User talk:Georgewilliamherbert: Difference between revisions

Archives (Index)

2009/July 2009/August 2009/September 2009/October 2009/November 2009/December 2010/January 2010/February 2010/March 2010/April 2010/May 2010/June 2010/July 2010/August 2010/September 2010/October 2010/November 2010/December 2011/January 2011/February 2011/March 2011/April 2011/May 2011/June 2011/July 2011/August 2011/September 2011/October 2011/November 2011/December 2012/January 2012/February 2012/March 2012/April 2012/May 2012/June 2012/July 2012/August 2012/September 2012/October 2012/November 2012/December 2013/January 2013/February 2013/March 2013/April 2013/May 2013/June 2013/July 2013/August 2013/September 2013/October 2013/November 2013/December 2014/January 2014/February 2014/March 2014/April 2014/May 2014/June 2014/July 2014/August 2014/September 2014/October 2014/November 2014/December 2015/January 2015/February 2015/March 2015/April 2015/May 2015/June 2015/July 2015/August 2015/September 2015/October 2015/November 2015/December 2016/February 2016/April 2016/May 2016/June 2016/July 2016/August 2016/September 2016/October 2016/November 2016/December 2017/January 2017/February 2017/March 2017/April 2017/May 2017/June 2017/July 2017/August 2017/September 2017/October 2017/November 2017/December 2018/January 2018/February 2018/March 2018/April 2018/May 2018/June 2018/July 2018/August 2018/September 2018/October 2018/November 2018/December 2019/January 2019/February 2019/March 2019/April 2019/May 2019/June 2019/July 2019/August 2019/September 2019/October 2019/November 2019/December 2020/January 2020/February 2020/March 2020/April 2020/May 2020/June 2020/July 2020/August 2020/September 2020/October 2020/November 2020/December 2021/January 2021/February 2021/March 2021/April 2021/May 2021/June 2021/July 2021/August 2021/September 2021/October 2021/November 2021/December 2022/January 2022/February 2022/March 2022/April 2022/June 2022/August 2022/September 2022/October 2022/November 2022/December 2023/January 2023/February 2023/March 2023/April 2024/April 2024/May 2024/June 2024/July

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Hi, I'm George. Feel free to leave me a new message!

I am afraid Pumpie does not get it. He is continuing to demonstrate classic incompetence. He was unblocked almost immediately after making a statement that denied having any serious language problems and he has now resumed translating articles. It is occupying a lot of time to fix his stuff, and I for one cannot seem to get through to him. Perhaps you can. I am not known for my tact. In trying to fix his latest group of articles, since they were from Greek, which I can't read, I did a fair bit of searching, and discovered quite a few articles he had created that are still in a bad state years later. This is a detriment to the project. I am also not sure what you meant by the requirement you set, that he must discuss remedies with us; the unblocking admin took it that by responding he had fulfilled this condition, but as JamesBWatson had meanwhile observed, he shows no sign of being competent to do what is needed or even to fully understand it. Where do we go from here? Can you help in any way, either by talking to him or by intervening with Arbcom? At least one of them clearly did not understand how deficient his articles are, but I understood from the instructions that we weren't allowed to provide diffs yet. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your previous words to Pumpie. He did resume translating from both French and Greek and further words have now been exchanged on his talk page by all 3 of us. He continues not to get it and in particular does not seem willing to go back and really start fixing his earlier articles. I think at this point all of us are convinced he can't - that it is a classic case of incompetence. But he claims he "can't" leave en.wikipedia. I wonder whether a suggestion I made during our discussion before we put up the RfC page would help at all: that the auto-reviewed right (or whatever it is now called - the thing whereby his new articles are marked as reviewed at NewPages because he has created more than a certain number) be withdrawn so that the NewPages reviewers share the job of initially examining them and noting passages that do not make sense, differing versions of the name in the article title, lead paragraph, and infobox heading, and other stuff that he continues not to catch before moving on to create another article. It would increase their workload but that in turn might help the community grasp and convey to him that his translations are causing a problem. And it would spread the load that remains on the 3 of us who have been trying to fix his new output. At any rate, although that suggestion was dismissed as a punishment, it's less of a punishment than his being again indef-blocked. But it may well be that the latter is more appropriate, since it is indeed a clear case of incompetence. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other 2 editors who are more active in fixing Pumpie's work than I have gone ahead and posted about him at ANI. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know you blocked Pumpie with account creation disabled, but the de.wikipedia admin clearly thinks User:Favorite Hobby is the same person. Does this mean what it looks like? I hope not :-( Yngvadottir (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the connection listed anywhere, not sure what it was...

