George Orwell III

Welcome Message

Hello, George Orwell III! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —EncMstr (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Template:ExecutiveOrder

FYI, you can use {{ExecutiveOrder}} or {{EO}} to link to an executive order over on wikisource. — MrDolomite • Talk 15:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

minor edit marker

Hi. I notice you use the "minor edit" marker for pretty much every edit you make. I haven’t looked to see whether the article edits are in fact minor enough to all deserve that use (when there's any chance your edit might be controversial, don't use the minor edit tag), but for example this edit is definitely not "minor". Comments on talk pages definitely shouldn't be marked minor (though I tend to use the minor edit tag when immediately editing my comments, so as not to clutter up people's watchlists). Cheers, jacobolus (t) 22:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixing incorrect refs that already appeared within the article but pointed to the wrong "thing" is a minor tweak in my book. Thank you for your concern anyway. George Orwell III (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

EO 12968

Hey thanks for redirecting that link, I searched for it as a regular WP article; had no clue they are all in Wikisource. Now I know where to find them, appreciate ya. Textorus (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for fixing my new section at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Obviously, I did something wrong and I had no idea how to fix it. Belchfire (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token ea6a827271e99aa5a385d3562c0845b5

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.84.90 (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, George Orwell III. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The section is Paul Ryan and speech reception. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Paul Ryan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Please review the history more closely. I've reverted exactly 1 edit made to my own addition -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The record clearly shows that your assessment isn't quite right:

• (cur | prev) 23:13, 4 September 2012‎ George Orwell III (talk | contribs)‎ . . (109,247 bytes) (+2,406)‎ . . (Undid revision 510869470 by Arzel (talk)add positive refs)

.... and the reversion you made to my addition right before the one you list? Sorry I reverted your reversion of me - adding the needed positive sourcing in the process followed by triming the negative sources down in response to original complaint. So I have answered the reason for you reversion as well as the needed sourcing. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I realize you aren't at 3RR, but that isn't a requirement for edit-warring, nor is it a requirement for a block. Belchfire-TALK 06:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And did you "warn" the others as well or just me? Again, carefully review the pattern of edits and you'll see all were made in good faith to resolve both the issue at hand as well as the reason for the reversion of my addition. Whenever you're ready to escalate - I don't believe I have "done" anything wrong regardless. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

---

The speech was well received by the convention audience and praised for being well-delivered, although it was also characterized as containing "lies", misrepresentations and omissions.

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Paul Ryan, WP:NPOVN". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 08:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vietnam Service Medal may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply

The only thing I know of would be to file a request for investigation at WP:SPI. — Cirt (talk) 08:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

The edits in question are being discussed on the talk page. Stop reverting.TBSchemer (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit. George Orwell III reverted once, with support from fellow editors no less. You are the one edit warring against consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

If supporting the policies and principles of Wikipedia along with the support of the active contributor's consensus on any matter is blockable - I say go ahead and try what you must think is correct from your POV. I also feel like I am in the right and this warning is just an attempt to "silence me" or something. Prost. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

ACA legal challenge

Ah, I see!! Much contention here on this topic. Sad, and no surprise. Anyhow, thank you for your efforts George Orwell III to place the Roman Catholic Church response in the Article in a manner that is appropriate. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Your additions were indeed welcomed (well, at least by me) but the fact the cases have been scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court does not rise to the level of notability to be part of the lede was all. You can't expect readers to "ponder" the fine points involved here for the ~6 months before the cases are even heard, let alone the other ~5 months before the opinion of the court is handed down - its just not appropriate to give that much weight to the matter by having it appear in the lede at this point.

On the other hand, the matter did warrant inclusion somewhere in the body of the article where it can be properly expanded upon as needed so I first tried to place it in section dealing with the "mandate" in general. You didn't seem to go for that (or even realize that?) so its now in the Opposition section like your Edit Summary asked for. Feel free to edit it further. Prost. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your excellent research and hard work on vetting the sources in Community Reinvestment Act. LK (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Would be grateful for your feedback

