User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2013/April

Naval History
Hello, 'Georgewilliamherbert', I'm a member of WikiProject Ships. To help naval historians here at Wikipedia in the effort of writing and citing naval history articles sometime ago I created the List of ships captured in the 19th century and Bibliography of early American naval history pages. Over the last year(+) I have been tracking down and including names of captured ships and naval history texts for inclusion in either of these articles. I like to think that I have included most captured ships (19th century) and most naval history texts (1700s-1800s) for inclusion in these articles, so if you know of any captured ships or naval history texts that are not included would you kindly include them, either on the page or the talk page of the appropriate article? Any help would be a big help and feedback is always welcomed. Thanx! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
And seriously, that stuff needs to be removed. It's completely bad faithed (user's personal screeds being presented as some kind of "official" findings, rantings by anonymous trolls six years ago etc.) and it's very size and presentation mode makes it disruptive. If Skapperod wants to take his sweet time in fixing his post, well, I don't see why that's a valid excuse in a case like this. If he can't be bothered to properly link rather than spam, then his post should simply be redacted. Volunteer Marek 23:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Counting - Niemti
The way I came up with 5 supports on the IAB was Kurtis, Salvadrim, Ched, Fladrif, Guy. Kurtis, Salvadrim and Ched supported an IAB in their Discussion comments. Fladrif (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes sense. I'm re-reading at that level to confirm that.  We have an additional problem there though that Guy's second set of proposals (the 4 5 bundle) was nearly unversally "Oppose" without a specific 4 or 5, so I would think we'd have to make that "both" not "just 5".  Re-reading as specifically as possible both the comments you point out and the detailed comments in the lower section now.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ched looks like he's thinking about it but then says "they don't work out as well in practice" paraphrasing, so I think that counts as a not-voting rather than a yes. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're going through exactly the same questions that I did. Ched said it was the only thing he could support, but then makes the caveat you point out. I counted that as support with a recognition that it might not work. I can see your perspective as well. Pretty much all of the Opposes on the counter-proposal specifically commented on the civility parole, but were silent about the IAB, so that's how I counted them. Someone else might view that differently. To me the most important point is that both affected editors agreed to an IAB with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Fladrif (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have asked all the users who !voted in the last section on their talk pages. I don't know that I can make a call either way given the specifics.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that asking them to clarify is the best course of action. Fladrif (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm comfortable with either interpretation of my comment. I would fully support anything that would enable both editors to continue contributing to the project without baiting, harassment, disagreements or drama.  My own past observations have been that often WP:IBAN becomes a further sticking point in future involvements when one editor starts the "I edited that article first" type of excuses.  Both editors in this case seem to have an interest in video games, so it's easy for me to foresee future interactions between the two.  I believe that Sjones23 has the best of intentions, but is for some reason drawn to any of the editing that Niemti does; and gets further obsessed with repeated postings to find any objectivity with those situations. More often than not that objectivity seems to elude Sjones (IMO).  I am fine with any interpretation George posts in this case as a completely un-involved admin., and will leave him/you to find a reasonable solution to the situation.  I'll also add my "thank you" to that for taking on a difficult and divisive topic.  Best to all. — Ched :  ?  22:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I'm looking forwards to the other six people answering as well, so we can close this point.  I left a comment for Neimti that I strongly support the voluntary separation whether the final IB is passed or not.  I agree that both editing far apart from each other will defuse a lot of potential pain and suffering.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to wrap this up, it came out no consensus after 6 of the 7 of the people answered (mostly on their talk pages, and here for Ched). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought becoming an admin (and being the subject of a bloody 'crat chat!) would've helped people to spell my damn name right... guess I'm being too optimistic! ;) :) · Salvidrim!  ·  &#9993;  03:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There are days I can't spell *my* name right... My apologies.  ...  8-)  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'm used to it. :) · Salvidrim!  ·  &#9993;  03:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Answer to your question
George, I tried to answer your question on Delicious Carbuncle's talk page, but I was reverted. The answer can be found here. ‑Scottywong | speak _ 18:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And to be clear, I don't speak for DC or for Arbcom, that's just a restatement of something DC said himself on ANI. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _  18:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Bringing something to your attention
