This is an archive of past discussions about User:Hersfold. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Previous archive - Archive 36 (December 2009) - Next archive →

This page contains discussions dated during the month of December 2009 from User talk:Hersfold. Please direct all current discussions there. Thank you.

---

Thanks for getting back to me on such a minor matter. If you get elected, please don't lose this attitude :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, and I'll certainly do my best. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c)

thanks for the tag u added. just to know.. why do this type of problems occur? does it mean that another person is using the same ip as mine? if yes, how is it possible as i'm on my own pc (am i hacked :/ ?) ? Souvik.arko (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you haven't been hacked. How this usually happens, and I believe how it happened in your case, is that many ISPs dynamically assign IP addresses to their users; that is, every time you connect to the internet, you get a new IP address that's not currently being used. When you disconnect, that IP address is freed up again and available for someone else to use. In your case, you happened to be assigned an IP address that had recently been used by this sockpuppeteer both times you found yourself unable to edit. So at the moment, you're the only person using your IP address, however someone else might be using it tomorrow. The flag I gave you will allow you to edit regardless of what IP address you get assigned, although as I said I'll check back in a few days to see if it's still needed. Hope this answers your question. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me sooooo much with template syntax!  fetchcomms☛ 04:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how the weight scale works or how things will really turn out. However, I wish you luck. At least the current system doesn't have the dreaded list of opposers that tends to upset candidates. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's entirely based on the support percentages ( support votes / (support + oppose votes) ), and the highest eight get a seat, assuming Jimbo doesn't have some glaring issue with them. Thanks for the well-wishing, though. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Hersfold, I would like your assistance with uploading an image and then linking it to an article. I received a message from an editor explaining that I need to clarify my licensing. However, when I return to the image, I can't find the field for licensing where I can make the additional clarification. I also read the instructions of uploading an image to an article and believe I have done it correctly; however, the image is not showing up on Wikipedia. Is it because the permission is not stated? Looking forward to your recommendations. Warm Regards, Bpalam. BPalam (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the image is that we need to know who the author is. If this is you (that is, it's your own photo), then click here to edit the "Summary" section of the image's page and type in "Own work" on the author line. I'm guessing this isn't the case, however, as you're citing a website as the source for the image, and I found at least a partial version of the image here. Most generally, images found on websites are not public domain, and are held under copyright. I don't see a copyright notice on the site, but neither do I see an explicit free licensing or release to the public domain, and one of the latter is needed for us to be able to use this image.

If I am correct and this image is not your own (implying that it is held under copyright by the law firm), then we will need to delete the image as soon as possible. What you can do, however, is contact the law firm and request permission to use the image here on Wikipedia; since Caplin's profile links to his article here, I doubt they'll have much issue with it. Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission explains in more detail how to request this, and who to tell them to contact with permission. Once that permission is received, we can restore the image and allow it to be used.

As for why the image wasn't displaying, you had the .jpg extension in lowercase instead of the uppercase .JPG it's actually uploaded under. I've fixed it and it's displaying now, but as I said, the image will probably need to be removed soon. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Following up on this recommendation, as also shown following:

Nasty image deletion

Thanks for your assist in deleting the rather tasteless image [File:Forwiki.jpg], as noted on the deletion log:

1. (Deletion log); 16:02 . . NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Forwiki.jpg" (G3: Vandalism)

However when I checked the article edit summary link a few minutes ago to verify, the image was still on WP's server. Does it take a certain amount of time to purge out, or does the image file have to be deleted separately from the edit summary logs? Also, do you know what procedure would be involved in having the vandal reported to ISP involved? Thanks.... HarryZilber (talk) 12:25 pm, Today (UTC−5)

• The image is on Commons, not en.wiki. A commons sysop is going to need to delete that one. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:26 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Are there provisions within WP for doing a followup to this ex-account holder's ISP? (whether or not the image falls into the legal definition of 'obscene material') HarryZilber (talk) 12:31 pm, Today (UTC−5)

• You're going to need to talk to the folks at WP:CHECKUSER. NawlinWiki (talk) 2:23 pm, Today (UTC−5)

This is a highly revolting piece of vandalism, one of the worst I've seen in six years with WP and I would press to have it reported to the vandal's ISP. Wikipedia, Wikipedians, and the public, need to be have relief from sociopaths such as this person. The deleted account holder was Tub1tub1tub1 (talk | contribs). Note that the Commons image involved (File:Forwiki.jpg) was tagged for {speedydeletion}, so it may no longer be viewable. Another editor also uploaded a different, irrelevant image to mask-over the original in the interim.