Hi George Orwell III, I hope things are well for you! As I respect your contributions and editing at PPACA, I was wondering if you might have some time to look at another U.S. legislation article, Voting Rights Act of 1965. I requested a peer review of the article at Wikipedia:Peer review/Voting Rights Act of 1965/archive1, and I would be greatly appreciative if you could make suggestions there on how the article (or any small part of it) could be improved. No pressure though; I understand if you haven't the time. Thanks! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure! I'll take a look when I have some free time this coming week (all things remaining equal that is). See you in the trenches Prototime. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks! I look forward to it. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi George, thanks for helping tidy up the references on Voting Rights Act of 1965 recently. The peer review of the article has since been closed, but the article is currently nominated to be a Featured Article. If you are still interested in offering any feedback on the article, I would highly value it! The FA nomination is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Voting Rights Act of 1965/archive1. (And if you're particularly interested in looking at and fixing references, the article could also use a source review for citation formatting and reliability as part of its nomination). Again though, no pressure; I understand if you haven't the time or interest, but I thought I'd invite your to comment on the FAC in case you're interested. Thanks! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Prototime: -- sorry I couldn't get more in before the GA review but I taken some time since and quietly looked into a few things that never seem to sit right with me when it comes to articles dealing with law/legislation (nothing to do with you btw). I'll go through some of them here one at a time if you don't mind.

First thing - what is the deal with the citations proclaiming One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain? Seems like a hold-over of some long deprecated practice as far as I can tell. Makes those citations seem 2nd class compared to the normal ones imho. Is there any logic behind having them that way that I'm missing? -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, George! I look forward to your feedback.

The public domain attribution template is used in the article for a couple of the government sources to avoid any concerns about close paraphrasing. Generally, closely paraphrasing a source constitutes a copyright violation, but not if the source is in the public domain. However, to avoid plagiarism when closely paraphrasing public domain sources, it's suggested in Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources and WP:Paraphrase#Public domain or free use content to acknowledge that the source is in the public domain. In particular, such attribution is appropriate in the References section, per WP:Plagiarism#Where to place attribution. That why the {{citation-attribution}} template is used for a couple of the government sources in the article; some of the text those sources support might be closely paraphrased (though honestly, most of the supported text probably isn't closely paraphrased; it's just a couple of instances). It certainly isn't meant to convey that the sources are sub-par to the others; if anything, those sources are probably of pretty high quality, having been published by the federal government. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

THAT, with all due respect my friend, is bullsh!t circular logic. While you might be right to concerned about paraphrasing re: works falling into the public domain after copyright protections no longer applies to those works, everything using that template IS a product of the U.S. federal government or an official officer, etc. thereof. They are public domain at the moment of creation and ultimately belong to the people. I can plagarise/paraphrase from those works all day long, just like anyone else, because they are lawfully "your's and mine" to being with.

Even the template's creators realized their over-reach/duality and added the now=n to try and avoid this very argument after the fact (see template documentation). I applied that parameter so at least copyright status is clarified but it is still my opinion the application of that particular template detracts rather than adds value to the content because it introduces a solution to a question if ever asked (re: plagarism/paraphrasing) is moot & invalid - all Federal gov't works are owned by you me and them (e.g. is public domain regardless of specific authorship). Of course this is just my opinion but is based on previous expierence nevertheless. Its up to you what, if anything, to do about it next -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I completely agree with you that the "logic" for doing so is dumb; I have wondered myself why Wikipedia policy seems to indicate that closely paraphrasing a public domain source requires an indication that the source is public domain--shouldn't including an inline citation be enough to avoid plagiarism concerns? Perhaps I am misinterpreting the relevant policies though, and they don't actually require what we both agree is a rather silly attribution requirement; I'll start an inquiry at WT:Plagiarism to clarify. In the mean time, thanks for adding now= to the templates. And thanks for catching that duplicate citation, too; not sure how that got there. –Prototime ^(talk) _(FAC) 03:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Inquiry started here: WT:Plagiarism#Attribution for closely paraphrased PD material. If you have any other feedback on the article in the meantime, I'm all ears! (Or eyes, as the case on Wikipedia may be...) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

That is fine for now on this point. We'll see if anything bubbles up from there and re-visit this afterwards if anything. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Second thing also has to do with the attributed references. Unfortunately, it is a gripe I have with most "law" articles in general and there is little we can do about it in this particular case as well but I'll mention it anyway.

There is a notable reliance in some areas using a single source that is cited 12 to 24 times (or more) in total. While this in itself may not be an issue of weight or bias when the ref is an excellent resource, it certainly can become one when that source is not freely available for inspection (i.e. recently published & copyrighted books) to complete the verification circle if ever questioned.

