User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2011/July


TB

Hello, Georgewilliamherbert. You have new messages at Sven Manguard's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sven Manguard Wha? 05:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Georgewilliamherbert. You have new messages at Sven Manguard's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sven Manguard Wha? 05:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:File:Moroc-Songhrati-Meads flag.png deletion

It was a flag used by the Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads, yet Orthuberra (talk · contribs) claimed the copyright. There seems to be a completely mistaken belief among some users that if they create a digital file of a flag, they own the copyright; in fact, a flag, just like any other artwork or insignia, may well have a copyright of its own. In this case, there was no evidence that the itself was freely licensed. J Milburn (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for your considered and direct reply at the Delta ban proposal. Yes, I agree wholeheartedly that Moonriddengirl is a true treasure, and wonderful asset to the project. But to the heart of the matter. I have been watching Delta's talk page for a while now. It is my opinion that he has made a very strong and concerted effort to improve his communication skills. As a computer person yourself, I'm sure you've met many techs who do lack effective communication skills. One ability does not always equate to another. The "Foundation" has actually made a statement on our use of NFC. As it's my belief that they are the governing body of WP, and that their declarations are far and few between, I believe it to be an issue that is important to our benefactors.

Where you say "Lots of other people enforce NFCC issues and FUR issues. Beta consistently does so in manners that generate community uproar and outrage". My view is that much of the "uproar" is more about who Delta is, rather than what he is doing. A person's past on a site such as ours is always with them. His past indiscretions are easily found and brought up time and again for things said and done years ago. Watching his talk page I find all too often, people coming there in a defiant and bellicose manner; and it appears the the bulk of Delta's response has been calm, rational, and helpful in explaining the issues.

I'd imagine that I could go on a bit, but I suspect that I'd not change your views on the situation. Yes, I fully agree that Delta could go through and painstakingly try to fix the some 8,000 plus errors with NFC items. I believe that he is not required to do so though. His removal of items appear to be fully within what our NFC policies state. So I have little desire to attempt to ban him from work that should be done. Again, I do thank you for your time to respond to me so directly.

Kind Regards, — Ched :  ?  11:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

George, it is extremely frustrating me to see these "just ban him" proposals at AN/I, given that people like Ched and myself have been working very hard to try to find middle-of-the-road solutions that will satisfy both sides. What's needed here is some flexibility and nuance (see, for example, my suggestion to Δ on his talk page), and the draconian "just ban him" approach, which is practically guaranteed to do nothing but entrench both sides whether it reaches consensus or not, is the exact opposite of this. It has the exact same problem of tossing the bad away with the good that Δ is (rightfully, IMO) being accused of in his image removals. 28bytes (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:GUNS#Criminal use

Re [1]. Please see my reasoning here. I am quite convinced that this is not at all compatible with site-wide policy and guidelines. I also couldn't find anything similar to the WP:GUNS#Criminal use guideline in Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide, especially not in the Content section which remains absolutely true to the spirit and wording of all site-wide P&G.

I'd also argue that everything policy-wise valid which WP:GUNS#Criminal use could ever hope to achieve is already covered in Wikipedia:GUNS#Pop culture.

The arbitrary information inclusion threshold defined for Criminal use is, as far as I can tell, unique and it flies straight in the face of site-wide P&G. Like I wrote in my above-cited reply to GB fan, WP:GUNS#Criminal use specifies rare cases and then it says that everything that fails that very narrow threshold does not belong in a gun article.

I'd honestly appreciate it if you could point me to any guideline section, be it site-wide or project-related, that even remotely resembles the basic logical setup of WP:GUNS#Criminal use.

As to my intentions, please see my response to Berean Hunter here. --87.78.55.135 (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Extended reply to your VPP comment
Also, you wrote You freely admit that this is an issue you've wanted to have resolved this way for some years. -- No. I truthfully stated that I tried to resolve this issue several years back. I have not wasted a second's worth of thought about it since, until I remembered it out of the blue the other day and decided to gather opinions of uninvolved users at VPP who are generally interested in (but, as it turns out, woefully ignorant about) P&G issues.

You took it straight to a noticeboard without notifying the article talk page, the project in question, attempting to re-add the edit, or anything else. -- Of course not, since that is not my current goal at all. I am simply looking for input from knowledgeable uninvolved users, who are interested in P&G issues rather than in slapping down an IP user with assumptions of bad faith, accusations of stupidity and/or ill intent and ignoring or misreading everything I wrote.

It's not in violation of general Wikipedia policy. -- I beg to differ, based on the so-far unchallenged reasoning I have presented.

