User talk:Hersfold: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Hersfold (talk | contribs)
33,142 edits
Line 281: Line 281:


:Regarding the removal of protection, the sockpuppeteer was active again last night and again targeted unprotected high-risk templates. I'm afraid it'll need to stay protected a bit longer. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 16:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
:Regarding the removal of protection, the sockpuppeteer was active again last night and again targeted unprotected high-risk templates. I'm afraid it'll need to stay protected a bit longer. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 16:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
::So you know it's a sockpuppet, but don't know how to stop it. Interesting. Anyway, Wikipedia is finished by now and only needs to be maintained by officers. Congrats. No more editors to take care of. Sorry for disturbing your habit. <br>
::End of thread for me. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 01:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:33, 1 July 2011

ATTENTION: One or more IPBE flags are up for review at this time. Please confirm that all flags listed on this page are still necessary. Thank you!
Welcome to my Talk Page!

Thank you for coming by, however please note that I have largely retired from Wikipedia. Messages left here will not receive a prompt response, if ever. Please also note that I no longer hold any access rights; if you are contacting me in relation to a block, deletion, or any other administrative action I have taken, I am unable to assist you. Please contact another administrator for help.

If you do have an urgent need to contact me specifically, such as for one of my bots, please send me an email via Special:Emailuser/Hersfold.

User:Hersfold/Talk Header - v • e


Your status template

I just tried to add your status template to my userpage. As a recent Computer Science grad, I'm embarassed to say that I'm stuck on getting it to change status. I'm hoping not only that you can help me get it to work, but also that this is the right place for this question. I'll be watching your page, so feel free to answer here at your convenience. Thank you in advance, and sorry if I'm wasting your time. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in responding. As a much more recent Computer Science grad, I'm embarrassed to say I still can't figure out what the heck's wrong with the dumb thing. I'll probably do some work this week completely rewriting the thing. The problem, I believe, is in the javascript that you have to install. The file is very old, and while it works for me, it doesn't seem to work for anyone else until several months after they install it, which makes no sense. Anyway, I'll get back to you when I think it's functioning again. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'd appreciate it. Let me know if I can help; I'm not bad with Java, but I might need a walkthrough of what the code is supposed to do. Unless their's comments in the code, which I didn't think to check for. (I posted this reply on my talk page as well, for archive purposes) Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

request

Hi. I have written a new version of the article Dedi. It can be found here. I would be so happy if you could read over and help me setting links and help for correct english. I will please an administrator in de.wikipedia to settle the history of the german article, since the workshop version is an word-by-word translation. With best regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, well done! I'll go through and see if there's anything needing to be fixed, I noticed one misspelling already. Once the history gets sorted, however, it should be ok to copy to mainspace. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx!^^ Meanwhile user:AnnekeBart has helped me alot with grammar and link settings. All I wood need now was the adjustment of the article`s history.^^ Best regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get on that shortly. In the meantime, there is one phrase in the article that I don't quite understand: "Magical tricks that show animals [...] are known in their performance since few decades" - is there another way that could be translated? Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool...^^ You stumbled over the same passage as AnnekeBart did. :D I`m truly sorry, Hersfold, but that`s beyond me for now. the books (both in german) give no more information so I felt to use what is there. The problem is, that I don`t know yet how to translate those complicated phrases. The historian Udo Bartsch seems to try saying, that magic performances like the one in the Westcar-Papyrus are a) unhip today and b) it could shock the audience to see a bull losing his head and a mage puts the head back. I would be SO happy if one of you had an idea how to simplify that sentence without erasing too much originality outta the books. Best regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: I proudly present Dedi!^^ Best regards; --Nephiliskos (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. :-) You should consider putting that article in for a Did you know? blurb. As for the phrase, would it make sense to say something like "Modern magicians have known how to perform tricks showing animals being decapitated and revived for decades, but rarely perform them today due to ethical and aesthetic misgivings" ? I think that's what he's trying to say, unless he means that Egyptians had been doing that for decades prior to the manuscript, but this seems unlikely as they probably would have considered it to be actual magic and not a trick. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far I could understand the authors, I think they mean both. The ancient egyptian actually believed in magic, but the priests performed more something like cheap flim-flams to the humble citizens.^^
In the case of the Westcar Papyrus things are MUCH more complicated: At one side we must keep in mind, that the whole text is nothing but a religious and political motivated novel, written for the high aristocracy. Everyone who was able to read (don`t forget: it`s assumed that only 10 - 12% of the whole folk were literately educated!) was surely high educated enough to find the hidden punchlines between the text. The author of the Westcar Papyrus was clever! And brave. He critisized Snofru as accostable, depicted Nebka as rigorous and has drawn an dodgy picture of Khufu. In the tale of Redjedet, the mother of the prophecy`s fulfiller, the author hides an great morally indoctrination: The what-will-happen-to-tattletales.
At the other side the author probably made a chronological mistake: he misplaced king Nebka after king Djoser, whilst the ramesside kinglists give the converse line. And he didn`t come up with the idea to use the names of attestable priests to make his novel more authentical. This and the above discriptions may lead to the conclusion, that the tales of wonders within the Westcar novel may also have been made just for fun or rather for pure entertainment. But here I shall remember again, that the heroes of the Westcar (Dedi, Ubaoner and Djadjaemankh) must have been known to authors like the one of this papyrus and the big sixty-four-dollar question is: how long??? After all the wonders told in the Westcar inspired lots of latter authors for similar novels (The prophecy of Neferti, for example, where king Snofru is again described as accostable). Hope, I was able to make you understand a bit better.^^ Best regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to activity