Hello. Thank you for your attention, yours  almost - instinct 09:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) you banning pigsonthewing from FA discussions
 * 2) pigsonthewing taking part in a discussion about an FA about to appear on the main page
 * The former does not ban me from any discussions. This is yet anther attempt to stifle legitimate discussion of infoboxes relating to classical music; contrary to Wikipedia policy on reaching consensus. Note that on the latter page, A-i is also calling another editor's good faith into question. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Unimportant footnote: POTW makes a factual error about what I wrote elsewhere  almost - instinct 13:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is just Wiki-lawyering by Mabbett who regards his ban thus . Changing the venue doesn't diminish the fact he is discussing a Featured Article of the Day. The ban came about precisely because of his behaviour on a TFA discussion about an infobox. --Folantin (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The comment cited by Folantin is not about any ban; but about the absence of the one falsely claimed. It is not "Wiki-lawyering" to point out false claims. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Continued aggressive behaviour in the discussion . --Folantin (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously I can't speak for George, but having a quick look at this, my take is that Andy is not editing or commenting at Carmen which is the TFA to be. Rather he is commenting in the Project discussion regarding the infobox (or navbox if you prefer).  Note to George - this "infobox" debate has been going on for quite some time, and there's even a recent AN/I thread which relates to this. (here).  Personally I believe that if the "broadly construed" aspect of the original topic ban would have been intended - then is should have been explicitly stated.  As it appears to me however - what is a discussion regarding this infamous "infobox" is being used as a tool to seek further sanctions on Andy simply because the topic was brought up in a Project discussion where an article in question just happens to be a TFA.  Just IMO. — Ched :  ?  19:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Under the circumstances, I am going to make a preliminary determination that with the wider issues going on, no violation has occurred for existing edits there. I am considering whether it should be expanded to cover this but mindful of the much wider more complex issues...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Andy, please be careful in all this. I understand the hostility is not one sided, but it would be a credible good on your part if you step back and call admin attention to any thread you are being poked at enough that you feel like slinging it back is necessary.  De-escalate as possible, please.  This is not a ban clarification or expansion, it's more of a "you know you're a controversial editor, it will help you avoid more controversy not being in the worst of this now".  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Followup: George, I've dropped you an email regarding setting up some sort of RfC on this infobox thing. If you have the time and/or desire - any input would be appreciated.  (Judging by your career and workload mentioned on your userpage, I can easily see that time is precious to you - so I won't be offended in the least if that's not possible)  Thank you. — Ched :  ?  04:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Email sighted, will attempt to give you a coherent answer ... er, tomorrow morning. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Er, later tonight. Been a day.  And I have yet another meeting and phone call and then a bunch of SQL example statements to write for the programmer team.  And updating a big build spec file.  And...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - While I have participated in a few discussions on the use of infoboxes, I can understand that POTW wants to include infoboxes which are against the current consensus at the Classical music, Opera and Composers WikiProject (all of which I am a part of and I don't support the inclusion of infoboxes for composers, conductors or operas). Not to mention that Georg Solti fiasco back in August that resulted in a topic ban on POTW, but thankfully I was mostly uninvolved. I think it would be best to set up an RFC in this particular case. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of WP:AN discussion
Hello George, this is notification of a WP:AN discussion regarding an editor you have dealt with. The thread is: WP:AN. Appreciate your input, thanks! 18:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Your User talk:67.193.92.118 of 03:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Sir,

I only recall making and edit to the article on a particular day(s). I may have re-edited my own changes on that particular instance. Since then, I have not made any changes to this article or any other in Wikipedia to the best of my recollection. It was my understanding that you do accept edits, as long the person comprehends the subject. I simply believed it to be a misuse of the term (and it actually is, no matter how institutionalized it is) and I edited it. Plain and simple. You understand the point I was trying to make as I understand yours. Furthermore, neither I nor you, as you stated, are trying to impose nomenclature on anyone. So, I reiterate what I stated above and thankfully accept this notification. “Fair”, yet “loud” with your rhetoric warning me of your rules and principles, when a plain and simple explanation would have sufficed. No replies to this message will be necessary, called for or accepted.

Sincerely

An honest person that values politeness and used to appreciate your service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.92.118 (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)