User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2013/December

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

Draft

I have started a draft RFC/U here: User:MrX/RFCU. Feel free to edit it as you see fit. It's still very rough. - MrX 20:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel

Hi, Despite the third view suggestion, this user continue edit warring on Madai. Just look at "View history" Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

He also is arguing with others too. And his friend(one IP) wrote comments on Madai-talk page to support him. He forced others to accept his views and if not, he complains them for 3RR. New users do not know wikipedia politics and he is utilizing it for his own purpose. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

User: Til Eulespiegel still try to change the page Madai despite your third opinions suggestion. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you look at here pls! (Look at all of topics except Budahish and Medes )Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The article has been relatively quiet for years with no major edit wars, but in the past month a slew of editors have shown up each with a different issue, so the talkpage may be a little confusing. The issue that Iranzamin-Iranzamin and I need a third opinion on is the mention of scholars who have suggested a link between Madai and Mitanni. The discussion has been sidetracked in every possible way, but what it boils down to is that there are numerous references establishing that such a link has indeed been discussed in scholarship, including one that was referenced in the article and two others I added somewhere on the talk page. Iranzamin-Iranzamin is synthesizing rebuttals to these scholars' point-of-view by endeavouring to show why he thinks it would be impossible for the Mitanni to be descendants of Madai. He is missing the point of the article; in fact it has never been proven one way or the other whether anyone is descended from Madai or indeed if this was a historical figure at all. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to defend myself, if he read the talk-page, he'll understand what I mean. Just stop making propaganda. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Iranzamin-Iranzamin has certainly broken 3RR now on Madai with her last edit, which I have been careful to avoid doing, but being new perhaps she isn't aware of the consequences yet... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually maybe not, because she reverted herself once... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

We are in 9 December guy, not 8! I am sorry for you. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Despite the third opinion suggestion about Mitanni, Til is obssessively adding Mitanni-related informations to the article. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Note to I-I: It's still 8 Dec. where I am, but that really doesn't matter. They go by any consecutive 24 hour stretch of time, not the UTC calendar date! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
You engaged in edit-war much more than me. And it is normal to rv information that is about not solved issue on talk-page clever guy. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I have full-protected the article for a week... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
It turns out the article was apparently under a coordinated sock attack according to the SPI and they were all blocked, even though weirdly enough at the last minute I-I agreed to a "compromise" that basically was 100% my position all along. At any rate, would you consider unlocking early or going to semi-protect so I can fix what damage remains from the sockfarm? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed the SPI results last night but was too busy to deal with it. Unprotected now, along with a SPI comment on the talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 00:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thuppakki

That was not mass deletion. I was moving selected content to a new article. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Can you make sure there's a talk page discussion about doing that? Not a "stop before you go any further", but please get the discussion going to ensure everyone else agrees. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so here's how the story goes:

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

AE

I think you mean "flouting" not flaunting?--Tznkai (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

This is your brain. -> * <- This is your brain exploding from other vandals, and forgetting how to finish copy-editing own typing.
Thanks for tipping me off... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I also considered the possibility of editors wearing the latest arbcom decision as this year's fall fashion, and that was worth a chuckle.--Tznkai (talk) 05:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Sad. That image makes me sad. And in need of drink to purge it. 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


Season's greetings from Santa and her little helpers

Touched, by a radioactive flaming angel of christmas cheer.

Regarding the Alfonzo Green AE case...

Hi Georgewilliamherbert, regarding my closure here of the AE case regarding Alfonzo Green, it was brought to my attention that perhaps enough time wasn't given for further consideration of Alfonzo's comments due to the holiday yesterday. Did you have any intent on making a substantive change in your position regarding that case after Alfonzo's comments and before my closure? Please let me know if so... Thanks. Zad68 21:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

We just edit conflicted on your talk page; I did review his comment prior to your close, it didn't change my opinion of the situation. Will state so on AE for the record. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Go for it!

Go ahead and fix it, I just didn't like the way the wording was (Notes:, etc). But if I'm not mistaken, with the exception of the W not necessarily being a B and vice versa, the other examples tend to be one-offs, no? IE, you might have a B77 without a W77, or a W81 without a B81, but if you have *both* then they will be the B and W except in specific cases. Is that not correct? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You have just confused me 8-) Can you clarify or restate that? Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

Forgot to say earlier

It is a pleasure working with you again.--Tznkai (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. And me with you, as well. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Gilabrand

Just, as the closer of a recent AE case concerning Gilabrand, notifying you of this.     ←   ZScarpia   19:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2013/December&oldid=590741001"