User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2010/September

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Diffs seem to have disappeared

It isn't about who "started" this, I'm afraid. I hesitate to say this, and I mean that very clearly, but the edit summary I specifically remember when Ovadyah restored the comments, which was along the lines of "No, John Carter, you don't get to do that," does not appear at present in his edit summary page, and I cannot account for how that might have happened. I do pointedly remember it, because of the arrogance of restoring such really unacceptable commentary. It is true that I had contacted Cirt, the man who basically ended the edit warring over Scientology for help in dealing with this situation earlier today, and that I said I was going to provide the full text of each of the encyclopedias to verify that the Ebionites are, as the sources say, not a single group, but, according to the encyclopedias, a name which, like "the victim" in the 1990s US, was used frequently by many groups. How that might have prompted the edit summaries and edits to apparently disappear, I don't know. That isn't much of an explanation, and I am aware that people will accuse me of delusion or outright lying, but right now that is the best response I can offer. John Carter (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that there will be at least one call for my desysopping as a result of this. I am removing the image of the constipated cat from my userpage, which indicates I am an admin. Should the request from an admin to desysop me come through on the ANI page, you may well see it before me. If you do, by the terms by which I became an admin, in which I stated I would desysop myself on the basis of a single creditable request of such from another admin, you are more than free to desysop me immediately with my approval. John Carter (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. Please do not take the above comment as an indicator that I either did something for the purposes of causing myself to be desysoped or that I am in some way unbalanced, although it seems Ovadyah may already be perhaps trying to indicate the latter. The edits in question were made. However, I am obliged to stand by my word. John Carter (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Communicat

Hi George, I'm not sure how much leeway you think is appropriate, but this further rude and uncooperative post by Communicat seems to me to have crossed the line. Characterizing the other editors involved in the discussion "a pack of editorial wild dogs" pretty much indicates that s/he's not willing to work cooperatively. Carrying on about his willingness to provide reliable sources yet not providing such sources is also fairly unhelpful. Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

They've added further name-calling and empty threats: [1] Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Another rude and uncooperative comment despite numerous explicit warnings against doing so: [2] (and another warning [3]). I think that this has gone on for long enough and it's turned the article's talk page into a battleground - can you please block them? Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Repeating this on their user page yesterday (including the wild dogs comment for which you'd warned them) is also troublesome. Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I note that Communicat hasn't struck or deleted the "wild dogs" comment(s) - although he may not be aware it is appropriate. (Hohum @) 02:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Opinion/comment requested

As time and time again, I see you on ANI as the voice of an uninvolved admin with a penchant for impartiality and sound judgment. To that end, I request you comment in this thread. Thank you for your time.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Communicat 2

