissile?  The answer is no, in all cases.
 * Fissile is a technical word. It means capable if sustaining a chain reaction.  Uranium that is in low concentrations or not enriched enough cannot sustain a chain reaction.
 * Lacking the conditions for a leaked material to "go critical" and sustain a chain reaction, the material is not fissile. Radioactive, yes, but the article's definition (which I did not write, but I merely observe and aim to stay consistent with) says that mere radioactive releases are listed on the other lists.
 * I didn't remove anything from anywhere, I haven't edited the article itself. Please discuss this on the talk page, and reconsider the actual technical meaning of the word fissile (which our article Fissile covers nicely).  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Have not seen you send a warning to the guy responsible
Is there a reason that you have failed to send your template warning to the other guy who was actually guilty of vandalism?It is not doing your credibility any good I can tell you.Owain the 1st (talk) 06:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That was because he already had that template warning, in December, and you didn't. Everyone participating in that topic and pushing any of our limits gets the warning.  You clearly were pushing limits today, whether you violated them or not.
 * I was continuing to review the situation and have blocked him for a week. I need to review your behavior in more depth next.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I Agree, and Apologize
Dear Sir:

You are correct about my rant. I will not do it again. However, I respectfully ask that you keep in mind what is the cart, and what is the horse. Were it not for this guys behavior, myself and numerous other people would not be OUTRAGED, and NONE of this would have happened.

How this guy has managed to continue to do what he does for so long is just beyond me. I hope you will take the time to review HIS TALK PAGE, and all its archives.

Again, I'm sorry, but PLEASE do something about his antics. They are RIDICULOUS.

Best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In case you don't see it, I said on the "Incidents" page - I already TRIED this "please do something else" approach, literally BEGGING him. He does what he wants, over and over, in area after area, without consultation, and it doesn't MATTER what others think. Look at his history! It's all there.

Regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

AndresHerutJaim
Since you are the blocking admin, you may be interested in Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What happened?
George, do you know what happened to the ANI thread pertaining to User:Alan Liefting? I think It was initiated by User:Rememberway and had the section heading: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Steve Quinn (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently it has been archived. Since this discussion is still ongoing, should the archiving of this thread be reverted? Steve Quinn (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank You George
I just wanted to drop a thank you, "Thank You"; for your reenforcement, and in my mind, moral support. I honestly hate having to dress down any editor, regardless of tenure, age, or experience. Cheers and Best, — Ched : ?  10:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What's the deal here?
Regarding the situation at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where a number of editors have expressed displeasure with how this was handled (specifically, by you). My comment was:
 * ''May I point something out? Here we have a dispute between two editors:
 * ''Flyer22 has been a Wikipedian for four years. She has 46,000 edits (65% to article space). She has nine barnstars, five DYK's, four GA's, and many other accomplishments, all of which can be seen with a quick scan of her user page. In addition, she is an outstanding, fair-minded, erudite, and talented editor who works hard in a number of difficult areas, and has for years.
 * ''Bakhshi82 has been a Wikipedian for less than a year. He has 165 edits (30% to article space). This is not counting whatever editing he has done under various IPs or previously-banned usernames. He is... not a good editor, let us say; I'll leave the particulars as an exercise for the reader, along with the assessment of this editor's mental state.
 * ''So when Flyer22 comes here with a legitimate complaint, what happens? She gets jumped and then hung out to dry. What a ludicrous spectacle. And you people wonder why established editors are getting pissed off and leaving. "Come to ANI"? Why yes sir I'll bring my next problem right to ANI, just as soon as I finish pounding in some tent pegs with my forehead, which will be a more productive and certainly more pleasant use of my time. Sheesh.

By "hung out to dry" I was referencing in part your statements where you, at best, appear to be treating the two editors equally, if not treating Bakhshi82 more solicitously ("You've crossed the line into harrassing... Please just stop" to Flyer22 contrasted with "not entirely appropriate" to Bakhshi82).