I'm back, having finally graduated from college! I'll be reviewing messages and getting caught up over the course of the next week, and then returning properly starting in mid-June. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, congrats! Syrthiss (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations from me and my portal from de.Wikipedia, too!^^ Best regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Late congrats from me, too, and it's good to have you back. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you....

Mahalo. Just not sure you get enough of those.

But, to justify this subject, I'm thinking you should "trademark" (create links and definitions for) various "wiki" references...

Such as: wikidrama, wikiwar, wikiwant, wikiwhacky, wikiwiki... sorry last one was meant to be funny, the one before that too, well, maybe all of them. Yes, I know that "wiki" isn't owned by Wikipedia.

Didn't see link on your page for "have a nice day" - thought I'd send one your way. Jambay (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite welcome, of course. :-) Stop by any time you need help. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

recent post re:unblock request

I do not understand your comment on the page b_____bob4wk which you did at 05:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC). This blocking is a malicious vendetta by user T____brae. I do not put the full usernames here because he seems to be searching everywhere and making false statements wherever I have requested information.

In my explanation to which you responded, I used the term "others" to refer to him. Ever since he began ranting about "anon IP" on the talk page of the article in question, he began vandalizing the work made by IP users, and had it semiprotected by making false statements. The edit at 14:41, 26 May 2011 is clearly vandalization, done because of the identity of the prior editor, not the content- he aparently did not even look at it- some of the deleted content was made at his insistance, and he also restored factual errors which had been corrected. After the protection, it took awhile to locate my WP password, and undo that. I then made a warning on his page, as I was supposed to according to my understanding of the guidelines. Since then he has been hounding me on multiple pages with multiple false statements. Now I find that he has managed to get my username blocked so that I can not reply to the false statements at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

In regard to his claims on the "request for blocking" page: "made edits that removed citation requests, added what appears to be promotional content, etc.," False, the citations were already there in the text, he didn't read it. After the first time, I put hidden text which he didn't look at either, the second time, I duplicated the same reference on every line of a long list, to make him happy, but he wiped that out too; his main complaint about "adding" was an outright mistake in his not looking at the reference given. In any case there were no substantial editing violations by any of the addresses or users mentioned in the "request for blocking" There is no malicious action by any of the addresses or users, or of any simutaneous use of two identities.

"the editor." Not "me" or "my edits," His comments were directed at IP users generally, and I was intending to stand up for IP users generally. He did not try to vandalize the work I did under a username. As I mentioned, at most computers I do not have a WP password available. There is nothing I am aware of preventing sequential editing from different locations. In the instances cited, of course the edits are similar- after logging on with a username, I restored the old editing from the history. Please tell me how there is anything wrong or unethical about this.

I do not believe this malicious action by T___ should go on. Could you suggest how I can address this, and if you do not wish to change the blocking, how I can appeal that, addressing this blizzard of harassment by T.; the links I saw were unhelpful or unavailable due to blocking. Is there any method of private communication on WP? b_____bob4wk69.72.27.107 (talk) 07:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a very good suggestion of how to address this. STOP EVADING YOUR BLOCK. Your network range is now blocked; this block will expire alongside your account, however if this continues your block will be extended. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks

Heh ;) I actually ended up seeing if you were active again, and I probably went to enwp.org/User talk:Hersfold, and saw the big red warning at the top, so I clicked on the warning, saw some expired IPBE requests and pestered an admin in #wikipedia-en to remove it :) Thanks for the barnstar! I'm glad I could help out :) --Addihockey10 e-mail 03:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mail...I see you're going to be away, but anyway...

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.— Shearonink (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vote (X) for Change

Re. Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs) (apparently),

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A cute block.

(Just letting you know)  Chzz  ►  08:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Typical of him... Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

SPI Cookie

Elizium23 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can 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.


