User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2011/February

Looking for admin to help with civility problem
I approached user brewercrewer but he didn't seem to want to read the discussion, so I went to user Sandstein and he threatened to block me. I'm asking for a third opinion because I don't think I did anything wrong.

I proposed an article for deletion and am having my contributions attacked without having my reasoning addressed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Markvs88#My_deletion_tag_was_not_.22spurious.22 If others agree it shouldn't be deleted, ok, but I don't see why I deserve to be attacked and to have someone cast aspersions on my contributions.

The following are direct quotes directed towards me, and I don't feel I did anything to deserve them. I've done my utmost to remain polite.

"Yes, and for all I know you've made thousands of spurious page delete requests from random IP numbers."

"You can feel that way, but the deletion tag was spurious: it was a bastard effort."

"I've only pointed out that I'm not taking your word for anything (and why should I, since you can't be bothered to always edit from the same IP, much less make an account?). "

Regarding that, I have a dynamic IP which changes multiple times a day, as I explained to him more than once. It's not deliberate and it's not under my control.

"   Yawn. Come back when you have something to say. Whomever you are"

That after I asked why he was linking to a policy page which had nothing to do with me.

"Nah, you're just wasting your time trying to pick a fight here. But thanks, I always enjoy having yet another stalker! BTW, if you're going to ask people such as user talk:Brewcrewer to look into me, I suggest that you not try to goad me over a week for replies over something which could have been easily solved (sixth time here!) by you commenting on the page you wanted to delete as to why."

I didn't "goad" anyone and neither did I stalk anyone.

"What makes you think I have it in for you, other than the same paranoia which prevents you from creating an account?"

I never said he "had it in for me", although it must be true if he's saying it. Then he accuses me of being paranoid for editing from an IP.

"Now you're just being petulant. "

I'm not petulant, I'm not paranoid, and I'm not a stalker. I fail to see why I deserve to be called these things because I edit from an IP. Thank you, 74.108.174.233 (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow. Sandstein and Brewcrewer both said no... how many people are you going to ask to help you with a "problem" that is of your own making? Georgewilliamherbert, I am happy to discuss this if you see any merit in it, but this user seems to think I'm his personal Lex Luthor or something. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Brewcrewer said nothing whatsoever regarding what I'm saying. He told me to go file some report which I don't know how to do. I do not think you're my "personal Lex Luthor", whatever that means. I merely am asking to be treated with respect. I edit from an IP. That doesn't mean I'm "paranoid" or a "stalker" or "trying to pick a fight" or being "spurious" or a "bastard" or anything else you said. I merely proposed a deletion, explaining my reasoning. 74.108.174.233 (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * and Sandstein agreed with me. 74.108.90.205 (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * here's what sandstein said 74.108.90.205 (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * thoughts? 74.108.84.64 (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Topic ban
Hi, I would like to know how I can appeal this, as it seems very heavy handed for a 2RR infraction, and after I made an apology. I cannot deny there has been some edit warring in the past, but I did not go past 2RR in this instance, and I think the number of 3RRs in the past I have made is very small, and my discussion of the matter has been civil for the most part during the dispute. I would like to also make it clear (as some editors have misconstrued what I said) that I did not say Wikipedia was a cult, but borderline on being a cult. Well I will retract that remark given the opportunity and apologise for it as it was made in the heat of the moment and under pressure. DMSBel (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The totality of your ongoing behavior convinced the community that a sanction was required. This is what happens when there's an ongoing problem for an extended length of time.
 * I certainly hope that you are able to contribute positively in other areas; this wasn't a ban from editing completely, just from one topic that you seem to have a particular problem with.
 * You can appeal to the community, or to the arbitration committee, as I noted on your talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If I may jump in, I'd advice DMSBel to read WP:OFFER before thinking about appealing. Given the overwhelming consensus on the ban, appealing immediately is most probably going to result in a fiasco and would probably irritate the community even more. Wait six months, show consistently that you can be a productive contributor in other areas and odds will be much better. -- Cycl o pia talk  22:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have filed at ARBCOM [] to appeal my ban, I had not seen Cyclopia's comment above before doing that, neither do I understand what that is about exactly or if it applies to me.DMSBel (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi George, you told ArbCom: "no support for anything shorter than indefinite." I don't think that's correct. I said at ANI, "Oppose topic ban, especially in view of apology....All I'm saying is that if he's blocked or banned as a result of this discussion, it should be for a limited time." I also suggested limiting sanctions to one particular article, or limiting sanctions to removal of images. So there was some slight support for something shorter than indefinite, and also for a narrower scope. Would you please correct your statement to ArbCom? Also, I would have liked you to describe whether an indefinite topic ban is usually given without any user rfc, and without any escalating blocks. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry if it seems I skipped over that. It wasn't unanimous, as you mention you opposed it.  It was pretty overwhelming.  We need a reasonable majority for consensus on things; this was far past that minimum level.
 * I didn't think it made sense to do a response-by-response summary; anyone can go read the discussion, and everyone on Arbcom who responded seems to have done so.
 * I didn't mean to minimize your opinion either, though. My apologies for that impression.
 * It is unusual for someone to exhaust the community patience without a RFC having come through or escalating blocks, but not unheard of. I'll note that in a followup comment as well.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the followup comment.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Your warning
You're forgetting that it was Herostatus who restored my comments. I was quite willing to put this nonsense to rest. He wants a circus on the ArbCom pages for some reason. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I missed that - That's clearly not your fault for it coming back. His bad.
 * That said, it needs to stop getting worse.
 * The usual retraction method is to strike through the test - strike this through.
 * I am not going to order you to strike anything - it would be good, and would be a sign of good faith, but it's up to you. I won't sanction anyone for anything done so far, prior to warnings.  But it needs to not keep going.
 * Efforts made to calm things down would help and be appreciated.
 * Thanks.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

