Jump to content

User talk:Hersfold/Archive 69 (September 2012)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


← Previous archive - Archive 69 (September 2012) - Next archive →

This page contains discussions dated during the month of September 2012 from User talk:Hersfold. Please direct all current discussions there. Thank you.


Almightyvegeta

on User talk:Almightyvegeta you refer to User:AngryJoker (talk · contribs) who is not registered. Did you mean something else? Toddst1 (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Fixed by MuZemike. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, DQ, and MuZemike, if you're about. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

UTRS Appeal

Hey Hersfold! I noted that on IRC the other day, you dealt with the user behind UTRS #2853, and gave a closure to it, could you please make it formal so the user has an answer and it doesn't continue to sit waiting for a fresh admin to review? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Done, sorry, forgot to follow up when the TS got fixed. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Problem

GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) - User destroys the new infoboxes for the pharaoh, see as example at Khufu. There was a clear agreement within the Egypt´s project to use the new boxes. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 13:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok... it looks like you're still discussing this with him, so I don't know if any other intervention is needed just now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I fear it does, since I already told him about the project´s agreement, but he won´t stop reverting.--Nephiliskos (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I would concur with the comment Guerillero left on his talk page - template talk pages often aren't commonly seen, and so aren't the best place for garnering consensus. Please open a new discussion about this in a more public place, and in future, please also be aware of forum-shopping; it's not necessary to leave the same message for multiple administrators. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

One more task

Hello. I operate AvocatoBot (previously named "GedawyBot") which already has bot flag here, the main task of my bot is interwiki (see my request). I want to add one more task: Fixing double redirects. What should I do to request making this task in addition to interwiki?--Avocato (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to file another BRFA as you did the first time; if you go to WP:BRFA, you'll note that step two of the instructions say to use a different template to populate the page; in your case, this could be {{BRFA|AvocatoBot|2|Open}} . Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I did. Thanks for replying.--Avocato (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Toolserver account registration failure

Hi. I have tried several times to request an administrator account for the UTRS tool at http://toolserver.org/~unblock/p/register.php but the registration form keeps refusing to accept the diff it requires, saying "You must provide a valid confirmation diff to your user talk page." I'm writing to you because your name is shown in the link to create the diff on my talk page. Any suggestions how to proceed? Any special way I need to format the diff link? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have an IRC account? Can you catch me in the admin channel?--v/r - TP 01:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
It's defintely the format (there are different kinds of diffs, and it requires your username in it IIRC), I think I have a fix waiting to be pushed in beta, but I could be wrong. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
IIRC, is the problem with the capital "U"?--v/r - TP 01:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The diff does include my username, since it's a diff of my own talk page. The URL I'm submitting is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amatulic&diff=510995253&oldid=510908587
I tried with a lowercase 'U' (User_talk -> user_talk) but it didn't make a difference.
I don't have an IRC account. Until now, never saw a need. I guess I'll have to create one. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Does the "Wikipedia username:" field match "Amatulic" exactly with capital letters?--v/r - TP 03:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I believe I tried it both ways, but the error message concerned the diff only, nothing else.
I just tried it again and it worked! Whatever you did, thanks! ~Amatulić (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Glad you all fixed it. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I've activated it.--v/r - TP 12:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

disputes status of gibraltar

Mr. Hersfold.

I apologize, I did not see your post before submitting my application for dispute resolution, what do we do now? Is it possible to cancel the request?

Thanks --Juanmatorres75 23:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, I've just removed it for you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

CU Request

Hey Hersfold, could you see what IP User:Radiodj63 is operating under and where it tracks back to? I ask because that account is vandalizing WLNG and I am trying to give them benefit of the doubt since they are new, but if the account tracks back to a part of the country not near Long Island (WLNG is located on Long Island) or NYC, I know I am dealing with a vandal and can just go for the block. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If there's a specific vandal you'd like me to compare to, I could (although I'd prefer a WP:SPI case), but I can't reveal what IP he's using, and even saying what area they're from is a bit iffy. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

Please hide IP address logged out edit

Would you please hide my IP address on this edit on 15:10, 16 September 2012‎ in Help:IPA for Navajo: Revision history?