It's been in place for some years. -- Because nobody cared to challenge it. Consider that even very established and highly regarded editors such as yourself appear to not quite understand the actual problem with that guideline section.

It's not a monolithic block on any such inclusion, and specific exceptions could be argued on article talk pages, to local consensuses. -- Been there, tried that. Not only was it a monolithic block, but it was mirrored by the monolithic block that was the gang of GUNS members who simply pretended not to hear any of my sound arguments. --87.78.55.135 (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Your block of User:Alpenhorn

I noticed that you blocked the above user for a 3RR violation. My question would be, is it okay for me to remove the malformed stuff he put into the article, even though it would (I believe) put me on the edge of 3RR myself? I'm not sure how such things work, and I don't want to engage in anything resembling edit warring. Thanks, LHM 06:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Please let someone else; you're on the edge of 3RR yourself.
I understand why you did what you did, with the absence of reliable sources / original research issue. But those don't excuse violating 3RR yourself (if you were to continue...).
Best thing to do is post on the article talk page and seek consensus for how to approach the issue there. Let Alpenhorn go there and discuss it as well, hopefully.
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
My main concern--given that I know little about competitive eating--was that it appeared almost like a fanboy of that other guy simply dropping a smear on Chestnut's article, using his own OR to do so. If you look at my past contributions, you'll see that I'm not the type to edit war. If I make an edit and it's rejected, I just go to the talk page to hash it out. In this case, I felt like it was important to remove that unsourced "asterisk" thing, since--as I note above--it seemed like a bit of fanboy vandalism or something. After the second time he did it, I reported it at ANI, since I wasn't exactly sure how the 3RR thing worked, and didn't want to have even a technical violation of it. LHM 07:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not vandalism; it wasn't "right" - unsourced etc - but not vandalism. That's why the talk page.
The ANI report was fine. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

July 2011 and History of CBS

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. Please note that we take very seriously our criteria on non-free image uploads and users who repeatedly upload or misuse non-free images may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. ΔT The only constant 03:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Georgewilliamherbert. You have new messages at ResidentAnthropologist's talk page.
Message added 08:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 08:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Georgewilliamherbert. You have new messages at ResidentAnthropologist's talk page.
Message added 09:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 09:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hope you're satisfied

I hope you and Georgia guy are good and satisfied, messing around with CBS and History of CBS and shining a light on those non-free images and stirring up the deletionists. You have no idea how many hours I spent crafting that section of the article, and searching out photos that only had CBS microphones prominently in them. Now they're gone, because you two stumble in noisily and mess everything up. Without those photos, it's just a huge mass of words. Thanks for nothin'. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I do apologize for the above snippy note — it's not my usual style. I had a lot of time, work and pride in the "Radio Years" section of that article, and the moment that Georgia guy started carving the article up without consensus — and then left it all dangling out — I knew exactly what was going to happen, and it did. In any event, I'm sorry for the above. Sincerely — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I understand your frustration with the events. All I can say is that I had no intention to damage content at all - I was just trying to repair some Fair Use Rationale issues that Delta had identified. I am sorry that other responses were less constructive.
I wish you and the article good luck going forwards. Hopefully you can get it straightened back out. It looked like a lot of good content that you've added and created. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, sir. Honestly, I'm not too optimistic about a good outcome; several of the deletionists seem to be pretty tenacious individuals. If the section does wind up getting eviscerated, I'll just de-list it from my watchlist and forget I ever tried to do a good thing. Wouldn't be the first time here. Thanks again for being a good sport, a gracious colleague (and a patient confessor). — HarringtonSmith (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
PS: Any time you want to delete this wholly embarrassing section is fine with me. Harry. HarringtonSmith (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Warning

George, I thought about this for some time before coming here, but felt compelled to leave you a note. This is in regards to your "warning" at the OM talk page. Now I understand your efforts in the "civility" area, and I realize that your post was quite .. considered and deliberate. I also understand the concerns; however, I'd also point out that there is a lot more to civility than the written words in our policy. Intangibles such as compassion and understanding should also come into play here. There were better ways to handle it. When we lose sight of the humanity on the other side of the keyboard, we diminish the very core of the "collaboration" we strive for. If you were too tired to leave an "an awake and sensitive response", then it would have been best to post nothing at all.

