User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archive2007-09

Regarding Zionism and anti-Zionism (resources)

Hi,

I just got your message about this article. I'm aware that there are many (thousands?) of list-based articles, but aren't they mainly lists of Wikipedia-based links, or facts, etc.? I wasn't aware that articles consisting only of lists of books and web-links were commonplace, hence my prod. Please correct me if I'm mistaken!

Regards, Oli Filth 01:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I'm inclined to reply "what user?" but I take your point. I would just also suggest that Wikipedia does support a policy against trolls. Wikidea 19:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, he was a troll. Clever troll, eloquently expressive troll, a troll knowledgeable of Wikipolicy, but a troll all the same. Did you come across this before? Of course he made one or two productive contributions (the Andijan massacre, as he seemed to keep pointing out!), but so far as I was concerned, and from the pages I saw, it was a matter of him insisting that the whole world was nuts or bias or both, and expecting others to "clean up their act" in His marginalist image. It's the old philosophical problem of how far one tolerates the intolerant. Is that another personal attack? Hmmmmm. I'll stop there. Wikidea 20:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: No Personal attacks warning

Hi George, I replied to your message at AN/I --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 00:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

I would like to know how I have insulted anyone in the past couple days. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be this. Georgewilliamherbert 01:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, that was an opinion and it was dealt with. But that was today, not the "past couple days". - NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

An opinion that crossed the line into potentially actionable personal attack. You need to tone it down. Georgewilliamherbert 01:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yay, ponies. Glad everyone is having fun with this. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

TA Page

Thanks for keeping an eye on this. I did not originally put that quote in, and just assumed it was the exact quote. It is a pretty good paraphrase. Funny thing of course is that our sockpuppet master had also referenced Murphy, but actually reinterpreted what he said. I put in the quote word for word now. So, he will have to focus on something else, and I am sure he will.Sposer 01:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

NPA Issue

George, thanks for looking into this. I truly hope the personal attacks from the said user will cease now. Regards Sinhala freedom 02:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Suppressor

Okay, if you want the article serves as yellow pages. — Indon (reply) — 06:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not my objective either, but I'd prefer a more balanced review and discussion than just removing them all. Let's talk about it on the article talk page. Georgewilliamherbert 06:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Libertarian Party

Well, you got me. I don't have a source stating that they're left-wing on social issues, but I also see no cited sources for the current Center-left claim...Also, on the Wiki article which covers it, the Democratic party is described as Center-left. I propose that the mainstream of the Libertarian party is well left of the mainstream of the Democratic party when it comes to social issues. How this difference can otherwise be shown is an enigma to me. -- GiZiBoNG —Preceding unsigned comment added by GiZiBoNG (talk • contribs) 09:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The halloween remake

Hey buddy, just was hoping if you or whoever is responsible for making the page protected to stop making it that way and change it back so that anyone can edit the info. Also change in the plot about the character of Annie. She was not stabbed, she was brutally beaten and she survived the film. No one cares of about the cyber vandals or whatever. People care about seeing the correct info and if there is something not correct, then they have the option to change it to make it correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.2.238 (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nipping this in the bud

Stupid vandals... you should probably semi-protect this page, that's about all I can think of that can stop this. You must have really pissed someone off to got to such lengths to do this to you. Gscshoyru 01:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Smile

AFUSCO has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--AFUSCO 02:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hope the vandalism stops :)--AFUSCO 02:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the advice. Could you please tell me how exactly I can get help from Admin when next time I saw a troublemaker messing up with the page? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiechen01 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I got it. Thanks a lot for the information! Jia Chen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiechen01 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 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 09:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

WP meetup

Sounds like Sunday, September 16 is the best day for a September SF-area meetup -- hope to see you then! Check the meetup page for details and to suggest a location and time. -- phoebe/(talk) 04:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Santiago: a Myth of the Far Future

An article that you have been involved in editing, Santiago: a Myth of the Far Future, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santiago: a Myth of the Far Future. Thank you. --B. Wolterding 11:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette

I have raised your remarks at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Epbr123 00:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A further comment has been left at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Epbr123 00:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to call a truce. Some of the articles deserve to go and some of the articles, in hindsight, deserve to stay, but I assure you my nominations were made in good faith. I won't be commenting anymore on those AfDs. Epbr123 01:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much conflict into this; I think the big-bust list nomination was WP:POINT but I believe that the others were all good faith. Something can be both good faith and a really bad idea, though. There's nothing wrong with making some mistakes as long as you learn something and don't make them again. Georgewilliamherbert 01:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:HWDEF

Perhaps I'm missing something really obvious, but what exactly makes User:HWDEF a sock of User:Pioneercourthouse? If you'd rather not post it here for some reason, feel free to email me. Mr.Z-man 20:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked as their username seems inconsistent with the other socks and they were editing very different pages. The socks went after Pioneer Courthouse Square almost exclusively. HWDEF has never edited that page and has edited many different ones. I will stil watch them, they were blocked originally for being disruptive. Mr.Z-man 21:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Steyr M Series undo

Hi George,

netfotoj and myself are a couple of wikinoobs from steyrclub.com that were hoping to flesh out the Steyr_M_Series entry. I see that it has reverted back to after my entry. Can you give us a pointer on the offending tracts so we can get it right. Also if you could point me to a good example of a pistol page .Cheers PP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polymer Proselyte (talk • contribs) 21:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

you recenly accused my friend user:arthurdent42 of vandalism,

i would like to inform you that it was just a joke

don't take user pages so seriously, or at least not mine

-Jordan042 04:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

i understand that, but i would like to ask, What are you doing on my user page stalker

-Jordan042 21:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC filed against User:Epbr123

I noticed that you've had issues with the erratic behavior of User:Epbr123. Due to events that have occurred since his AfD nominations of Usenet personalities, an RFC has been filed against Epbr123 and you are invited to participate in determining the course of action that should be taken regarding resolving the issues that surround the user and his contested actions. --Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 19:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Benny Hinn

OK. --Blasio27 19:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

wth?

why did you delete my post? no sign of notability.... it's a drinking game... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisoner8 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha ha

You are a butt ugly real-life Comic Book Guy! Kill yourself already! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.141.128 (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• That's cruel. Epbr123 19:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • And pretty weak. They've also accused me of being fat and old, which are respectively not true (I'm 15 lb over ideal body weight for my height and build) and true but amusingly irrellevant (it happens to everyone who doesn't die young and stupid 8-). Unlike comic book guy, I have all my hair in front, naturally, too. More appropriate insults might be "Why are you wasting your time reverting vandals all day when you have several jobs to do?", but the only reply there is "It annoys the vandals." Insults that would be weak for high schoolers are pretty lame. Georgewilliamherbert 19:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Suck my wart-infested cock, bitch!

Personally I'd go for a {{UsernameHardBlocked}}. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I was in a hurry, but I agree, and fixed it. Georgewilliamherbert 00:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi George.

Sorry but my issue with microwiki was not personal at all.

On the contrary if you could provide me of an email to contact the administrators there I would gladly explain any misunderstanding.

As for the rest, thanks for explaining me a bit more about how it works on wikipedia, I thought that there was something wrong with my computer as I was writing the text and me and others here were going bananas here.

I think I understand it now.

Thanks for your patience, not everyone is an expert on internet.

My best regards.

Yan Pagh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanpagh (talk • contribs) 21:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

However, I may add that these sources I gave were pretty accurate.

I am not on The Financial Times yet, but this does not mean that the sources I gave are not good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanpagh (talk • contribs) 21:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, and the image posted is really my creation:

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v467/lordlicious/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanpagh (talk • contribs) 21:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Explain yourself.

George you are way off bas here. Please kindly indicate what you have miscontrued as a Ron Paul campaign. I for one have not contributed a single dollar to that man. My purpose is to simply get the facts straight...by your comments this does not seem to be your goal.

-Brett —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettzwo (talk • contribs) 13:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War Update

George:

I just updated the Iraq War with the Congressional opposition that was led by Ron Paul. If you still think it is political, then please let me know. We can work out an agreement as to acceptable wording. Do not simply delete it as you did the last time. That is unacceptable and leads me to belive that you might have your own political agenda. It is a significant event in the opposition that led up to the Iraq War and is noteworthy history that should not be left out.