This user made some edits to History of South Africa. Examining the first source showed many of Communicat's statements were not supported by the source and in some cases were flatly contradicted. (Differences are listed on that talk page.) Evidence was provided on Talk:World War II that this is not first time Communicat has done this.[4] I reverted, first partially [5], then in full [6] and posted the reasons for my edits on both articles talk pages. [7] [8] In response, Communicat made personal attacks against me [9] [10] then incorrectly claimed I had reverted without discussion. [11] Edward321 (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've responded on Talk:History of South Africa and asked another respected administrator to take a look as well, to get a second opinion (and I'm considering inviting a third). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
You (Edward321) are making very serious allegations, almost as bad as I am making here: Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes#According to professor Michael Ellman.... If you accuse someone of fraud, you better be prepared to back up yourself in arbitration or you will be banned.
As for the issue itself. There is no ban on Wikipedia for introducing unsourced information. Also, not every word in a paragraph needs to be sourced from the same source. The allegedly unsourced parts of the paragraph were "the fundamental precepts of fascism became firmly enshrined in South African law" and "the Ossewa Brandwag evolved into the Broederbond." The source cited was Fascism Today: A world survey from 1969. I would not be surprised if the source made exactly these allegations. You do not have the book. You have no business accusing other editors based on what you thought you saw trough Google Books snippet view. The correct thing to do is ask for quotes and maybe revert the content you cannot verify, as you did here. Complaining to administrators and asking for sanctions in what is essentially a content dispute is not appropriate. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Petri, I suggest you carefully read the links I provided before attacking me in this manner. The alleged source, "Fascism Today: A world survey" clearly does not even mention Hendrik van den Bergh, so it cannot source that he was head of this organization. Likewise, my link shows that "Fascism Today: A world survey" says that Broederbond was created before the Ossewa Brandwag and that the latter organization evolved into the National Party, not the Broederbond. When Comminicat is trying to use "Fascism Today: A world survey" to support things that are not mentioned or are flatly contradicted in "Fascism Today: A world survey" that is not a content dispute, especially when other users have documented Communicat doing the same thing with other sources in other articles. Edward321 (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe it is you who is attacking other people. I am only providing a defense.
It is possible that Communicat has other sources for his claims on Hendrik van den Bergh (police official). In fact the article here on Wikipedia states: "He opposed South African intervention in World War II, and, with future Prime Minister John Vorster, joined the Ossewabrandwag ("Oxwagon Sentinel"), a paramilitary organization modelled on the Nazi SA which engaged in acts of sabotage against the South African government to undermine the war effort. Both men were detained by the government under wartime emergency laws for their activities." – citing the obituary in The Independent on August 21, 1997 as its source. I suggest you ask him nicely and maybe he will tell you why he thinks den Bergh was involved with the Ossewabrandwag. I will not guarantee he will answer, as so far you have not made a very good effort in starting a dialogue. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia specifically is disallowed as a source for any articles on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Yet another accusation! Are you saying that someone has been using Wikipedia as a source for itself? Who? Where? When?
Anyway, welcome to the crowd. Nice to see that you to have found and interest in apartheid. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
No accusation. Just noting that In fact the article on Wikipedia states has no value. See "recursion" on Google. I follow about 2K pages, and do not follow apartheid as a topic. Collect (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Petri, how can pointing out that Commincat's sources do not support Communicat's edits possibly be considered an attack? I never said that Bergh was not involved with Ossewa brandwag, I proved that Communicat's source did not mention Bergh at all. Edward321 (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, thanks for asking other people to keep an eye on this. You did miss telling them thatTalk: History of South Africa is not the only place where Communicat has been shown to be posting things not supported by the sources he lists. This was also discussed on Talk: World War II where another user shows Communicat has similar problems in their edits of other pages.[12] Thank you. Edward321 (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfounded WP:NPA struck out. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Unstruck. You are an involved party and are in no position to be editing others' comments. That aside, it doesn't really delve into WP:NPA anyway. If it truly is one, someone else, uninvolved, will do it.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I ask that you refactor your statement. As the long discussion and analysis on Talk:History of South Africa shows, Communicat has not "been shown to be posting things not supported by the sources". You may argue that his edits or his sources may be POVish or that other sources should be used. You have no business stating that he is a falsifier of sources! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The source Communicat cites does not mention some of the things he claims to source from it and contradicts others as I shown on Talk: History of South Africa. An IP has shown on Talk: World War II that Communicat has done the same thing on other pages. As John Adams said - "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." Edward321 (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I have asked User Edward321 (talk · contribs) to refrain from making personal attacks and to refactor his comments. He has not listened to my advise. Instead he has removed my comments from several talk pages, including here, here and here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The first diff is the only one applicable. Users are allowed to remove message for their talk pages; however, since you are involved, you are not allowed to strike their comments.— Dædαlus Contribs 18:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for accidentally removing Petri's accusation instead of just his striking my comments on Moonriddengirl's page. I have left them intact on all the other people's talk pages where he has posted them. Edward321 (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

AN/i

Thanks for handling it "professionally." Slrubenstein | Talk 20:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)



The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) 		Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election

Articles

A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound

Members

Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants

Editorial

In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations

To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

TechnoFaye

GWH, have you thought of consulting the mediator(s) that handled the race and intelligence disputes earlier this year? Having interacted with the account, they may have valuable observations and input to contribute to your analysis. --JN466 02:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

Thanks for intervening with Gypsydog5150. I appreciate it.

I note he responded on his talk page with this.

The IP behind that edit traces back to the same Pittsburgh Verizon origin per here.

I'm not sure if there's anything more that you're inclined to do. I suspect he'll continue to abuse using dynamic IP's.

I'm starting to regret getting involved in political Wikipedia articles... but they tend to drag me in. I aspire to wp:npov, and maybe others do too, but it's hard to reach, or even define, consensus in that context.

