| Revision as of 18:45, 3 April 2013 editScottywong (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users26,031 edits →Answer to your question: and← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:54, 4 April 2013 edit undoAlmost-instinct (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers4,534 edits →Bringing something to your attention: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
| George, I tried to answer your on Delicious Carbuncle's talk page, but I was reverted. The answer can be found . ]] 18:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC) | George, I tried to answer your on Delicious Carbuncle's talk page, but I was reverted. The answer can be found . ]] 18:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :And to be clear, I don't speak for DC or for Arbcom, that's just a restatement of on ANI. ]] 18:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC) | :And to be clear, I don't speak for DC or for Arbcom, that's just a restatement of on ANI. ]] 18:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == Bringing something to your attention == | |||
| Hello. | |||
| # | |||
| # | |||
| Thank you for your attention, yours ]-] 09:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:54, 4 April 2013
Hi, I'm George. Feel free to leave me a new message!
The Signpost: 18 March 2013
- News and notes: Resigning arbitrator slams Committee
- WikiProject report: Making music
- Featured content: Misplaced Pages stays warm
- Arbitration report: Richard case closes
- Technology report: Visual Editor "on schedule"
The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 March 2013
- WikiProject report: The 'Burgh: WikiProject Pittsburgh
- Featured content: One and a half soursops
- Arbitration report: Two open cases
- News and notes: Sue Gardner to leave WMF; German Wikipedians spearhead another effort to close Wikinews
- Technology report: The Visual Editor: Where are we now, and where are we headed?
- Recent research: "Ignore all rules" in deletions; anonymity and groupthink; how readers react when shown talk pages
Naval History
Hello, 'Georgewilliamherbert', I'm a member of WikiProject Ships. To help naval historians here at Misplaced Pages in the effort of writing and citing naval history articles sometime ago I created the List of ships captured in the 19th century and Bibliography of early American naval history pages. Over the last year(+) I have been tracking down and including names of captured ships and naval history texts for inclusion in either of these articles. I like to think that I have included most captured ships (19th century) and most naval history texts (1700s-1800s) for inclusion in these articles, so if you know of any captured ships or naval history texts that are not included would you kindly include them, either on the page or the talk page of the appropriate article? Any help would be a big help and feedback is always welcomed. Thanx! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
And seriously, that stuff needs to be removed. It's completely bad faithed (user's personal screeds being presented as some kind of "official" findings, rantings by anonymous trolls six years ago etc.) and it's very size and presentation mode makes it disruptive. If Skapperod wants to take his sweet time in fixing his post, well, I don't see why that's a valid excuse in a case like this. If he can't be bothered to properly link rather than spam, then his post should simply be redacted.Volunteer Marek 23:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| Hi, GWH. I want to give you this admin's barnstar for your excellent work as an administrator and for your fine contributions on Misplaced Pages. Keep up the good work! Warmest regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC) |
Counting - Niemti
The way I came up with 5 supports on the IAB was Kurtis, Salvadrim, Ched, Fladrif, Guy. Kurtis, Salvadrim and Ched supported an IAB in their Discussion comments. Fladrif (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, that makes sense. I'm re-reading at that level to confirm that. We have an additional problem there though that Guy's second set of proposals (the 4 5 bundle) was nearly unversally "Oppose" without a specific 4 or 5, so I would think we'd have to make that "both" not "just 5". Re-reading as specifically as possible both the comments you point out and the detailed comments in the lower section now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ched looks like he's thinking about it but then says "they don't work out as well in practice" paraphrasing, so I think that counts as a not-voting rather than a yes. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- You're going through exactly the same questions that I did. Ched said it was the only thing he could support, but then makes the caveat you point out. I counted that as support with a recognition that it might not work. I can see your perspective as well. Pretty much all of the Opposes on the counter-proposal specifically commented on the civility parole, but were silent about the IAB, so that's how I counted them. Someone else might view that differently. To me the most important point is that both affected editors agreed to an IAB with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Fladrif (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have asked all the users who !voted in the last section on their talk pages. I don't know that I can make a call either way given the specifics. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that asking them to clarify is the best course of action. Fladrif (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have asked all the users who !voted in the last section on their talk pages. I don't know that I can make a call either way given the specifics. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- You're going through exactly the same questions that I did. Ched said it was the only thing he could support, but then makes the caveat you point out. I counted that as support with a recognition that it might not work. I can see your perspective as well. Pretty much all of the Opposes on the counter-proposal specifically commented on the civility parole, but were silent about the IAB, so that's how I counted them. Someone else might view that differently. To me the most important point is that both affected editors agreed to an IAB with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Fladrif (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ched looks like he's thinking about it but then says "they don't work out as well in practice" paraphrasing, so I think that counts as a not-voting rather than a yes. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'm comfortable with either interpretation of my comment. I would fully support anything that would enable both editors to continue contributing to the project without baiting, harassment, disagreements or drama. My own past observations have been that often WP:IBAN becomes a further sticking point in future involvements when one editor starts the "I edited that article first" type of excuses. Both editors in this case seem to have an interest in video games, so it's easy for me to foresee future interactions between the two. I believe that Sjones23 has the best of intentions, but is for some reason drawn to any of the editing that Niemti does; and gets further obsessed with repeated postings to find any objectivity with those situations. More often than not that objectivity seems to elude Sjones (IMO). I am fine with any interpretation George posts in this case as a completely un-involved admin., and will leave him/you to find a reasonable solution to the situation. I'll also add my "thank you" to that for taking on a difficult and divisive topic. Best to all. — Ched : ? 22:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. I'm looking forwards to the other six people answering as well, so we can close this point. I left a comment for Neimti that I strongly support the voluntary separation whether the final IB is passed or not. I agree that both editing far apart from each other will defuse a lot of potential pain and suffering. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just to wrap this up, it came out no consensus after 6 of the 7 of the people answered (mostly on their talk pages, and here for Ched). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. I'm looking forwards to the other six people answering as well, so we can close this point. I left a comment for Neimti that I strongly support the voluntary separation whether the final IB is passed or not. I agree that both editing far apart from each other will defuse a lot of potential pain and suffering. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- I thought becoming an admin (and being the subject of a bloody 'crat chat!) would've helped people to spell my damn name right... guess I'm being too optimistic! ;) :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- There are days I can't spell *my* name right... My apologies. ... 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- No worries, I'm used to it. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- There are days I can't spell *my* name right... My apologies. ... 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Answer to your question
George, I tried to answer your question on Delicious Carbuncle's talk page, but I was reverted. The answer can be found here. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 18:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- And to be clear, I don't speak for DC or for Arbcom, that's just a restatement of something DC said himself on ANI. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 18:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Bringing something to your attention
Hello.
- you banning pigsonthewing from FA discussions
- pigsonthewing taking part in a discussion about an FA about to appear on the main page
Thank you for your attention, yours almost-instinct 09:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)