I'm kinda busy, can you contact the admin on dewiki and ask them what the connection was? Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my question and the response: de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Nolispanmo#Benutzer:Pumpie und Benutzer:Favorite Hobby. Favorite Hobby created by Pumpie at 00:02, 3. Nov. 2010. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Been Watching that discussion all day. hopefully they can drop the Stick nowThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George, thanks a lot for starting this. I generally with the statement of dispute as it currently stands, but the main article in question is the World War II article, not the Aftermath of World War II article (which Communicat has only started working on in the last few days - though opposition to his or her edits seems to be developing). As such, could you please change this to World War II so it accuratly captures where the disagreements have been occuring? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will refocus that this evening. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick -D is correct that he is also exhibiting the same behaviour in the Aftermath of World War II article, though the audience/target list is shorter. He has entirely rewritten the article in a short span of time and I don't think anyone's noticed. This was done based on advice given him by former EEML member, Petri Kohn[1]. --Habap (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed. I was just disengaging for a bit after he filed the RfAr against me. Far from that calming Communicat down, it seems to have had the opposite effect. Edward321 (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George, are you going to tweak this RfC as you said you'd do above and certify it? It's probably expired and Communicat is claiming that this exonerates him or her. Nick-D (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can it have expired when it hasn't been formally listed yet? Edward321 (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GWH, in an above message posted to you by user Habap on 4 November, it is alleged that He (communicat) has entirely rewritten the article in a short span of time and I don't think anyone's noticed. This was done based on advice given him by former EEML member, Petri Kohn[1]. --Habap (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)User Paul Siebert then posted a message on Habap's talk page clarifying that user Petri Krohn is/was not an EEML member. As far as I can tell, Habap has failed to retract the false allegation which is clearly intended to discredit both me and Petri Krohn, and intended also to prejudice your opinion against me in particular.

You have been adroit in the recent past to block me on the grounds of WP:NPA. I would very much appreciate a demonstration of impartiality on your part by blocking Habap for the personal attack, and warning him not to do so again. (There have been other personal attacks on me by another individual user, of which more later, one thing at a time).

As for the allegation that I've entirely rewritten the (Aftermath) article in a short span of time and I don't think anyone's noticed: the implied meaning of which appears to be that I have been acting in a sneaky and/or non-collegial manner. However, you will see from the relevant discussion page that I gave a couple of weeks notice of my intentions and proposed edits of the Aftermath article, and neither Habap nor anyone else objected or responded in any way. I also made a point of stating clearly during the course of my Arbcom application, (of which Habap and others became parties to), that I was at that time in the process of editing/reworking the Aftermath article. So, in this additional aspect of attempts to discredit me in your view and in the views of others, I respectfully repeat my request that you demonstrate impartiality by instituting disciplinary measures against Habap, as you have done against me. Thanks. Communicat (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GWH, in addition to the above concerning personal attacks, please refer to my very recent post at NPOV talk Operation Dropshot concerning personal attack by Edward321. Thank you. Communicat (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed up with them on their talk page. It may be more a case of WP:COMPETENCY than wanton abuse... I've explained that they can upload photos they physically took themself all they like but that the older photos (which they don't own copyright for) will need an OTRS e-mail from the copyright holder. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Georgewilliamherbert, following the recent deterioration in editing of the Israel-Palestine set of articles, I've set up a page to discuss the problem and possible solutions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. Your input would be appreciated. PhilKnight (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GWH, thanks for not banning Xanderliptak. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community was fairly loud on that point, and I agree - he's had good contributions at times and I hope he can work back into being productive, if that's what he wants. AGF. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Was there any reason(s) you tagged Xanderliptak's talk page as blocked, considering the user in question has not yet been blocked? If yes, then for what reasons? HeyMid (contributions) 19:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to push the button on the block setup, my bad. Someone else did it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		To Georgewilliamherbert for always being there for editors when they need it the most. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A block by you has been appealed to WP:AE#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by WookieInHeat. Regards,  Sandstein  20:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moot, now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The SRQ thread at ANI now requires a closure enacting community consensus; could you please deal with it? Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As an member editor of one or more of the Spaceflight, Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight or Space colonisation WikiProjects, I'd like to draw to your attention a proposal I have made with regards to the future of the spaceflight-related portals, which can be found at Portal talk:Spaceflight#Portal merge. I'd very much appreciate any suggestions or feedback you'd be able to offer! Many thanks,

