Jump to content

User talk:Hersfold/Archive 31 (July 2009)

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


← Previous archive - Archive 31 (July 2009) - Next archive →

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

July 1 - 15

User Adoption

Hello Hersfold, I noticed that you have a section on your userpage for people you have adopted and am wondering if you would consider adopting me? I have only recentley joined Wikipedia and really want to be a useful contributer to it but I am always lost and dont know what to fix/edit. I often look in WP:BL for things to do but I often find them difficault tasks and am not very bold when it comes to editing huge chunks of an Article! I'm hoping that adoption by an experianced user such as yourself will give me a lot more experiance and boldness so that when I log into Wikipedia I can engage in a lot more tasks and get more done rather than just fixing two red links or something! Harlem675 07:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've started an internship this week and the commute is two hours - both directions. As a result, I'm not able to edit too frequently, and probably wouldn't be the best choice for you. My talk page is always open for any questions you may have (keeping in mind it may be a little while before I can respond), and you're more than welcome to use the lessons you noticed while you're looking for someone. If you need help finding an adopter, let me know as well - I know some other users who would be more than happy to take you on. It sounds like you're off to a good start, though - the backlog tasks may seem small and insignificant, but they are nevertheless very important to keep things running smoothly, and they're an excellent way to get you started while you learn the ropes. Let me know how things turn out - if you aren't able to find anyone else to adopt you, I might be able to, but as I said I'm not terribly active during the week thanks to my internship. Welcome to Wikipedia! Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Note to self

Finish CU/OS application and submit to ArbCom. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 01:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Filter exemption request

Can you exempt my IP from these filters[1][2] while I clean up the mess created by anybot? The bot's articles have mostly been deleted, and the bot has has its authorization revoked,[3] and I'm tired of being told my edits to clean up this mess are unconstructive.[4][5][6]

There's no short way to describe the mess, but these filters require me to make every edit twice, and have created a huge and insulting log of my "potentially unconstructive contributions" when I've made none. I'd appreciate the help. Thanks. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hersfold, I'd like to certify the above request. If I knew how to write the exemption in, I would do it myself. –xenotalk 02:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, the easiest thing to do would simply be to get an account; most of these filters, and the two you're hitting in particular, are set to trip only for new or unregistered users. Once your account becomes autoconfirmed, you won't have to worry about these filters any more. While I can install such an exception into the filters, I am somewhat reluctant to do so due to the tendency of IP addresses to change without warning. It looks as though you've been using this one for some time (since the end of May), but you're obviously not the only one to have used it. Once the IP address does change hands, you'll get hit by the filters again and it's possible a vandal could find themselves exempt from them.
I'll go ahead an put in the exemption for now, but please let me know when you feel they're no longer necessary so they can be taken out again. Best of luck in your work. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, having looked at the notes for filter 30, it seems as though another admin started to add these exceptions, but a third administrator removed them shortly after. The reason for doing so was that each check the filters have to run but an additional strain on the servers - checking each edit to see if it matches a particular username (or IP address) puts an unnecessarily high load onto the software. If you are still encountering problems, I'd recommend getting an account. It looks like you edit around here enough for it to be worth the effort anyway. ;-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

How about making an exception for anybot created content as User:Ruslik0 did.

I've already discussed getting an account with a dozen other folks, and made my decision a few years ago. It's not the solution, as "anybody can edit" is still the community consensus on wikipedia, and I prefer to edit as an IP. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

He's already taken care of all the filters that were affecting you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hersfoldbot - transwiki "process"

Not a complaint:) just trying to understand, e.g., [7] ... Question: Are there actually people reviewing these ... and if so, where are they? :) I.E., Where is this stuff discussed? Thanks. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The {{ManualTranswiki}} template is used by my bot to flag articles that are very long - I can't recall the exact size limit off the top of my head just now, but the intention of this is so that Wiktionary isn't getting articles that don't fall within their scope. The users who asked me to write this bot wanted some sort of check on the massive articles that required a substantial amount of work to convert from encyclopedia articles into dictionary entries. Sometimes I'll review these myself, although usually someone from Wiktionary will take care of it. There are a few users, most prominent among them User:Goldenrowley, who handle the articles my bot tags like that. Aside from this, there isn't any manual review between the articles being tagged for transwiki and my bot importing them (unless I take a look before running it, which again, I do on occasion). Once on Wiktionary, users there assess the worth of the imported article. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks, and Happy 4th! :) --Proofreader77 (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm bored...

{{helpme}}

...so this is a test of the helper response system. This is a drill. Were this an actual request for help, there would probably be a question here. Although not always, since some people asking for help seem to expect us to be either telepathic or clairvoyant. Anyway, that is all. Thank you for participating in this test of the helper response system. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.
Not responding to the helpme... =) –xenotalk 01:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
This was such a waste of time, I'll allow someone else to fall for it. ;) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 02:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Darn you, Hersfold!  ;-] Fleetflame 02:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You're on the spot now, Hersfold: What's your question, hmmm? — Deon555talkI'm BACK! 03:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[8].--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

:-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of "disputed_territories", etc., etc.

Hi, Unfortunately I've been away from home for a couple of days and couldn't start processing your request about adding parties until this evening. I was also awaiting reply to my post on the requests talk page on who to add. I have now added two people. And will decide on others tomorrow but for now am mentioning the case on relevant project talk pages.

