User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archive2007-03

Your note

I just looked at that report again. It seems clear to me that there were 4 reverts, all including the reversion to 'forced'. What am I missing? Crum375 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Your note about 3RR

Hi George, can you please review this report (copied over from the user's Talk page) and tell me why it is not classical 3RR violation - I realize this block is now effectively moot, but I would like to get your opinion on this anyway for future reference:

Here is another summary, to make it even clearer. Melonbarmonster is disputing his 3RR block on Japanese people. For the benefit of any admins looking at this report, the violation was as follows:

Version reverted to: 18:04 24 Jan, Melonbar adds the word "forced."
1st revert: 17:15, 28 Feb, Melonbar adds the word "forced."
2nd revert: 17:26, 28 Feb, Melonbar adds the word "forced."
3rd revert: 17:36, 28 Feb, Melonbar adds the word "forced."
4th revert: 18:23, 28 Feb, Melonbar adds the word "forced."

Thanks, Crum375 18:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the first one doesn't count; it was a month prior to the current set of stuff, putting it outside the timeframe 3RR cares about. It's not an edit war if something is going back and forth on a one month timeframe. If he'd changed it back a couple or three days earlier, or even a week earlier, that would be a different issue, but if it was a month ago it shouldn't count. Georgewilliamherbert 19:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by "first one doesn't count; it was a month prior to the current set of stuff, putting it outside the timeframe 3RR cares about". Are you saying that there is a time limit of the 'version reverted to', that demonstrates the editor's preferred version? If so, please point me to it, because I am not aware of it. My understanding was always that the only time limit that counts is the 24 hours during which the 4 edits are made, but I could always be wrong. Crum375 19:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty broad interpretation of 3RR to go back a month and focus down on two or three words, and say that the subsequent change is a revert to the older preferred version. He wasn't simply editing to defend that paragraph; he left it alone in an intermediate edit in mid-Febuary.

The 3RR block exists to stop short-term edit warring, not resolve long term content disagreements. That's what talk pages are for, and both sides here (among other people) are properly using the talk pages to discuss it. Georgewilliamherbert 19:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, and I would love to get input from others here, the intent of the 'version reverted to' is simply to show the editor's preferred version - it itself is not part of an 'edit war'. IOW, assuming his/her opinion about things is fairly stable, that opinion could easily remain the same for months, if not years. It is not strictly needed per WP:3RR, but it is required on the WP:AN3 page to make the reports as clear cut and as conclusive as possible. AFAIK, once you can show the above report, that an editor inserted his favored word (as demonstrated by an older 'version reverted to') into an article four times within 24 hours, each time being reverted by others, it is clear and unambiguous violation of 3RR. I think we really need to nail this one down, regardless of the specific case in point, because I can see it becoming an issue with others in the future. I think we need input from others here. Crum375 20:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George, I'm concerned about your interpretation of the 3RR policy. That the user made exactly the same edit 35 days earlier means that his first restoration of that version on February 28 was a revert. This is as clear an example of a 3RR violation as I've seen in two years of enforcing the policy, so it's a bit worrying that it's being argued over. Perhaps you could continue this discussion on the 3RR talk page, and rather than concentrate on this particular example, discuss the issue of timeframe in general terms. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest the 3RR policy talk page anyways, but your note arrived before I got back here to answer Crum375's note. Off to Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule Georgewilliamherbert 20:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get a hand at Free Republic?

Could we get a hand from some Admins over at the Free Republic article? I asked for an Admin to weigh in 6 days ago. The specific issue is if a Free Republic rally that they hoped would draw 20,000 people and only drew 100 (AP) to 200 (FR) should have that aspect of the rally mentioned. I say definitely yes - and cite for precedent politician Katherine_Harris#Staff_resignations who had a campaign rally expected to draw 500+. When only 40 people showed up, it made ALL the newspapers and news shows. If 500 people HAD shown up, and she hadn't said or done anything controversial, it would not have been notable, and wouldn't have covered outside of local media. The lack of attendance is what's notable. Same with Free Republic's rally in D.C. Also - if a quote from Natalie Maines should be separated from the body of the text and paragraph and put in the lead to give it extra prominence. Thanks - FaAfA (yap) 02:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading list

Essential reading for new admins, even those who have no rouge proclivities. See you at the admin lounge :-) Guy (Help!) 14:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Musical sockpuppets