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 08:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I will, but at the moment I was reviewing my accuser's case.Nate2357 (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi george, i'd like to discuss my recent block with you if you don't mind. i'm sure you've seen my appeal and are aware that i disagree that i called nableezy a "terrorist supporter", i never used these words. if the logic that led to my block is to be followed and making an observation about another users possible support for hamas equates to calling them a "terrorist supporter", likewise shouldn't nableezy have been blocked for insinuating another user supported nazism when he called them "right wing ultra nationalists" on the psagot talk page a few days ago [2]? i realize that association is a bit ambiguous and far fetched, but this is how i see your reasoning for blocking me. hamas, while designated as a terrorist organization by various governments, is also a political entity. thus, observing that a user may support hamas doesn't automatically eqaute to claiming they support terrorism, just as calling another user a right wing nationalist doesn't equate to saying they support nazism.

it would seem the idea that i called nableezy a "terrorist supporter" was fabricated in the AE discussion which prompted you to block me. i find it extremely unfair that while nableezy was notified of the discussion and had the opportunity to defend himself, i was blocked without such a courtesy. meaning your reasoning for my block was based entirely on other users interpretations of my comments and had no basis in what i had actually intended. also, maybe i did cross the line in commenting on the contributor and not the contributions, but that doesn't mean i personally attacked nableezy. and even if i had, a 48 hour block for an editor with no previous complaints or blocks seems a bit excessive, as many other editors noted in my appeal. meanwhile, nableezy has made a number of direct and indirect personal attacks in the last couple weeks and has had numerous complaints (formal and otherwise) about their civility; but yet he receives a token block of only three hours for a direct personal attack. it does seem nableezy is being treated with kid gloves, he is allowed to get away with far more then any other user in this topic area. up until the conversation where i made the comment you blocked me for, i had completely avoided commenting on other users. it was only after witnessing the personal attacks and incivility that nableezy regularly gets away with that i thought it wouldn't make a difference to do similarly with him.

