Jump to content

User talk:Hersfold/Archive 48 (December 2010)

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


← Previous archive - Archive 48 (December 2010) - Next archive →

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

Deleted Palda Records Article

I cant believe you deleted Palda records. You dismissed it as if it were a musical artist. That is incorrect. It was a record label. record labels and recording artists are totally different entities. You are therefore wholly incorrect in your assessment. There are already numerous entires on wikipedia of artists who had releases on that label yes you deleted the entry describing said record label. The deletion is not just specious, it looks like you were completely careless. Please put it back. Josefritz (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jose. I clicked to the Palda Records page from Eddie Burns, and didn't see anything. It came up recently in a discussion of early Philadelphia record companies and the Mummer's Parade. A bummer it is gone. I'm often really surprised at what gets deleted. Bear (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Please restore the article. You deleted the entire record of an independent record label that released singles by The Blind Boys of Alabama, the Four Aces, and a large number of Mummers bands including the the Ferko String Band! This is very important history to Philadelphians! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.38.106 (talk • contribs)

Seconded. By whose estimation is Palda "not noteworthy"? They were a very significant label and are collectible. That's noteworthy! veghead (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
@Hersfold:You are the party in total control here, so there's no need to be defensive. The time that has elapsed is irrelevant as deletion can happen at any time. Until recently I was not aware of the Deletionist problem on Wikipedia. I now know that adding anything requires constant surveillance in perpetuity to prevent deletion. For that reason, this will probably be my last contribution. to that point, I created something and you destroyed it. that appears to be the typical give and take with every dogmatic Deletionist. You made a mistake in your haste. I am asking you to fix it. This is where any normal prudent person would apologize and correct it. Personally I don't think Deletionists are normal or prudent. So, show me that I'm wrong. Josefritz (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hersfold's Responses

@Josefritz: Sorry I didn't reply to this sooner, I missed it, but you do realize I deleted this page in 2008, right? If you feel this is notable and can provide sufficient references for it, you're welcome to recreate the article.

@Everyone: What appears to be four separate users asking me about the same two-and-a-half-year-old article at roughly the same time is extremely suspect and strains the bounds of my good faith. I will be filing a sockpuppetry investigation for the lot of you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hersfold. I, Mr Fritz and the other users are all friends who work at the same place. We wrote this from work. By all means complain to our boss about us misusing company machines during the day if it makes you happy. However, that is what we did when Mr Fritz told us of his bad experiences with Wikipedia. As supporters (financially as well as in spirit) of Wikipedia, we defended Wikipedia. When we saw the case study about which he was complaining, we were shocked that anyone (ie you) could be such a vandal as to delete such a clearly valid article. I still am. As we are working in the same place, we appear to come from the same IP address, because we are behind a NAT address like that vast majority of people on the Internet these days. Assuming that people with the same IP address are the same person is, in 2010, the act of a moron.
If you wish to make sockpuppet allegations, please do, but be warned: if you had done any research at all (like examining and comparing our histories) before resorting to threats, you would have held back: you are wrong. We are different people. So, you have a choice:
  • Continue along your anti-social, threatening path and maintain we are one person sock-puppeting. I can't speak for my colleagues, but I can tell you I am quite tenacious when I've been abused, for example in the way that you have.
  • Get a clue and realise you are out of order on this one, then maybe talk to us with out trying to rattle your limp sabre of wikipedianess at us. No-one will be impressed.
We have a genuine gripe. We also hold similar views about many things; "deletionism" is just one.
Play nice! veghead (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Update: Your use of the phrase "the lot of you" tends to injure your case :) veghead (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Unblock

Thanks for talking with me. Couch on his Head and Smiling (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

ACC

We could use a checkuser on there right about now. Two checkuser-deferred requests ([1], [2]) have been sitting there for just as many days. --Dylan620 (t • c • r) 15:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Alison took care of them.  7  02:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Biographical information policy proposal

I have proposed a change in policy at [[WT:BLP#Do we need a WP:BILP policy?]], it should explain what my motivation was. Also sent to some other people: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. <( User:Couch on his Head and Smiling (talk) )> 06:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Talkback

