Welcome to my Talk Page!
	Thank you for coming by, however please note that I have largely retired from Wikipedia. Messages left here will not receive a prompt response, if ever. Please also note that I no longer hold any access rights; if you are contacting me in relation to a block, deletion, or any other administrative action I have taken, I am unable to assist you. Please contact another administrator for help. If you do have an urgent need to contact me specifically, such as for one of my bots, please send me an email via Special:Emailuser/Hersfold.	Archives This page will be archived every month. If you can't find what you're looking for, check the most recent archive. /2007 Archives /2008 Archives /2009 Archives /2010 Archives /2011 Archives /2012 Archives /Archive 73 (January 2013) /Archive 74 (February 2013) /Archive 75 (March 2013)
		User:Hersfold/Talk Header - v • e

could you please adopt me? Tennislover1 (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I've already got an adoptee and I'm not sure I'd have time to finish my program with you anyway. I hate to turn you down like this, but there are plenty of others available here. Welcome to Wikipedia, all the same, and until (and even after) you get adopted, please let me know if you need any help with anything. Happy editing. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi hersfold i want to shout at you but i will do it politly can u please unblock User: Sylvan Wu because i wasn't vandilising anything, please reply on my other account, Sylvan WuWuSylvan (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you were, and now you're evading your block. No. Shoo. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the working group for the WMF DC chapter. Since we have a very active and very community oriented DC/MD/VA area group of Wikipedians, it only makes sense to develop it as a chapter, especially given the recent changes to the Board of Trustees structure, giving chapters more of a vote. Hopefully we will be either the first or the second officially recognized US Chapter (WMF Pennsylvania is pending as well), and hopefully our efforts will benefit WMF Penn as well. Remember, it's a working group, and this is a wiki, so feel free to offer changes, make bold changes to the group, and discuss on the talk page! I hope to see you there, as well as Wikimeetup DC 4 if you're attending. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it! Thanks for the invite. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already have an adoptee, sorry. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What and you can't handle more than one at a time :>Eoag (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It makes things easier. :-) Plus, I'm not entirely certain I'll be able to finish things up with you, since finals are coming up soon for me. If that does turn out to be the case, I'll try to find another user who can take you on. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied also at Talk:Good Enough.

However, I am concerned that you stated this was discussed on IRC, and that the page was immediately move-protected. Why was it on IRC? - it is hardly an emergency.

I did check the talk page before moving and saw that there seemed to be no serious objections - the post from Hunster in January in fact says 'If you want to move to your proposed name, I don't think there would be a problem.', which seems to imply no objection. I hope that this does not show an objection to me rather than to the move. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was on IRC because we both happened to be in the same channel at the time. The move protection was my decision, to encourage the formation of a consensus which had not yet formed - Huntster's comment made it clear he thought there was a reason to keep the article where it was, and the fact that he contacted an admin to undo the moves confirms this. I'm also concerned you listed the page at WP:RM, then immediately made the move yourself before there was a reasonable chance for anyone to review it. I've had no interaction with you at all until now, so I don't see how you think this has anything to do with you. I myself have no opinion in the matter - I just want to make sure that whatever is done is done with community consensus. Talk things over, and once the protection expires, you all can act on whatever was decided. If you end up coming to a consensus before the week is up, let me know and I'll remove the protection for you if needed. Happy editing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I accept that this had nothing to do with me.

I did post at WP:RM. Because I though it was uncontroversial, I started the move myself so that an admin would only need to delete the main article and move it - I've done that before and it hadn't been objected to. It's true that someone moved it into the 'contested' section, but his edit summary implied that he did not object personally.

Also, there's no need to reply in two places - I see it here, anyway. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I usually do, unless there's a notice on the other person's talk page telling me not to. I'll keep in in mind from now on, though. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are interested in message box standardisation. We have now made the {{imbox}} for image space and {{cambox}} for category space. But before we can deploy these new message box standards we could need some more editors adding their opinions over at the talk pages of those meta-templates. And you might have some good points that we haven't thought of yet.