As background for your consumption & coming about from my previous online adventures in weasel-smacking in this area, a lot of these law reviews/academic books rarely introduce new nuances or further the existing debates concerning such laws as this. In short, they re-hash and commercialize the same body of content mentioned in my first point - works generated in and around the legislative process that were produced by the various branches and/or agencies of the Federal Government but, for any number of reasons, are not easily available to the internet-age public at large today. I'm talking about Committee reports, executive comissions and similar sources which most of these author's are citing within their works to support their assertions, etc.

So the inabailty to access the copyrighted re-hash of the hard-to-locate public content can open the content up to debates over lack of fidelity and similar. I don't know what to about in this case because without something like Lexis/Nexus access I can't find much in the way of free additional sources to lessen the citation burden placed on the current handful of works. You don't have access to something like that or know of a way to request stuff by any chance do you? -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about my delayed response. I hear you on the problem of using books and closed access sources; part of it I suspect has to do with Wikipedia's ever-strengthening preference to cite to scholarly works. Have you checked out the Wikipedia Library? It doesn't look like Lexis or Westlaw is included, but I did recently request a free Questia account. I've heard that Highbeam may also be promising. I suspect some of the included databases may have some good legal secondary sources, though I'm not entirely sure about their coverage. Still worth a shot signing up though I think!

That said, I do have copies of almost every source cited for the VRA article, so if you have any specific questions about a source there I can probably answer it.

By the way, there's been a (single) response so far at WT:Plagiarism#Attribution for closely paraphrased PD material, and it seems to confirm that using the attribution template is necessary for closely paraphrased public domain sources. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

GOIII it is enWP weirdness, they sometimes forget what plagiarism actually is "the claiming of the work as one's own" yet in an encyclopaedia, where you give the source, and it is always citable material, it cannot be plagiarism as it is never one's own work. Go figure. It is a piece of guidance that I choose to ignore as nonsensical, I add the edit summary that it is a copy and paste, and if someone wishes to add the attribution stupidity, let them go for it. Bees and bonnets. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Template editor right

As discussed with regard to your keeping English Wikisource templates and modules up to date against enWP's equivalents, you stated that you required Template Editor access. I have granted this right to you, as it is one that is able to be granted by administrators. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

To follow up Wikipedia:User access levels#Template editor — billinghurst sDrewth 06:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

And for the information of any onlooker … ticks off dot points 1 through 4 locally and as an editor at enWS has 4k edits in Template ns: and 1+k edits in Mediawiki ns: [enWS supercount] — billinghurst sDrewth 07:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Inconsequential template edits

Please don't make inconsequential edits to highly-used templates or modules, like you did to Module:Navbar. Each edit puts enormous strain on the job queue. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Jackmcbarn; 3 extra spaces (or tabs) shouldn't be all that big of a deal. The real issue is nobody cares about those who need to import such changes to other projects and the lack of consistency when it comes to indentation (2, 3 or 4 spaces vs. 1 tab).

Sorry if I slowed things down here - only trying to stay current elsewhere. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue wasn't the content of the edit itself, but the fact that a new revision was created at all. The change would have been fine had you made it along with a change that did improve functionality. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Jackmcbarn; Look, I don't wish to make a mountain out of a molehill -- especially when I'm the one importing you & your fellow contributors work to Wikisource without so much as a thank you -- but its kind of hypocritical to dismiss my point since there was indeed an inconsistency when it came to the use (or non-use) of tabnation/indentation throughout the Module. I know its a trivial thing but its one less possible diff between this project and those possible changes made to my project in the interim between refreshed imports.

Again I apologize for any inconvenience and ask how should I instead have drawn attention to the inconsistency instead for the next time it happens. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Next time, just make the change to the sandbox. That way, when someone has a substantial change, they'll make it on top of yours, and then both yours and theirs will be integrated into the main module together. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ahhh... Soooo.... a new truth has been revealed to me -- In general, Module: sandboxes are somewhat consistent and contiguous compared to behavior found in other sandboxes.

Jackmcbarn; Thank you very, very much for this new insight & I will strive to follow this lead from now on. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices

Hi, this was quite a long time ago, but in this edit you added a cite to Kugel v. United States for the previously uncited proposition that Compendium does not have the force of law. Kugel doesn't deal with the Compendium or any copyright issue. Was there maybe some other case you had in mind? TJRC (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I found a cite for the proposition in the Compendium itself, so the Kugel cite is moot. TJRC (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

border-spacing

There's no point in reverting you, but border-spacing: 0 applies to both the x- and y-axis. Alakzi (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, George Orwell III. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)