regardless, if you had taken the time to notify or warn me before the block, i would have been more then happy to retract or modify my comments. even in your message notifying me of the block on my talk page, you made no mention of that AE discussion. so now instead i have a block in my block log that says i made a statement that i never made, for a situation that was completely avoidable and unecessary. WookieInHeat (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communicat has been making accusations and insinuations about me for weeks now. He continued those on the Rfc talk page, where I responded with proof (again) that his charges are false. Since you dismissed my doing so as "sniping" obviously you feel I did something wrong by this, so I am hoping you can take the time to explain what I should have done instead. Thank you. Edward321 (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George, are you going to complete and certify this, or have you decided to drop your involvement in the matter? (which would be fair enough...). I think that this situation needs to be resolved and the incomplete RfC/U isn't helping. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. I was at a conference for 4 days and on a panel Saturday; was catching up on sleep. Will be connecting back up with the case Monday. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks George. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I insist that Aircraft design process needed to be deleted? Or rather where did I insist that Aircraft design needed to be deleted? I'm not sure which article you're talking about because I'm not sure which one is being discussed at the AfD. That Afd is a hot mess now, but your characterization of my actions is way off. AniMate 19:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about your actions, sorry if you interpreted it that way. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I reversed your archiving as I think the discussion has legs and i simply can't accept that there is no actionable disruption about making an AFD point at the wrong article for a substantial period. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the "point at wrong article" was incidental and not intentional; however, I'm not going to re-archive in the near future. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • At 20.00 10 Nov the AFD was created for a page at Aircraft Design Process. This page was move moved to Aircraft design by Col Walden at 22.37 on 11 November. The redirect was then replaced by a stub article. The original article was then left orphaned at Aircraft Design. Animate left a note on Col Walden's talk page at 09.44 on 16 November querying what article the AFD should be discussing. Col walden took no action after this to clarify where the AFD was pointed. At 19.20 16 November Uncle G had tomove the AFD to reflect the location of the original page and amend the header to include both titled. This means that as a result of Col Walden's page move and lack of care the AFD was pointing at the wrong article for almost 5 days. Please explain how this is not disruption? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I.was.doing.FACTS,.not.any,other.thing.....I.knew.this.was.correct....I.checked.everything. Never.think.of.me.doing.such.again..--76.123.187.211 (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Unkwown.Person,.I.will.Not.Tell.√[reply]

George (to use the reasonably parsed short form of your user ID), I had a feeling I could count on you to be a reasonable guy (to use "guy" to refer to the usual maleness of the reasonably parsed components of your user ID). Thanks for your apology. To review, my first insertion of names was in good faith in that I believe they were fully self-identified with one trivial exception, and thought they were useful party details as often relevant to the COI issues. (I admit the trivial exception was my own due-diligence failure.) The first reverter did not explain, so I researched, provided links, discovered one party was technically not self-identified, and concluded that the issue would be settled with the posting to RFARB of the links and the resolution of the one exception. My reply indicates this as well as the depth of my commitment to "not outing", but there was no response; as I said, lacking any other guidance, I proceeded with the second insertion.

The affected users are as follows, using my insertions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#End COI as a guide:

• User:John J. Bulten, User:Ryoung122, User:12.144.5.2, User:Bart Versieck, User:Plyjacks, and User:Kletetschka all self-identify on their current talk pages and (with the exception of the last) many other places.
• A minor variation for User:Plyjacks appears nontrivially in the self-written history of that user's talk page.
• The IDs User:NickOrnstein and User:Petervermaelen are clearly inferable by a reasonable party to be construed as identical to the personal-name forms "Nick Ornstein" and "Peter Vermaelen", and these stylistic forms of the IDs are also accepted by the editors in conversation. (The reasonable-party standard is commonly used to waive capitalization and spacing variations in domain name disputes. The admission in this statement that the self-identification forms I quoted in these two cases happen to mirror the user-ID forms should not be taken as implying anything other than that bare fact, and should particularly not imply any conclusion about any other ID.)
• User:StanPrimmer and an alternate name for User:Bart Versieck self-identify in their regular signatures.
• User:NealIRC posted "his" identity at a minimum to WP:WOP and there was much discussion about these edits generally on its talk page.

Please confirm that this constitutes prima facie evidence of intent to project a personal-name identity in each case, and please comment on the suitability of reinsertion to ArbCom, or of alternately further highlighting a reference to the COI list at the WikiProject. Obviously if any of these were taken as failing a prima facie case, there would be a very large number of revisions and echoes to hide.