One of those I have added User:Supreme Deliciousness is still a new user and rather unsure what to do and is asking me lots of quesitons. As this is the first case for which I have been a party, I don't think I'm the best to advice. Can you help?--Peter cohen (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The people you should be adding to the case request should be those directly involved in the dispute; beyond that, all we really ask of you is that you let them know they've been added to the case so they can post statements. If anyone is asking you questions about Arbitration procedures that you do not feel equipped to answer, please feel free to direct them to me or another Clerk. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. As this is roving dispute wiht my identifying 19 threads as having happened this year that's rather a lot of people potentially. (And I know of two more recent threads since I started the case.) Some of the threads from, say, three months ago involve people who have sicne been topic-banned. So I'm not sure whether I should avoid naming them even when I might want to name others who have been active in the same threads.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's limit it just to the people who you feel have most contributed to the dispute for now; either those who have been most vocal, or those whose conduct you feel has been the most problematic (and try to see it from all sides in that regard, not just yours). Include topic-banned people if need be. If we need to add more people later, we can do so. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll see how many people are covered by the criteria of having contributed to three article talk pages or made six posts on this issue this year. But that won't be until tomorrow. I've got one more post to make today and then planning to log off.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

hello

What is this arbitration procedure? What am I supposed to do there? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

PeterCohen has put in a "request for arbitration", which means he's asked the Arbitration Committee (roughly the equivalent of Wikipedia's Supreme Court, if you will) to take a look at the situation he's describing and see if there is any need for sanctions to be placed against users involved in the article. The ArbCom is the last step in dispute resolution, and reviews very problematic disputes to handle severe issues relating to user conduct; they do not rule on content decisions (that is, an arbitration remedy might say "User X is banned" or "User Y is no longer an administrator", but they won't say "Article Z will say 'this that and other' and not 'other this and that'".). At this point, the ArbCom is getting preliminary information to see if they need to accept the case, so what they're looking for are statements from users, both involved and uninvolved, to explain what they believe the dispute is about, how it got to that point, and what the main problem is. They are also interested in hearing about what other steps have been taken to try and resolve the issue, and what users expect to get out of an arbitration case. Since you've been named as a party to the case (someone thinks you're involved), you should make a statement to this affect to the request page here as PeterCohen has. Try to keep your statement to less than 1000 words so that the Arbitrators can easily figure out what you're saying.
If you need further explanations, the Guide to arbitration may be of some help, and you're welcome to ask me questions as well. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Anon block

Wow, thanks for the block on that anon. I haven't even done or said anything to him in a while, so wonder what got him worked up enough to hit my user page. :) Notice that block log... only user I've blocked, so far. Gets blocked for a progressively longer stint each time, and resorts to the same crap each time. If I weren't supposed to AGF, I'd say I guess we'll be dealing with this one again in October! :) BOZ (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In some form or another, probably. It happens, though - hence the vandalism counter on my userpage. ;-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Blair Brown Quango.

I am also working on the Blair article. I have been discussing a section that I feel is worthless and over weighted to Blairs Biography. I would welcome your input to my comments of the talkpage here which are going unreplied. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC))

My only interest in the article is stopping the disruption being caused by the edit warring, which you seemed to be contributing to heavily. If things are getting out of control, I'll intervene, but otherwise I'd prefer to remain involved only in an administrative standpoint. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I was actually asking you in your admin hat, did you have a look at the link I gave? Please have a look as you are the Admin involved. here I am looking to remove that whole section. You have locked two pages and I am close to being bold and removing material from a related article. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC))
No, I haven't really looked, as I'm really rather busy at the moment. If you are proposing the removal of an entire section (again), I would wait for others to weigh in before you do so. Removing entire sections is going a little further than I believe "be bold" was intended to cover; a better option might be to simply rewrite it so it's less "coatracky". Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I fully appreciate you are busy. I started discussion five days ago and there is no input from anyone, I did at first consider rewriting it but the more I looked at it the less it seemed worth anything at all. I will leave my comments on the talk for some more time, but if there is no input in dispute of my change I intend to delete the whole section with the edit summary of... Wikipedia coatrack, undue weight to a minor topic, adds nothing of value to the Biography of Tony Blair. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

Muscle

Thank you. I hope my new login is ok now. Do I need to tie the 2 accounts together or is that understood? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Just muscle (talk • contribs)

Normally you would, but I would recommend against it in this case. Welcome to Wikipedia. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Status Template

Hi, Hersfold! I added your status template a few days ago. The automatic updating didn't work, so I thought it was the same problem as this. But it's still not working. Do you think it would take longer or is something broken? I noticed you are not using yours anymore. Chamal talk 01:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it takes a while to kick in, from what I've been able to tell; I don't have a clue why, unfortunately. I've stopped using mine not because it doesn't work (it does for me), but simply because I keep forgetting to click the links until I go to log off, which somewhat defeats the purpose. Marking myself as "offline" all the time also reduces the frequency of the Orange Bar of Doom somewhat. ;-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. BTW, aren't you active at WP:MOTD anymore? It's kind of stalling now :) Chamal talk 04:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I pop in every now and then - the project usually stalls around this time of the year, so I wouldn't be too concerned. It'll pick back up again come fall. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Volunteer opportunity in Bethesda, Thursday, July 16

The Wikimedia Foundation will be conducting an all-day Academy at the National Institutes of Health, in Bethesda, Maryland, on Thursday, July 16. The team that will be teaching at the Academy, a mix of paid staff and volunteers, is looking for four more volunteers to be teaching assistants, providing one-to-one assistance in workshops whenever a workshop participant has a problem following the instructional directions. (We currently have two editors signed up as teaching assistants, and are looking for a total of six.)

