Jump to content

User talk:Hersfold/Archive 40 (April 2010)

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


← Previous archive - Archive 40 (April 2010) - Next archive →

This page contains discussions dated during the month of April 2010 from User talk:Hersfold. Please direct all current discussions there. Thank you.

Betacommand - Ateneo Veneto

Sirs,, I am trying to update the page in English for the Ateneo Veneto (of which I am on the board) to include more detail as contained in the Italian version. Betacommand has recently undone all of the changes made in the last several days and reverted to the brief whicg I had originally included several years ago. How can this be resolves?

You should consider discussing such large-scale changes on the talk page first. -- Ϫ 00:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, in looking at the edits you've made to the article, Betacommand's edits appear to be in accordance with our policies. All Wikipedia articles must adhere to a neutral point of view as much as possible, and the edits you are making are causing the article to read much like an advertisement. I can see from your talk page you've been blocked for making these sorts of edits before. If you do have suggestions for how the article can be improved, you are welcome to comment on the article's talk page, however please do not continue to edit this article, as you have a clear conflict of interest in this matter. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

My changes are actually just the addition of historic dates and facts. Is it possible to have a clarification of which part is ""promotional"?

You were adding a great deal more than dates and facts; you rewrote the entire article. It read promotionally because of what we call "peacock terms" - just in the first sentence, "The Ateneo Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti (Venetian Academy of Sciences, Letters and Arts), is the leading Venetian scholarly society whose members, along with other leaders in the academic disciplines, the arts and public affairs, organize debates on matters crucial to Venice and the Veneto region." There are a large number of other problems with the article as well. Please review all of the pages I have linked for more information. Now, I have asked you to stop editing this article, and yet you've undone Betacommand's edits once again. I have now reverted your changes. Stop now. If you continue to edit this article, you will be blocked for a period of time for edit warring and adding promotional material. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Further to my last communication, I have revised the changes for the Ateneo Veneto eliminating anything that could be interpreted as ”promotional”. Moreover, these are additions to the existing entry of dates and statistics that are easily verifiable, yet Betacommand continues to remove them as if he owns the article.

I note that Betacommand’s past is littered with inappropriate behavior. Before initiating further action with respect to Betacommand’s actions in this matter, I wanted to raise the issue with you and see how to proceed.

Betacommand's actions here are within policy. I have asked you to stop editing this article and suggest what changes could be made on the talk page, and you have not done so. I have asked for the article to be semi-protected for a time to stop your disruptive actions. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you !

That was that is wonderfulEugene-elgato (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Céleste Albaret

I am sorry I do not find any sufficient explanation about your deletion of Celeste Albaret, in June 2009. This real person, maid of worldly known French writer Marcel Proust, is of small importance, I agree, but not of no account in recent history of literature. Once forgiven my scholar English, could I be enlighten by your kindness ? (Please, would you have a look, by the way, on French article ?) Regards. --Thierry (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Biographies need to meet certain basic standards of importance, as outlined at our notability guideline for biographies or our general notability guideline. The Céleste Albaret did not establish such a standard, and focused mostly on her relation to Proust. Being closely related to someone notable does not make oneself notable. The French article has little relevance to the status of the article here; they may have different guidelines for inclusion and Albaret may be of greater importance in the French-speaking world than the English-speaking one. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I thank you for your kind and precise answer, and I withdraw that was a request also, as you understood. However, I may not do so without giving my arguments to you:
Céleste Albaret
  • Was only closely relative to, but to one of the greatest French writers;
  • Became, as Françoise, a mainly present character in his work;
  • Was collector and solder of some interesting of his manuscripts;
  • Is author of memories about him;
  • Is subject herself of a novel based on her own life and writer's one;
  • Was for some years a personality in French milieu mondain;
  • And, otherway (that is by the way), was awarded a French distinction which could have some interest for foreign readers, having some value in her own (in their own) country.
Isn't it to fear that social status of Céleste could have any influence on the choice of English WP ? And, for instance, who is Thérèse Levasseur ? As maid of course, but even as concubine and mother, she would not exist in our memory without Jean-Jacques Rousseau. She is "focused mostly only on her relation to" Rousseau, and that is far enough to justify her presence here.
My thanks again and sincere regards. --Thierry (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Please note that my issue is not that the subject is not notable; I don't know enough about her to make such a judgment. The article was deleted because the article did not make an assertion that she was notable. The problem lies in the article itself, not the subject matter. If you can write an article that addresses all of the points you bring up above, and reference them with multiple reliable sources, I won't have an issue with it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I fully understand you, and hope you feel how thankful I am for your answers. But I lament my English is far not good enough, as you can see, to allow me to contribute on your pages with more than one or two words here and there. However, if some of English contributors would like to write on the same subject, eventually starting from the French article, I am sure he could do much better in your way than this French article. And he would have to rely on my best will to help and inform. Please, have my friendly regards. --Thierry (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Forced quit for wikipedia

