User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2011/December


User your Waybackmachine on Tachash

Remember that article and Michael Paul Heart (talk · contribs)? Please see the recent history of the article. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Ugg boots - is "It's a generic term" the mainstream view?

Hi Georgewilliamherbert. Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Taliban. Would you consider closing Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Ugg boots - is "It's a generic term" the mainstream view? per the unresolved request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#WP:NPOVN close request, which I moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Request for closure? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

Edit regarding insurance and nanotechnology

Dear Georgewilliamherbert, The references are very specific about the relation between insurance industry (insurers, re-insurers), the question of insurability and the insurance against nanotechnology damages. These are general references on the chances and risks of nanotechnology for insurers and on their social significance.

If you consider it useful, I am happy to author another two sentences summarising more from these references.

Many thanks for your opinion! Best Ingmar.lippert (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

Nomination of Fajitagate for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fajitagate is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fajitagate until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

AE appeal

I suggest you read my statement in depth before you write it off as "legalistic" as I directly address what reasons were given for the Tban, though the reasoning was not clear at times as I point out in my statement.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I disagree. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying you disagree with me saying I addressed the reasons given for the ban?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
You addressed the reasons for the ban in more of a legalistic manner rather than a factual manner, and did not sufficiently address the specific ban evidence and reasoning. You did make somewhat of an effort to mention those but it wasn't sufficient or convincing, to me. I don't think you're just stirring up trouble, I believe you that you believe what you're saying, but you haven't convinced me. The format of the argument you made didn't convince me or help your case.
There is significant evidence that your editing has been and remains somewhat of a problem. It's not a long term topic ban. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I have laid out the issue of distortions more plainly if that helps. The distortions go directly towards addressing some of the evidence presented in the case I am appealing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I added a section on the case laying out all the attempts I made at discussion, with diffs embedded in the statement, and the way other editors responded. Their behavior in response to my attempts at discussion is part of the reason I had so much difficulty engaging in collaborative editing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I saw that you got back on, the case got closed but would you mind looking at the statements I added to the appeal anyway, in case you see cause for re-opening?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)