Hello, Hersfold. You have new messages at Ronhjones's talk page.
Message added 01:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deleted Page: ManhattanGMAT/ Request for Undeletion

Hello Hersfold,

I wanted to inquire as to the possibility of overturning the deletion of the ManhattanGMAT page. I will be very upfront and say that I am an employee of the company and while I am an avid user of Wikipedia, I am sadly not an avid contributor so I am a bit new to all of this. I am really trying to go through all of the proper procedures for requesting that a deleted article be reinstated. If I make any breaches in procedure, please let me know and I will do my best to correct them. Based on my research it seems that the first step is to contact the deleting administrator, and it appears in the deletion history that you were the deleting administrator.

As your requested above, any deletion discussion should reference the outcome of that articles for deletion page and refute it, and I will try to do so. It seems that the comments for deletion boil down to two main points: 1.) that the page had minimal third party citation (thus causing a lack of notability) and 2.) that the page was promotional in nature. With regards to point one, three articles are linked to the original page. Of those articles, one is from the Washington Post, and one is from the New York Times, admittedly, the article linking to the small business award is dead, and that award is unknown to me. Of the two remaining articles, one (the New York Times article) discusses our founder and how the company began and the other (the Washington Post) discusses our growth in the industry. These articles are both in extremely notable publications and both point out our firm place in the test preparation market. The articles for deletion note "Extensive news searches have found no significant coverage of this organization." Perhaps at that time this was true, but I believe we have a relatively firm presence now. Along with the two aforementioned articles, some examples include:

-http://businessmajors.about.com/od/satgmatpreparation/a/ManhattanInt.htm

-http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/may2007/bs20070522_855049_page_2.htm

We also are widely discussed on various test preparation and grad school preparation websites such as GMAT club and Beat The GMAT. While these aren't established news organizations, they are third party locations where we are clearly notable.

In reference to the second point (that we are overly promotional), I understand where that criticism comes from. There are a few sections of the page that discuss us in a detail that paints us in an overly positive light. I would be happy to edit the page to be less promotional, but I do believe the core of that article is reasonable, discussing our place in the industry and the defining factors of our business.

Perhaps our biggest confusion is that seemingly every other test preparation company in our industry, even less notable companies, has a Wikipedia page. For instance, Manhattan Review is widely known as a company that specializes in trading off our notability to draw clients by having a similar name, but they have a page, and one with only one outside citation. Knewton Prep also has a page, but is much newer and less established entity than our company. From our point of view we feel a bit like the only company in our field without a page despite the fact that we are the third biggest company in the industry and one of the most respected. We don't intend to have a promotional page, we just want a place beside our rivals in an apples-to-apples comparison.

I don't anticipate an immediate reversal of deletion (although that would be great), but I would love some guidance on how I can work with you to make our page acceptable. I am an avid user of Wikipedia and I was shocked to see that we didn't have a page especially with so many other smaller companies (in the same exact field) garnering pages on the site. I appreciate your help in this matter and again, if there are any protocols I am not following, please let me know. I don't intend to make any demands here, I just truly believe I am in the right and as such feel that through hard work I can prove my company's notability. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to hearing back from you.

ImTheBombardier (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)ImTheBombardier

