User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2015/August

New Horizons, once Far Horizons?
You mentioned on the Admin's noticeboard that New Horizons was once known as Far Horizons. You invited that anybody interested to ask, so, I'm genuinely interested; where and when was New Horizons known as Far Horizons? I had recently undertook a large amount of research behind the history of the New Horizons mission and expanded the article's background and history section, however, not once did I come across the name Far Horizons. Philip Terry Graham 11:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My involvement was a bit earlier, I was spacecraft design lead on an alternate mission design to the P-K mission proposal they went with (the project folded when Congress yanked the money, only to bring it back). The program name went through "Far Horizons" associated with the new discovery missions, and then settled rapidly on New Horizons for the spacecraft.  You can find docs with New Horizons but not very many of them...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Zeitgeist
Thank you for notifying the various editors of the General Sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Kww and The Rambling Man arbitration evidence phase closing soon
As a listed party to this case, this is a notification that the evidence phase of this case is closing soon on 13 July. If you have additional evidence that you wish to introduce for consideration, it must be entered before this date. On behalf of the committee, Liz  Read! Talk! 17:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I have to assume that
For some reason are focusing on me because of The Devils Advocate who Wikihounds me? Is that the case? If I have done copy vio's that would be a mistake on my part. I usually try to re arrange language in information for citations I give. Why the immediate threat of permanent blocking? Pretty drastic instead of getting involved somehow in a positive way. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am focusing on you because of the ANI discussion*s* multiple, having helped focus the Zeitgeist community consensus decision on topic discretionary / general sanctions, etc.
 * You have a long history of acting in a less than OK way, which I believe you should have had plenty of warning was how you were seen by others. A community ban proposal on ANI is a rather serious, nearly catastrophic career-ending sort of thing to be done, even if it ends up not going forwards and being implemented.  You should have understood this long ago - all the administrators know who you are now and have seen your behavior on ANI multiple times.
 * Copyright violations are an especially bad problem and as TDA has pointed out you keep doing them. I am not singling you out on that point nor threatening you with enforcement we would not use on any other repeat copyright violator who is ignoring multiple warnings.
 * Like I said, if you're unclear on how to use material, ask admins or longtime editors, post it on a talk page and ask for help putting it in the article itself with proper attribution or rephrasing, etc. I don't want to just block you.  But you have to stop doing that.  If you keep doing it straight into articles very often you will be blocked by myself or another administrator.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * O.K. I just do not like being picked on by certain editors either and  and  like the editor has done below in other issues. If I am guilty of not doing a good enough job at changing wording on citations that is information I can use to improve. I hope you also know that some editors are interested in stopping some editors that they think influence their pet peeves a certain way  and have targeted some people any which way they can. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Your comment on Earl King Jr. talk page
Your warning of copyright violation on Earl King Jr.'s page was deleted an hour later. Unfortunately, that editor has a long history of copyright violations, and also a long history of warnings and disregarding warnings. If you have more specific cases, it may be time to alert the administrators. Copyright violation is a concern for the whole project. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am an administrator, if I see him do it again I will block. He has a right to read and delete warnings.  Thanks for letting me know, and please let me know if you see him do another copyright violation.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015
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) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Filters
Ha, the blessed irony of not being able to edit filters, despite having been a 'crat and still a current admin. Perhaps my clumsy coding needs to be prevented...! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I Love You Beth Cooper
Much thanks for your prompt block.  Cassianto Talk   09:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop disrupting ANI
You are disrupting the ANI discussion on your COI topic ban. If you continue to disrupt the proposal I or other administrators may block you. You can discuss it in a reasonable, limited manner in a subsequent section or in short responses to people, but large quantities of text like that are not OK. Stop, now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC) OK, I WON'T add large quantities of text to the proposal section you started.


 * YOU'RE THREATENING THAT OTHER ADMINS WILL BLOCK ME CLAIMING THAT WITH THIS EDIT, I AM disrupting the ANI discussion on your COI topic ban?


 * I'm not allowed to point out there that there have been voting irregularities on ANI as I did? How exactly was it disruptive?
 * I'm not allowed to make identifiable within the voting section the votes that were made before Johnuniq's false summary of the vote was noted or corrected?
 * I can't note there that there was just a !vote on this; which shows a 6:4 result, misrepresented as a 6:2 vote?  I can't note there that holding another one because there was no consensus because User:Collect, User:Snowded User:GoodDayseems and User:Elvey opposed is unfair and a policy violation?
 * I'M NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE in the voting section?
 * I'm not allowed to point out there that the behavior changes I've agreed to near to the text that claims I'm not agreeing to any behavior changes?
 * I'm not allowed to point out the lack of reasoning in the !vote so far?
 * I'm not allowed to point out Proposals must be !votes?
 * I'm not allowed to say I'd appreciate a succinct description from anyone voting support of what I've supposedly done wrong that doesn't (unlike much of what's come so far) grossly misrepresent what I've done, or ignore my defenses, or throw out [[WP: links without explanation and evidence.
 * I'm not allowed to say why I I think that description would be helpful?