Thank you,

-Brett —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettzwo (talk • contribs) 14:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Moderated nuclear explosion

I created a stub for Moderated nuclear explosion, based partly on your comments at Talk:Critical mass#Moved from Ref desk: science. Feel free to expand. -- Petri Krohn 15:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I started a rewrite of the article at User:Petri Krohn/moderated. You could help me with two questions:

• What was the amount of uranium used in the Ruth and Ray test explosions?
• How powerful a primary is needed to ignite a thermonuclear weapon? Will 200 tons of TNT do?

-- Petri Krohn 16:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The amount of Uranium used in the Ruth and Ray tests was classified, along with the exact configuration of the weapon assembly including implosion assembly and reflector/tamper configuration. There's no wikipedia-usable reliable source for what the insides of the weapons looked like, and I can't comment on unreliable sources.

The primary needed to ignite a thermonuclear weapon depends on how big the total weapon is and how big the thermonuclear secondary is and how efficiently compressed you want the secondary to be. There's a discussion of the ablation process and energy density / secondary compression in the Nuclear Weapons FAQ that gives representative overall energy levels for the Ivy Mike device and a W-80, see [1]. 200 tons of TNT equivalent is about 2% of the likely energy of the W-80 primary (Carey uses 5 kt as his example, but the actual value is probably closer to 10 kt). Ruth and Ray probably, according to public sources, used a 56 inch implosion assembly (same as the early Mark 3 [{Fat Man]] weapons, the Mark 4 nuclear bomb and Mark 5 nuclear bomb derived from them. A fusion weapon with an outer casing enclosing those and a secondary would have extremely low energy density and would compress very inefficiently, if it even got to the point of being able to ignite fusion reactions at all. One might use a two stage pure fission weapon driven by a Ruth or Ray device, with the secondary just fission instead of mostly fusion powered, but there aren't any public design studies of those concepts either. Georgewilliamherbert 21:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What did I do that was spaming

I included relevant information about moder architectural columns and the materials that they are made of, why is that considered spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.73.223 (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Subst

I noticed here you forgot to subst the UsernameBlock template. It's always a good idea to subst user talk templates, just so you know. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes. You're welcome. That was quite username! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Enlighten me...

Where's the personal attack? Ossified 01:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

You got the wrong person. From looking at CheckLips editing I would conclude the person is an experienced wikipedia editor, more experienced than myself. I agree there is something fishy here. Is there a way to check?

You really need to pay a bit more attention to detail rather than seeing things that are obviously placed in front of you. Shanebb 03:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiki History

Hi GWH, I have picked you randomly on my wanderings. I notice in your discourse with 208.65.188.149/"El Jigue" that you claim "I went back 500 edits, then walked forwards..."

This seems to confirm that there is no extant tool that would let me pick an arbitrary piece of text and say "who/when/why did this first appear?". Is the only way by human inspection of a series of diff's? There is an evident simplicity in creating such a tool and also evident vast complications. Are you aware of any such efforts?

Thanks Franamax 01:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: No Personal Attacks

Oh how I love you Wikipedia admins, finding new and excting ways to say "Screw you, I don't care, don't bother me again you insect." to the normal editors every time. My two articles are locked for no reason. They were locked by an admin who refuses to discuss anything. Just what the hell am I supposed to do? I don't know why I'm asking though, at best I'll get redirected somewhere else where nothing will get done for a week or so, and at worst you'll just completely ignore this, possibly deleting and shoving another worthless message on my Talk page. I wouldn't blame you though, it's the true Wiki Admining thing to do. - The Norse 02:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War and Congressional Opposition

George:

First, let me say that you have overstepped your admin privileges. Looking at the other posts, I am clearly not the only that has had this problem with your activities. Some internal investigation would be appropriate on your part.

Regarding the Iraq War...You have offered *no* explanation as to why you think the Ron Paul led opposition in Congress is not significant. Keep in mind, this cannot have anything to do with political advertisement since it happened back in 2002, which was before the 2004 Presidential elections, in which he did not even run for President. I did not mention anything that indicates his current campaign or anything that could be construed as political advertisement.

What I am proposing is to put the significant historical facts out there so that all of the relevant history can be seen. You seem to want to only report on the history that is convenient for perhaps you and your viewpoints. If you don't think a Congressional led opposition to the Iraq War is significant, THEN YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN YOURSELF.