Hello ImTheBombadier. Unfortunately, due to the reason for which this page was deleted, I am not able to restore it to the article space of my own accord. This page was deleted as the result of an "articles for deletion" discussion that took place over a year ago on the grounds that it was promotional and lacked sufficient references from third parties to justify your company's notability. Companies are not granted articles in Wikipedia simply because their competitors have articles.
However, there is good news. It looks as though the original creator of the article saved a copy of it before it was deleted on their userpage. While they haven't edited for over a year, the article is still there: User:Jrp3d. You are welcome to work on this article and bring it up to an acceptable standard, and if you'd like I can move it to your userpage or a subpage of it so it's easier for you to get to.
I will admit that I am concerned about your conflict of interest. While I appreciate you admitting outright that you are an employee of this company, and while it does seem you have put a fair amount of research into our policies and such (which is more than I can say for most new users), the conflict is still present, and care should be taken when working on this article to ensure you aren't being unintentionally biased. Soliciting comments from other users should help in this matter. From what you've said above, I think it will be a significantly smaller concern than it is with most users with a conflict of interest, however it is still something to be aware of and cautious of.
Anyway, let me know if you want the existing page moved, and I can take care of that for you. If you need any further help with working on the article, I can try to do that as well, or refer you to other pages or other users that have more experience in article work than myself. Hope this helps, and welcome to Wikipedia. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello Hersfold. Thank you for the prompt response. I would appreciate it if you could move the page to my userpage (or subpage, I'm not exactly clear on the distinction yet) so that I can work on it. I understand that our competitors pages don't justify ours, but it convinced me that we were doing something wrong in terms of the page we had because I know we are at least as notable as some of those companies. Due to our competitors existence, my inclination is that our notability is less of an issue than the tone of promotion on our page me think that the promotion-like language on our page.
Thanks for expression your concern about conflict of interest. My initial plan is to work only by excision to avoid adding any biased language. To address the notability problem I will add the links I mentioned in my post on your talk page, and to deal with promotional language I will cut out things in the existing page, but add nothing of my own. I appreciate your help and I look forward to working on the page. One question I have is how I go about posting the fixed page and asking for help from other users, I am worried that reposting will immediately be met with speedy deletion. I suppose I can cross that bridge when I come to it but any advice would be appreciated. ImTheBombardier (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I've moved the draft over to the userpage, so you should be able to find it more easily now. It sounds like your intended approach is a good one; if you should need help, or you think you've gotten it to the point it can be moved back into the article "mainspace", then let me know with a message here or leave a {{helpme}} template on your user talk page along with whatever your question is. If it is done, we can check over the article to make sure it satisfies all the concerns raised at the AFD and meets other standards to avoid any surprises. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for moving that page and for all of your help thus far. I spent this morning cleaning up the page and making the reference links more robust. The article now has 5 external links all from third parties that are in no way affiliated with Manhattan GMAT. I also greatly cut back the flowery language on the page leaving only those section s that were most impartial. I tried to mimic language found on the pages of other test preparation companies or to use language that similar to the lines found in referring articles. I believe this page may be ready for the "mainspace" but I'd be happy to have it looked over and changed by more seasoned eyes first. I certainly think that the concerns of the AFD have been greatly ameliorated by my changes and I hope that any further changes that are deemed necessary can be made as well. I appreciate all of your help and I look forward to hearing the next steps. ImTheBombardier (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I just reviewed the article for Hersfold, and I would say it's good enough for mainspace. It has references, and third party ones from major newspapers at that...it's neutral, well written grammatically and etc, and I can't find any real problems even when nitpicking. It's quite a nice article, and I would say congratulations on having written such a good article while having a COI. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 06:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ks0stm's review, well done. You'll notice I made one minor change last night to remove a number of (R) symbols; these aren't strictly necessary and it's general convention to leave them out of articles. Aside from that, though, this looks ready to move out. I'll try to get one more reviewer to look it over to make sure, but then I'll see about moving it back in and restoring the previous revisions of the article underneath it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Ks0stm. I greatly admire Wikipedia and its general mission so I put in a lot of research before starting the work on the article. I'm glad that my research paid off and resulted in a good article. I appreciate you looking it over for me and giving such kind feedback.
Hersfold, thank you for your help throughout this process. I'm glad to see that the article can be moved to the mainspace soon. Thank you for fixing the (R) symbols, I was unaware of the convention there. I look forward to the other reviewer's comments and I look forward to the eventual move into the mainspace. ImTheBombardier (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Hersfold, I just want to check in and see if there is anything more I can do to improve my article while we are waiting for another set of eyes to look over the page. If there is anything else I can do to prepare for the move over to the mainspace, please let me know. Thank you! ImTheBombardier (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Oops, sorry for the delay. I'll have someone look at it now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Hersfold, no worries about the delay, I know that I'm not the only case you are working on and you have really been a huge help. After looking at the comments of the second reviewer (Sven Manguard), I made some final edits for my article. Sven said he would be out of communication for a while and that I should take the discussion to Articles for Creation for further consideration. I am fairly confident in the rigor of my article and would be happy to move it to AFC for review, but I am concerned that doing so would lose the edit history that you mentioned reinstating in an earlier post. Please advise on how I should move forward with getting my article placed in the mainspace. Should I go to AFC or is there another form of creation that is better for restoring past articles? I'm very excited that my article seems to be reaching completion. Thank you again for all of your help. I am sorry to impose. ImTheBombardier (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately I'm not terribly familiar with how AFC works these days; it *should* be possible to mark your article for AFC's attention without moving it, but I don't know for certain. I'll check into that. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it for me. If I need to bring it to someone else, please let me know and I'll be happy to do the legwork. I hate to put too much on your plate. Thanks! ImTheBombardier (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello again Hersfold, my article got created! However, I was hoping for your help one more time. Bongomatic has flagged it as lacking notability. Mono (who created the article after it passed AFC) tried to remove the tag and support the notability of the page, but Bongomatic said that it still didn't pass muster. I know that Bongomatic was involved in the last deletion debate and I am worried that he is biased against it due to actions that occurred in the last deletion debates. As you were also involved in the last deletion, I was hoping you could vouch for the good faith with which this article has been recreated. I believe that I have certainly proven notability and made a worthy article (as Ks0stom, Mono, and others have noted as I worked to build the article). I appreciate all you help thus far and would love any more advice you could give at this point. Thanks! ImTheBombardier (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Back to the deletion of Palda Records