Again, much thanks for getting involved. I genuinely appreciate it. John2510 (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI Appeal

Please review the two sources I have added to my statement which cite WMC's article in exactly the same manner that I did, as an example of alarmism from global cooling. One is peer reviewed, one is a book. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 12:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Opinion requested

Please see this. Thank you for your time.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Mass renaming of IQ articles without discussion

In light of the discretionary sanctions on R&I-related articles and what I should do about it when there's a problem, there's something going on now that I think really needs an admin's attention.

The issue is discussed here. WeijiBaikeBianji proposed that the R&I article be renamed to "Group differences in IQ by race" and his reason for this is "for parallelism with other subarticles of intelligence quotient." The only reason the proposed name is parallel to other subarticles of IQ is because WeijiBaikeBianji had just renamed four of them within an hour before posting this proposal, without any prior discussion whatsoever: [13] [14] [15] [16]. When I pointed out on the talk page for R&I that his proposed rename wasn't consistent with a bunch of other intelligence-related articles, giving Fertility and intelligence as an example, he immediately renamed that one also (and also without discussion). [17]

The issue here is NOT that I'm worried he'll rename R&I too. This is the only page he's wanted to rename that he bothered discussing with anyone, and it's clear that there's no consensus. People on the talk page are disagreeing with his undiscussed name changes on the other articles, but no one seems willing to go to the trouble of undoing them all and risk getting into an war with WBB over this.

I think that what WBB is doing is both article ownership and POV-pushing. From my understanding of rename policy, it's not acceptable for someone to rename 5 articles in the space of an hour without any discussion whatsoever. And especially when he's using these new article names to justify renaming the R&I article, and then immediately renaming any article that's pointed out as having a similar name to Race and intelligence. Would you mind taking a look at this situation, and decide what (if anything) should be done about it? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please look at this soon? He's just now, once again, made a contentious article renaming with no prior discussion, despite others expressing displeasure (and reverting) his last renames. [18] -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I am going to look at this but I am busy... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I understand and respect that you're busy, but I feel that some of these things need to be dealt with swiftly in order for the discretionary sanctions to have any benefit on these articles. Do you have a recommendation about the best way to bring things like this to an admin's attention without dragging it to AN/I? For instance if you know of another uninvolved admin I could go to who has more free time and is also familiar with these articles. Thanks. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk WWII

I replied at User talk:Paul Siebert#WWII Talk a couple hours before you posted on my talk page. When I made that edit I was trying to restore the Talk page to Nick-D's version. [19] I was acting under the impression that Communicat had refactored Nick-D's comments. Thanks to Paul's posting, I realized that I accidentally removed this comment of Communicat's[20] and apologized for my mistake at that time. As I said then; it was not an intentional removal of Communicat's comments on my part. Apologies for my mistake. Edward321 (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, did not see that beforehand, but that's a reasonable explanation. No problem. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the personal attack. I've changed the horrible part, it is probably better now. As for ANI, I didn't want to waste admins time with unproven nonsence when they have better things to do. I am quite new but have been reading Wikipedia for a few months. Stil need to know the ropes etc. Chetnik Serb (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi George!

It's Orijentolog here; I'm writing from collage because unfortunately you blocked mine IP address for one month, which is huge misunderstanding. First of all, as you probably remember you have advised me not to use Wikipedia for few month after my ban, so I did follow your advice. After few months or more precisely in early May, I contacted your colleague Dougweller who is also Wiki administrator but more active on history-related articles then you, because he was the most hostile toward my edits (beside you). In my message to him, I stated this:

Next time when I found some mistake on Wikipedia (like this or this) I'll inform you personally about it because I don't want you guys to consider it as vandalism. I know my situation and I don't have time for appeal to unblock my account, but some articles are important to me coz I'm working on one academic work so I use "what links here" very often - that's why I've found many mistakes. Cheers, vandal-killer! :)

He agreed with it as you can see it on upper link, and I've also noticed that since my IP is changing I'll always contact him, and that I won't bother him with banal changes. Since then (May 8), I participated in dozens of changes and every time I noticed administrator Dougweller: we have few disscusions and there was no absolutely any hostilities or contra-positions. Beside changes, I participated in "vandal hunt", discussions about categories and many other Wiki issues. You can see it on this list on Dougweller talk page, I listed it for you by dates:

After all signatures, I have added "(Orijentolog)" for clearly identification (you can check it). Also, to prove there was no even one my abusive edit or even one suspected abusive edit from agreement with Dougweller, you can check it on "User:Orijentolog" article by viewing history of suspected sockpuppets, confirmed socks or sockpuppet investigations casepage - as you can see, there is no any change after May 8.