Why on earth would you do this? Perhaps you were just tired or not paying attention, or what? Is there going to be an apology to Flyer22 forthcoming, I hope? We don't want to be seen as being egregiously abusive to good long-term editors, I think. Herostratus (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Before the ANI thread, it seemed to be a less sophisticated newbie with good intentions in conflict with a more experienced user.
 * We have a policy about this, and it's WP:BITE. That applied at the time and applies now.
 * I agree that the stuff afterwards on Flyer22's talk page went into creepyville.
 * Nobody can predict what's going to come next. But not BITEing the newbie, who wasn't doing great but wasn't previously being that wierd, is important.  Important enough to be policy.  Try to remember that, too.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, well, thanks for responding. A couple points, which are just my opinion.
 * While not biting newbies is important, not biting good established editors is very much more important. Let's say that of editors with < 200 edits, one in one hundred (being very generous) will turn out to end up with > 45,000 edits (and commensurate other good-editor markers -- GA's, DYK's, articles created, barnstars, years in service, or whatever). If you've got to piss off one of them, who are you going to chose? The one has a 1% chance of becoming very valuable someday, while the other has a 100% chance of being very valuable currently.
 * When a situation like this comes up, it is in my opinion worthwhile to take quick look at the user pages of the editors in question (this is an important reason why we have user pages in my view), followed up perhaps by a use of an edit summarizer. Looking at Flyer22's user page (and edit chart), I see the markers of a good editor, while Bakhshi82's page tells me nothing and his edit chart is sparse and unimpressive. One can't really form an opinion about Bakhshi82 from this quick overview, but in my opinion it would be very unusual for a user with Flyer22's editing history to be a bad editor. It's not unheard of. But it's not likely. (And in fact, Flyer22 is a very good editor.)
 * Given that, I would think it would be in order to say to oneself "Well, wait a minute. What is going on here?"
 * Now, as it turned out, Bakhshi82 is apparently a ______ and Flyer22 is not. We couldn't know that in advance, necessarily. But it's not surprising, really; there are a lot of editors with < 200 edits who are ______. While if the converse had turned out to be true (Flyer22 being a ______ and Bakhshi82 not), that would have been unusual and surprising.


 * (In some ideal world we could have taken a detailed look at the edit histories of the litigants and spend time learning who they are. That is not possible of course. We are short of admins (I hear), and it's probable that admins (including you) are under a lot of stress for this reason and just because of the demands of the position. This is a problem and I don't know the answer to that, but I would say that if one doesn't have the time to do a thing right (perfectly understandable) one should consider passing on it -- maybe someone who does have more time will come along.)


 * Well, at any rate... whether or not you could have or should have been expected to read the situation differently, in point of fact you did make a mistake (as we all do, often enough -- God knows I do), so to rectify this, could I prevail upon you to perhaps drop a note on Flyer22's talk page to the effect that you regret the unfortunate outcome and any part you might have played in it? That would be outstanding, in my opinion. Herostratus (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the continued support, Herostratus. To Georgewilliamherbert, I don't have much more to state...except that this matter had nothing to do with me biting Bakhshi82. It was about what I reported at the Noticeboard. We tried to help/assist/accommodate Bakhshi82, so I am not seeing a biting going on in all of this. And either way, the situation I reported should not have been looked at from a bite point of view. Those are my continued feelings on this, and well... I'll leave it at that. Flyer22 (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Andreas Herutjaim's talk page
In a particular section on his talk page (permalink) a user blocked for socking... via an IP, as I recall(?), AndresHerutJaim, stated that he didn't like a particular edit. You asked for an explanation. So far (?) he hasn't provided one, but IP 157.92.44.71 responded, saying the article in question should only include wars as Israel defines them and then made this edit, restoring Andres' preferred version. This strikes me as pretty darn close to meatpuppetry; I don't think an editor who was blocked for IP socking should be proposing ... wait a minute.

I see IP 157.92.44.71 is located in Buenos Aires, where IP 190.17.232.48 is also located. A school and home address, respectively, I'd guess. The 190.x IP is, of course, blocked as having been used for socking by Andres. Wasn't Andres also located in Argentina? This doesn't look good to me. I know very little about sock detection. Can you help?