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll leave a note. Funny that last time I tried this, it got turned down. :-D Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware of the standardisation effort you did that time. But there are some tricks to getting things like this done that you did not use. The old {{ambox}} standardisation effort also almost came to a halt before we applied them there. Since I think you will do more standardisation in the future I'd like to share the methods with you:

• You need a single talk page to discuss the standard. And you had Wikipedia talk:Category message boxes so you had that.
• You need a front page where you show off a single ready made suggestion that already looks good. You had the front page Wikipedia:Category message boxes but from what I see you did not show a ready made suggestion there. People need something to which they can say: "Yes that looks good, lets do it."
• The ready made suggestion if possible should be similar to the de facto standard for the area.
• You need to supply a ready made meta-template with the style so people feel that it is already "built" and so they can easily test it and use it.
• And in this case people preferred two good but opposing styles, coloured borders and coloured background. So I started standardisation of both image and category message boxes at the same time, so both styles were suggested and going to be used, thus making everybody happy. This I realised after reading the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Category message boxes, so that is thanks to you!
• You need to start with a handful of people to work out the kinks first. Since people get tired and leave pretty soon, and as long as there are serious kinks they won't say: "Yes, lets do this!"
• Then you need to advertise the standardisation project everywhere so enough people come and discuss, so that there is enough people to call it a "consensus" and so that they dare to deploy it site wide. When I didn't get enough people into this round of standardisation I made a watchlist notice and that seems to work.
• And this part is probably controversial: It seems you might need to have 1-3 persons acting not like a neutral Wikipedian editor, but more like a chairman. Leading the discussions and explaining things and behaving like you have some authority and expertise. But still being prepared to compromise a lot.

And I think that your first round of trying to standardise category message boxes probably paved the way for this round, so you did some of the heavy work. Thanks!