As you can see from my comments to Seddon, the remaining case technically not self-identified can go one of two ways; you can either formally conclude (and advise) that the case is truly trivial and needs no further action, or you can remove the name from its one remaining appearance on Wikipedia (findable per my instructions) and perform the revision hiding, which totals about 200 revisions. If you decide it's trivial, I will drop it immediately and nobody else need raise it either; but if not, those revisions do need hiding, and Seddon has taken a break after the initial reversion and revision hiding. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

If you would like to serve as backup in case further discovery of identities needs floating by an uninvolved party, please let me know; if not, please advise whether or not I should stop the collection of such self-identifications at the project COI list at this point. JJB 13:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand you're busy, I have emailed Oversight instead. Anyway, thanks for your attention. JJB 22:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello there! As part of an experiment to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, some changes have been made to the list of members of WikiProject Space Colonization. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, we would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Space Colonization at 16:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

• News and notes: No further Bundesarchiv image donations; Dutch and German awards; anniversary preparations

• In the news: Jimbo Wales interviewed and parodied; Wikipedia in politics

• Book review: The Myth of the Britannica, by Harvey Einbinder

• WikiProject report: WikiProject College Football

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Election report: Candidates still stepping forward

• Arbitration report: Brews ohare site-banned; climate change topic-ban broadened

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mikemikev

Hi George, this is mikemikev. I would like to go on record as stating that you are an embarassment to the discipline of science. You appear to be some kind of self appointed internet cowboy, who sadly has decided to police an encylopedia. Hilarity ensues as George demonstrates his total ignorance of the subject matter by blocking people simply because certain words offend his sensibilities. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.247.203 (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the elections!

Dear Georgewilliamherbert, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the election and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words and declare any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee). Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.

You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! Skomorokh 20:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2019 candidate: Georgewilliamherbert Candidate statement (create) Questions for the candidate (create) Discuss this candidate (create)

Request

George, sorry to bother you when you must be in the midst of answering a slew of questions, but would you mind amending your nomination statement with language to the effect of "I have never edited Wikipedia from an account other than those listed here" or similar? I am asking all candidates to make their disclosures full and categorical. Thanks, Skomorokh 20:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Lar

Hi. Best of luck in your upcoming trial by fire. As in previous years I have a series of questions I ask candidates. This year there are restrictions on the length and number of questions on the "official" page for questions, restrictions which I do not agree with, but which I will abide by. I nevertheless think my questions are important and relevant (and I am not the only person to think so, in previous years they have drawn favorable comment from many, including in at least one case indepth analysis of candidates answers to them by third parties). You are invited to answer them if you so choose. I suggest that the talk page of your questions page is a good place to put them and I will do so with your acquiescence (for example, SirFozzie's page already has them as do the majority of other candidates). Your answers, (or non-answers should you decide not to answer them), that will be a factor in my evaluation of your candidacy. Please let me know as soon as practical what your wish is. Thanks and best of luck. (please answer here, I'll see it, and it keeps things together better) ++Lar: t/c 22:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm comfortable discussing my favorite color in public ;-)

Go ahead and put them on my questions talk page, I will answer at least most of them. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Communicat

I think you may have forgotten about this RfC/U. It spent three weeks in Wikipedia space with out being edited or certified. Perhaps its time to go forward or delete it. I know he's blocked, but we don't let these things hang out indefinitely. AniMate 01:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I'm a little busy but I'll poke it some direction later today. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

communicat -- recent block for block "evasion" & IP address

GWH, something quite useful has come out of the recent and now expired block imposed on me and endorsed by you for block "evasion". I have established that, previously unknown to me, a total of 36 people were sharing the same IP address as mine. (Apparently, this also accounts for a loophole through which one of the address-sharers has been stealing bandwith, which I'd not been earlier aware of).

The service provider is in the process of sorting out the mess, and I have been allocated a new IP address, which I trust nobody else is using.

I reiterate that it was not I who was responsible for posting at the Rfc/NPOV discussion an unsolicited item accusing you of "authoritarianism and rank buffoonery" -- though I agree with his other observations which seem quite valid. Communicat (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you or anyone else is interested, this is Communicat's new IP address. Please let me know if any a-hole decides to disparage you in my name. 41.135.78.117 (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]