While we are waiting for your ridiculous, unfounded and needlessly agressive accusation of sockpuppetry to be settled, perhaps you would be kind enough to address our actual gripe: the deletion of Palda Records. Please could you reinstate it? veghead (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I replied above. You're welcome to read what I said there. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
@Hersfold: You have yet to address the fact that you erroneously deleted the Palda records article. since it was in error, your obligation is to restore it. Your reasoning wasn't dubious, it was factually wrong. Palda records was a record label, not a recording artist. Therefore you need a new reason OR you should restore the entry. Josefritz (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I have no such obligation, as you are the one who is mistaken. The deletion log, which you can view here, clearly states it was deleted as a "Group/band/club/company/etc [that] doesn't indicate importance/significance." This is criterion for speedy deletion A7, which has gone largely unchanged since 2008. Since at no point neither you nor your coworkers/alternate accounts (whichever they are) have deigned to request this undeletion in a civil manner, and in more than one point have insulted my intelligence and otherwise directed personal attacks at me, I have no inclination to accede to your request whatsoever. I have replied above, informing you that you are welcome to recreate this article if you have sufficient reliable sources to justify the notability of this record label. If you require it, I am willing to assist with such, as I did another user above, however I do require that I be treated with a modicum of common courtesy. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Your revert reverted

I noticed that you removed an addition by a banned user at WikiLeaks. You may like to check this edit which reverted your edit. Johnuniq (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I appreciate it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Regarding User:SCFilm29, and possibly User:Mystylplx, the following may be of interest:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Griot

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Scibaby

I left a message for you on User:Eagles247 talk page, as well. With your permission, I will pass on the contact information you've provided for private correspondence and detail. Thank you.

Very Truly Yours,

99.59.98.198 (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I've already checked Mystylplx, and they appear to be unrelated, technically speaking. I didn't notice that they were too similar to any other accounts that regularly edited on their network range. Scibaby usually edits from another network entirely and many of his frequent ranges are blocked due to his abuse. Regardless, if you have anything that may connect SCFilm29 to one of these users, we'd be interested in seeing it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Request to unblock Matthew2602

Hey Hersfold, myself and other editors were discussing random things on the RuneScape Wiki IRC channel when somehow the conversation turned to User:Matthew2602 wondering if he could be unblocked here. I've known this user for quite some time now, and can vouch for him in saying that he is not a sockpuppet of that user, who neither him nor myself have heard of before his blocking. I think that it is safe to assume that the IP that both Matthew2602 and the sockpuppeteer was dynamic, and used by multiple users. Perhaps other users were also unjustly blocked during that case; who knows.