Can you assist? HarryZilber (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

We generally don't issue abuse reports with ISPs except for rampant abuse from a single user - unless there appears to be a pattern of abuse by this person, there's no reason for me to do a check or reveal his IP address. In any event, such requests should be made through Wikipedia:Long-term abuse, not on a checkuser's talk page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hersfold, could you please explain why the band 88MPH I am trying to write an article on keeps getting their page removed and why it does not meet the criteria : "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.". I am a big fan of the band and want to start a Wiki page. They've had plenty of promotion around where I live, and they meet the criteria above in that they have been the subject of multiple non-trivial works published in local press, the BBC, and on the radio. Shouldn't this suffice? If not, how many is "multiple"; if they appear in another few articles from different sources, can they then be deemed suitable for Wikipedia? Thank you. Harryshearer (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)harryshearer

When I reviewed the article, it appeared as though the coverage was fairly minimal and only on a local scale, which would fall short of the notability mark. However, I asking that some other admins review this again; if they feel the article should not have been deleted, I'll restore it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate that and I apologise for appearing disruptive. I'm new to wikipedia. If the other admins feel you were just in deleting it, what would you recommend I wait for in terms of the band being notable enough? I believe their notability is inevitable, although I'm biased as I'm such a fan, but obviously a wiki article on them needs to be in keeping with your criteria for notability. When they have some more articles written about them, and if those hint at a wider scale than the existing coverage appears to, would it then be acceptable for me to try recreating the page? Thanks again. Harryshearer (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)harryshearer

If they sign with a notable record label, and release a few records on that label, then they should be ok. Again, WP:MUSIC lists the criteria. Alternatively, if they get some coverage from the BBC on a higher scale than what they've had previously, then they should be good to go. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, two other administrators have taken a look at the deleted article, and agree that since the coverage is purely on a local scale, the band (at present) doesn't meet our standards for notability. If you'd like, I can ask them to post here themselves. In time, however, the band may meet our standards, as we've already discussed. Thank you for your efforts to contribute, they are appreciated, even if your first attempt(s) didn't go so well. Please stick around and help out with some of our other articles - and hopefully submit this one again once the band gets a bigger name. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. Could you please take a look at User talk:Bezking#Unblock request? Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I am the author of a recent new page called BizFilings, and had been having an ongong discussion with another Wikipedia page reviewer about whether or not the page I authored meets the notability criteria. I believe a successfully made the argument in favor of keeping the page up, and the last comments posted by the WP reviewer indicated that he/she agreed with me and believed the page would not be deleted. Then, from what they tell me, it was deleted by you in the last 24 hours sometime. I'm concerned that, because I'm new to Wikipedia, I may not have posted my arguments in the proper place, or to the proper administrator. Nevertheless, I would like the page to be re-posted. In terms of notability -- my arguments revolved around the fact that BizFilings is the second largest online incorporation service in the U.S., and a subsidiary of Wolters Kluwer, one of the largest global professional publishers int he world. There is only one other online incorporation company as large or larger than BizFilings, which is Legal Zoom. I see that Legal Zoom has had a WP page up for many years -- LONG before they became a notable company. I am a small business owner, and have been working within a forum of other small business owners to help identify and document the largest providers of online services (of all types) for small businesses. As part of this initiative, it is my charter to research and record the online service providers that are subsidiaries of very large corporations. BizFilings falls into this category. It is neither a "fly by night" dot.com, nor a tiny startup. It's a very important subsidiary of a global publisher -- the ONLY one -- targeted specifically to small businesses. If you were part of the small business community, you too would understand why this is notable. Please respond -- and, if possible, help me understand specifically what is creating the notability question. Julieapeck (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I deleted Bizfilings not on notability grounds, but under Criterion for Speedy Deletion G11, which is for "Unambiguous advertising or promotion." I very deliberately did not mention notability problems in my deletion reason, because the article did make an assertion of notability. However, it did also read more like a sales brochure than an encyclopedia article. More information on this is available at WP:AD and WP:NPOV. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I take it from your comments above, then, that I may be able to re-write the page for BizFilings with a more encyclopedic tone, and try to post the listing again?

Julieapeck (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as it had a neutral tone, I would not have an issue with it, no. What you may want to so is write a draft of the page in your userspace first (e.g., on your sandbox page), and then move it to the proper title once it's done. This reduces the chances of it being deleted significantly, especially while you're working on it. I can "userfy" the last version of your article to such a page if you would like; that way you don't have to start from scratch. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. This is my first Wikipedia page, so It's been hard to figure out how to strike the right tone. I do want to continue with the project, so getting this one right will be a major first step. You mentioned above that you could "userfy" the former page to my sandbox. That would be very helpful for me to start a new draft. Also, is there a way for me to get feedback on the article BEFORE I move it to the public site? Thanks for your help. Julieapeck (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the article and moved it to User:Julieapeck/BizFilings. If you ever want to get feedback about the article, you can ask at WP:NCHP with a link to your draft. Good luck! This guide may also help you draft the article. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This editor may have a conflict of interest.[1] —Finell 21:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The explanation above doesn't seem to indicate that. You're welcome to mention that to them if you feel otherwise. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I linked the wrong diff.[2] —Finell 22:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I added a fairly extensive response on my page to address the COI note. If possible, I'd really like to get your feedback on this particular issue before I re-work the article in question. Thanks.Julieapeck (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Herfold. This is just for your information: Pickbothmanlol is also known as "User:TOEZ" on ED, where he holds an attack page on Juliancolton in his userspace. Triplestop x3 23:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but that doesn't have any relevance here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the appropriate procedure, but I believe that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Brews ohare restriction review should be closed with no sanction or modification of remedies. It was not opened with the usual section headings. I thought it was begun as a motion, but I'm not sure. Could you look into it? Thanks.—Finell 20:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)(To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)

