Jump to content

User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2009/August

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


Your block of Amisquitta is discussed at WP:AN

A user has posted at WP:AN suggesting an unblock of Amisquitta, though that editor has not filed a request himself. See this AN thread. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:United States Military Associations

I have nominated Category:United States Military Associations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:United States military associations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. APK that's not my name 02:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the stepping in

I really do, but it is true that people who disagree with their opponents use whatever things they can take advantage of just like the case. If CoM would have explained the changed remedy to Scribner who brought in the absurd accusation on the first place, then the whole thing could have not been happened. Or since he is so much interested in CoM, he should've checked on the changed remedy, he would realize that his accusation is unfound. However, the user who has accused CoM for breaching things that do not exist, indeed said "I'd block you". That is a breach of policies on NPA and harassment, so I checked to see if he were an admin. (of course, he is not) He seems to have some WP:OWNership issue and has history related to the article if you look at his log. He also harassed me by falsely accusing that I attacked him because I said to him that CoM would revert his edit on his talk page because I know CoM tend to delete unwelcome message. He further continued forum shopping to Talk:Jimmy Wales (not User talk:Jimbo Wales) as well as making WP:POINT. He may want to speak to the creator of the site for what? AGF is only for people who deserve. This is very absurd. I'm politically more than "liberal" (applying to worldwide) which is strikingly opposite to CoM who is known as a conservative, but I think minority should have a right to voice out without oppression or tackles. Anyway, thank--Caspian blue 05:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If by "conservative" you mean a freedom loving supporter of opportunity, prosperity, sensible environmental policies and free expression, then I will accept the label. But I think describing me as a moderate is more accurate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

IP editor ignoring GF attempt to work together and seek consensus

The IP editor I mention above, (on the Monterey, California) article has begun to edit war with reverts even after I welcomed him, explained consensus and agreed to discuss changing the infobox image. Instead he simply reverted the page back to the version of the removal of many more images and commented in the summery "replacing dark photo that original photographer admits does not work". I agreed to discuss the image and agreed it was dark and was a tourist attraction, but there is no consensus to change it. I asked that he present more images to discuss and I would do the same and we could form a consensus and work together. Editor is becoming harrassive and is not working in good faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I will take a look later today; it doesn't sound like they're trying to work constructively. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I made an edit today on Carmel-by-the-Sea. Third party suugestion for image was disputed as washed out, so I made good faith photoshop adjustments and added it to see if improved image works and discussed it on the talk page. I will make no further edits there. I feel I broke a commitment to you, but I was getting a little stepped on. Sorry, I feel a litle bad but it wasn't confrontational and I think it was constructive, but....I did break my word. Sorry.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
This isn't the same dispute - You're talking about the issue, no foul. I still need to get to reviewing the details and the IPs behavior, but will do so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

IP user, 71.149.243.247 has crossed the line from incivil to harrassment, personal attacks and name calling. Continues to edit war and revert against consensus and refuses to allow a new consensus to be discussed or formed. User creates an atmosphere on the page no editor would want to step into. IP user has used this situation as revenge for his own perceptions.

I ave warned the user on the page that I intend to take this to ANI, but will wait to hear from you. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Mad Scientist, I notice that you accused the other edit of vandalism, and yet here you are complaining about incivility when they called you a bully. It seems to be a content dispute over which photos to use. As you removed the gallery, that also limits the number of photos. Maybe you and the other editor can agree to abiding by a third opinion wp:3O, or seeking input at the article content noticeboard Wikipedia:Content noticeboard . Or maybe you can ask Binkenstreet, who I see has made some edits there, which photos they think should be used. Just because the other editor is anonymous doesn't mean their position has less validity than yours does. Somehow you have to work out a compromise or a resolution to the dispute as opposed to trying to get them blocked because you disagree. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Please refrain from incivil and unhelpful comments like this one [1]. Accusing others of dramatizing situations isn't constructive at all. Do I need to call in the civility police?

In all seriousness, you seem unable to differentiate between disruptive behavior on the one hand and restraint and good humor from someone being harassed on the other. This is unfortuante.