I'm presently compiling the necessary evidence to support a checkuser request. It seems there may be up to a dozen sock accounts involved, The voluminous and largely incomprehensible nature of their contributions makes documentation particularly difficult. --Gene_poole 04:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Firearms userbox

A discussion on the WikiProject Firearms userbox is currently underway on the project talk page. Samples of various proposed userboxes can be found here and here. As a member, your input is valuable and appreciated. If you would like to contribute to the discussion or vote on your favorite, please visit the Userbox section of the talk page. Thanks! —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for taking a look at my post to AN/I and your comments. Also I wish to clarify I do not in any way claim that being blocked has my made my argument that it is improper to call Sparta a superpower more valid. I have offered numerous compromises (like moving the text calling Sparta a superpower to the middle of the page where there is other material about Sparta's victories and defeats) and suggestions like RfC and Mediation. I still stand by all those offers. Regards, NN 07:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got your post, thanks for the advice. Yes, I agree things would be better if they were cooled down a bit. I will certainly try to make that happen. NN 07:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The matter has been resolved, thanks for taking the time to make it happen. NN 14:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help please

A user is removing my talk page comments. --Ideogram 09:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we cannot remove personal attacks, how are we supposed to keep conversations on track? --NE2 09:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You derailed the conversation a long time ago with your comment about "dumbing down" for GA. If you feel a comment is not worthy of response, don't respond to it. --Ideogram 09:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please play nice on my talk page. Georgewilliamherbert 09:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and ...

BTW congratulations on passing RFA. You do know that I respect you, don't you? --Ideogram 12:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Scoobies"

In answer to your question on Tony Sidaway's page, you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Workshop for your answer. May I ask where you happened to see this term being used? Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it being used there, but I didn't see it explained. Will search more. Georgewilliamherbert 19:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See near the top, his proposed principle #1. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, see that, and your note below on that specific issue. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 19:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nev and the infamous one-hour block

Concerning the above, I would like from you to see the messages I left in User_Talk:Chris 73 and User_Talk:AniMate. You don't have to reply, just become aware of the second side of the story. Of course if you'd like to reply and leave me your thoughts, be my guest. Regards. Miskin 02:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually

- Actually, it took me FOUR HOURS to find the ANI page, so "almost immediately" (your words) is far from true. I was looking and looking and looking and eventually came across it. How can you say that four hours is almost immediately?

User:Bladestorm

Can you advise Bladestorm (talk · contribs) that removing personal attacks is not a good idea? --Ideogram 06:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue how or why he chose you to bring this to, but I think it's worth pointing out that this is in direct response to a dispute at the ANI about actions against another editor.

After numerous accusations and uncivil commentary, he then proceeded to try to track back my contributions in hopes of finding something to use against me. (this was, coincidentally, right after the other editor involved in his dispute accused him of being a stalker, which is starting to seem somewhat more plausible now)

That said, I am, of course, open to any suggestions you may have concerning my conduct (though I'd request that you read the entire discussion on the richard gere talk page before you jump to conclusions), but thought I should warn you in advance of an attempt to draw you into a rather nasty bicker-fest. Bladestorm 06:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georgewilliamherbert has no particular love for me. If anything, I annoy him quite a bit. But on one point we do agree, which is that no one should remove another person's comments except in extreme situations such as libel or copyright infringement. You don't seem to be aware of that.

Since I am talking to you now, I might as well address your concern that I am trying to "find something to use against you". I don't think it's unusual for someone to look at the edit history of an editor they are conflicting with, in fact, how else did you find this message? Once I looked at your edit history, I found this action which I (and others) do not believe is proper. I decided to ask a neutral third party to recommend you cease these actions. Note that I am not asking for you to be sanctioned in any way, and I do not believe Georgewilliamherbert will harbor any ill-feelings toward you, I simply wish for the undesirable behavior to stop.

I currently consider our dispute over, and I promise you I will not seek you out in the future. I cannot hide the fact that I do not respect your views, and that I think you are incapable of understanding my point. Since there is no way to have a productive discussion between us, I believe it is best for us to cease our interaction. --Ideogram 07:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, I had the sense to read the section on removing the comments of others, specifically the current thoughts on the practice for personal attacks.