The NIH editing workshops are only for two hours, but volunteers are asked to meet the Wikimedia Foundation team at the hotel in Bethesda at about 7:15 a.m. (time to be finalized shortly) and to stay for the entire day, which ends at 4:30 p.m. Lunch will be provided. (The full schedule can be found here.)

The team is not necessarily looking for expert editors (though they are welcome), just people who can help novices who might get stuck when trying to do some basic things. If you've been an editor for at least 3 months, and have done at least 500 edits, you probably qualify.

If you're interested, please send John Broughton an email. If you might be interested, but would like further information, please post a note on his user talk page, so that he can respond there, and others can see what was asked.

(You have received this posting because your user page indicates that you live in Maryland or DC. --EdwardsBot (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Unfortunately I'll be at work then, and can't afford to take the time off - otherwise I'd be more than happy to sign up. Sorry! Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

References moved (maybe others) Tag filter broken.

Look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alcohol_rub&diff=301597474&oldid=301597414

It says I removed references in the later edit but I did not, I did remove references both before and after this edit but not on this edit, it's tagged the wrong revision.

82.132.139.162 (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

False positive reports should be made at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives - I'll take a look, but so that it can be seen by everyone and not just me, I'd prefer you'd make an entry there. Thanks! Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Done. 82.132.139.33 (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing Stub markers

Hola, I'd like to request some help... I've recently expanded a page that had a stub notice on it by WikiProject Biography. After the expansion, this notice is propably not necessary... but can I remove it just like that? If not, on what talk page should I propose this? Thanks Poisonborz (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, if it looks like an article covers more than the most basic information (see WP:STUB for the exact guidelines), you can take the stub template off. Good work! Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Your decline of unblock for Willy & the Poor Boys.

[9]

Can you point me to the checkuser case and results? I wasn't able to find it. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if there was an actual case, but the block message made a reference to checkuser, and since Raul is one, I assumed he'd used it. Making disingenuous unblock requests like that one is a trademark of Scibaby's, so I've no reason to doubt the block was accurate here. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Active arbcomm?

Hi. Since you're a clerk, I'll ask you here and try to avoid dramah off in more public areas... since KL is off, do his votes to open cases that are in the middle of consideration still count? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

We haven't been given any instruction on that yet - I would assume they would be stricken by a clerk sometime soon, but I'll need to double check. I'll get back to you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Which cases in particular are you concerned about? Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblock requests

Hi there; you know, I really wish that the software allowed us to indicate when we were answering an unblock request. I just spent about ten minutes answering Appleton1243 to drop into an edit conflict which you won. O)bviously i agree with what you said; but I wish that wer had not both taken the time to say it!--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. Unfortunately, the requests don't take long enough for {{inuse}} to be of much value. :-( Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Pleaase do not misunderstand me; I was criticising the software, not your good self! --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I know! I've been a victim of the same problem myself many times. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Tell me about it!! And I have been here eight months longer than you!!!--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

Thanks for the advice on where to post. Was difficult to find.

Regards,

ToonIsALoon (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite welcome. If you need any help, feel free to ask. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

July 16 - 31

Do you know what's wrong with the image storage?

Is it something to do with the server or the upload file thing? 69.48.19.165 (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

All I know is that it's down for the moment while they fix it. Sorry, although there's probably something about it at the Tech Village Pump. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Active

Pls make me active on the Abd-Wmc case. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Welcome back. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

MauryKaye.jpg

I have re-sent the permission email for MAURYKAYE.JPG to permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org. Let me know if there are any further problems or issues with this item. Thanks.--LD (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the best to ask, as I'm not an OTRS volunteer. You'd be better off asking at the Commons OTRS Noticeboard. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/63

I would like you to participate in Wikipedia talk:Edit filter#Special:AbuseFilter/63, since you are the one who disabled this filter. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you but ...

... as you predicted at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop, this case is heating up rapidly. Would you please review the comments made by Spartaz, Mathsci and myself on that talk page and on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop and say whether they are appropriate for those engaged in the case? I personally see them as a clear attempt to intimidate me and by extension to discourage others who are not already involved. As to the allegations made against me personally, I stand ready to rebut them in the appropriate forum if and when it becomes necessary. Arkady Renkov (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