Poor judgment is rather an epidemic on Wikipedia these days, and content disputes shouldn't be brought up on administrative noticeboards. When administrative functions are abused in this way, the editors causing the problem should be moved along with practical suggestions for how to solve the differences involved and warned against abusing processes and smearing other editors. When administrators fail to take these sensible steps, and refuse to get involved, it encourages the malicious activity of those who keep causing these disruptions and filing frivolous reports in hopes of getting a drive by block or winning a content dispute with the help of an admin who isn't bright enough to figure out what's really going on. Comprende? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If we had an infinite admin pool - we would not have tired admins seeing situations which have not been dealt with yet, we would not have a lack of admin involvement in some notice-boarded things which need involvement, etc.
If we had an infinite admin pool - admins could be proactive consistently, or at least promptly and evenly reactive.
If you have any constructive ideas on how to solve that, I'm sure there's interest in hearing them, and I'm listening.
WP is a volunteer organization and aspects are understaffed, because of self-selection issues. I have a lot more fun working on articles, but when I blocked Giano someone made a nasty comment afterwards about my recent edit history - which I went back and looked at, and which for months has been primarily administrative stuff. Which is sort of sad, and annoys me.
But if I stop doing the admin stuff that's one less person who's willing to step in, one less of the already few admins who will, if given enough reason, spend all day looking at a problem and working on it and trying to be fair.
It can take a focused application of hours of work - or an hour or more a day for weeks in some cases - to deal with some of these things. And that's with almost complete uninvolvement in arbcom cases et al, which can take up that much more themselves easily.
If you're upset that you're not being treated entirely fairly here due to lack of resources - you're probably right. You probably deserve more in depth review. And I'll try and give you some time tomorrow. But I have a backlog on requests for that. There's an issue regarding Monterey you can read about above, that I still haven't finished with, and a bunch more stuff around in the wings. In the meantime, please don't blow anything up.
A note of caution on sarcasm and humor online - if you don't put a smiley in, especially if it's in the middle of an actual disagreement, not everyone can tell you're trying to use good humor. I encourage the use of humor to defuse things, it's an effective social lubricant, but it doesn't always work and isn't always clear. I really don't want to have to re-read the ANI thread again and pick out whatever I missed there, but apparently I missed something. I AGF on your contributions. Perhaps it will be more clear in the morning. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply GWH. As far as my suggestion, I tried to make it above and I will reiterate: Do not encourage disruption (ie. aggravating time wastage) on admin boards by allowing them to be used for content disputes. Redirect the editors misusing the boards in this way, and if the behavior persists then they need to be warned or blocked. You can start by being proactive in closing threads that deal with content disputes as being resolved per redirection to appropriate content dispute venues (Scribner's is a good example of a thread needing this remedy).
As you point out, we are volunteers and in limited numbers. So we have to work together and to collaborate. Those who consistently abuse boards to attack and smear editors with whom they disagree are a big problem and at the core of the tensions and frustrations we have on Wikipedia.
The article content board, the third opinion board, the RfC process, and the soliciting of a respected third party to offer an opinion are all appropriate venues and approaches to take in resolving disagreements. Trolling for blocks and misusing admin boards to find sympathetic admins who don't know the whole story is counterproductive. Cheerios, and thanks for your good efforts. Monterey is a bit cool for me, but it's supposed to be lovely up that way. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Factsontheground unblock request

Hi George, regarding your recent block of Factsontheground, s/he's posted an unblock request. I think it could be easier for the reviewing admin if you posted some diffs indicating problematic conduct. Of course, I realize that in some instances, an ongoing pattern doesn't neatly fit into a couple diffs, however if you could leave a note on the user talk page, providing some more details, that would be appreciated. PhilKnight (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Fuchs ANI

Your prompt warnings to David Fuchs made you the only admin to emerge with any credit from this incident. However your threat to block Roux undid a lot of that, IMO. Nothing Roux wrote came anywhere near Jehochman's accusations of WP:MEAT, WP:GAME, and WP:DE, for which you administered a slap on the wrist. Even when acting relatively honourably your conduct still exemplifies the double standard from which misbehaving admins benefit. --Philcha (talk)

And thus we see an example of the various interpretations on civility. Which is why we should all act civilly and with restraint, assuming good faith and trying not to make mountains out of mole hills. Staying under our rocks when we want to involve ourselves in the crabbiness of others will avoid a lot of clawing. A courteous note or suggestion and some patience will usually do the trick and generally works much better than a arming a pack of civility police to run around willy nilly looking to enforce their whims on what they think is appropriate. The standard should be uniform and clear that only severe personal attacks and incivility that is harassing is worth pursuing. The odd fuck off on a user's talk page is hardly a calamity and truly not worth the bother. And other instances can be refactored or stuck through with some vigorous (and out of sight) finger wagging. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Could you please remove link on Windows Metafile vulnerability to futuretime.itaweb.it ? There is download with Generic BackDoor trojan.--Vatrena ptica (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I see in the history the link is removed.--Vatrena ptica (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Same kind of event

Well, why was the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting incident included in the list? Nevertheless, I have fixed this contradiction. OOODDD (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Concern

I came across this page while doing some recent changes patrol and tagged it as {{db-person}}, but it also violates WP:CHILD and gives out WAAAY too much information. Could you delete it for me quickly? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, taken care of.  :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Replied

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

Clarification.