I have no desire to pursue this or anything, and lord knows I make my share of mistakes too. I also respect your work here. In fact you're perfectly free to simply delete this after reading. I would urge that you do give it some consideration however. Thank you — Ched :  ?  16:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to [2] and the ANI post?
I do not believe that the page, as it was at the time, was acceptable on Wikipedia. My significant compassion for and worry for OM's health, and beyond that his potential future contributions here, could not justify simply turning and walking away once I was aware of it.
You and Hans Adler both seem to have reacted extremely negatively to my having merely (and as delicately as I could, given OM's condition and how tired I was at the time) reported it to a noticeboard for others to review and act upon.
I understand why the consequences of that were somewhat suboptimal, but simply turning and walking away would have been less responsible. There was strong consensus that something needed to be done. Something was done. I didn't do anything myself, because I was far too tired to handle it delicately.
If you assert that not notifying would have been better, then I utterly reject the suggestion. It would not have been better for OM, for his reputation here, for the community.
If you assert that I am to blame for some of what happened after that was suboptimal... That, I can accept, but it was the least of the evils I could see. The particular phrasing I used was the most delicate I could apply given the late hour and my tiredness, but if it was not great I will accept that.
I do not want to be a person (or editor, or administrator) who is crippled by compassion. It's important to have it, and that was a major factor in how I approached the problem - in particular, in deciding I was not in a condition to do anything myself other than notify.
If you didn't see my attempt at handling it as being compassionate or sensitive, I apologize for leaving that impression, but that was the best balance of those and community concern I could figure out at the time.
I appreciate your caring enough about the situation to state your observations and opinion on the situation honestly. If you have further input after reading this response I am happy to listen and continue discussing it.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, yes, yes. This is exactly what I was hoping to get from you (and yet what I was afraid I'd never see). I am SOOOO glad to see a true and honest "discussion" here. Thank you. I have NO doubt that you're a wonderful person George. It's just that sometimes, at least from my perception, those kinds of posts tend to come off as almost a mechanical and canned response. I know that in this particular case there were things posted that needed to be addressed. I also really appreciate all your hard work to keep things polite and civil on WP. I'm just saying, don't be afraid to "TALK" to folks here. It's ok to "warn" someone, but remember that there's real people on the other end. Try to put yourself in their shoes. Don't be afraid to be human. Don't be afraid to care. There's tons of folks here, and everything will find its way to a resolution. It's ok to see something and say: "Ya know what, I'm not sure how to handle this, I'm gonna sleep on it." Ya don't have to be so measured in all you do. Allow yourself to be human. Just because someone blows off a little steam here and there doesn't mean you need to run off and block them. In fact, sometimes that makes things even worse. Let those walls down a bit sometimes, just "talk" to folks. I'm not sayin change what you do, ... just try to see the other side a bit, is all. And no, I'm not attempting to say I "know" you. I'm just asking to be allowed to. Thank you so much for talking to me George. I hope you have a great weekend. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  11:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Bushmaster-acr-cropped.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bushmaster-acr-cropped.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. B (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Requesting review.

I've seen you around the project at some pages I watch and to which I periodically contribute. While we've not interacted extensively--and I've not always agreed with your take--I've come to respect your views, particularly on policy issues. I would appreciate it if you could find the time to offer your take at the editor review I've opened for myself. Thanks, LHM 04:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 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 go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

Euthanasia, ClaudioSantos

Hello, Georgewilliamherbert. You have new messages at ClaudioSantos's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ClaudioSantos¿? 17:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Plase take a look in this -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Re Night of the Big Wind (NoBW), when I came back to the euthanasia articles after a long break, he was at war there with CluadioSantos (CS) himself, to the extent that he was preparing a case against him in his own space. As soon as I arrived, he deleted the case [3] and instead began needling me over every small thing he could, for instance starting an edit war over adding trivial Infobox details to the Exit International page (my changes were all subsequently re-instated by other editors who said NoBW had no case, and I'm sure you can see that too). He also encouraged CS to edit war with me, saying things like "Guys, hire yourself a boxrink and fight it out" to us on his Talk page, encouraging a battleground with glee, from which he doubtless thought he could benefit. Notice that he is edit warring me on Suicide bag and Exit International and perhaps elsewhere (too busy to check all the possible articles he's stalked me to). Notice especially that he even admits complicity in the situation by saying that he'll also accept a topic ban (he says that at the current ANI discussion [4]. Please consider. He richly deserves it. Jabbsworth (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent message

Hello, Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2011. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Other involved editors are aware of the issue I just raised.Novangelis (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

ClaudioSantos again

George, sorry to keep banging on about this, but I spent several hours working hard today on WP, collating medical studies and texts, to improve an article, only to have these hours of work deleted, without Talk page usage, as "Not encyclopedic content". diff Please, on bended knee, can you prevent this sort of infuriating vandalism? Jabbsworth (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Question for the sake of objectivity

Perhaps I am not judging or seeing enough clear the thing. So please explain me where, how and why you says that I did edit disruptively and WP:PA the last hours? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)