See also User:Spartaz#Your_comment_on_my_proposals (comment by Spartaz) and User_talk:Mathsci#Arkady_Renkov (comment by Bilby). Arkady Renkov has already admitted to having another main account. Mathsci (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
AR's edits, and indeed his admission, makes it clear that he is an experienced editor by another name. Possibly he has good reason for this; in which case the correct procedure is for him to disclose his former (and continuing?) identity to the clerk, Hersfold, and for that to be verified by CU. If that is done and Hersfold then states that there is a good reason for all this, then I will have no objection. However, a very swift review of AR's edits appears to show a pattern of minor edits apparently designed to bump up his edit cound and make him look like not-a-sock, so at the moment I'm not happy, and would like to see a CU run. I presume that arbcomm/clerk will arrange this; it it won't happen magically please say so here and I'll work out how to put in a request William M. Connolley (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
In such a serious matter, Mathsci absolutely must get his facts straight. I did not "admit to having another main account", I said that I had previously edited under another name. These are not the same thing, and he should have been more careful. I had a previous username as my main account which I have not used since last year, well before I started using this one.
I really have better things to do, on- and off-wiki, than to chase this tag team around rebutting their insinuations and correcting their misquotations. I suggest that this has the effect of diverting my energy from the case, and hence further compounding their disruption of the arbitration. Arkady Renkov (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Tag team, there's a phrase, I've heard it before. Meanwhile: you have skipped lightly over my suggestion so let me make it an explicit question: will you email Hersfold with your former account name? Follow up: do you say that you have not recently edited wiki under any other account? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I have received an email, and will be looking into things. I'll post here or on a relevant page once I know what I'm doing. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. A couple of things:

  • Looked into it, waiting on a response from ArbCom.
  • What exactly is it about Abd's post that you feel is attacking? I think he's talking about admins in general for the most part, not you specifically. If I'm missing something, please let me know; it's been a long day at work. :-/ Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I imagine that you, like everyone else, never reads to the end of Abd's rambling stuff. I meant, amongst other stuff: We've lost a lot of admins and editors who retired because of some problematic IAR decision by another admin that wasn't promptly corrected. Rootology may have just retired, partially over WMC's revert warring with him at User talk:Hipocrite over notice of this very RfAr. WMC was ignoring rules, Rootology was trying to follow them. How did the community respond? Were WMC's blatant violations noticed? Where an admin's actions consistently Ignore Rules, they should probably be reviewed for possible bias or incompetence. William M. Connolley (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I object to Abd writing rambling rubbish in my section, so I've removed it. This has caused some controversy [11] William M. Connolley (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

WMC, I've noticed that occasionally you become completely confused. If possible you should try to notice the feelings associated with that, you could prevent yourself from accidentally mooning the jury if you learn to sit on your hands when you feel that way. That was my section, so to speak, not yours. You were responding to my proposed principle, and I do believe that it's appropriate for me to be able to explain it with whatever detail is necessary. I've replaced it in collapse, in deference to your feelings. --Abd (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep, explain at vast rambling tedious unreadable length, but do it off in your bit rather than polluting my bit William M. Connolley (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Sheesh! WMC has again edited my comment. Relatively harmless, but he doesn't seem to get it that he is not to edit the comments of other editors. He could have requested you change that, and, in fact, he could have requested that I change it. He edit warred with others while I slept, and he keeps on. He's been warned. How much is enough? --Abd (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
@H: As far as I'm concenred, Abd doesn't get to set up up grossly POV headers. I can't stop him writing twaddle in his comments, of course William M. Connolley (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
You can't? Does this mean you've resigned your admin bit? No, you've been trying to stop the "twaddle" by banning me from Cold fusion and at RfAr by repeated removal of the content, three times, before I saw what was happening and restored it with collapse. WMC, you are, and have been for a long time, manufacturing disruption. The only difference now is that it's before ArbComm, where something might actually be done about it. Back to the section, seeking consensus on all aspects of Wikipedia is fundamental, and that's one reason why we don't edit war. Repeated assertions of a position do not promote consensus, it's just bullying. Yes, I get to set up POV text there, though a note that you were edit warring was hardly a POV, it was a blatant fact, and only if they are uncivil or irrelevant would a clerk revise or remove them. That wasn't a "header," it was the title of a collapse box, part of my text, which is why I do consider that you hit 4RR with that edit,it was a partial revert. We get to express our relevant POVs there. Do you think you haven't done that? --Abd (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I remind you that you have made no reply to my question of 10:38, 21 July 2009? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And while I'm here: note that Boris's question of 18:26, 20 July 2009 at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Evidence is also unanswered William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I hadn't noticed the posts up here due to the flood of mail further down. I'm also unavailable during the daytime due to work, so any questions left here from around 03:00 UTC onward will probably not receive a response until 23:00 UTC, 21:00 at the earliest (depends on which office I'm working at).
I've replied to Boris's question from 18:26 there, thanks for the note.
I've asked Abd to retract the accusations; while they do seem to tangentially support his point, he doesn't have much supporting it and it is veering off the topic of the proposed principle. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page, and everything else you do to help out Wikipedia. Keep it up, SuperHamster (Talk) (Contributions) 22:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Another outing attempt

Hi Hersfold. Unfortunately, I have another outing attempt to report. His assumption may very well be correct, which brings up problems of COI/Vanity, but those are already being addressed by an AfD (sponsored by the same editor). I believe the conflicts which these editors have should be addressed without resorting to outing someone. Please check it out and see if you agree.