Please show me exactly where the attack was. It was resonably couched, polite, and germane. When someone has a quote of a revolutionary on his Userpage, is it unsual to ask if the user is a revolutionary? (unsigned - Die4Dixie)

I recommend that you re-read your own comment. [2] Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I won´t ask again, but it seems resonable based on the qotations about revolution by Che Guevara that he had on his Userpage and my reading of El Che´s writing on propoganda.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
If you had restrained yourself to a polite inquiry into political orientation that would be fine. What you asked was not a polite inquiry. If you do not understand how it was impolite, you need to re-review your writing, and consider if you have a problem with communications which will make your ongoing participation on Wikipedia unsuccessful.
Baiting people and asking impolite leading questions are not ok. In real life, or particularly here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I asked you a simple question, and you can´t or won´t give me a straight answer. The second part of the question was only if the first part was true. Perhaps I should havve worded it to be clearer. It seems that my greatest mistake was naivity: That anyone would answer that question honestly if the were indeed a fellow traveler.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Your question to him was:
I have a concern that you might have a conflict of interest based on several of the previous editions of your user page. You could clear it up for me by telling me a little more about yourself. Are you a Marxist or a Communist or other form of revoluntionary? A Maoist? I have read serveral of Che Guevara´s writings ( most recently the Libro de olivo verde, in Spanish) . Would you use the project as a front for revolutionary activity or propaganda purposes? Any clarification would be appreciated. Feel free to respond by email
Disecting it-
You could clear it up for me by telling me a little more about yourself. -
You're implying here, without presenting actual evidence, that there's something deeply suspicious. The form of the question makes it sound like not answering is some form of self-incrimination, when in fact no Wikipedian whose actions have not established a bias or non-neutrality need answer any such question. The question assumes bad faith on the part of the questionee.
Are you a Marxist or a Communist or other form of revoluntionary? A Maoist? -
  1. Orwellian in its following Sen. McCarthy's lead and form.
  2. Lumping revolutionary extremists in with a mainstream (if now discredited) political philosophy.
Would you use the project as a front for revolutionary activity or propaganda purposes? -
Asking this question in this manner implies that there is or has been some use of Wikipedia as that front for revolutionary activity or propaganda purposes. The manner of the question presupposes an answer - and fails to assume good faith. With specific examples of potential "front activity or propaganda" one might ask "With these edits, were you trying to...". But you appear to have found no diffs and certainly didn't present them.
The combination of the lead in and the COI / propaganda question particularly slants it towards an overall assumption of bad faith and inquisitorial tone.
You could have asked him about his politics without any implication of COI or propagandistic misuse. If you had examples of COI or propaganda you could have asked him if he was letting his politics shade his contributions. The medium ground you took instead comes across as a clear attack on his motives and honesty. He interpreted it that way, I did, the others reading and reviewing from ANI seem to have.
If someone has done something wrong there is evidence for it. If there's evidence, you don't need to go around implying things like that or impugning people's integrity - you lay out the evidence and ask them and others to review and comment.
Slyly implying they're already in the wrong is not OK. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry , after two rounds with my username being questions always couched the same way about "clearing up concerns" by " telling me a little more about your choice" or words to that effect, I thought, truly , that that was how one cleared up theses things. Perhaps your Spanish is not good, or non existant, perhaps you are not familiar with the writings of Che Guevara, but when someone has a revolutioanry quote from "El Che" on their userpage : "Hasta la Victoria Siempre" ( Always towards the victory which means that every act is a revolutionary act, El Che also advocated the use of propoganda to bring about the Revolution and any act was justified to usher it in) I was naturally concerned. He has since cleared up my question by explaining the quote on my talkpage. It was placed on it to atagonize some anti-communists from an earlier problem he had on the Che page. You must admit, using Wikipedia for Revolutionary activities would be antithesis to the projects goals. It appears that is not his purpose. I didn´t realize that asking one if he were a revolutioanry impunged one´s character. True Revolutionaries will do anything to bring about their goal, and feel any act to be justified, Revolutioanry Justice not being the least.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to be such an ass.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 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) 19:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanx but