 * Your actions show that you think it's more important to threaten me for "disruption" for pointing out these irregularities than to address them. Why?  Will you please speak to Johnuniq about hi false summary of the vote?  I think a correction and apology from him for that are in order.  Don't you?


 * Please identify for each of these (1-8) things with you think was disruptive and needs to be hidden away where it won't be noticed, and why. If I understand your point, I'll move them.


 * --Elvey(t•c) 22:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

COI work
Hi -- You have gotten involved in the ANI thread about Elvey. I am unhappy to have had to come to ANI at all, and it is sad to watch Elvey self-destruct there. But in any case, I have been looking for feedback on my COI work. I know I have made some mistakes and can come across too stridently at times, but what concerns me the most are the things I don't know that I don't know. If you have any impressions or feedback you would like to give me on my COI work, I would be open to hearing them. If not, that is of course fine too. (I'm asking three other people who have gotten involved in that thread as well) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:


 * 1) 's administrator permissions are revoked. He may regain the tools at any time through a successful request for adminship
 * 2) 's edit filter manager permission is revoked. He may only regain them as follows: If he is desysopped as a result of this case, and is later successful at regaining the administrator tools through a successful request for adminship, this restriction will automatically expire.  If he is not desysopped as a result of this case, he may appeal this remedy after 12 months to the Arbitration Committee.
 * 3) The community is encouraged to establish a policy or guideline for the use of edit filters, and a process by which existing and proposed edit filters may be judged against these.

For the Arbitration Committee, Liz  Read! Talk! 14:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Wajajad
Please reconsider your block of user:Wajajad. I have seen his IP range several times, and it's never overlapped with mine. Here is one IP address he's used: He appears to only use Bell Canada IPs. 192.253.251.79 (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * George, if you wish to take any notice of the above message, you may like to read my comment at User talk:Wajajad. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wheee. Thanks.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom case "Editor conduct in e-cigs articles" has now been opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 18, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Zeitgeist RfCs
Since you have been taking up some administrative tasks in this topic area, I thought I would direct you to several RfCs that were filed regarding the disputes over the Zeitgeist film series article. All of them have been archived, so there is obviously no further discussion likely, but none of them were closed by an admin. Here are the RfCs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zeitgeist_%28film_series%29/Archive_4#RFC:_One_or_Two_Articles.3F_Should_film_series_and_movement_be_split.3F

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zeitgeist_%28film_series%29/Archive_4#RfC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zeitgeist_%28film_series%29/Archive_3#RFC:_Lead_of_Zeitgeist_.28film_series.29

The RfCs are closely related as each hinges on or affects the questions being raised by the others, so they should probably all be closed together. Unarchiving the discussions and making a decision would help move things forward in the topic area. If you want, you could see if other admins would be willing to review it with you to avoid any doubt as to the findings regarding the RfCs as I expect any definitive decision one way or the other is likely to be contentious.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Looking. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Will look again later, but...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that the Zeigeist Movement page is protected so only admins can edit it. Would you move the draft page to that location or just unprotect the page so the draft can be moved to that page?-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 17:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This will need to be done in a way that preserves the history of the previous article on the movement - some of the content has been merged with the film article, and we need to keep a record of authorship. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * All of the revision history for the original article exists at the redirect, so copying over the draft version to the page would seem to be sufficient. Technically, an admin can copy over the draft history as well, though that may be unnecessary.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 21:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unprotected; can you merge from here? I'm still running a fever and don't trust myself trying a merge right now... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Your statements
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2015_July

"Evidence has been presented as is accurately represents significant academic standardization on an overarching name for the combined communities" What evidence has been presented? What is presented here is the exact opposite of the academic consensus.

Who asked you to combine these communities in the first place? Sr 76 (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You are going to have to accept that taxonomy on Wikipedia is not entirely in the hands of experts with a personal bias in the matter. We're a generalist encyclopedia, and without slighting any community, we have to combine and summarize rather than separating everything in the world to the maximum degree.  That taxonomy is the province of a combination of topic experts and Wikipedians with long experience and judgement in information access and ease of use and finding information.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This explanation differs greatly from the original statement. The situation has now resulted in 2000 years of Syriac heritage not being represented, since Wikipedia editors will now need to go out of there way to deliberately misrepresent any source that refers to a topic prior to the modern era. Because for the most part there are no sources that refer to a modern-Assyrian heritage, if there is these sources have been created by the bias of the modern Assyrians themselves. Which means not only is Wikipedia facilitating a politically driven POV of the Assyrian political movement, but it is making impossible to edit pages according any real academic consensus. For example the Assyrian continuity is the ramblings of a mad-man.Sr 76 (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Please explain where do we now put the 2000 years of Syriac heritage? Sr 76 (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case
A request for arbitration has been filed relating to you. (Procedurally) --<b style="color:grey">ceradon</b> ( talk •  edits ) 01:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Memo concerning good adminning
The first guideline is not to accuse, but to promote cohesion among fractious parties. Rockmagnetism is doing a better job of that. Esptien can't quite bring himself to do so yet.