Once upon a time, I woke up one morning in July two years ago, only to find that I was blocked from editing on the only wiki that I was active on at the time, mylegonetwork.wikia.com. That wiki had about 20 active users then, and upon some very quick investigation it seemed that I had been caught up in the autoblock of a user who was blocked for one day for some minor policy violation. Anyways, I got an admin to unblock me and went on my merry way. A few hours later, when talking with him and other users on the IRC, I found out that he lives in the southern United States. I live in Alberta, Canada. We were both using the same IP. Beyond my nice little story, I've known User:Matthew2602 for months. I know that he is a good user with only good faith intentions, and I also know that he would like to be able to edit here again. It would be nice if he could be unblocked without large quantities of bureaucratic pointlessness, but that can happen if needed.

Thanks, Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If he was blocked as a confirmed sock, that means that more than just the IP matched up. I also don't see that unblocking him would be a benefit to the project, as his only edit to the article space was vandalism.
If he wants to be unblocked, he'll need to make an appeal himself anyway. Third-party appeals are not accepted. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Alright, but you should know that his only mainspace edit could have easily been done in good faith, in fact as an attempt to revert vandalism. He just didn't look into the history enough to find out where the page should have been redirected to. Additionally, out of pure curiosity, which of his two edits confirm that he is a sockpuppet? What other factors are there? Thanks, Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
The sockpuppetry was confirmed using checkuser; looking back at the SPI archive, it seems he was one of a large list of users that shared an identical useragent (meaning same operating system, internet browser, etc.). Curiously, I did note that Matthew could possibly be another user based on their edits, which don't match MileyFan1990's usual actions. Now that I see that, I'd be more willing to consider an unblock, but I still need him to appeal; I cannot accept a third-party request. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I'll contact him tomorrow and get him to appeal. Thanks again. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
You should also be aware that The_last_username_left_was_taken has contacted me about his unjust block. Here again is someone that I know - this time better than the first - that has been unjustly blocked per your checkuser evidence. I have used checkuser before. I know that it cannot determine that two accounts were created from the same computer. Regardless, Matthew still hasn't appealed him block, despite my telling him to do so, so I don't know what's happening there. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
CU is able to show enough data to show that two accounts had the same user agents and I think can get XFF data as well. At any rate, Ajraddatz, there's nothing you can do at this time—the blocked users will need to appeal themselves and they could, well, actually be sockpuppeteers, regardless of if you know them. (And something just like that happened recently.) The only thing we can do is have a CU to look over the data again. Hersfold, see User_talk:The_last_username_left_was_taken#Unblock_Request. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I know with 100% certainty that neither users are sockpuppets. Additionally, considering how dynamic IPs are, and how most people in the English speaking world use one of four browsers, perhaps some better system needs to be invented for dealing with sockpuppetry. Regardless, that isn't why I'm here. I really would like to see a fairer system regarding sockpuppetry, however, as it seems that a checkuser can act as the prosecution, judge and jury in this manner. On that note, no, I don't want to turn it into some rediculous legal system which can go on for years with appeals, re-trials, etc. Thanks for both of your time. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Ajraddatz, I've just left a detailed explanation of my actions on TLULWT's talk page. As you can see, this is a very clear-cut case; the IP address he's using has been static for months, and the other account popped up in the middle of that time period with an identical useragent. You can also see that I was willing to assume good faith on his part, and approached him to ask about the other account. He evaded my questions, and that plus the other evidence I had available led me to conclude the account was his. If he is able to provide an explanation that fits the evidence, I am willing to listen to it (that was the point of the block). However, the explanation he's giving still has a few holes in it, as I've explained there.
The sockpuppetry system we have in place is really very accurate; I've only seen a very few instances where a checkuser block was placed incorrectly, and in each case the explanation provided by the blocked user was understandable given what checkuser returned. The most inaccurate sockpuppetry blocks are always those based on behavioral evidence, although in those cases the behavior is often enough to warrant blocking anyway. If you have any thing you'd like to send me privately concerning TLULWT and his block, please feel free to email me, but I would encourage you to read my explanation there first. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

BOTREQ

You attention is kindly drawn to this. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

...yes? What is it? Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

He is just upset that I will not let him repeatedly re-post the same BOTREQ that goes against an RfC. ΔT The only constant 17:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok... while you probably could have been a little more polite there, Δ, Andy, if there is an RfC that was closed against whatever it is you're trying to do, then you should be respecting the consensus formed there. I'm still a little unclear on what's going on, as I'm kinda lacking context, but it sounds like you both have a point here. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no RfC against the changes in that BOTREQ; as I have already pointed out. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas!