Thanks, GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I spoke too soon. The other editor appears to have identified himself [12], as confirmed by OTRS. Still, I am uncomfortable with the direction of the conflict, which seems to be moving towards personal attacks, rather than being based on Wikipedia policy. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks as though some blocks have been placed already for the edit warring; if this still needs looking into, let me know, but keep in mind I'm not active during the day due to work. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I think it's under control for now. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment

Hi Hersfold,

I am just starting to pay attention to what goes on at Wikipedia:Arbitration. You seem to be clerking[13]? Was closing that request your decision, or a default action to be done one month after the initial request? Following this case specifically was difficult due to inactivity and it being on the same page as all other current requests. Why aren't such requests made on their own subpages? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Requests like that are actually usually archived after they've gone stale, usually somewhere between a week and ten days, although at times they go on for longer as here. Generally the ArbCom will let the clerks know when they think a request can be archived. As for the accessibility, I know it does get difficult to keep track of things at times, but the ArbCom has a very large number of pages under its control (see Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Arbitration and Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration), and with as many of these requests as we get, it's easier to just lump them together. One thing I've found useful is to leave a "note to self" on my talk page with a link directly to the relevant section. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

[14] puzzles me. I'm sure the discussion had not been closed when I started to edit it, and I should have seen an edit conflict warning on that section, I'd have thought, because of the close. But there wasn't any, my edit was accepted. I would not have deliberately posted there after a closure. I see that there have been two other post-closure edits. They are probably harmless, though. I haven't reverted myself, but if you think my comment inappropriate, certainly you have the authority to remove it. I did ask a serious question though, to which Bilby replied. May I assume that the notification I mentioned is allowed? Thanks. --Abd (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Abd, first off, I do not appreciate your insinuations that I am not acting neutrally in my role as a clerk in this case in such a public manner. If you have an issue with how I am performing my duties, it would be far more appropriate for you to approach me directly rather than openly state that you "hope I will grow into the role". I do find this highly insulting and ask that you at the very least remove that portion of your comment. There were details surrounding the Arkady situation that you were not made privy to due to the privacy policy; I was only told very little myself, but enough to realize that the actions Raul took were appropriate, albeit a bit hastily done and/or best left to someone less involved in the case. I was not "begging" anyone to behave; it was a friendly notice thanking him for his efforts whilst asking him to take a step back should it happen again. If you are wondering why my comment to Raul was made in such a different tone to, say, this one, it's because you have been asked multiple times to be more careful about how you word your statements so as to not offend others, whereas that's the first time to my knowledge Raul has taken such an active role in case management.
The "statements" I was referring to, requesting you reconsider their wording, do include your evidence where you mention a cabal. If you have already reworded it to attempt to avoid making unfounded accusations, or have provided additional evidence to back it up, then that is fine; that was the main concern in that discussion. To be honest, with all the incidents springing up all over the case, I haven't had much time to read much of the evidence properly myself.
As for your question about notifications, I'm not entirely clear on what you are asking, but if you mention a user in your evidence, and you feel that they play a major enough part in said evidence to merit notification, you are welcome to post a notice to their talk page letting them know that they have been mentioned and they may wish to comment as well. Notices posted to non-user talk pages are probably inappropriate as being too general. Any notices given out should more or less stick to the points I mentioned so as to avoid being biased in any way (basically, "I mentioned you in my evidence here (link), you may want to comment, kthxai", with more diplomacy and less lolspeak).
I hope this answers your questions and addresses (at least somewhat) your concerns about my conduct in this case. Should it not to either, please feel free to contact me, particularly if you have an issue with my actions. Again, I would ask that you remove the section of your statement where you call my actions into question; the rest of it I don't particularly care about whether it stays or not, since it sounds as thought it was largely accidental, and (aside from the one section) your comment was mostly constructive. See you around the case. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

"If it was not your intention to offend, I do apologize; it's clear SBHB didn't take it that way, anyway." -- I didn't say that, and my interpretation was that his comment was indeed meant to offend (as was his followup comment). Rather, I find the best response to such things is to not make a fuss. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, then I thank you for being so diplomatic about it. At least one person here can keep their temper. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

RTV deletion

Note: original header redacted due to RTV

Please note that the actual page is at User talk:0kmck4gmja, where 678(!) edits have just been deleted by Rjd0060 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I object to this. The talkpage history is indeed relevant to reconstruct article histories, and the talkpage contributions are not owned by the user in question but by whoever made them. I also object to the obscurantist practice of hiding pages under titles like "0kmck4gmja", this isn't above-the-board. I realize this isn't your problem since you only deleted the redirect left behind by Rjd0060's move, and I'm going to drop him the same note. --dab (𒁳) 14:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I objected quite firmly to the deletion of the 0kmck(etc...) page for precisely those reasons, as the deleted revisions should show; the discussion got dragged onto the help channel on IRC as well, where I very nearly kickbanned the user in question. I didn't see any reason to keep the redirect though, since that account no longer exists, and it was the presence of the old username which seemed to be causing him the most concern. As for the renaming, not being a crat, that's not my line of work. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Abusive edit summaries

Because the idiot had vandalised the page (so sneaky other people didn't see it). If you can think of a better word for such moronic behavior i'd like to hear it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick19thind (talk • contribs)

I can. Vandalism. You revert it, report if necessary, and move on. You don't insult them, since that can also be seen as disruptive. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it was Christopher Sholes. –xenotalk 17:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hope he's happy. lol. :-) Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 17:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to be noticed