Thank you for your thoughts.[[3]] I have written a lot of academic stuff over the years, and I know how to write and report with NPOV. While you may think that I am too close to the subject, there is equally strong evidence that many editors of the article on homeopathy are lividly antagonistic to the subject. Comparatively, I maintain a much more NPOV. I would hope that you and others would help police both sides of this issue. I have not tried to “push” anything (heck, I have not even made a single edit or reversion in the article). I have provided contributions on the Talk pages information, references, quotes, and sought to get collaboration. Further, I have sought to provide evidence from reliable sources on metaanalyses and have quoted primary (Cochrane) and secondary sources (the Lancet).

While some metaanalyses of the entire field of homeopathy have shown no benefits from this treatment, others have shown benefit. Similarly, many metaanalyses of the homeopathic treatment of specific diseases have shown no benefits, though SOME have shown benefit. In efforts to maintain a NPOV, we should acknowledge and reference both sides, while giving more weight to the mainstream POV that questions homeopathy’s efficacy but that also acknowledges that some research quizzically suggests some benefits.

I hope that you will consider helping provide NPOV on homeopathy...IF you can meet this challenge...DanaUllmanTalk 01:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Theserialcomma on WP:ANI

Since you've been involved with him, and are actually the administrator who recently administered a block for baiting, I'd like to bring this ANI thread to your attention. Thanks. McJEFF (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking TownDown (talk · contribs). As I am not an admin any longer, just giving you a heads up that there is an open SPI, ANI and RFPP case regarding this. seicer | talk | contribs 02:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Belite Aircraft and the Kitfox Lite

Thanks for your note. Okay - I am still waiting to see some indication that the cited refs are wrong, when we get a new ref then we can amend the article to indicate the discrepancy, disagreement, controversy or whatever it turns out to be. - Ahunt (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Another thanks

Hey GWH, I saw your reference to something left on my talkpage as an attack, and I appreciate you trying to work with the other editor on it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

yet another lie

I think if you check the time stamp the example you gave of my 'attcking someone' happened after the accusation! UkFaith (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming by this comment because the time was off the personal attack was ok? The fallacies in logic here are amazing.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock request

A few days ago, in this discussion [4], you offered to impose rangeblocks if the inappropriate activity continued. My attention was diverted for a few days, so I missed your suggestion. The problem editing has continued, coming from IP addresses like 190.43.136.87 and 200.121.137.252. Recent contributions includes claims that Thelma and Louise was created as a vehicle for Meryl Streep and Goldie Hawn and that Chevy Chase was up for the Al Pacino role in Scarface, and the editor was active about an hour ago as I write. I don't think anything less than blocking will be effective; the editor simply ignores the deletion of his/her contributions. Thanks. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Koalorka

Hi, I think that it's pretty poor form to report another admin to ANI, declare that a consensus exists to overturn their decision after only two hours worth of discussion and before the admin posted in their own defence and then go on to overturn the block. This is basically wheel warring, and the fact that several editors (including myself) have posted in support of RockMFR demonstrates that you acted rashly here. I am also concerned about the selective edit history you posted - why did you not mention that the article has been targeted by vandals for the last few weeks and that I was also involved in reverting this nonsense? - RockMFR was not acting entirely unilaterally. Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm also concerned, though reading through previous ANI threads it would appear that previous complaints have achieved little against you. However, I'll echo NickD by saying that your representation of the issue was false and misleading, apparently intentionally so, and against the rules of conduct an admin should hold themselves to; and the same with your misleading claim that you had consensus for your actions to unblock the user in question, then no such consensus had appeared. However, like I said, I can't imagine this will have any effects on your conduct, much as I hope otherwise. Skinny87 (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

what are you going to do about your comments on Koalorka's talk page, here..User_talk:Koalorka#Unblocking Off2riorob (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal on wikifan

I added two words "broadly construed" in it; hope that's ok. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
This whole thread was archived and seems to have grown stale despite the support for a topic ban. I'm assuming since you proposed the ban you don't want to be the one to close the discussion (which makes more than enough sense), but how does one get another admin to do so at this point especially when it is archived and away from the attention of uninvolved parties? Thanks for your input.PelleSmith (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll see about asking around; Any uninvolved admin (not the proposer) can close it. I shouldn't as I am the proposer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi George, has anything happened in regard to the proposed topic ban? PhilKnight (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I'll apply a ban under WP:ARBPIA. PhilKnight (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding earlier. Go for it, Phil. Entirely appropriate solution. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! PhilKnight (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Rita Jenrette

Since you protected the Rita Jenrette article, I'm wondering if you could revert it back to the version just before the person claiming to be Jenrette started editing it since that was the last "stable" version. Dismas|(talk) 05:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The version from today just before they edited, or from before they edited on Aug 10th?
It's only protected for 6 more hours, roughly. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
From today. Quite a bit of editing was done after that to refine the article. Dismas|(talk) 05:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
You reverted her changes to the one from Aug 19th, then User:Cvieg made some apparently valid cleanup efforts, followed by her simply zeroing out the article (and my restoration and protection for a bit). I restored to Cveig's last version.
If Cveig's edits were problematic, please discuss that at the article talk page. As I said, the block on editing is short duration (was six hours, now about 4-something remaining I think). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Theserialcomma (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Help Please

A user is creating unnecessary redirects to television station pages. For example, the user has created WWPX-DT for WWPX-TV, claiming the station is digital only. While this is true, the redirect gives the idea that the official callsign of the station has changed, it has not. All stations, when they switched to digital in June, were given the option of changing their callsign to reflect their digital status...some did, like WTVQ-DT, some did not, like WTOV-TV. I am not sure how to nominate these redirects for deletion under CSD, so if you could, would you mind helping? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to take them to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. If you can give him a bit more time to respond on his talk page, it would probably be best, though. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

topic ban

You have too much of a COI to apply a fair topic ban. If the topic ban were necessary, someone else would suggest it. It's clear that you are doing this to 1. punish me, and 2. protect koalorka. i do not accept your topic ban, as it's based on fallacious and deceptive reasoning. You have provided no diffs and you have no community support. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The Speed of Light

George, I have to correct you on a particular point. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has offered any publication of mine as evidence in any of these disputes, contary to what you have said on Jimbo's talk page. In fact, I haven't actually written anything on-line about the speed of light issue in relation to the 1983 re-definition of the metre. I entered this dispute as an arbitrator. I was actually unaware at the time I entered that the metre had been re-defined. Yes, I'm out of date. But when I examined the argument, I could see clearly that Brews ohare had a very legitimate point. I tried to intervene to clarify the issue, but I was effectively pushed off-side. I then investigated what the knock on effect of this definition would have on electric permittivity. I discovered that it threatened the traditional view that the equation c^2 = 1/(εμ) is an empirical equation that follows from the 1856 experiment of Wilhelm Eduard Weber and Rudolf Kohlrausch. Hence I made an edit at electric constant to reflect my knowledge on this matter. It was instantly reverted by Steven G Johnson. I then realized that there is a clash between traditional electromagnetism and the new definition of the metre, so I went to WT:PHYS to get some clarification about whether the vibrating reed switch experiment is still in the textbooks. That is a basic outline of the dispute. I hope that it is helpful to you. I'd be obliged if you could make the necessary correction on Jimbo's talk page because there have been too many misrepresentations made in relation to this dispute. It has never been about original research. David Tombe (talk) 10:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

George, This is just a reminder. I'd be obliged if you could return to Jimbo's talk page and put the record straight regarding your statement that the sources in question were written by myself. It's important that we correct that misunderstanding. David Tombe (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that

...but to be frank, I've had enough of TSC's making himself out to be the victim when, most of the time, he provokes whatever reaction he gets. I can only simmer for so long before I start whistling. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 23:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but we can't respond in a nasty manner or it escalates situations rather than calming them down. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A word of encouragement

Hello George. I've seen you around Wikipedia many times, but I don't think we've spoken directly to one another. I just wanted to leave you a note saying how much I personally appreciate the work you do on Wikipedia. You work in a lot of contentious areas, yet you manage to think things through and you try to work with people in achieving the best possible outcome. I'm glad you're an admin, and I think you're one of the best ones we have right now. I just felt like leaving you some words of encouragement, because everybody needs some now and then. Killiondude (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

See AN thread

I mentioned an administrative warning you gave in a new AN post, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_topic_ban_on_Landmark_Education_SPAs. Cirt (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

ASE Block

OK, I looked at the link included in your block summary and see no mention of Bluemarine, Matt Sanchez or Durova. Exactly what is he being blocked for? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe you have a double negative here that says the opposite of what you mean (illegitimate should be legitimate if I'm right). –xenotalk 21:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A* seems to disagree that it's illegitimate for the community to impose such an absolute ban,

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2009/August&oldid=1166522478"