User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archive2008-02

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

smucky cat block

I don't understand, was he not just enforcing what had already been agreed to by the probation? All he did was remove unconstructive comments. Whether jossi likes it or not, it appears that many who are editing the homeopathy page view him as an involved editor. David D. (Talk) 06:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad block. -- Ned Scott 08:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ned and I may not have seen eye to eye in the past, but I concur with his assessment. The block was unfounded and I believe that blocks given for a "cooldown period" should not be given (link) as they ". . .inevitably serve to inflame the situation." Which is ironic when you think about it. Also you'll need to log your block here. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil vs. incivil

So, one day I wanted to know which is the correct word. They both mean the same thing, but incivil went out of common English usage in the early 1800's. Uncivil is the preferred version. Interestingly enough, both uncivility and incivility are both in common usage today in English (and mean almost the same thing). I noticed that you used "incivil" when blocking and or banning some Homeopathy individuals. Anyways, please don't take this post as anything more than a bit of interesting trivia to use the next time you're on Jeopardy!.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Infophile incivil?

I'm unable to see how the diff you provided here [1] demonstrates "incivil edit comments and disruption." Should it be considered in a larger context, perhaps? Or in the context to other edits he made? --Ronz (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

recent change

Hello

Yea, your right. I guess I was just mad that Israel gets a special place in that list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.107.254 (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Do read WP:LIBEL. Material that is unsourced, gives undue weight to minority views, and is biased in tone should be removed on sight. I find it rather despicable you choose to ignore the obvious transgressions of those that violate a core policy of wikipedia, that of making sure things are sourced and neutral.Bakaman 04:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actions of hdt83

The actions of hdt83 are real. He is posing as several admins, and trying to get more. I am here to help wiki but by deleting my message and blocking me is only hurting wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.59.227 (talk) 06:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Banned for objecting to personal attack?

I understand everyone's desire for order and civility on the Homeopathy topic. However your banning me for 24 hours makes no sense to me. I was simply objecting to Filll's attack upon my response to another person's comments - calling my comments "meaningless drivel and spam". Why would my objecting to another's incivility and lack of repect be a reason to ban me? Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Perverted Justice

I don't believe other editors have bothered to make responses to 'BarryJamieson' at length (outside edit summaries) because his accusations are so bizarre and unsupported. You might want to take another look at the article history and of course, the article he cites to support his claims. John Nevard (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The only reason there is an "edit war" going on at the current time is that Barry Jameson is insisting on using the word "adolescent" in the article's intro to make the claim that Perverted-Justice goes after adolescents, when that claim is patently false. I asked for proof to support the use of that word, and instead of discussing it on the talk page, he just edits it back in. I am not the only one who tried to remove that information from the article - it is just absurdly false, and his "reference" for the claim is an article that has absolutely nothing to do with the story.

On another note, I have tried repeatedly to take the disagreements with that editor to the talk page to no avail. Barry Jameson does not appear to be interested in building a consensus with others who may disagree with his edits and, after this latest one, I can't shake the feeling that he's either being intentionally dishonest and using Wikipedia to push a POV or he's being incredibly careless and lazy in sourcing. FrederickTG (talk) 07:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have re-reviewed and I see where you two are coming from. I'm asking him to cite it - if he does not do so within a reasonable amount of time, I will change the admin action applied here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

have gone low

Thank you. FrederickTG (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that Jameson seems to gone low, apart from an edit removing the context of a section of the reactions to a debunking of a sacred cow of pedophiles who think that pedophilia was once normal and accepted, when do you anticipate taking action on the article? John Nevard (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's unprotected (well, reduced to semi-protection). Go ahead and edit again. I left him a warning not to re-insert the material without citing it properly and discussing it on the article talk page first. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that Barry Jameson is still perpetrating edit wars on the Perverted-Justice page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perverted-Justice&action=history FrederickTG (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If you aren't able to help with this constant situation, could you please point me in the direction of a place where I can get some assistance? Thanks much. FrederickTG (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey George

I've been busy working on further evidence for the Samiharris/Mantanmoreland issue. Since you were interested in examining the evidence (and less focusing on the personality involved), could you take a look at The evidence I'm compiling to support a possible WP:DUCK test match and comment? SirFozzie (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Updated location: User:SirFozzie/Investigation. SirFozzie (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:World Wrestling Entertainment