Could you give me one of those "Notice to all users involved in Abd/WMC" messages? Not that I'm feeling especially neglected or unappreciated, but in this particular case I think it important to avoid even the most trivial appearance of favoritism. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thought that I had, sorry. Normally I wouldn't bother since you've obviously noticed it anyway, but you do have a good point. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 13:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Note to self

Remember to check in at User talk:Cognition. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 14:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Reviewed edits up to 17:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Help recreating some content

Hi Brett,

Couple of years ago I was in a process of setting up several articles. It was a Musician / Record Producer entry with links to a Record Company and cross links to several other Bands. In the middle of it I was set for speedy deletion. The administrator back then claimed "self promoting a product" and all the work I did got deleted. Today I read that I should get some help from other writers in order to have things verified and cross checked. I was wondering if you could help me overlook my contens so this is not happening for a second time ? I would greatly appreciate it .

With kind Regards

Csaba

Csabi911 (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I can take a look later on, although it probably won't be until this evening due to work. In the meantime, try taking a look at WP:NPOV and see if that will be of some help; also make sure that you have several reliable sources that are not published by the subject and cover the subject in significant detail.
On a side note, could I ask why you have a bot template on your userpage? That template is reserved for approved bot accounts only, and if you're not running one, it really doesn't belong there. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 15:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brett,

First of all thank you for your super fast reply and willingness to help me. Regarding the bot template : I must have copied too much from somebody elses profile. I will remove it. This information has no urgency so you may look at it when you find the time. I really appreciate your help. If you have a way to dig things out from the archives then that's even better.Because I have spent a quiet amount of time setting several contents up and cross linking them with each other. But in the speedy deletion process everything got lost. So I gave up back then. Maybe you can recover it.If not I 'll start again. By the way : side note ... sounds good. How do I do that ?

With kind Regards

Csaba

Csabi911 (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brett,

Just wanted to update that I have done some work over on my user page

here . Please check it out only maybe one section is missing. But I was tied up all day with some other work here . Let me know what you think ?

Also this picture here still seems to have some copyright issues. All though I have changed the copyright text. I don't know what I should do with the upper part. Can you please have a look at it since it will be deleted on the 25th July .

with kind Regards

Csaba

Csabi911 (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll cover the picture first - it looks like OTRS needs some sort of confirmation about who took the picture and what licenses it was released under. You'll need to email them again with this information; they should have sent a response to you, which probably outlines the problems more clearly. If not, you may want to ask an OTRS volunteer directly about what the issue was.
As for the article, the big thing you need right now is sources. You don't have any throughout the article, and these are required, not only to verify what you've added in but also to demonstrate notability. Reading through the article, I don't immediately see that he meets any of the criteria listed for musicians listed at WP:MUSIC.
Take some time to read through those pages and see if you can fix those issues; once you've done so, let me know. If you need any help, feel free to ask. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That tedious arbcomm case again

Abd appears to have ignored your instruction [15] and as far as I can tell you haven't followed it up. I've left him a reminder William M. Connolley (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's see if he responds to that, then. I'll give him a bit longer, then if necessary I'll start hacking parts out. Little point in blocking him over a comment he made some days ago at this point. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
He removed my message as "trolling" [16]. So now I request that you enforce your instruction to Abd to remove the offending sections William M. Connolley (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hersfold, I didn't follow your "instructions" because, frankly, I didn't understand them. If there was something improper there, you're the clerk, you have full authority to delete it or strike it (probably better), and that's a lot more efficient than telling me to do it! If I want to insist, I'd complain. I didn't consider WMC authorized to represent you, and I was unaware of the conversation here. I do not consider you to be in an easy position, so please understand my request that you recuse in that light. --Abd (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see what is difficult to understand about "Please remove X". I prefer to have users remove or reword their own problematic comments, so that if there is something they wished to say, they have the opportunity to reword it so their point gets across without causing problems. WMC is not in general authorized to represent me, but a quick check here would have shown that I was fine with him leaving you a note (although I will grant a more politely worded note would have been better). I do not understand your request for me to recuse; what from, and why?
I have removed the comments in question from your statement. If you are able to back them up with evidence or reword them in such a way that they do not risk offense, please do so. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 19:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Why the "nerf wars" edit was good.

Everything that was removed sounded like a 12 year old who played to much Cod4. It even mentions a "Video game nerf" Also, everyone on nerfhaven, which is THE PLACE where official big nerf wars go, are "Laughing their dicks off" at the article. Their are not "Bases" or "Ammo caches" in real nerf. Basically, everything is exclaimed here: http://nerfhaven.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=17298

I wasn't saying your edit was bad; I left a note on your talk page apologizing for undoing it. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 19:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

my status?