I believe I'd be permitted to revert the IP's edit, without penalty under ARBPIA, even though it's within 24 hours of my last reversion to the article, since the talk page says, "edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty"? I'll refrain from doing so, however, until you're able to take a look at this. Thanks, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 06:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Help with moderated nuclear explosion
I've botched an AfD listing for this recreated article. Tsk. In the course of reviewing the wreckage, however, I noticed that you contributed a mild keep comment with some very interesting points. I'm not sure the facts you raise about very-low-yield nuclear explosives rise to the level of notability that would justify an article under that name (or any other), but it does sound like the information should go into some Wikipedia article, if it hasn't already.

By the way, I think we crossed paths briefly at LURNIX quite a few years ago. Not long before that encounter, you'd been at an ISU session somewhere, maybe in Kyushu? (I live in Tokyo now.) Yakushima (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Small world! Yes, I was at Lurnix.  I spent the 1992 summer at ISU in Kitakyushu, yes.  Were you working at Lurnix, or did you take a training there?
 * I will look in to what to do with the info in that article. Thanks for the heads up.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I did a little work for Lurnix. An abortive stab at writing a tutorial on Unix device drivers.  Years later, I taught one C++ course in the Chicago area, on an emergency-substitute basis.  (On the second day of teaching, I learned from my students that they'd all actually signed up for an  MFC course.  I'm still not sure how signals could have gotten quite that crossed.)  My connection to Lurnix was mostly through Jean Tantra, the Mac programmer who rented cubbyhole office space at the Shattuck office for years, studiously avoiding anything to do with Unix. Yakushima (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Block request
This request is a little odd, but here goes: could you block me? For maybe a week? But without prejudice, if that's possible?

Background for the request is here and then, breaking that promise, here. Note that the editor making the immediately following change, which restores a link to moderated nuclear explosion, has openly admitted he's violating WP:NEO in the AfD discussion for moderated nuclear explosion, and has also appealed to WP:IAR, but without explaining how he thinks he's engaged in actually improving Wikipedia rather than in disruptive editing. Rather desperately, he has even resorted to arguing that it's a it would be notable WP:FRINGE theory. Since he's already admitted to WP:NEO in the AfD discussion, his continued use of the term "moderated nuclear explosion" in, for example, this recent change, is hard to interpret as a good faith edit. In effect, he seems to be saying, "the world needs this new term, and I'm going to bootstrap it into the discourse on nuclear power by having a Wikipedia article under that name." It would essentially license people to say, literally, "there was a nuclear explosion at Fukushima."

This is pretty stressful for me, since I have an almost-empty reservations calendar now, owing almost entirely to global radiation phobia (my inn's customer base is 98% inbound tourists coming to Japan). I'm looking at possible business failure, and from what was once a pretty healthy small business up to the morning of March 11th, even during this global recession. My contributions to the moderated nuclear explosion AfD discussion seem to be verging on WP:ADHOM violations. I don't know how to contain myself on this subject. I just don't know how to back away from the WP:BATTLEFIELD. So: maybe I need to be forced away from it. Hence my admittedly strange request -- to you, the only WP admin I've actually met, even if you don't remember me. Yakushima (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Why don't you just back away and let me respond for a bit...
 * Block is sort of excessive. Even if you're stressed.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Heads up!
GWH, I'm preparing to file an appeal at ArbComm/Requests for clarification, of your ban of me from Cold fusion, a current draft is at at the moment. You'd be most welcome to comment on the attached Talk page, or you can ignore this if you prefer. I'm not asking for you to be troutslapped, I see no risk to you! And I think you've been very nice, in fact, patiently explaining your reasons. I just think you were incorrect, or, perhaps more accurately, imbalanced, that's all. You will be notified again, of course, when the request is filed. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the heads up.
 * You're welcome to make the appeal; I will comment once it's filed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Filed
the RfAr/Clarification has been filed, it mentions you, of course. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Block review closing
"Involvement reviewed and within policy, if perhaps not best practice." -- that was about how I saw it. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No prob. Thanks for having listened to the feedback on that.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, I did not know.. Sorry. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)