You fully protected this template back in December. This is preventing us from updating it. Today WWE announced that they were ending their relationship with Ohio Valley Wrestling ([2]), so OVW needs to be moved down to the "Former Develeopmental Territories" section. TJ Spyke 00:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

please explain this

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jhurlburt

That editor mostly edits while not logging in using his or hers IP. It is not a single purpose account. The Wales article is mostly semi-protected. Quack Guru 01:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have explained to you this person edits mainly without logging in. The Jimmy Wales article is semi-protected. Quack Guru 03:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The edits on that page are disruptive, and the use of the account is SP and disruptive. I have no basis on which to review other use and see if they're behaving well, other than them commenting on their talk page and explaining. You can't do that for them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You described others as problematic but did not indef-block them.[3] Your blocking reason was a SP. You are mistaken. I explained above. Quack Guru 03:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru participated in that,... Please provide your evidence of edit warring on the Jimmy Wales article. I was not edit warring on the Jimmy Wales article and I am not Jhurlburt. Due to actions of QuackGuru related to this I asked for them to be checked against Jhurlburt, on general principles, but I don't expect that to prove anything. I disagree with your statement. It will show you have made a mistake to not unblock and another mistake for a checkuser. Quack Guru 06:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked Jhurlburt (I'd normally ask before unblocking but you said he was welcome to appeal, so I took it that you wouldn't mind). I think indefinite blocking without previous escalating blocks is a little bit extreme. As you've said there's nothing that can tell you that it isn't an SPA (although having an SPA isn't on its own a blocking ground) so I've encouraged him to login whenever he edits to dispel the SPA perception.

Please let me know if there are any further issues. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert stated: "There were legitimate questions raised as to you and Jhurlburt prior to the incident that led to the block." Please provide your evidence. What questions are you talking about? What questions were raisied? I do not see any questions. Please provide the differences. I have no idea what you are talking about. Quack Guru 01:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked.

I'm not going to continue here at all. I am going to work on fleshing out essays at meta, where I won't be bothered. I may, in the future, contribute to Veropedia, but this won't involve "working" with any "wikipedia community," just removing the blatant nonsense from certain core articles and putting up reliable sources, so that it can then be shuttled over to Veropedia where it won't be vandalized by POV-pushing mobs.

Also, a question:

I would like to remove my threads from Jimbo's talkpage. I don't want to bother him. Would it be considered vandalism for me to remove my threads from there, including the comments made by other users (even Jimbo himself)? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Zenwhat has been blocked for a week because he posted something a Village Pump, recognised it might be disruptive, and then removed it and the responses (rather than archiving them). More details at AN/I. It looks like some admins are pretty determined to see him gone. Jay*Jay (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This blatant, organized and malicious behavior by admins only further shows that the entire project is a failure. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Griot

I really think you should get more community input before unilaterally reducing such a block. Abusive sockpuppeting by a user in good standing makes it much worse in my eyes, because they have seriously betrayed the community's trust. If there is consensus to unblock or lower the block, of course I will be fine with that. Thanks for coming to me. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we've ever had a standard response of indefblocking for sockpuppetry, unless there was significant disruption that was caused. See Wikipedia:SOCK#Blocking - sockpuppets may be indef blocked (and routinely are), but main accounts may be blocked at the discretion of an administrator. Note the indefinite for the sock, but lack of indefinite for the main account.

This is normal abusive user response stuff. For someone who has edited constructively in general and has a history, we have to AGF to some degree, even if they are now known to have done something abusive as well. Normal abusive user policy is warn, warn, final warn, block, warn, final warn, block longer, etc. Indef blocking for established accounts should only happen for truly horrendous actions, at the end of a string of abuse with escalating warnings and increasingly long shorter blocks, or due to community consensus bans.

In a situation like this, I can see skipping the first set of warnings, straight to a block (3RR allows for that, etc). And I agree that a moderate length block is appropriate, not having to start with 24 hr. But straight to indefinite is outside normal admin block lengths. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Just wanted to note that I've raised the question of the appropriateness of a topical ban in the ANI discussion. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(Just to clarify - this was to the blocking admin, not to the owner of the talk page. Apologies for any confusion. For some reason I thought I was at their talk page when I posted this. Orderinchaos 10:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC))—I don't want to sound overly critical, but this action in my view showed tremendously bad faith given the size of the offence we're looking at - the sockpuppet user and talk page was completely uncalled for, we don't do that even to some of our worst so I don't see why we should start doing it with someone with a generally good edit history who seems to have a single offence on the file. Note I'm completely uninvolved in the disputes which led to this, but saw it at AN/I and was just blown away. Orderinchaos 06:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Griot deliberately misrepresenting me on his talk page