I got logged out of my account for no reason while I was editing that article. Do you know of any program that will keep me logged in or prevent me from editing while logged out? That would be very helpful for me. --Ephert (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, you'll usually get a much faster response (and avoid publicizing your IP further) by emailing oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org . Fortunately I happened to be online just now.
As to your question, one possible solution would be to go to your user CSS page (Special:Mypage/common.css for all skins, Special:Mypage/vector.css if you use Vector, Special:Mypage/monobook.css if you use Monobook, etc.), and add these lines to that page:
body{
    background-color: #AACCFF !important;
    background-image: none !important;
}
 
div#mw-head{
    background-color: #AACCFF !important;
    background-image: none !important;
}
You can change the colors to whatever you want, but what this will do is change the background color of the page from that white-gray to a light blue. If you're ever editing and you notice that the background is NOT that color, it means you've been logged out. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1017 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk.

Do you have what it takes?
  1. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
  2. Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
  3. Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
  4. Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.

PS: we have a great AFC helper script at WP:AFCH!

News

Good article nominee AFCH script improvements
  • 1.16 to 1.17
    • Batman still works!

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.
Happy reviewing! TheSpecialUser TSU

Thanks!

For your quick action on my unblock request. It's nice to be able to edit again. Cheers! Ilva (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Zarbonholio

Should the alternative account be blocked, too? I've not come across someone getting blocked and having a seemingly legit alternative before. Peridon (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably should be blocked, yeah. It's not common, but it wouldn't be the first time I've come across a bad-hand-good-hand thing. I might take a look with checkuser, actually, I saw some edits that implied there may be other accounts as well. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I did find a few accounts, and it turns out the IP range they're using has been subject to a fair bit of abuse lately. I've blocked it for a month. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I think I've found a Duck in User:Reverend Bosco and have blocked it. Peridon (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes indeed. I'll see about expanding the rangeblock when I get home from work. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 20:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

Point of clarification

Hi Hersfold. I wanted to ask a quick concerning on the scope of my current topic ban imposed under ARBFLG2. I'm working on taking an article through a GA review after its lead author went MIA. The reviewer proposed a bit of a structural reorganization to some sections, one of which has a couple sentences that could very broadly be construed as related to Falun Gong. I intend to just move it around a bit, and not make any changes to the content. Would this be alright? There are no other editors involved in the page who could do this. Any guidance would be appreciated. Homunculus (duihua) 18:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Any request for clarification really ought to be put forth to the whole committee at WP:RFAR, and particularly with context, but my personal view would be:
  • An edit re-ordering text without removing or deleting anything would probably fall under "uncontroversial corrections to [...] style" and thus acceptable unless:
    • An editor has previously expressed opposition to the change or a similar one, or
    • The re-ordering may impact how the presented information is perceived by the reader (for example, mentioning a negative review before a positive one when it was previously the other way around)
  • Whenever any editor subject to restrictions is unsure if an edit falls within said restrictions, the editor should err on the side of caution and assume it does unless explicitly told otherwise by community consensus or the restricting authority (being the admin who levied the sanction or, as in your case, the Committee)
That said, I would still strongly recommend that you file a clarification request. Without some more context into the matter that's all I can really say, and keep in mind as well that I'm not the one enforcing this. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 19:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. It would be nice to know exactly where the line is, and I had a couple other questions as well, so I think I will file a request for clarification. Cheers. Homunculus (duihua) 19:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I saw this discussion and removed the thing [1] to save everyone's time. If there is anything else about FG in this article, I can remove that too because FG is not really related to the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Ha, well, that's one solution! Of course, it's possible that other editors (like the original author) might disagree with your choice, but I doubt it. I'll stay out of it either way. Homunculus (duihua) 07:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
You can not revert my edit because of your topic ban, but you are very welcome to edit whole article (and you did very good work there) because it is now not related to FG whatsoever. That was easy for me to do because the subject is indeed unrelated to FG. In other cases (e.g. Confucius Institute), I would not do that because the subject is in fact related, although marginally to FG, and I certainly do not recommend you edit any articles that are actually related to FG. My very best wishes (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks. I don't anticipate situations like this arising very often. And incidentally, the factual error I referred to in one article at ArbCom was resolved on its own yesterday when another editor reworked the sentence in question. So all is well now.Homunculus (duihua) 17:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, after thinking more about this, I do not see any good solution (see my edit summary here. Just do not edit anything related to FG. There is nothing else you can do. My very best wishes (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

I added a concern regarding the gaming of the restrictions to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Though I noted that you stated AE was an appropriate venue for this, I assumed that this was referring to instances that occurred after my Arbcom request had been dealt with. Ankh.Morpork 22:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hersfold/Archive_69_(September_2012)&oldid=1200464289"