--David Göthberg (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you've definitely got this planned out. I'll make sure to keep your "guide to getting things done" in mind if I ever have need to do it again - with the work we're trying to do in establishing a Washington, DC WMF Chapter, I probably will. Thanks a lot, and I'm glad I was able to help in some small way. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those images were a 100% free. I don't know how everyone mistaken it for being non-free. Anyways, what was the correct licenseing? --Condo lence> 03:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft's legal site (here) states that their clipart can be used for "personal, noncommercial uses". While that may have been what you intended to do, that's not acceptable on Wikipedia. Since our content is mirrored elsewhere, sometimes for commercial purposes, we do not allow non-commercially licensed images to be used here. CSD I3 clearly states that such images can be deleted on sight. Even if those images were not non-commercial, you would need to provide a copyright tag and an appropriate fair use rationale; however, fair use images can only be used (in limited amounts) in articles, not in userspace, so they would have been deleted eventually anyway. On another note, the term "non-free" does not refer to what you paid for a particular image or file; even if you were able to obtain it at no monetary cost, it is often still copyrighted and subject to various terms of use. I hope this helps some, but if not, let me know. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK nom passed yesterday but I haven't recieved the template. What do I do? Also, I fixed my nomination but I haven't had a responce yet. Do you mind checking the May 1 section on the DYK Template?--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 19:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball uniform hasn't been put on DYK yet. As for your nomination, it will be added to DYK at an administrator's discretion when it expires, which shouldn't be for a couple days yet. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 20:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting the page. However, you protected it with the abuse still in place. It should be removed. HtD (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter too much - there's no blatant attacks, and all the unblock templates have been disabled. Leaving it up also gives evidence for why the page was protected. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK! HtD (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hersfold. Yet another GA vandalism IP added to your vandal watch page. I suspect it is now a case of blocking that eircom range for the time being. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I kept it as limited as possible, so it doesn't cover the entire Eircom range, but should hopefully keep the vandal from doing much more for a while. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind moving List of Presidents of the Council of Ministers of Italy back to List of Prime Ministers of Italy? It was moved unilaterally by Checco only 36 hours ago. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Let me know if you need someone to lock it there. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you would be able to ban this user, only block him. He has way too many constructive edits to be considered a simple troll or anything. A ban might be justified, but it sounds like ArbCom material. Certainly, a block was in order though. Aaron Schulz 00:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I was banning him. He's just blocked until he learns to stop attacking other users. In the event he doesn't learn, then yes, I'll bring it up for further review at an appropriate venue. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Providing cites and evidence to my poor little troll like that! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, don't do that, I saw the header on my watchlist script and I thought someone came to yell at me for a declined unblock. X-D Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a warning really necessary? An editor who jokes about anal rape isn't really here to edit constructively. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had it been an attack directly at you, I would have blocked them immediately - since it wasn't entirely clear what he was talking about, I just considered it vandalism that merited a warning prior to a block. The user has been blocked, in any event. Sorry for the delay. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, perhaps I've jumped in here when I should have left it to those already involved, but... from an outsider's perspective, it does kinda seem that Ryulong is just as much at fault as Collectonian. Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely current guidelines (i.e. in this case those relating to the MoS for TV programmes) should be adhered to up to and until any new guidelines have been implemented by consensus. I didn't realise that you as another admin were involved, and if I had I'd probably have steered clear and left you to it, but as I didn't, I don't really see that Ryulong's behaviour is much better. Please do prove me wrong ;). _TalkIslander 21:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I logged in for a quick check of messages before I went to class, and wasn't expecting to have to back up my actions on that. I have seen this, and will reply soon, but I'm unable to just now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not urgent - I think I'm getting to the bottom of it myself now. It does look odd to an outsider, but look more closely, and it makes more sense. _TalkIslander 23:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, from what I could tell, and what Ryulong was explaining to me, he was trying to improve the layout of the article to match others of the same topic. It may have seemed somewhat unconventional and contrary to existing guidelines, but he was also working on setting those up at the same time. Collectonian saw those edits and (I assume) didn't quite understand the context behind them, and reverted them, originally in good faith. At that point, Ryulong tried to explain the situation while reverting his one time, however Collectonian continued to revert the page despite the ongoing discussion and the involvement of two other editors (myself and User:Ohnoitsjamie). As I told Collectonian, I really don't care about whether Ryulong's edits are appropriate or not - the problem I had with the whole situation was the manner in which Collectonian continued to revert, in violation of the 3RR, and abusing their tools to do so. Ryulong, on the other hand, had stopped editing after his first "undo" edit, in an effort to explain the situation and stop an edit war. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said "marking edits made by administrators as vandalism is a violation of our policy on no personal attacks." Why is marking an admin's edits as vandalism considered a personal attack? Howa0082 (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When involved in a dispute with anyone, calling their actions vandalism when they are not is rude and offensive. I brought the administrator bit in because Ryulong is an administrator, and one would assume he's not vandalizing pages. I was simply trying to make my point clearer, I was not implying that administrators are better than anyone else in any way, as I thought would have been clear in my later comments, particularly "Admins have no more right to edit pages than other editors do." Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I just get really touchy when I see one admin saying, as it appeared to me at the time, that criticising an admin is against policy. I was wound up from the massive argument earlier today, and while I do remember reading your comment, I didn't remember that passage at the time I wrote my comment. Although, if I can point out, the average user like myself really dislikes it when someone's adminship is brought up in virtually any context of argument. It tends to feel almost like a statement of "It doesn't matter how good your point is, this other combatant is an admin. Thus, you are wrong." which can be frustrating, I'm sure you can agree. Anyway, I just meant to apologize, not filibuster. Sorry, fellow traveller. Howa0082 (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#WP:CON Gnevin (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving a comment there. You should be aware that bringing up old issues in a forum where people are unfamiliar with your actions does not mean you an interpret guidelines however you like. This was clearly explained to you, by several different users, more so than was necessary. If you continue to deliberately misinterpret guidelines and policy, you may be blocked again. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So wp:con is wrong too ? The moving admin was wrong to ignore my WP:CON I was simply reverting the incorrect change .However that is not the issue here, the issue is that no-one needs to object or approve for WP:CON to be formed, which is not what you said , i though you appreciate being made aware of the fact Gnevin (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you are deliberately missing the point we're trying to make. Notice that User:Kesh said "If there is an objection, then it becomes necessary to generate a consensus through discussion first." By reverting your move, the admin made an objection. A discussion was needed. Instead, you persisted in a disruptive edit war and refused to constructively participate in discussion. Now, you're posing leading questions in a forum where people don't know the whole situation, and using that as a justification to wave in everyone else's face to say "Hey, you were wrong." The fact is, you're still ignoring what we tried to tell you for hours the other day. I'm tired of explaining it myself, so go ahead and discuss it at WT:CON. However, please be aware that continuing to ignore consensus will lead to further blocks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what your saying is and correct me if I'm picking this you wrong but admins don't have to discuss reverts even if they are using their Admin power to push it through? I am am trying to define where consensus lies ,do you acknowledge that as per the discussion above i had formed a consensus ? Gnevin (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is honestly the last time, before I bring someone else in to try and explain this to you, because I've already told you this at least once before.

Wrong. Admins are in no way more important than other editors. They also must respect consensus when it has been formed. However, silence does not necessarily imply a consensus, and it is within the right of any editor to revert you if they contest a change you have made, even if you proposed it previously and got no response. This just shows that no consensus exists and you need to discuss things in order to form one.

