User talk:Hersfold/Archive 61 (January 2012)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
← Previous archive - Archive 61 (January 2012) - Next archive →

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


Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

Betacommand monthly reports

According to Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_4#Provisional_suspension_of_community_ban:_Betacommand, you were mentoring Betacommand and were to "make monthly progress reports by email to ArbCom". Did you send any monthly reports to Arbcom? John Vandenberg (chat) 21:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh. I may have sent one or two, but TBH I think I largely forgot about them after that, unfortunately. :-/ Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I just looked through the mailing list archives; it looks like I didn't even do that much. I was involved in a discussion about relaxing an aspect of BC's editing restrictions in October 2009, but that seems to be the only related email within a year of those restrictions being put into place. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added an FoF about this at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3/Workshop#Unban_conditions_not_met. --John Vandenberg (chat) 01:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm still rolling on the floor after reading [1]. Treating Wikipedia like the AA or some other kind of personal rehabilitation project was obviously a hopeless idea from the get go, even though WP:NOTTHERAPY is only an essay. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

MBisanz and I wouldn't have agreed to the situation if we didn't think it had a chance of working. Mentorship agreements aren't all that uncommon, either. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Album-cover and concert-poster artists

Category:Album-cover and concert-poster artists, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 19:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

UTRS

Hi Hersfold,

I hope that you're well and settling down in to the drama that is ArbCom ;).

I've just noticed the UTRS on the Toolserver and thought that I'd let you know that I'm happy to help with any of the testing side of things, i.e. finding the bugs that break the tool etc. I'm not so good at the coding, but I'll be sure to help you break it when it comes round to testing!

Best,

The Helpful One 14:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll need a number of testers! Go ahead and request an account - that part's working at least, you just won't be able to log in for a while - so when we get around to live testing I'll know to leave you a note. Thanks again! Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbComBot bug

This may already be a known issue, but I have noticed that when a level two heading has a link in it, the bot skips the section and does not add the word count and diff count. I've worked around it by removing the link. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I've seen that before, but I've yet to correct it. I'll work on it soon. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for Interview Regarding Wikipedia Bots

Greetings-

My name is Randall Livingstone, and I am a graduate student at the University of Oregon, currently collecting data for my dissertation on Wikipedia editors who create and use bots and assisted editing tools, as well as editors involved in the initial and/or ongoing creation of bot policies on Wikipedia. As a member of BAG and an active member of the bot community, I would very much like to interview you for the project at a time and in a method that is most convenient for you (Gchat, another IM client, Skype, email, telephone, etc.). I am completely flexible and can work with your schedule. The interview will take approximately 30-45 minutes.

My dissertation project has been approved both by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Oregon, and by the Research Committee at the Wikimedia Foundation. You can find more information on the project on my meta page.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and I look forward to hearing from you to set up a time to chat. Thank you very much.

Randall Livingstone, School of Journalism & Communication, University of Oregon

UOJComm (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The article Michael Barr (historian) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

a faculty member (recently?) unreferenced, and with no evidence of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

HersfoldArbClerkBot

Please could you reactivate your bot on the "Muhammad images" case? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking into it, I'd been emailed by someone else about it as well. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Hersfold. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Huon (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Appeal

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 the are 2929 submissions waiting to be reviewed.

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. Are you autoconfirmed?
  5. 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.

Hi Hersfold. I have started a discussion at Commons here: commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Deletion of No OTRS permission tagged images during a backlog. I am contacting you because the discussion is related to commons:Commons:Bots/Requests/HersfoldOTRSBot and am contacting you on the English Wikipedia because you directed users at commons:User talk:Hersfold/Editnotice to contact you here.

I would be grateful if you would give your thoughts about the matter. Cunard (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

Metalman59 again

I'm afraid that Metalman59 is at it again. Having stated he understood that he shouldn't edit because of his topic ban, he joined discussion on the talk page at Talk:White people. General opinion was against him, and some elements were removed that he had either added, or added to. He backed down. He then seems to have waited a while for attention to die down, and added those section back to White people. I've told him on his talk page that I don't believe this is acceptable, and that I will be drawing admin attention to the situation. I figured that you know the case history, so I should start with you. If I should go somewhere else or seek help more broadly, please let me know. SamBC(talk) 13:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd have granted him some leniency given that this edit took place 10 days ago, however he's either lying about making that edit or his account is compromised. I've blocked his account indefinitely. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012