As you implied that I must leave wikipedia forever, I am now going to request for a deletion for the indefinite blocked account, and not allowing my pictures uploaded to the wikipedia be published at the articles i.e. requesting for deletion too. Don't blame me on destroying the articles because it is your own choice. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 18:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I made no such implication. You are free to edit, as long as you do so in accordance with Wikipedia policies. I cannot delete your account as there is no way to do so. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The block made me feel like that. I checked the contributions of two accounts, some of the contributions are not done by me i.e. it should have been compromised. I was not working at wikipedia at that time, so I could not make any edits not due to the block, but not using the wikipedia. I should say the block did not affect me at all, and I would not request for anything on that indefinite-blocked account. However, when I know that I have been once blocked, with one blocked for two days and the other one for indefinite time, with I did not do anything in those two days, I felt that I am not welcomed. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 02:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way, that was not my intention. Blocks are not usually done to ward off editors, but rather to stop what appears to be disruptive behavior. At the time I blocked your account, I did run a checkuser to see if your account had been compromised, as this did not seem to be normal behavior for you. However, I blocked both of your accounts because the technical data available to be showed that your alternate account was using the same computer you've always used for both accounts. This implies that your account was not compromised and therefore under your control. As I said, you are still free to edit the project, however please be aware of our policies concerning alternate accounts. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay I know the situation now. If you told me that they are from the same computer, that means both of the accounts have compromised. So the action I must take is an immediate wikibreak to consider if I should retire from editing Wikipedia now. I am already upset now as I still don't know what's happened. This should be the second time my account is compromised. The second time compromise means that I should not edit on wikipedia now. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 05:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
However, I should thank for blocking the alternate account. At least I don't have to worry anything outside this account now. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 05:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of ACC templates

Hello! A few ACC templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page. This notice is because you are an ACC admin. Thanks! Avicennasis @ 04:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I don't contest the deletion at all, especially since I didn't even know that template existed. And it nearly put me into seizures with that awful comma splice. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Planning an RFC for deleting secret pages

Hi, Hersfold. You created a well-written nomination at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DCFan101/Secret Page Challenge and hope that you can participate in the discussion at User talk:MZMcBride#Secret pages at WP:MFD. I plan to create an RFC to delete all secret pages and hope you can help draft one. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Macechap

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that User:Macechap has come back again, please see the the new investigation. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

School/Business Vandalism

Hello again! :) Just a quick question you may or may not be able to help me with. Years ago, it seems, system admins used the be able to request an edit block on their schools/businesses IP. It seems that this is no longer standard practice from what I gather. Since I assume you were at least semi-active in this requested blocks (assumption based on this) I was hoping that you may know a few alternatives that may have been worked out? The reason I ask, is I am in communication with the sysadmin of a school whose IP was the subject of an abuse case. He is looking for some solutions, and unfortunately I am not aware of any. If you have any ideas, or can point me in a better direction, let me know. Thanks so much! Avicennasis @ 03:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It is still done, although in order to make such a block, we have to verify that the sysadmin is in fact a sysadmin; it's next to impossible to do this on-wiki, which is why it's not commonly done. If they'd like some assistance with this, they can email the functionaries list at functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org or myself directly at hersfoldwiki@gmail.com. Make sure that they know to do so from the email address issued to them by their school or school district, and to include the name of their school in the email they send so we can verify their identity. Thanks for letting me know! Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian Arbitration

Thank you for all the hard work you and the rest of the Arbitration Committee put into the case. Your intervention into what has been a three-year problem is much appreciated! Nightscream (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Brexx