When no discussion occurs, no consensus has been formed. You can go ahead and make your change (that's why we have WP:BOLD) but if someone undoes your edit, you must stop then and discuss things before continuing. It's good to go to other forums for other opinions where appropriate, but when doing so you need to make sure you provide all the facts, not just the ones you want people to know.

I really hope you've got it this time, but if not, let me know and I'll ask someone else to try to help you out on your talk page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i've got all that ,and knew that long ago , what got my goat in this case is (apart from the con i formed which ok you don't acknowledge or consider that strong, but lets leave that for wp:con ) The use of administrator powers to delete the page to force the page move through surely that is an trying to be more important than other editors, I don't understand why I find a page moved and can't move it back I list it as contested at WP:RM why this didn't apply to the admin ? Gnevin (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) In this case, the administrator was acting on behalf of another regular editor, who requested they revert the move. It is probable the regular user could have done this themselves: see Wikipedia:MOVE#Moving over a redirect. For whatever reason, they didn't, and requested admin help. When administrators try to move a page over a redirect, we get a little warning message to delete the redirect to make way for the move, instead of the process listed at that link. This is considered acceptable and uncontroversial under Criteria for Speedy Deletion G6. In general, it has the same effect as moving a page over a redirect, so admin tools aren't even necessary; they just get used because it makes the software happier. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reported 94.82.220.9 for vandalism, and you blocked the user from account creation (again). Does that prevent them from vandalizing or only from creating an account? Bubba73 (talk), 15:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A block stops the user from editing, except to their user talk page in case they want to request to be unblocked. The other options we can apply just add on to that - so a block that's marked "account creation blocked" will stop them from editing, and from creating other accounts to get around the block. Help:Block and unblock has more information, if you'd like. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, now I understand that the block you did encompasses more! Bubba73 (talk), 15:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the man Mr. Brett. Thanks for helping a Bald Guy out and white listing me ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite welcome. Good luck flooding out Special:Newpages. ;-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add me to the whitelist? I have been doing a lot of what the Bald guy has been doing and the bot has been aatacking me. Just see my talk page. I would do it myself but I don't know if it would be interpreted correctly. Editorofthewiki^{review my edits here!} 17:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and I've notified Coren that you two are now on there. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the original creator of the RfP, the original edition as per Wikipedia policy was not the one which was protected. Instead, the new radical edition has been protected for 1 week. According to Wiikipedia policy, When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content which clearly violates content policies, such as obvious vandalism or copyright violations [1] As noted in the original RfD that I made yesterday, I clearly mentioned what the original edition was (not the new edition), which was what needed to be protected. I believe this to be a mistake on the part of the admin who protected the page. EgraS (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a content dispute, not vandalism or copyright problems. Take it up with the administrator who protected the page, or talk it out on the talk page. I'm not going to revert anything unless there's a clear consensus. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who may live or work near Washington D.C., you may be interested - if you've not heard already - about the meetup scheduled for Saturday, May 17th, at Union Station. For details, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4.

You are receiving this automated message because your userpage appears in Category:Wikipedians in Maryland. Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[2] So do I re-revert with the summary "2 other admins and a steward think your wrong"? MBisanz ^talk 15:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm. I'll leave a comment on the talk page - he did at least mention something there. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to make sure you’re not too hungry, I gave you a cookie! I would’ve given you milk – but the cow just died and I tried to milk the bull but it kicked me in the face. *sob*. Anyway, enjoy the cookie!! Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 04:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, don't forget to have a few yourself. Get some ice for that bruise. ;-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I finally logged in! KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

In all honesty, it feels like you're going to a mugging in progress and telling the two involved, "just knock it off." User:AppleTrees has been wiki-stalking me, and I'm starting to realize that he's just looking for the free English lesson. It's creepy, and it's emotional diarrhea... and I've done nothing to perpetuate the situation, just looking to defend myself against a serial attacker. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was intended to stop the argument before it got even more out of hand - and also hopefully edit conflict any escalation-in-progress. Administrators will be reviewing both your actions now that this has been brought up, and will determine if any action is necessary. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well as Appletrees and my differing responses to your attempt to impose order demonstrate, it's the people who have respect for others, who actually have manners, and who don't "just try to get the last word in" who lose ultimately, isn't it? -WikiSkeptic (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flying_tiger&diff=prev&oldid=211927446 You've told us to shut up and await judgment, and he's racing to find additional, currently uninvolved people to join in the fray. I think a block would be in order. -19:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're hardly one to talk at the moment. Keep this off my talk page - it's being handled on ANI and I won't tolerate lobbying here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]