It looks as though it was intended as enforcement, but the request is a bit malformed. I'll see what I can do to clean it up, although I won't be taking action on the request. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for what you did.—Finell 02:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
• Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.

--NBahn (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comments.- Peter Ellis - Talk 07:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

...which is here. FWIW, I think it's a good close. Tim Song (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm obviously stupid... but, why did you (or someone) remove my comment from the deletion page? here - Peter Ellis - Talk 11:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You may have noticed I haven't edited the page since closing the discussion; your comments were removed by User:Craftyminion because the discussion had been closed (diff). To answer your concerns, though...

• Delinking and orphaning the page as you describe wouldn't solve any of the problems associated with the article, and likely would only add additional reasons to remove it. Reducing visibility doesn't lessen the problems with the article, particularly when there are BLP issues involved.
• While you did provide sources for the names listed, I have severe doubts as to the reliability of them; the first such story was published by The National Enquirer. The other stories were published in similar gossip magazines. Reuters and the AP have picked up on Woods' denials and apologies, yes, but that does not verify the original stories. Your references for the original claims are not reliable, nor does any reliable source exist for the original claims.
• The Tiger Woods article does provide a detailed section on this incident, which appears to contain largely the text that was in your list, minus the list itself. The guidelines for including items in a list (see WP:LIST#Listed items) do clearly state that entries must be fully verifiable by reliable sources.
• It (the LIST guideline) further states that contentious information about living people that lacks this verification must be removed on sight per the WP:BLP policy. This was my primary motivation for closing the discussion as early as I did; while I have no doubt that your efforts were in good faith, a separate list of this nature does not coincide with the BLP policy, which calls for strict use of high-quality references and neutrality. In this case, as was pointed out in the discussion, the title of the article itself was problematic, inherently implying that all of the claims listed were in fact valid, despite only one being listed as "confirmed" and several denials from both Woods and his alleged lovers.

Again, I'm sure that you were not acting in bad faith here, nor had any intention of doing so. Unfortunately, lists of this nature are open to a wide range of problems, making them inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I do want to apologize for my closing rationale, which was unnecessarily brusque, but what you see above is the majority of the reasoning behind it, and as I said at the AfD, I could likely find further explanations to back up the decision to delete if pressed.

If you do feel as though this content is something that should be included in the Tiger Woods article, then I would encourage you to discuss it on that talk page;; however, please keep in mind the BLP policy and how the inclusion of this information may impact the subjects. Thanks for your understanding, and please let me know if you have further questions. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Per the above results, would you mind issuing the indef block to Teleyonce (talk · contribs)? Other clerks and admins seem to have been away for a while.

Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not do so myself, as I'm not entirely certain of the connection based on the checkuser data, and I haven't looked at the behavioral evidence. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand if you're not comfortable blocking the account yourself. I'll contact another admin that's perhaps a bit more familiar with the case history.

Thanks for the reply!

Peace! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Should User talk:Tenmei have something about "The committee is not able to fulfill the role of a mentor, and regretfully moves to shift the responsibility of obtaining a mentor onto Tenmei." on it? Dougweller (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear from the rest of the statement. The cross-post notices are intended to summarize the motions, not contain their text verbatim. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Dougweller (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

hello again, i have complains against User:TawsifSalam.

The 5th National Council of Bangladesh Nationalist Party article was created and written by User:TawsifSalam . It didn't meet the wikipedia NPOV standards when i first read it. it had the partial tone and also there was no mentioning of the strong criticisms the 5th BNP council received in the country. then every time i added some criticisms(with source) including poll results that the 5th BNP council has received, he either undid my edits or manipulated the lines in such ways that can only be reffered to as sneaky vandalism.

he even accused me of vandalising ( later he deleted this part of his comments in the article discussion page; which i re -added) only because i was re-adding lines that he had either undid or manipulated. i also noticed after seeing his contribution list that he is interested (most of the time) only in articles which relate to a particular political party.