I take cautions to do such things "sparingly" quite seriously. Very rarely will I remove someone else's comments (unlike you, of course, who outright deleted my attempt to address this issue on your own talk page), but I really think that "rabid Richard Gere fans", "unable to cope", and "feel the need to suppress them at every opportunity" all qualify as personal attacks. (Well, to be fair, the last one is arguably more an accusation of bad faith) However, I did not touch his other comment on the same talk page. That didn't contain a personal attack (I don't think it was entirely helpful, but it wasn't solely personal attacks, so I didn't touch it).

There isn't any pattern of 'actions' to 'cease'. As a general rule, I don't touch others' comments. (Don't get me wrong; I'll chew people out for lack of civility, but by and large I don't remove the comment. You'll notice that I didn't remove your comment here that I'm "incapable of understanding" your point, even though you announced that you refused to even bother reading my own.)

I'm not sure how you intended this to stop any "undesirable behaviour". That said, you're probably right that we may as well cease interaction.

For the sake of not cramming george's talk page full of arguments he never asked for, I'll even give you the last word if you should so desire. Bladestorm 07:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user is generally held to have the right to remove comments from their own talk page. Of course, there are differing opinions on this.

Since the tension level between us has dropped considerably, I will cautiously allow you to continue this conversation on my talk page if you wish. Note that if things go badly I may choose to disinvite you at any time. --Ideogram 07:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Charoog10

I wonder if you could review user:Charoog10, especially at Hot Stuff (I Want You Back). He's been insisting on removing a chunk of text and changing a section title to incorrect capitalisation, refusing to respond to comments & requests on his Talk page. He's now started to add an uncivil edit summary (accusing me of lying, somewhat perplexingly). I'd be grateful for an outside pair of eyes, and possibly voice. Thanks in advance. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More comment removal

here. --Ideogram 16:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it's been resolved. --Ideogram 17:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again here. --Ideogram 18:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for your support during my recent (and successful) RfA. Short, simple, and to the point, too; reminds me of Alfred Hitchcock. Shimeru 16:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Ego

Which edit do you mean please? Your link on my talk page was non-specific, just pointing to his whole talk page. MarkThomas 19:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I take on board your opinion, but in the context of a robust exchange of views with a self-confessed neo-Nazi, I'm not really clear that it was all that offensive - I was referring to well-known actions of leaders in Nazi Germany who for example would reply to letters from would-be SS officers asking for promotion that the supplicant should "take charge by force" or "succumb to the power of the troops" and that their application for leniancy was "whining". I'm sure Billy Ego will recognize such sources. If I upset anyone though I naturally apologise. MarkThomas 19:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hans Reiser article protect

I've replied to your message at my talk page. --Slowking Man 02:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BITE

Oh you're absolutely right. I would hasten to add I'm not a habitual biter of newcomers although sporadically working the Recent Changes Patrol can give one a somewhat skewed view of contributors. The new user in question I was pretty sure was a sock-puppet of a user (who shall remain nameless) that I'd become frustrated with due to their persistant lack of compromising ability and co-operation, spawning pointless edit wars. I may well have been wrong though which certainly bites my conscience. Anyway, just thought it'd be polite to acknowledge your message. Suriel1981 13:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Boy

Hi there, I was wondering if you do me a favor. Howard Morland and John Coster-Mullen would like to get Coster-Mullen's theory of how the Little Boy bomb works in the Little Boy article. I think it deserves inclusion; a number of prominent people think it is correct (including Richard Rhodes) and it has been cited in a mainstream secondary source (in Robert Norris's Racing for the Bomb). But I don't really want to be involved here (Coster-Mullen doesn't want to deal with me because I prefer anonymity) and I don't really have time for this (and I have been taking a break for some time now). Anyway if you could look into this I would be most grateful — I think you are the most qualified for this around here, in terms of technical knowledge and people skills! :-) See my talk page for details; the images Morland linked to have the details of the theory if you aren't familiar with it, and you can find Coster-Mullen's e-mail on the web if you want to contact him. Thank you much... --Fastfission 00:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Boy diagram

Hi, the first message I tried to leave disappeared into cyberspace. I'll try again. Please contact Carey Sublette for my email address, and for my March 27 posting to the 400k list. It contains messages from Richard Rhodes and from Fastfission. I would like to hear from you. Sincerely, HowardMorland 04:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

WikiProject Rocketry - Space WikiProjects reorganisation proposal

It has been proposed that WikiProject Launch Vehicles, of which you are a member, be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry per a proposal to reorganise space-related WikiProjects. The proposal will serve to clarify and expand the scope of the project.
Please post comments and support/oppose votes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/Reorganisation. Thanks --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]