Don't give me irrelevent, mumbo jumbo that you haven't though through such as what you gave below with my comments inserted.

---

George: In the scope of the overall article, and the course of the war and the buildup to the war, Ron Paul's actual individual actions and contributions are not notable enough to mention.

Comment: How does Congressional opposition by Ron Paul, 6 other Republicans, and some Democrats constitute individual actions and contributions. Keep in mind Ron Paul represents a large constiuency in Texas. In combination with the 6 other Republicans and several Democrats, we are talking about a large portion of people. This oppositon by definition is *not* individual. As a result, your remarks are thoughtless.

George: In terms of his presidential campaign, adding Ron's contribution to major causes to unrelated Wikipedia articles when we don't already make appropriate mention of other candidates' actions is political advertising.

Comment: Keep in mind, this cannot have anything to do with political advertisement since it happened back in 2002, which was before the 2004 Presidential elections, in which he did not even run for President. I did not mention anything that indicates his current campaign or anything that could be construed as political advertisement.

George: We don't have the space, nor would it be morally appropriate, for us to allow every candidate to insert a position statement into every issue article related to their campaigns. This is an encyclopedia.

Comment: This is absurd and thoughtless. See my previous comment.

---

The bottom line: You need to explain yourself with ponderance before deleting historical information.

I am awaiting a thoughtful response. Don't forget you are providing a service here and as an Admin, you are here to serve me and others as the the customers and the burden of explaining lies chiefly upon your shoulders. If you are not comfortable with this, then you need to reconsider your Admin role.

Thank you,

-Brett —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettzwo (talk • contribs) 13:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Assumption

Would I be correct in assuming that you are a little on the nerdy side? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storyinto (talk • contribs) 22:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

West Marin towns

Feel like uploading a new version of , with Tomales and Dillon Beach included? Rracecarr 02:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Moderated nuclear explosion

Hey, User:Petri Krohn as made some rewrite on the article and I think the Moderated nuclear explosion AFD would largely benefit from your re-review of the article. In my opinion it is changed to worse. As now it is not only a non-notable neologism and original research but also synthesis which seems to be intended to prove the old theory that nuclear reactor is a ticking nuclear bomb.

Your input is highly appreciated. Suva Чего? 07:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hamroll

His only edits were to create false articles, and to insert references to those false articles into pre-existing genuine articles.

Blocked as hoaxer, liar, vandal, whatever you want to call it. He's not a useful contributor. DS 01:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Micronations

Hello again George, I don't know who tried to make yesterday's edit to the Aerican Empire on the list of micronations, but I saw your response. I'd like it to say soemthing other than what it does now, but since you and I have come into conflict in the past, I thought I might just ask what you would and wouldn't consider to have valid sources. Given the accepted blurb on micronation, what part of the change made yesterday did you disaprove of? Timcrow 12:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Although, in retrospect, moving this topic to the List of Micronations discussion page isn't so good if no one actually checks there or comments for two weeks... Timcrow 15:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Little Boy Design

Repeated from my Sandbox Talk Page (just to get your attention). Feel free to erase this and we can continue the discussion there.

Howard;

Re the counter-intuitive design, I'm not sure that's the most accurate way to phrase the design considerations.

As criticality goes with density squared, a hollow well-reflected static target can be subcritical as well. The classical solid rod projectile model we thought Little Boy used until Coster-Mullen's work had, with the numbers we believed we had accurately, a subcritical ring assembly inside the tamper/reflector.

The detailed tradeoffs for shooting one part or the other part are pretty complicated. It's somewhat heavier the way it seems LB actually worked, though a detailed criticality/gun mass analysis would have to be done to trade them all off. It is somewhat simpler (lower pressure gun, easier to work with) the way they did it. But somewhat heavier.

Lighter weight guns can, of course, shoot the inner cylinder, annular outer cylinder, or all or part of a tamper/reflector assembly... Georgewilliamherbert 00:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

George,

So what's your theory about why they did it the way they did? Chris Payne tells me that NRDC sees it the way I described it. Even if your calculations were correct, it seems that the hollow projectile design is the only one that maximizes the possible amount of fissile material. What do you think? HowardMorland 01:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)