User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2013/November

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

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 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) 05:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

How would you have handled Musicruchira?

Hi George, just wondering how you might have handled the AIV report that Hell in a Bucket made regarding editor Musicruchira? I felt 50/50 about it and could have gone either way. Username a problem? Maybe? Edits overly promotional? If you've got more experience in handling these sorts of reports I'd love to get your input. Thanks. Zad68 18:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

On first impression, they are a one time / one issue promotional user. We know what they're going to do. We now what subject that will be about. The best way to manage it, in my opinion, is to get them talking and educate them, get an account name change, get them to openly disclose the conflict of interest, see if they can constructively edit other areas.
The odds may be not great, but it's easy to spend a couple of days trying and hopefully leave them a more positive impression. Again, the damage is limited and self-evident if we let them got a bit before we bring in a hammer.
Other admins would just block and cleanup after, but I think it's better to try talking given the specific one topic nature and slow motion speed.
I do not disagree with the nature of the policy violations. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello

I agree with your statements at Arbitration enforcement that "[NPOV] does not require that individual editors edit in a neutral manner", if it did most editors who touch articles from religion to pseudoscience to politics and so much more would be banned for violating NPOV. An editor who likes to write articles on Republican candidates, and adds criticism to the Obamacare page should not be banned for such unless they start removing sourced positive content from Democrat pages, cut out criticism from Republican aligned think tanks, replace a neutral and widely accepted affect of Obamacare with an affect sourced to only a Republican aligned think tank.

The latter is what I see Gilabrand doing in the IP area, she does have a strong pattern of bad edits albeit intertwined with neutral edits to articles outside the IP conflict area. She cuts out criticism of pro-Israel groups[1] and people[2], she cuts out the word Palestine[3], Palestinian[4], and State of Palestine[5], she changes Israeli occupied(international community view) to disputed(Israeli view) [6], Israeli settlement (international community view) to Israeli neighbourhood (Israeli view) [7], cuts out information about a massacre commited by Israelis [8], cuts out the reason a village was depopulated was because the Israeli military had attacked it.[9], she makes "villagers...in a field 300 metres inside Jordan" (what the source calls them) into " infiltrators in a field near the armistice line" at al-Walaja. Many of these edits could only be made by someone actively trying to insert bias into wikipedia - why rewrite a perfectly fine sentence unless it was to remove the word Palestine - why change a person, without doubt a Palestinian, from Palestinian into Arab unless they are trying to remove the word Palestine - why change Israeli settlement into Israeli neighbourhood unless you are trying to replace the international view with the Israeli view. Sepsis II (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I will take another look at these and all the edits that have been listed, but my impression is that while individual edits may be suboptimal or biased, the pattern of ones which are problematic is slow and spaced out enough that it's not a clear abusive behavior.
That is not a final determination. I do encourage better documentation of the patterns so everyone can see and compare. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Creativity article editing by me.

I would be glad to explain why I deleted whole sections from the Creativity article.

First let me thank you for your interest. I am impressed by the speed of your reaction.

The article is a long one, and there is a too much stuff getting repeated in different sections, and too much stuff that is just waffle. I felt very frustrated when reading the article because interesting stuff was alternating long sections of waffle, academia at its worst, in my opinion.

Best regards,

Mark

Mark Matthew Dalton (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Could you repost the above to the article's talk page ( Talk:Creativity ) and let's have a conversation there, with other editors who regularly contribute to the article.
Judging when an article has gotten too big and needs trimming is very tricky, but necessary. I am hopeful that we can have a good discussion there about it.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You should know about this

Georgewilliamherbert, you recently blocked 79.64.3.66. I'd be most grateful if you could take a look again at the talk page of the article that IP edited, because there is another IP there now behaving in the same way. The talk page may need protecting. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

Thank you for trying to help on talk:autism

But the bullying, and the insults even from admins, has been triggering. I nearly threw up, and after months of this and that, I am exhausted and have to give up on trying to contribute to Wikipedia. Ananiujitha (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2013/November&oldid=1168301382"