I understand your concern, but what he had done was a deliberate attempt to misrepresent me, which is not allowed on Wikipedia talk pages, so all I did was revert it back to the original conversation. This can be seen here along with my comments on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&action=history As long as he makes no more attempts to misrepresent me I do not plan to make any other edits to his talk page. Please see to it that he does not do this again. Thanks. --BillyTFried (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

He has done it again, saying (this is my talk page) - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&diff=prev&oldid=190710037<br\>

However Wikipedia talk pages are not the place for purposefully misrepresenting fellow editors in a bad light.<br\>

WP:Talk_page states that Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.<br\>

And I am certain they are also not meant to be used in the way Griot is using his. Please have him either remove all conversations between me and him from his talk page or leave the whole conversation exactly as it originally was. If you are not an Admin or cannot handle this for me can you please direct me to someone who can. Thanks. BillyTFried (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm, and have I or have I not made any changes to his talk page since you told me not to??? --BillyTFried (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You took the complaint to ANI. That's called forum-shopping. If you want me to be more explicit - he's being rude, but you're badgering him on his talk page, and his being rude short of solidly breaking our other policies doesn't allow you to seek sanction on ANI or elsewhere. Bandgering him via ANI after I told you to leave him alone is not OK. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok so you admit he is being rude but you plan to do nothing about his actions and just scold me?<br\>

• Rude Rudeness is the (apparent) disrespect and failure to behave within the context of a society or a group of people's social laws or etiquette<br\>
• Incivility Incivility is a general term for social behaviour lacking in civility or good manners, on a scale from rudeness or lack of respect for elders, to vandalism and hooliganism<br\>
• WP:CIVIL Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and 'talk page' discussions on all Wikipedias. Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another. <br\>

--BillyTFried (talk) 07:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's also rude and incivil to go pick a fight with him on his talk page.

It's his talk page. You can chose to leave any time. He can't, really.

You seem to feel that you're the injured party here. One more time - You're the one picking the fight. He's the injured party in that. His rudeness does not excuse your actions. If you keep it up I will block you.

Walk away from his talk page. Please. It's just going to get you in trouble. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Griot has requested via email that I post something to his talk page that he says will resolve the whole situation. His request seems reasonable enough so I will oblige him. BillyTFried (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper Article

I just wanted you to know that the reason Griot did this and that I am so VERY upset about his purposeful misrepresentation of me which you have done nothing about is because there is a Newspaper article about Wikipedia hitting the presses tomorrow morning here in San Francisco and Griot (who is currently banned for abuse) and his abuses and sock puppetry are the main focus of the article and this will surely bring traffic to his page which shows me in an unfair light thanks to him editing out our entire conversation and making it look like it happened in a way that it actually DID NOT. (he actually deleted 90% of his talk page except for the few items left he wants highlighted [inaccurately]) My Wikipedia user name (WHICH IS MY REAL NAME THAT MY HOME ADDRESS CAN BE GOOGLED FROM) is also briefly mentioned in the article referencing that event. Griot is of course an anonymous name. I find it completely unprofessional for his misrepresentation of our conversation to be left intact when it clearly violates Wikipedia's rules on what Talk pages are for and breaks incivility rules. I am asking one more time that you please address this issue before tomorrow when many people that live here in San Francisco will be reading this article, logging on to Wikipedia and then reading an unfairly edited chop up of a conversation I had with Griot that was chopped intentionally to make me look as bad as possibly... as if I was actually threatening him with GUN VIOLENCE, which was not what I was doing AT ALL, and that was ruled to be THE TRUTH by the admins after he REPORTED ME. I was NOT banned by the admins, though Griot said I was on his talk page, and when I removed that 100% lie, he didn't fight back. But his purposely editing out of the rest of the convo to make it APPEAR to be a violent threat with a gun will go over REAL WELL in San Francisco. At the very least please review exactly what has gone on here and ask yourself if what he has done is appropriate and that your allowing it is the right thing to do. Thanks. BillyTFried (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Georgewilliamherbert, I just posted the following on WP:ANI. Since you've been following the situation a little more closely than others I thought you might be interested:

here is the San Francisco Weekly article that BillyTFried refers to above. I don't think I would be exaggerating too much if I said that it attempts to out an anonymous Wikipedia editor, contains numerous insults that would, if they appeared on Wikipedia, be a violation of WP:NPA, and is by the sister of a banned sockpuppeteer (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Telogen) to boot. According to a previous thread on this board, the reporter (User:Marynega) was in contact with Wikipedia PR and a number of Wikipedians; I trust that nobody knew what the content of the article was going to be, but it's still a bit distressing that this piece got produced with the help of Foundation members. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes

Could you help me with a 3RR violation on this page? The 3RR report is here. It's over a Guy Fawkes photo from those Scientology protests. Two users (myself included) have put the photo, with explanatory caption and citation, in the "popular culture" section and User:Yorkshirian has reverted five times day already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Shankbone (talk • contribs) 20:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance. --David Shankbone 20:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about Yorkshirian

Hi -- would you be willing to take a look at another situation with User:Yorkshirian and give me some advice? In a nutshell, there's a content dispute over the use of a map. You can find history and an ongoing RfC at Talk:Mercia#Map, and Talk:Mercia#RFC: Map for miscellaneous medieval England articles if you're interested. I believe there's now well-established consensus for the map that Yorkshirian does not like. Should I go ahead and edit the relevant articles to that map? Or wait a bit longer? And what's the appropriate next step if he reverts?

Thanks for any advice. I don't usually find myself in content disputes, since most articles I edit are not controversial, so I'd appreciate a pointer to the right way out of this. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I will take a look later today, when I have some more free time again, and comment on what I find. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. There's no hurry; I appreciate any time you can spare. Mike Christie (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

BLP

Would you be willing to refactor your RFAR statement per BLP? It was my idea to construct the investigation and RFC without reference to speculative offsite identities, and to seek the Foundation's advisement regarding that. It's a precedent from an unrelated case I dealt with a year ago. Durova^Charge! 02:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message

I did and do not mean to taunt or bait Barresi or any user and I appreciate your giving me the three important items to review. I just have been feeling under attack and that the vulgar and abusive words though thy are blanked out were hurtful towards me. I do not know Barresi but he has threatened me. I would appreciate further feedback from you on how I might handle any situations in the future. Thank you. Fuzzyred (talk) 07:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshirian/David Shankbone block

I was reviewing the unblock request of David Shankbone. I note that neither party here technically went beyond 3 reverts in any 24-hour period: they both did 3, but no more. I upheld the block anyway on the basis that (1) it was still edit warring, and (2) Shankbone was in the wrong as he was editing someone else's comments. But since there was technically no 3RR violation, I wanted to bring that to your attention, in case you didn't realize. I figure, if you think you wouldn't have blocked had you realized there were only 3 reverts on each side, then you should go ahead and unblock despite my review. Mangojuice^talk 20:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought I counted 4 each, but it may have exceeded 24 hrs. In any case, they were clearly edit warring and disruptive, so I think I will leave it as is. Thanks for the note and checking, though. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment on David Shankbone's talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy article probation

You are listed as an administrator willing to help. After User:Orangemarlin made a revert that appeared to me to be contrary to the consensus of the RfC on the article's talk page, I asked him about his edit. When he did not respond, I asked him to participate in the discussion. His response? "I don't participate in discussions." I'd appreciate some help or guidance on this matter. Dlabtot (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you're busy, but I would really appreciate some advice on this. The article is on probation, the editor made a revert that was, whether or not as I characterized it, contrary to the consensus of the RfC, at the very least, controversial, and when asked to discuss it, simply refused. Am I missing something? Isn't that a clear case of disruptive editing and stonewalling? What is your advice on how I should deal with editors who refuse to discuss their edits? Since edit warring is not an option, what is the correct course of action? tia Dlabtot (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this the wrong way to ask for advice? Should I ask someone else? Dlabtot (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Shankbone

I responded to you here. --David Shankbone 14:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mary Spicuzza article

As you know, Mary Spicuzza wrote an article about me in the SF Weekly called "Wikipedia Idiots: The Edit Wars of San Francisco". I'm trying to get a fix on what her motives were for writing this article. Back on Jan. 25, you wrote on my Talk page, "I'd just like to briefly say that I talked to Mary earlier this week as part of her information gathering for the article. I think it would be great if you have some time and can talk to her as well, but it's up to you." Did Spicuzza ask you to ask me to respond to her? I'm just curious how my name came up... Griot (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I can do this all night dickhead. Boy you really look like a nerd btw.

Wikzilla was here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.146.171 (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:COTS Approach.jpg and Image:TaurusII Wallops.jpg

Concerning Image:COTS Approach.jpg and Image:TaurusII Wallops.jpg, I am still getting used to what types of copyright tags go to which kind of copyrighted material. It is quite possible that I may have put the wrong tag on the image. Any help with clarification in this area would be greatly appreciated. PistolPete037 (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Damned liar

Yeah, that's a fair point. Cool Hand Luke 03:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've seen Alanyst's code, and he's shared it with ArbCom. Cool Hand Luke 04:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

They're in perl. It's pretty straightforward. I'm sure he'd provide them if you asked—no script is more than a few kilobytes. They require download of the 6GB editing history file, but it's quite possible to replicate his results. I'll post a note on his talk page. Cool Hand Luke 04:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Code

I actually posted a link to my work products on the evidence page just before you left your note. I wish I could be so prescient in my investing strategy. :) alanyst ^/talk/ 04:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Block of Krimpet

Hi, I really think your block of Krimpet was inappropriate. It wasn't that uncivil of a comment, much worse comments have been let go with a warning, and it definitely reads more like sarcasm than a personal attack. Would you reconsider? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering the stuff that's gone on today, blocking someone for six hours because of one frustrated comment is.. highly questionable. I strongly suggest you take that block back, reduce it to a warning, and get to reducing drama instead of creating drama. SirFozzie (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I re-read other comments that were made today, and this one stood out to me. However, I'm going to post this on ANI for review, as two people have now made similar comments that I may have misjudged it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully this can be sorted on AN/I. I don't want to unilaterally unblock, discussion is best. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please by all means, I encourage both of you go repost your comments and concerns there so the discussion's out there for wider review. Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your openness about this. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Responded there.. by the way, you may want to change that completely unintended insult to Krimpet (Krimpet's a female, not a male :D) SirFozzie (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I was the admin who unblocked. I've responded on AN/I (after several edit conflicts). If you have any further comments or questions for me, my talk page is always open (and likely less prone to edit conflicts ; - ) ). Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and being a good sport about it. I think we all just need a time out from the stresses of the ArbCom case (and have proposed just that on the workshop.. (and I'll be the first one to do just that, cuz I wasn't doing so hot myself!... (oh and speaking of edit conflicts.. .:P at MZMcBride :)) SirFozzie (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Thank you for being receptive to community consensus and undramatic. That is much appreciated, by me and others. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback, everyone. I goofed, I apologize, and I appreciate that the discussion and feedback were constructive and civil. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Mikka and Maxim

Hello George. I've felt rather astonished over the last two days over the behaviour of these admins. Yesterday, you made a comment to User:Maxim and, because I don't know you and won't be seen to be colluding, I thought I'd ask if you would raise it again with him as a disinterested third party. He deleted the last thread on his talk page where we'd both commented. On the AN/I thread he's reiterated that he hasn't read and doesn't care for the policy. If I pursue this further I'm going to appear petulant. But it should be pursued further. One user violates our civility policy, and the other violates our blocking policy, and then we walk away? That's just not right. Marskell (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Tsk tsk Marskell, you tried to use a third admin to communicate with me by proxy? And for stuff like I've felt rather astonished over the last two days over the behaviour of these admins. , can't you say that directly to me? Maxim_(talk) 00:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

violent threats published on wikipedia review

They protected my talk page. Why they not let me talk to you and Charles Matthews arbitrator. Why they trying to cover this up if as you say it is not fault of wikipedia. Nothing to fear from publicity if not your fault. You say armed blowfish not want world to know but then why published on wikipedia review. Why not published sooner. Maybe threats would not have become as bad if published sooner. Guest385 (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image (purple monkey)

FYI. Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, George. Like Carcharoth said on my talk page, the second image was unnecessary and that's why it went (bad fair use rationale notwithstanding). Regarding fixing images rather than tagging them, I'd love to fix images - and do in subject areas where I'm interested in or where the fix is blindingly obvious, such as here or here - but there's a 20,000 image backlog right now with over a thousand images being added on every day, and it's quite infeasible to write out detailed rationales for every image as opposed to deleting them. I also saw a comment of yours on wikien-l and wanted to reassure you that I do check every image, its history, and its usage by hand - I just feed images I want gone into a deletion bot so I don't develop carpal tunnel. :-) east.718 at 05:47, February 27, 2008

Understood

I am fairly new to editing, thank you for keeping me in check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaizeAndBlue86 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)