re Arbcom case decorum
Right, good points, sorry. Herostratus (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Constellation Family
My problem with the article is I can't find any source that calls any of these "constellation families". The only hits I can find in Google and Google books are all false positives. Since no evidence exists that the term is widely used, the article is synthesis. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thor - PLEASE STOP
 * You have gone way way past normal or reasonable discussion on an article deletion page.
 * Please also recall our policy on assuming good faith and our policy on not making personal attacks.
 * You expressed your opinion on the article. If it's kept, discuss changes on the article talk page.  Dumping that much information into a deletion discussion and attacking someone who complains about it are not ok.
 * Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Georgewilliamherbert: I am defending BlueEarth's article. Too many people's good work gets slashed a little too quickly. This seriously needs to be considered by the choppers. Patience and time generates articles of great wonder. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say not to defend it. But you've gone insanely overboard in defending it.
 * Defending it is fine. Causing a huge disruptive mess, even with good intentions, is not.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI
I have a question, and could not find the answer on ANI. I have some connection to the Aspartame issue on there now, and I was thinking of commenting. That said, I was wondering if it was ok for non admins to comment there. Thanks! Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Non-admins are welcome to comment. Please feel free to.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 2

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Something for you to look at
This IP claims to be the same user you previously banned from editing, and that also had a topic ban on Barack Obama and Abortion related articles before his ban indefinitely. He is openly admitting to editing from an IP disregarding his previous indefinite ban as well as topic bans by editing a Abortion related article at Planned Parenthood. I fail to see why such flagrant and admitted circumvention of wikipedia policies should be tolerated. (Note, I also posted a similar message on bureaucrat User talk:Nihonjoe to let them know). To summarize, he clearly claims to be the blocked user, and is therefore already violating policy (I believe), but is also editing in areas that he had a topic ban in before his indefinite block. WikiManOne 09:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
My comment on Killdec's talk page was unnecessary. I have stricken it. Thanks for setting me straight. NW ( Talk ) 03:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

need advise, about reliable sources
first i want to think you for supporting my appeal for an unbanning.

I plan on adding content to this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravan_raids

regarding raids carried out by the islamic prophet muhammad.

i once used this book, but noticed reference to it was removed for 2 major reasons

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FhjPV9mVnNEC&pg=PT10#v=onepage&q&f=false

1. I directly copied certian text from that book (leading to copyvio) 2. The author is not considered notable by some contributors.

I want to know whether i would be able to use the source (given above) as a reference for material or opinions i add? or should i avoid using it all together--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 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) 15:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Delia Peabody block
Could you please link to the SPI in which the evidence for this block was presented. If there isn't one, then could you please present the information on which this block is based? Cla68 (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was primarily behavioral, but was followed by a private CU which confirmed and led to blocks on and .  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Slight correction - the CU was done and Will marked TidyBorg as having been caught by the CU but forgot to actually block. I just blocked TB.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request of Delia Peabody
Hello Georgewilliamherbert. , whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC) .... Please arrange to have this information forwarded to me for my review, thanks. This smacks of Scibaby-ism. ++Lar: t/c 16:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Emailed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)