Lil-unique1 decided to take the Brexx problem to a wider community at WP:ANI#Long term sock puppet and ducker.. I'm not sure it was necessary, but not sure it's a bad idea either. You may wish to participate.—Kww(talk) 20:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye, but I doubt I'll comment. An ANI thread isn't going to stop someone from socking. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

Notice

I am going to leave this project because of outing and off-wiki harassment. I will notify Arbcom by email if I ever to resume editing from a different account while under editing restrictions. As a last favor, I ask not to redact my Evidence section although it is slightly over the limit. Sorry for contributing to disruption. I tried to do my best, but could not properly follow all rules. Sincerely, Biophys (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok... it would probably be in your best interests to stick around for the remainder of the case at least, even if you're not actively participating in the project. Depending on what comes out from the case, you may still be subject to sanctions. In the event that happens, and you have left the project, any sanctions that you may face will likely be held in abeyance until your return (similar to the current case for A Nobody). If you still feel that you need to leave the project, then there's nothing I can do to stop you, of course. Either way, best of luck; if there is anything else you feel we should know wen considering the case, please send it to ArbCom by email. Thanks for the notice. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. It the sanctions should be placed on hold waiting my return, I will return to make one edit and receive the sanctions. OK, I will be occasionally watching and possibly respond because you are right about this.Biophys (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A school IP which needs more than a 31 hour block. Please?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:208.6.2.24#April_2010

If an IP is actively vandalizing, then you can report them at WP:AIV. I don't see that they're currently editing, and what edits they are making aren't so offensive to merit emergency action. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Confidential e-mail

Dear Hersfold, I have sent you a confidential and highly sensitive e-mail. Please review and advise. Thanks, Zwinglio\pray 23:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied. Hersfold (t/a/c) 07:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear Hersfold, as you requested, I have sent you a reminder e-mail. Thanks! With kindest regards, Zwinglio\pray 00:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi

You just declined my appeal to be unblocked (because the blocked expired)-and I just wanted to take the opportunity and to ask for your advice, if possible. I'm certain that the blocked was unwarranted and I don't want it in my block log. Also, I think that wrong judgment of the blocking admin was noteable in this case. Where should I appeal for this blocked to removed from my block log? Regards--Gilisa (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no appeal process for this; while the technical ability to remove the log entry exists, using that tool to delete a block log entry is considered abuse of the tool (see Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Log redaction). I would strongly recommend you drop the matter, especially given the reason for your block. I did note, however, that the blocking administrator seems to have opened a discussion on ANI about the clause of the ban that led to your block; you may want to participate there at WP:ANI#Interaction ban needs tweaking. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The issue is that I didn't violate the interaction ban by reporting according to the ban terms. The present AN/I actually suggest to adjust the ban terms such that reporting as I did will be considered as violation. Therefore, I can't understand why you recommend me to drop it. Thanks anyway --Gilisa (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

Help with stupid

Hi Hersfold, I was hoping you could help me out, (When you get a chance) I seem to be "missing a point". The subject is Account Creator. I was looking over this Page. And this is probably where I get messed up. To me an Editor with these tools help with People, Editors, IP's with account request issues. Kinda like an assistant CheckUser. Problems with creating an account, an Account Creator would(work this page or when asked) check for blocks on wanted user names, problem with multiple IP's, etc. So I first went Here and filled out the information, and as the information for a request states, complete your registration by leaving a signed edit on your Wikipedia user talk page confirming that you wish to sign up. While researching I was lead Here. and as you can see was not done. It's the reason that messes me up, why would I want to create more account for myself ? Hence my "Total Confusion" . What part of all this am I not getting ? The deductive inference I get is, this is a tool for editors who want to keep creating account for themselves ?, so now you see how messed up this is for me. I feel soo stupid, this can't be the reason for these tools. Could you set me stright, (when you have time) Mlpearc MESSAGE' 15:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


Ping

Hersfold -- I have posted something new at Response to Hersfold:

I wonder what distinguishes the Tang Dynasty "clarification" thread from "Changing the terms"? If this is not "Changing the terms", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.

Ping.
Hersfold -- Now what? Cui bono?
How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do?

I look forward to your further comments; and I continue to hope for action. --Tenmei (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hersfold/Archive_40_(April_2010)&oldid=1140403975"