Hey Hersfold, do you have any estimated time frame for when I might hear back from the arbitrators about my abandoned account and associated allegations of sockpuppetry? I don't mean to sound impatient, and if the arbs have been busy recently that's perfectly understandable. On the other hand, if I am the subject of a prolonged investigation I humbly ask to be allowed some input into the process, such as access to the evidence that has been presented against me and the opportunity to respond with a statement. Thanks TotientDragooned (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll need to email ArbCom at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. This is out of my hands now, and I don't have access to their mailing list. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 19:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do that. Thanks Hersfold. TotientDragooned (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey Hersfold, I haven't heard anything back from Arbcom, not even an acknowledgment that they received my email. I don't particularly mind (no news is good news) but I was wondering if, absent contrary instructions from the committee themselves, you could lift my half of this restriction, as it has been over a week and Arbcom shows no signs of sanctioning me. Thanks TotientDragooned (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather hear from ArbCom first, as the socking policy is very strict about using alternate accounts on policy and ArbCom pages according to a previous ArbCom ruling. I'll send them a note to see what's up, although I would point out that the case is starting to wrap up now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Help!

Hi. I am a new user who was looking for any admin to help me. I've heard something about "adoption" (see my page for explanation). I understand what it means in terms of Wikipedia but I want someone to help me get started by adopting me and helping me whenever I need it. Is that possible? Rascal the Peaceful (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not open to taking adoptees just now, due to my already having a mentee and time limitations due to work. Sorry. While you're looking for someone, though, you're welcome to help yourself to my lessons; they're being used by several different adopters and should help you get started here. Happy editing, and welcome to Wikipedia! Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 19:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh and one more thing. I just downloaded Opera and I have activated Twinkle. How do I use this tool? I saw that you use it in a userbox so I consulted you. Rascal the Peaceful (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't use it as much any more - but once you're "autoconfirmed" (which will happen once you've made ten edits total), you'll see a series of new tabs at the top of every page. This page explains what each tab does. You'll also see some added "rollback" links when you look at a diff of an edit, which is useful for reverting vandalism. The page I linked should explain the use of that as well. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Television episode

Hello user JPG-GR said i should talk to you if i wanted to make any changes to the infobox template: Television episode. I want to you or someone else to make the guest section in the infobox clearer (as seen in the second infobox, below!). My point is that the main infobox is fine, but the guest section becomes such a mess, so i want to change it to the one below which is much tidier and clearer. I've taken this up on the discussion page for the template, but no one has answeared and i'm wondering if you could do anything about it, could you? --TIAYN (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Part of what's making it easier is the bulleted list in the second box, but I'll work on making the section a little more manageable. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 Done - And the changes shouldn't adversely affect previous uses of the template. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. While not as important, i'm wondering why you can't change the colour on the infobox for the episode articles, but you can do it on the Template:Infobox character. Could this be done, or would it "screw" things up for the other pages witch are using the episode infobox? --TIAYN (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Let me know what color to use and I'll add it to Template:Television colour - that's the template that controls the header colors. Make sure it's a color everyone's ok with. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for late reply, i'm not asking for changing the character to one specific colour. I'm asking if it can be like the character infobox's, were you can change the colour for each individual (etc. you can change it black, green or keep the normal neutral colour light blue). So can you? --TIAYN (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The general format for that template (the episode infobox one) seems to be that every episode of a given show should be the same color; for example, all the Simpsons episodes appear to have yellow trim, all the Sopranos ones are gray, etc. If that's what you're after, I can do that quite easily. If you're looking to have individual episodes be different colors, I'd have to say no; not only would that go against the manual of style for this sort of thing (the template documentation warns it'll turn us into "skittlepedia"), it would also involve a substantial amount of coding to make sure it worked properly everywhere it's used. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 21:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't want all the different X-Files episode to be in a different colours, i want them all to use the grey colour which is frequently used on all The X-Files infoboxes, with the exception of the episode articles. But if you can't fix it, that's okay. --TIAYN (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
No, that I can do. What's the hex code for that color? I can add it in this evening when I'm on my main account. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 21:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is the code for that colour: | bgcolour = #B1B9C2; Thanks again for your help. --TIAYN (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 Done Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Rollback Permission

Hey Hersfold! I'd like to help revert vandalism on Wikipedia, I think vandalism should be removed as soon as possible and that rollback would help me a lot. Could you give me rollback permission please? Pikiwyn (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and grant it; just remember that this tool is only for blatant vandalism, so be careful with it. If you're ever unsure, use "undo" so you can leave an edit summary. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you

thanks!

...for your prompt reply. I like your attitude towards boundaries and editing. I was put off by "meat puppet agenda" and "weasel word" and you are right, this editor doesn't wish me well. A little bit paranoid, but then again, I'm new. THANKS! Tammi95 (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Tammi95

Welcome. If you need more help, let me know. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I have a question and was hoping you could clear up any misconception I might have. Are external links allowed in articles? I have the impression that external links are not to be placed in the article itself, or if absolutely required, they should be kept at a minimum. Thanks! (Note: The article I'm wondering about is HackThisSite Netalarm 10:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Generally they should be limited within the article text, although many articles will have an "External links" section at the end. It's covered in more detail at WP:EL. You are correct about that article; most of the links there should be changed to be references, internal links if there's an article about the subject, or simply removed. The links to the IRC channels definitely need to go. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Promtional User