So will you kindly suggest what can be done to achieve NPOV in the article and also what can be done about User:TawsifSalam. or is it my fault in any ways? Thanks Souvik.arko (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the article as written is rather promotional. At this time, though, there doesn't seem to be much need for administrative action, so what you might want to do is continue trying to discuss things with him. If you need to, ask for help from a knowledgeable third party (possibly some other members of Wikiproject Bangladesh) who can help provide a third opinion. Should that also not work, I would recommend going through the steps of dispute resolution to try and find some sort of solution to this. In the meantime, I have tagged the article with a neutrality banner, which hopefully will let Tawsif know that it's not just you, and will also bring some other people in to help. Good luck! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I've receaved an email from your bot (here: [3]. Please, feel free to delete all pictures as I haven't receved a reply from the respective Central Banks, except these ones: File:SVN-10t.jpg File:SVN-20t.jpg File:SVN-50t.jpg File:SVN-5t1.jpg File:SVN-5t10.jpg File:SVN-5t11.jpg File:SVN-5t2.jpg File:SVN-5t3.jpg File:SVN-5t4.jpg File:SVN-5t5.jpg File:SVN-5t6.jpg File:SVN-5t7.jpg File:SVN-5t8.jpg File:SVN-5t9.jpg These ones are from Slovenian currency, which is elegible from copyright, and these ones: File:SVK-10c1.jpg File:SVK-1c1.jpg File:SVK-2c1.jpg File:SVK-50h1.jpg File:SVK-50h2.jpg File:SVK-5c1.jpg These ones are from Slovak coins. According with Central Bank of Slovakia policy's, the bank hasn't got the copyright, is the designer, who was emailed on 9th october asking for the permission and was given, and contacted to user Eusebius for not to delete them.

I wait for your answer, best regards--Mvllez (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I am unable to help you here - my only involvement on Commons is to run the bot which issues these notices. If you do not want these images to be deleted, you need to resend the permission to permissions-commonswikimedia.org and post on the Commons OTRS Noticeboard to let them know they need to look for it. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Proceed to delete the file. While, i'm replacing on the main pic of the article... I can't answer before cuz i've been a little bit bussy. Thanks for your time. --Daviddavid00 (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll be deleted in about two weeks. I'm not an admin on Commons, so I can't do it myself. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the checkuser results of User:Windhover75 and User:Dalejenkins, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dalejenkins as another one seems to have sprung up, i.e. a new account's first edits is to renominate an article Dalejenkins had previously nominated and then to canvass (see warning on talke page of new account) in same manner as Dalejenkins which was discussed on ANI prior to block. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In clear cases like this one, we usually don't bother with checkuser, but thanks for the pointer. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Assuming the appointments turn out as expected, I look forward to working with you. Steve Smith (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• With the recently released Committee election results, I look foward to seeing a continuation of your good work in a new role! —Amelioration 23:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! I am happy that you will (presumably) be on the Arbitration Committee, although I hope that you still find time to do other things as well. Like help out at SPI :P Best of luck! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Bah! We loose a good clerk over this.  :-) Welcome to the Zoo! — Coren ^(talk) 01:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on the great showing in the election! I look forward to seeing your work with the Committee this year. Cla68 (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

We may have had our differences in the past but I am confident you will do a superb job. Congratulations on a successful candidacy. --GoRight (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone, I greatly appreciate it, and I promise you all I'll do my best. And don't worry, J.delanoy and Coren, I'll still help out at SPI and I'll be more than happy to help train any new clerks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, Hersfold. Should be fun working together. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, Hersfold. Please see MBisanz's advice here. Tony (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. And for Tony, I'm already identified because of my checkuser rights. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope that by [4] [5] you weren't implying that you agreed with GC's implication that I wasn't an independent admin (given AFAIK the only history is having given him a warning for edit warring previously [6]). PS Congrats. --BozMo talk 20:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, whoops. For some reason I got the names mixed up. I'll fix that. And thanks! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 20:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Since I got one wrong I thought I would go via you: User:LiberalJames and User:Amanuse both look possible Scibaby to me. --BozMo talk 07:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You should put in a request at SPI if you haven't already. I'm on vacation and thus unable to do checkuser investigations. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 22:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of the people who has made 2009 such an interesting and enlightening year for me. It has certainly had its challenges, but also many highlights. I wish you peace and contentment in 2010, and a joyous holiday season to you and yours. In honour of the season, I hope you will enjoy a little musical token. Your choice: traditional or cheeky. Best, Risker (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on his editing history I have unblocked Alamanth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The edits for which he was blocked were reasonable. Fred Talk 23:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

		The Distinguished Hive Mind Member Barnstar
		Congratulations on earning a distinguished spot on Hive Mind, you must be doing something right! Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Goody goody fun. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)