User talk:TheHerbalGerbil/Archive 2

Many thanks for the info.

The information that User:Esoule is almost certain to be Evan Soule - who is a collaborator of Joseph Newman is very interesting. Your comment on Talk:The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman prompted me to dig further: On this page: http://www.phact.org/e/dennis19.html Evan Soule identifies himself as: "Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS". That's a pretty blatant violation of WP:COI.

Many thanks for that - it explains a lot. SteveBaker (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw geez, you’re most welcome! — TheHerbalGerbil 05:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you any good at dealing with the admins here? Oughta bring it to their attention too.… — TheHerbalGerbil 05:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pahute Mesa Airstrip

It is a bad idea to remove a citation. These are attributions to show where the material came from. If a link is dead, look at Wikipedia:Dead external links to find suggestions on how to get a working copy. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is from an internet forum. See WP:VERIFY. And check the source out for yourself. Looks like a bunch of conspiracy hypotheses based on some anonymous person’s Google Earth screenshots. — TheHerbalGerbil 07:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction. “pseudonymous” would be the proper term. — TheHerbalGerbil, 07:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source is not the issue. If it was used, then the attribution would remain. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What?? — TheHerbalGerbil, 18:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free energy suppression

Hey hello. Thank you for your contribution to my still rather short list. I've have added headers to your text. I thought perhaps you can help write a short paragraph about each inventor? Thanks :-) 84.104.135.195 (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have I learnt anything?

Well, lets see... yes, actually. The comet WILL vaporise, but due to its size (around a diameter of 6 kilometers) it won't effect the comet. Anyway, being asked If I have "learnt anything" and being told that one of my (early) contributions is "silly" (which now looking back I kind of agree on)is making me angry- so I would advise you to... not make any more comments like that, or I will indeed act "silly". T.Neo (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rawr. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 12:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell does "Rawr" mean? ?? ??? ???? T.Neo (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means nothing. But if I actually said nothing, you wouldn't have known I read your message. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 12:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

River & Reavers image question

Why did you upload a different image atop the one I did? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I thought the version you uploaded was blurry. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 21:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Heather Mills. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not reverting edits - my edits are being reverted. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 02:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Heather Mills. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Bidgee (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I am NOT the one reverting here. I have made a change, I have explained my change, my explanation is valid, it errs on the side of caution, and there is no consensus against it. Yes, parties are reverting it, and I am restoring it. This is not 3RR violation on my part. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 06:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you were and you broke the WP:3RR! Admin's don't block people without a valid reason. I have raised the ORTS issue with Sarah. Bidgee (talk) 07:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not violate 3RR. My edit has been the subject of a 3RR violation on the part of another user. I brought the issue up for discussion and the offending party didn't even participate. Other users have continued reverting, despite said (ongoing!) discussion. These reverts and my blocking are disruptive to the process. Sure, admins don't take action without reason, but they're not infallible. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 07:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They where reverted for a valid reason! Not only where your reverts breaking WP:3RR it was also borderline WP:DISRUPTIVE. Bidgee (talk) 07:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. 1) Not a valid reason (see #2). 2) Not breaking 3RR. 3) My EDITS have been anything but disruptive. OTHERS' REVERTS of my edits have been done without consensus and despite ongoing discussion - THEY are disruptive. I would say, repeat yourself as much as you like - it doesn't make you right - but I really don't want to hear it anymore. This is harassment. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 07:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 08:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:Disruptive for yourself. As many times as it takes for it to sink in. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 07:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've told Blnguyen that I'm "complaining about the "ban"". You are aware that that's incorrect, and you are aware that I can't correct that, aren't you? — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 07:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mills pic.

While I disagree with you, there may be a case to be made for your side of the Heather Mills picture debate. Please make your case on the talk page rather than removing the free image from the page. Cheers. y'am'can (wtf?) 02:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hear ya. And 3RR is a sham. All it takes is for two parties to assume bad faith and team up against a third. And voilà, you force the third party into 3RR. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 02:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheHerbalGerbil (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

invalid reason for block - other users ignored discussion about my edit and continually reverted it, then hit me with 3RR

Decline reason:

This does not excuse a violation of WP:3RR. — Yamla (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Seconded. Being in a minority while a majority has reached a consensus is not justification for violating 3RR. Aside from that, I find your arguments that Image:HeatherMills1.jpg to be propaganda is tenuous at best. It requires a user to click on the image, and then visit the PETA link (which has already been clearly marked on that Image page as advertising). A user has to make an active choice to view this ad and it's their choice whether to blindly believe in this "propaganda". As long as there's no identifying watermark/feature in the image while it's being displayed in an article and it has been released into the public domain, it's good enough for Wikipedia for the time being. -- Netsnipe ► 14:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TheHerbalGerbil (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

last request misunderstood or disregarded; situation misunderstood - I did not violate 3RR. Users forced me into an apparent 3RR violation which is not a 3RR violation. As the minority, I've been singled out and attacked before the discussion has run its course and can't even participate in it now. This is flagrant rule-whoring and censorship.

Decline reason:

Please read previous comments left by other admins. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Despite your claim that there's been no violation of WP:3RR, this is not the case. Times may be in my timezone:

Date and Time	Edit
2008-04-16T15:55:54	[1]
2008-04-17T20:19:26	[2]
2008-04-17T20:26:55	[3]
2008-04-17T20:29:15	[4]
2008-04-17T20:33:36	[5]
2008-04-18T00:42:03	[6]

That's five clear reverts inside of 24 hours. In fact, inside of five hours. Not that you even need three reverts inside of 24 hours for a WP:3RR block. --Yamla (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you can count. But you need to work on your honesty. Those are not "clear reverts". And this was not about the number. Quit fucking around. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 15:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously claiming that these edits did not undo the work of another editor?!? --Yamla (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia seriously sysop people who resort so quickly to fallacies? — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 15:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, from the top: I made a change. People who did not like my change reverted it. I restored it and brought it up for discussion. People couldn't even leave it the fuck alone while discussion was ongoing and started an edit war. But, I'm oh so evil for doing my own work rather than getting my buddies to do it, so I have to go straight to Jail, not pass Go, not collect my $200. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 15:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's another useless one. I'm not going to play this game. Keep making frivolous declinings until you feel safe extending my block for "abusing the system". Sounds familiar. Like keep reverting my edits until you feel safe blocking me for 3RR. No thank you. The sandbox is all yours for another day, kiddos. Have fun and don't mind the cat shit. Oh, that's not cat, is it? — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 15:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mills follow-up

Agreed. I'll also start looking for a better pic. I'm also gonna check with some Wikipedians who take and upload pics of famous people and see if they have any of her and/or if they could get some next time that she is in NYC. Cheers. y'am'can (wtf?) 00:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]