Hi Hersfold. I was looking on the user creation logs to see who I can welcome with Friendly. I found a user that was under the name "Soapboxmarketing". I always see users like this get blocked. What shound we do about it? I just don't want to all of the sudden want to block him, but he had a promotional username, so I told you about it. Rascal the Peaceful (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If you see a user whose name you feel violates the username policy, you can ask them to consider changing it with {{uw-username}} (which in this case someone has already done). If they appear to be promoting something as well, then you may just want to report them to UAA for administrator attention if a bot hasn't already done so. Warning someone about their username doesn't guarantee they won't get blocked; often usernames like that are here to advertise (I know, AGF, but that's true), and we need to make sure they're not inappropriately using Wikipedia. It doesn't look like that particular user has too many edits, so they may not actually be trying to advertise, but it's worth keeping an eye on. I'll check back in later when I have my block buttons with me; thanks for the heads up. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 21:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks Hersfold. You're my first friend on Wikipedia. Cheers. Rascal the Peaceful (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Dingbat2007 socks/Rebafan

Luna Santin did a checkuser on the IP the Rebafan socks were using and came up with a TON of other socks. You can see part of the report here. If you want, you could block those as well and take out their talk page use (so they don't do what they were doing on the other accounts). It would make life ALOT easier for us over at WP:TVS, where most of the damage occurs. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think they've all been handled already. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Sweet :) I had told Enigmaman earlier and he hadn't responded (thought he was away), guess he was working on it. Either way, many thanks for looking in on it. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: Betacommand

Hersfold, not to be a pest over this, but, my understanding is that Betacommand is not to run a script or bot of any kind per:

[Quoted from his restrictions]


For one year, you are (i) topic-banned from any non-free-content-related work and related talk pages; (ii) subject to a 0RR restriction on any free-content-image-related work and related talk pages; (iii) prohibited from operating bots or running automated scripts of whatever nature; (iv) prohibited from inducing or attempting to induce others to operate bots or run automated scripts; and (v) subject to an editing throttle of a maximum of four edits every ten minutes (excludes reversion of blatant vandalism). After six months, you may apply to ArbCom for a review of the terms of this condition.

on [This ANI notice] he states he ran an IRC Bot for main page image protections. I don't think he's supposed to be doing that

I won't re-post this message or further badger you on this. I won't badger him either. I'll take a no response as an unspoken message that this is ok and I'll drop it.

Naluboutes, Nalubotes Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 16:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

its a non-editing IRC reporting tool that is hosted on the toolserver arbcom actually has no control over it. Yeah I run a bot on commons too, but arbcom cannot dictate my actions except for what I do here on en.wp. I provide this as a tool to prevent abuse on en.wp it was origonally designed for stopping willy and grawp but as grown to be a non-editing multi-functioning report tool. Arbcoms restrictions prevent me from running automated editing scripts/bots. βcommand 18:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Ps I actually run about half a dozen IRC based tools for watching en.wp and other projects. Ive been doing so now for close to 3 years. as long as they are not editing en.wp they should not be under the restrictions of arbcom. Ive also got an edit counter and a usercompare tool that is used by checkusers and others thats been up for close to a year now. βcommand 18:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Uh, yeah. That would be an IRC bot that does not make any edits to a wiki. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Kosh, thanks for asking about this. The IRC Bots that Beta runs are well-known, including by the Arbitration Committee. Because they don't edit the project, and are simply reporting tools on IRC, I don't believe they are affected by the restriction. Also, as Beta mentioned above, ArbCom's restrictions don't apply to his use or development of tools elsewhere such as the toolserver and Commons. I appreciate your concern, and thank you for asking about it here rather than a noticeboard, but I don't think it's an issue. I'll let MBisanz know about this so he can chime in if he wants as well. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 18:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts are that Arbcom's power is limited to the walls of en.wiki. As long as Betacommand does not use a bot to edit en.wiki, I believe he is complying with that clause cited. Since an IRC bot does not edit en.wiki, I don't see it as a violation of the restrictions. MBisanz talk 00:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice userpage!

I just noticed the new look on your page! I wish that there were a "cool userpage barnstar" to give to you and I wish that I had that sort of thing! Nice job! Rascal the Peaceful (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There is one somewhere, actually, but I appreciate the thought. Thanks! You're welcome to steal code if you like, but make sure you get some work done on the project as well. ;-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I am getting some stuff done. I spent the whole afternoon up to supper checking new user's contribs and reverting any vandalism. I really like Twinkle. I can welcome users, tag articles for deletion and protection, and revert vandalism. Im still getting used to Opera, since I use Google Chrome and Internet Explorer bunches. Oh and here is something else

Rascal the Peaceful has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Cheers Rascal the Peaceful (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Happy editing. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh and one more thing. How are you always able to sign you username with that format all the time, like this?
Rascal the Peaceful (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I've got a custom signature defined in my Preferences - you can find instructions on how to make one yourself (and guidelines on what's allowed) at WP:SIG. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks bunches. Cheers Rascal the Peaceful (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hey. I happened to look at your page. Is SineBot really a robot? Wow he keeps turning up and telling me stuff. How do I block him? It's not necessary to talk on my page. But if you replied here mind leaving something on my page? Thanks. Mhera (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll answer her. Don't wory about it Hersfold (I'm just being helpful here). Rascal the Peaceful (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I added a bit more - SineBot isn't actually blocked, I'm just using {{bots}} to tell it it's not allowed to edit here. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hersfold/Archive_31_(July_2009)&oldid=1140252630"