User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2011/July

1037:

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

206:... 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. 1521: 781: 732: 116: 66: 31: 690: 1659: 944:

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 "

1241: 469:

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

187:) 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. 365:-- 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. 221:

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

1103:

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

1036:

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

999:

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

904:

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

468:

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

428:

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

316:

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

258:

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

1625:

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

840:

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

943:

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

992:

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

360:. 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. 984:

I do not believe that the page, as it was at the time, was acceptable on Knowledge. 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

1617:

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

1003:

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

1306: 878:

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

1634:

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

263:

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.

233:

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.

988:

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

1011:

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

951:

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

1007:

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

693:

Thank you for contributing to Knowledge. 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

382:-- 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. -- 377:-- 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. 1424: 1032:

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

860:

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 —

320:

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.

1720:

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".

1534: 1276: 1260: 798: 749: 129: 79: 1071: 928: 914: 891: 448:

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...).

1142: 996:

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.

196: 1268: 1057: 1023: 869: 500: 483: 463: 1093: 882:

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.

1609: 856:

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

414: 1779: 1284: 1065: 1472: 1456: 1371: 1355: 1182: 1166: 638: 622: 553: 537: 1480: 1379: 1190: 1079: 646: 561: 979: 451:

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.

1464: 1363: 1174: 630: 545: 1448: 1134: 164: 1322: 1432: 1339: 1150: 606: 521: 287: 1569: 439: 1509: 1408: 1219: 850: 590: 1647: 675: 324: 818: 1440: 1347: 1310: 1158: 614: 529: 794: 769: 391: 363:

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.

336: 745: 1733: 1084:

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.

720: 1118: 405:, or for some other reason. If it's related to my tone, I hereby apologise. I'd very much appreciate your input and response to the points above. -- 422: 1577: 698:. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our 1706: 1302: 303: 253: 1746:

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

1636: 1621:

and instead began needling me over every small thing he could, for instance starting an edit war over adding trivial Infobox details to the

273: 1738: 813: 764: 1240: 972: 211:

Lots of other people enforce NFCC issues and FUR issues. Beta consistently does so in manners that generate community uproar and outrage

380:

It's not a monolithic block on any such inclusion, and specific exceptions could be argued on article talk pages, to local consensuses.

299: 159: 109: 402: 225:

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

1224: 1364:

Historic last launch of the Space Shuttle Endeavour; Teddy Roosevelt's threat to behead official; 18th-century London sex manual

1721: 1497: 1396: 1248: 1207: 663: 578: 284: 309:

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

1619: 1669: 680: 420: 1441:

Open access clash with copyright; rising reader satisfaction; the wiki-correlates of geopolitical instability; brief news

711: 406: 1413: 1328: 1123: 1105: 510: 383: 328: 1514: 595: 290:. I am quite convinced that this is not at all compatible with site-wide policy and guidelines. I also couldn't find 170: 1115: 1019: 887: 809: 787: 780: 760: 738: 731: 496: 480: 459: 436: 184: 823: 47: 17: 229:

go through and painstakingly try to fix the some 8,000 plus errors with NFC items. I believe that he is not

1488: 1387: 1198: 1075: 654: 569: 278: 1711: 805: 756: 1098: 38: 1677: 1493: 1392: 1203: 1015: 924: 910: 883: 865: 846: 705: 659: 574: 492: 488:

It's not vandalism; it wasn't "right" - unsourced etc - but not vandalism. That's why the talk page.

455: 1667:

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can

259:

suggestion to Δ on his talk page), and the draconian "just ban him" approach, which is practically

1768: 1598: 1558: 1527: 1520: 410: 150: 122: 115: 100: 72: 65: 1652: 387: 332: 1159:

Britannica and Knowledge compared; Putin award criticized; possible journalistic sockpuppeting

1041:

to. Thank you so much for talking to me George. I hope you have a great weekend. Cheers. —

1626:

glee, from which he doubtless thought he could benefit. Notice that he is edit warring me on

905:

here. Thanks again for being a good sport, a gracious colleague (and a patient confessor). —

354:

You freely admit that this is an issue you've wanted to have resolved this way for some years

201: 295: 222:

the bulk of Delta's response has been calm, rational, and helpful in explaining the issues.

1729: 1702: 1643: 1505: 1404: 1215: 1112: 1050: 965: 920: 906: 861: 842: 841:

everything up. Without those photos, it's just a huge mass of words. Thanks for nothin'. —

671: 586: 477: 433: 310: 246: 178: 1348:

Fine art; surreptitious sanitation; the politics of kyriarchic marginalization; brief news

8: 919:

PS: Any time you want to delete this wholly embarrassing section is fine with me. Harry.

192: 1752: 1631: 1622: 1582: 1542: 1318: 774: 136: 86: 1449:

Talk page interactions; Knowledge at the Open Knowledge Conference; Summer of Research

1664:

Hello, Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2011. Please check your email; you've got mail!

702:. Please note that we take very seriously our criteria on non-free image uploads and 695: 269: 857: 829: 725: 615:

WikiLove roll-out; €25,000 in damages for being removed from Knowledge; brief news

306:

which remains absolutely true to the spirit and wording of all site-wide P&G.

1725: 1698: 1639: 1501: 1400: 1211: 1109: 1045: 960: 938: 667: 647:

June report: Virginia datacenter, parser, user profiles; WikiLove 1.0; brief news

582: 474: 430: 371:-- I beg to differ, based on the so-far unchallenged reasoning I have presented. 241: 174: 522:

ArbCom database theft; WikiLove to roll out on the English Knowledge; brief news

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

837: 699: 682: 188: 715: 1433:

Oral citations; the state of global development; a gentler Huggle; brief news

1314: 1724:

Please, on bended knee, can you prevent this sort of infuriating vandalism?

1747: 1687: 265: 1425:

Wikimedian in Residence on Open Science: an interview with Daniel Mietchen

1627: 1089: 1151:

Wikipedians' surfing habits explored, Sloan Foundation renews $ 3M grant

1481:

Protocol-relative URLs; GSoC updates; bad news for SMW fans; brief news

1340:

WMF Annual plan; Article Feedback tool; university outreach; brief news

59: 1356:

Earn $ $ $ free pharm4cy WORK FROM HOME replica watches ViAgRa!!!

1716:

George, sorry to keep banging on about this, but I spent several

1380:

Code Review backlog almost zero; What is: Subversion?; brief news

356:. -- No. I truthfully stated that I tried to resolve this issue 1309:. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to 1085: 639:

Arb resigns while mailing list leaks continue; Motion re: admin

704:

users who repeatedly upload or misuse non-free images may be

323:

As to my intentions, please see my response to Berean Hunter

1697:

Other involved editors are aware of the issue I just raised.

1537: