User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archive2007-04

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 21:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment removal again

Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs) is removing my comments from article talk pages. Since these comments are announcements of an RFC about him, this is clearly a conflict of interest. Please get him to stop. --Ideogram 02:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply

Replied on community sanction noticeboard.--Certified.Gangsta 07:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an arbCom case involving me and Ideogram if you're interested to comment your interaction with Ideogram.--Certified.Gangsta 09:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP block 12.75.40.0/24

AO doesn't work, hasn't for a while. As I recall, I've only seen Jon Awbrey edit from that range. If you could get AO to work it would be helpful, but it doesn't. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed it with the ranges he uses, and have had to reblock them many times, to no avail. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance with Harvardy and Doktor Who

Hi. Seeing as you've expressed strong views on the subject of my interactions with the above, I'd like to ask for your assistance in resolving the separate ongoing issues relating to them. My patience in dealing with them in a civil mannner while ignoring the constrant barrage of abuse and harrassment in response is well and truly at an end - particularly as they seem to have decided that ganging up on me is a good idea.

The matter of Harvardy is fairly straightforward. This account is an out-and-out sockpuppet of Johnski, who had an indefinite block placed upon him by the Arbcom for a long list of violations, mostly centred on massive ongoing disruption and tendentious edits at Dominion of Melchizedek. Numerous editors concur with this assessment, which can easily be verified by a simple comparison of edit histories and writing style. The account should simply be blocked as a violation of the Arbcom's decision. I and Davidpdx have drawn this to the attention of several admins previously, but there's been no response.

The matter of Doktor Who is more complex. I believe the ultimate account owner is Brian G. Wilson (who has admitted to being the owner of Sky-surfer). Brian G Wilson appeared in the middle of 2006 and started posting some strange rambling comments concerning the definition of ambient music on that article's talk page. His opinions were unverifiable original research, and were declared to be either irrelevant or inadmissible by numerous editors, including me. Brian G Wilson then disappeared, to be replaced by Sky-surfer, whose opinions, writing style and spelling/grammatical errors were identical. Sky-surfer's posts became increasingly strange and incoherent with time, until finally, after posting a surreal essay about how the House of Winsdor operate the world's largest drug cartel, accusing various editors of spying on him, and making numerous threats, he posted several apologetic comments admitting that he sufers from a paranoid condition requiring medication, before vanishing from WP. Some months later Doktor Who made his debut, and it was immediately obvious that his opinions, writing style, spelling and grammatical errors and tendency to explode with indignation whenever challenged, that he was another incarnation of Brian G. Wilson. He simply cannot seem to grasp the fact that his opinions are an eccentric, non-mainstream views, totaly unsupported by references. Every time I pointed this out to him he responded by accusing me of of "vandalism", "harrassment", "stalking", "abuse" and other equally crazy talk.

This time however he was quickly joined by two "friends" - Milomedes and Parzival418 - who just happen to share the his opinions, and who all spend lots of time writing long, rambling mutually-congratulatory essays on each other's talk pages, expressing amazement at how closely their opinions are aligned, and discussing how evil I am and how they should best co-ordinate their contributions to thwart me. It's almost slapstick stuff, and a child could see through it. The question, however, is how should it be addresed?

I've tried to open both a Checkuser and an RFC to address the matter head-on, but the first became a farce when all 3 active sock accounts posted such a barrage of contradictory nonsense and supplementary requests in the comments section that the reviewing admin declined the request (an outcome for which Doktor Who has since expressed delight), and the second fell through due to lack of certification. I am nonetheless attempting to put together a log of policy violations and evidence demonstrating the existence of sockpuppetry here. Perhaps you could take a look and let me know your thoughts? --Gene_poole 08:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I

Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately I have tried so many times to mediate with him. Nothing works. It is really frustrating to try to help him in the right direction when he continues to be a pushover and thinks he owns the place. I'm telling you. I have tried so many times. I don't know what to do. I almost left this site because of him. Well right now, I'm simply avoiding him. I am willing to stay far away from this user so I am willing to deal with him at a mere distance. What else should I do? --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I just wanted to stop in and say thanks for the block on 141.155.10.116. All of the changes he has made have been reverted, and a couple other editors and administrators and I will be keeping an eye on him. Of course, in keeping with the pattern, he went to another IP 141.155.26.196 and started right up again. I am not certain what the long term solution to this problem is, but I am open to suggestions. Thanks again for your time and attention on this matter. ---Charles 15:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for correcting me on my AIV report, you are right; I must have misread the time of something, sorry. GDonato (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting

Thank you for commenting on the Gangsta RFAR.

Since you mentioned "mentoring" I do want to say I welcome any and all comments you wish to make regarding my behaviour, even if sometimes I don't agree. --Ideogram 22:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pasquino

FYI, I "upgraded" the block on Pasquino to to indef, for the reasons that outlined on User talk:Pasquino. Maury 14:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail

--Ideogram 23:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been taken care of. --Ideogram 00:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name violation

There is a new user:Georgewilliamherbertlikesboys you may want to have it turned in. I am sure its a slam against you. Probably a IP you have had to deal with. Wonder if we turn it in at AIV? --Xiahou 02:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try turning it in there. Thanks for your time. --Xiahou 02:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its indef blocked. --Xiahou 02:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H-Bomb

It is not our job here at wikipedia to discriminate the content of obviously credible sources, such as the DOE document that I cited. YOU are the one that is cherry-picking information because I am willing to leave the widest range open (as indicated by the cited sources) but YOU choose to ignore a source that doesn't fit your POV. While I believe your intentions are good, I do believe you are acting out of line here--50-60 is a very decent compromise, all the more so because it is backed by ALL of the sources that we have provided--and the hallmark of good research is not "what the majority of articles say" but what ALL available credible resources say. Stanley011 03:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I realize that the above comment seems kind of harsh and I just want to state that I really don't intend to be harsh. I just truly and passionately feel that what's written should reflect the sources. But I am more than willing to here you make the case for 50-57. Thank you. Stanley011 03:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if "58" is, as you say, sometimes mentioned, shouldn't the range be extended to 50-58? I would be more than willing to compromise on "50-58." Stanley011 13:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

walther

You may want to have a look in on Talk:Walther P22 again. Griot has canvassed only those users who want to keep the VT mention in the article, so I am alerting those who were not yet contacted. There has been discussion on WP:ANI about the outcome of the previous polls. Your continued involvement in the discussion(s) would be welcomed. ··coel acan 22:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]