So, talking about recent edits, I've made changes on article Cyrus Cylinder along with explanation on talk page; administrator Dougweller saw it even before I posted new message on his talk page, so on Cyrus Cylinder talk page he advised me about few things and I said "You're the boss", and I've followed his corrections.

I understand that you have hostile policy toward vandals on Wikipedia, but in this case you're wrong because as I prove it upper - I've followed your advices, and everything I've done was under supervision of Wikipedia administrator. If it's possible, it would be kind from you to remove IP block, and if you have further questions or demands feel free to post it here. I'll also notice User:Athenean about this whole issue. Cheers! --161.53.35.105 (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)(Orijentolog)

I don't agree with the large changes made a few days ago or today. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I hear ya.

Sorry. I'll get better. Thanks for your input. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Biography page

                                          Hi George,
  i coincidentally have chosen you, from the list of about 1800 wikipedia's administrators, to ask you if you want to see my biography page that i created it. To move any thing in Wikipedia i must have administrator's help or send it by my self but unprotected there is alwais chanses for vandalism.
  So, my name is Igor Manev from city of Skopje, Republic of Macedonia. If you see on map my country is near Greece in Europe.
  I am journalist who finished medical school.During my studies i have worked in the field of journalism, in tv medias and news pappers.
  My intention, latter, is to publish it in the article: Skopje/culture/people from Skopje/list of people from Skopje/movie, television figures, models and journalists.

George, are you willing to send you my biography ?


Igor Manev - Manka

Igor Manev - Manka 15:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor manev (talk • contribs)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies talk 19:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Communicat, again

Hi George, Communicat has made yet more rude comments ([21], [22]) and inserted material into the World War II article claiming that all of Korea came under a US military government after the war (diff: [23]), despite there being a consensus at Talk:World War II#aftermath against this (with myself and other editors providing appropriate sources that demonstrated that North Korea was under Soviet occupation until 1948). Given his continued disruptive conduct, despite multiple warnings (I note that they also misrepresented the ArmCom case they initiated here), I think that an indef block may now be in order. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be involved in a content dispute. This is not the place to solve it. In fact, you coming here and trying to win a content dispute by blocking others is unwelcome.
As to the question of Korea: there is a strong argument for the view that U.S. rule in South Korea was occupation, and even worse, continuation of the Japanese occupation, while communist North Korea was not under Soviet occupation. There is some additional content in the version Communicat inserted compared to the version proposed by Paul Siebert. Now that you have replaced Communicat's version by Siebert you should take Communicat's text to the talk page for discussion. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Being in a content dispute doesn't mean he shouldn't ask for help if someone violates the personal attack policy, Petri. We ask that people come get an admin...
Regarding the content dispute, however, I would appreciate it if the effect of Communicat ending up blocked for a couple of days was not used as leverage in the content dispute. Perhaps both sides not editing that section until Communicat returns? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
With all respect George and Petri, this isn't a content dispute: it's a long running disruptive editor deliberately paying no attention to other editors' views to push his own views, regardless of sources and regardless of repeated requests that he engage in working towards consensus text. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

intelligence history

Is Journal of Intelligence History a reputable journal? It has an interesting review of one of Stan Winer's books: [24].

67.119.14.196 (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO!

I know. Can you believe my nerve? Honestly, it's almost midnight where I live, I go to reblock some doggoned vandal...and I see that PMDrive1061 has successfully blocked PMDrive1061. Being the of the type too embarassed to ask for help (or directions), I took it upon myself to unblock myself while a noodle boils merrily on the stove. Hey, at least it's nice to know that at least one admin would have given me a hand! Not so sure of others, tho.  :) Thanks for the laugh, George. I'm still smiling. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2010/September&oldid=1138910116"