To the Fir-Tree (Anonymous)

O Fir-tree green! O Fir-tree green!
   Your leaves are constant ever,
Not only in the summer time,
But through the winter's snow and rime
   You're fresh and green forever.

O Fir-tree green! O Fir-tree green!
   I still shall love you dearly!
How oft to me on Christmas night
Your laden boughs have brought delight.
O Fir-tree green! O Fir-tree green!
   I still shall love you dearly.

Also 

Happy (belated) Hanukkah!

Happy Eid al-Adha!

Happy Kwanzaa!

Happy Festivus!

Happy New Year!

May this holiday season bring you the music of laughter, the warmth of friendship, and the steadying hand of love. Cheers! /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Images uncathegorized

I em sorry, I received a message by you, but i not speak english. Je ne comprend pas votre avis, je ne sais pas ce que vous m'avez écrit, pourtant j'aurai besoin d'une explication en italien ou en fancais, en latin aussi si vous voulez (mai ce dérnier doit ètre tres simple). Désolé, je suis seul, et en ces jours-ci je ne peu pas sortir. Je vous rémerci et vous avue un Merry Chritmas... hélas! C'et tot ce je connais de votre langue. Mon adress en Wikipedia it [3]
Non capisco una parola d'inglese, purtroppo, e me ne rammarico. Ho già ricevuto in passato un avviso in cui mi si dice che devo far qualcosa per alcune immagini, ma non capisco né cosa, né come. Non posso uscire, per il momento... Colgo l'occasione per augurarvi Buon Natale. Indirizzo Wikipedia it [4] --FranzJosef (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Molto simpatico il vostro gatto :)

Pardon, j'ai trouvé une page d'instructions en fr. Merci et à bientôt. --FranzJosef (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Il semble que vous avez compris les choses. S'il vous plaît laissez-moi savoir si vous avez plus de difficulté avec ça. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Card

User:DeltaQuad/Christmas2010

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

/* Christmas mottos */

The motto idea for those between 25th December and mid January needs consensus dtermined badly on which version should be used for which day or even whether the whole idea should be scrapped or postponed. Please help by discussion and determining consensus at WT:Motto of the day/Nominations#Christmas series and Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Specials. The deadline is Friday at 9pm UTC. Simply south (talk) and their tree 23:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

IRC

Mind coming on IRC to discuss a CU-related issue? --Addihockey10e-mail 16:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Can't just now, but I can probably be on in an hour or so if you still need help. Sorry, we're closing my building for winter break and my free time is about to run out. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah okay :) Thanks! --Addihockey10e-mail 16:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User:212.156.67.30 whom I suspect is the same user User:Omulazimoglu when he/she is not logged is engaging in edit warring in the picture gallery in the bottom of the Ankara page, by insisting of putting a particular photo of a slum in the city that is normally reserved for landmarks of that city. Picture galleries of city articles in Wikipedia ara usually reserved for landmarks rather than slums. Pictures of non-landmarks such as slums for example can be put separatly in other areas of the article. This user started the edit war when he/she was logged in as User:Omulazimoglu and continues it while being unlogged under the same I.P. number User:212.156.67.30. I have observed this edit warring and other anonymous users have joined the edit warring as well on this picture of a slum, but today (27 December 2010) in exasperation I reverted his/her latest edit and personally warned him today about this, even though I am not an administrator nor have the authority and do not visit Wikipedia very frequqently.

This is the slum picture which caused the edit war:

Could you warn this user about this and if necessary block him/her for a while?

Menikure 21:35, 27 December 2010

(Sorry, I added the request while I forgot that I was not logged in, and found oud just after I checked the view history. Menikure)

Sorry, I dropped activity shortly before you posted this. Due to the significant amount of time since, I don't know if there's anything I can still do here, but on the off chance this dispute is still ongoing, let me know. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hersfold/Archive_48_(December_2010)&oldid=1075194929"