Me, I don't claim to be an admin—just a fallible human. You guys are supposed to be good at dealing with fractious situations, and incidentally of realising when things have started to settle and people are talking to each other on the article talkpage vaguely productively. Otherwise, don't stick your accusatory fingers in, with bad timing, in the false expectation of deriving personal satisfaction from it. Tony  (talk)  09:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sock blocking
I noticed you blocked LoveFerguson and EscEscEsc as "apparent socks". I think both are socks (LoveFerguson might be a sock of instead of NoCal100, I was trying to figure out which one it was before filing an SPI) But I don't see any SPIs for them. What gives? Did you just block on WP:DUCK basis? Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 16:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes; clear patterns when I looked closely. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015
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) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

MMV sock
Add the behavior to editing from the National Library of Korea and you can be sure this is a MMV sock. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

?
Sorry, I was not aware that I received a"A-I alert / DS warning June 15.". Could you please point me too it? Huldra (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * but it does not appear in the page or editor history...? Weird. Deleted edit? Inquiring.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strange indeed, according to the history of my talk-page, I got no edits that day. I have gotten no warnings (that I am aware of!) during this last year; and -one- in total of my 10 years editing the IP-area.
 * And, as I recall editing in the June period; it was pretty calm (for being I/P...), Huldra (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not check to see potential context, just the log to start with.
 * I asked Gaijin42 and arbcom to look into it, if the log is not accurate it may cause immense problems... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have looked a bit more at my editing during the period; a Wlglunight93-sock called User:Averysoda was creating a fuzz on Carlos Latuff. I vaguely remember Gaijin42 handing out a lot of notices to those who edited there at that  time; but I´m sure I was not notified, (though I edited the article and, especially, the talk-page) Huldra (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. I am assuming that the page history is correct from your perspective, in any case. You are not at fault for a tech flaw or failure.  We do need to understand how this can happen, as admins now rely on the DS alert logs... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Huldra's recollection largely lines up with mine. I did notify several people at the time. My assumption is that either there was some sort of bug where the notice got lost, or someone deleted it for some reason. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I would like to thank both of you for helping put context on the apparent bug or deletion. Figuring out how it happened is important. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Courcelles figured it out (in email). It looks like the two-step edit filter action (alert, then log on edit) means that editors have to hit save twice to make the alert stick properly on the user page.  If not, you should only see the one alert log like that.
 * Gaijin42, that sound possible to you?
 * Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Its certainly plausible, and lines up with what I said about the "previously logged" list showing the alert you are currently giving, before you save it. Seems like the alert shouldn't be logged until the actual save though. In addition to this problem, the reason for the "previous alerts" search is because you aren't supposed to alert more than once per year. But if the alert is already logged by the time you see that message warning you about it - seems like a bit of a catch 22. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a bad system, twenty times worse than the old way of logging alerts by hand on case pages. I have no idea why the 2014 committee created this abomination, and no idea at all what that particular filter's code does, I can usually read regexs, but not that one. Courcelles (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Started a thread on the edit filter noticeboard... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree that the technical issues obviously needs to be sorted out. Another issue, though, is what does it really mean, to be issued with such a warning? If you can issue such a warning to anyone you are in discussion with on the I/P-pages? Gaijin42 was active on Talk:Carlos Latuff, so was Pluto2012, (with opposing views), Gaijin42 then templates Pluto2012. There was some discussion about it. Frankly, to me, this makes this whole A-I alert / DS warnings completely meaningless. Huldra (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Much of it is procedural. It means the articles are under discretionary sanctions, article probation, and that you are aware of this(after such a warning is issued on your Talk page). Many times, they are given out to all active editors of the article/s. Dave Dial (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The alert does not count as a negative mark against anyone. It is purely to make sure that editors are aware of discretionary sanctions. The alert itself includes the text "It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date." In the particular cases you point out, I saw issues that I thought could be signs that if the pattern continued, would lead to some sort of action at WP:AE. Having been correctly notified of the WP:DS via the alert is a precondition for any action being taken at AE, and in general problematic actions which occurred prior to the alert are given a lot of latitude and often forgiven. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To expand, the policy about DS/Alerts itself explains in further detail that the alert is not a negative mark in itself (although I freely admit in the cases you cite I was giving the alert in response to something I saw as a problem. WP:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctionsGaijin42 (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * : That is well and fine, but A) how can you say that this, is not "counted as a negative mark"? And how can anyone believe that editors like Pluto2012 (editing in the I/P area since 2005) -or myself (the same) are not aware of these sanctions?
 * WP:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions says clearly that " An editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months: [..] 2. The editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement;"
 * And rest assured, most of us regulars in the I/P area are "frequent flyers", so to speak, on WP:AE: if not brought there, then making a statements. A quick search of WP:AE turns up this statement from Pluto2012 in September 2014 on WP:AE: with that, he was considered aware of the sanctions still in June 2015, and you templating him was wholly unnecessary.  Huldra (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Question about 1RR
Hi George,

I read the policy and it says "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert". I just sat down to make some necessary changes but another editor insert information in a section not related to the one I work on 10 minutes after my first edit. If I make additional changes now, will it count as a second revert? Settleman (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Are they reverting prior changes?... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No. They added new material. Thanks.Settleman (talk) 05:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)