To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for your CheckUser work on the SPI case I opened. Sorry it was so messy! Elizium23 (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm, a warm cookie. Thanks much, and don't worry about it. In some ways it's better having one that appears messy up front as opposed to one that looks easy and turns out to be ugly. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

I respect your decision and thank you for your courtesy. I will run again someday. Just out of curiousity, how long have you been on Wikipedia? NASCARFAN1717 (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Wikiman1717[reply]

Four and a half years. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I been doing this for 14 years. NASCARFAN1717 (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Wikiman1717[reply]

Cool NASCARFAN1717 (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2011


That's a neat trick, considering Wikipedia celebrated its tenth birthday a few months ago, and that your account was registered on the 7th of this month. So either you're a time traveler that is using sockpuppets, or you're lying for no apparent reason (which, by the way, does not improve my assessment of you that you're not here to contribute). Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI. This is especially hilarious. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Totally called it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


New to Wikipedia- Protocol & Process Request

I've added links to the Robina Suwol page and would like to know protocol or process for requesting some of the commentary at the top to be considered for removal. Thanks CentralAbe (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC) Central Abe[reply]

In general, those notes can be removed by any editor that feels as though the issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of relevant policies or guidelines, which are linked in the notices. I'm taking a look at it now, though, and while you have added a large number of links as references, it's not clear what these links are intended to be referencing. You may want to convert them into footnote-style citations to help with that. The notability also remains a large issue. The majority of the article talks not about Ms. Suwol but her program, and the large number of red links in the sections that are about her raise questions as to the importance of the awards she's earned. If the sources you've added talk mostly about her and not her program, then that may help matters, but then the article still needs cleanup to address the subject and not other topics. I hope this helps. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. - In future, remember that talk page messages should always go to the bottom of the screen. You can use the "New section" tab at the top of the page to help with this.

"not implausible"

Whilst the behavioral/communication similarities between Nutley and TLAM bring a big fat duck waddling into view, the technical findings appear sufficient only for a verdict that, in your own words, it's "not implausible" that these two accounts might be operated by Nutley alone or with a meatpuppet. Plausibility ("Superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious" -- Mirriam Webster) would seem, on the face of it, to set the bar for a sock block so low that it could trip an innocent editor. Is my understanding correct? Please clarify. Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It probably is unhelpful to provide many details about checkuser procedures. mark nutley has in the past gone to great lengths to conceal his identity, even paying to have access to WP:OP addresses. But checkuser would not have been performed had there not been behavioral evidence. And since the sockmaster has identified himself, it should be possible for any innocent suspected sock who lives in Wiltshire and edit-wars in the same articles with the same POV and writing style to show that he is someone else. While it may be inconvenient to them, mark nutley has created huge inconvenience to many other editors. TFD (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Replying at your talk. Writegeist (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on TLAM's talk page, he was not blocked solely because of the checkuser findings. He was blocked due to those similarities in combination with the behavioral evidence. As TFD is hinting at, providing much more detail than I've already have would be inadvisable due to WP:BEANS, and would quite possibly be in violation of the Checkuser or Privacy policy in any event. If TLAM is indeed someone else, it should be possible for him to prove that. Keep in mind also that if he is a different person and yet still engages in the same behavior Mark Nutley uses, he could well be blocked by his own merits anyway. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I do understand that the behavior was taken into account -- I referenced WP:QUACK. But the technical evidence presented in support of the block is so loose, and so very far short of conclusive, that TLAM's "flimsy" is putting it mildly (and the admitted avoidance of full disclosure only deepens the impression of flimflam, which would further infuriate an innocent user). Indeed you will only go so far as to say it is "not implausible" (again please see the Mirriam Webster def. above) that TLAM is MN. OK. So how exactly would it be "possible for him to prove" otherwise to your satisfaction? Or at least to the extent that you might think it "not implausible" that TLAM and MN are different people? Writegeist (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that I am the one who has access to the technical evidence. I am not convinced that the technical evidence is as loose as you claim. If you believe that my refusal to provide more detail is weakening the case, then I apologize - that is something you'd have to take up with the Wikimedia Foundation, as I am bound by their policies to keep my mouth shut about any specific details regarding checkuser evidence. Technically speaking, it is not implausible. The behavioral evidence is more compelling. The combination of the two, again, is what led to TLAM's identification as Marknutley and the subsequent block. I will not state what will make it possible to prove his innocence because again, this is a sockpuppeteer who has been known to make efforts to hide his identify and I have no interest in giving him a road map to a get out of jail free card. Again, see WP:BEANS. If this weakens my case in your eyes, so be it; I am not concerned. This is TLAM/Mark's issue to deal with, not yours, and I will not accept third-party appeals. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I will not state what will make it possible to prove his innocence" -- is that a direct quote from something by Kafka? Your lack of concern for what I think doesn't surprise me. The only surprise is that you think it necessary to state it. I didn't ask for you to be concerned. And neither, contrary to your implication, is any of this an appeal on TLAM's behalf. However, it's reasonable for me to have an interest in the way others work in what is, after all, a collaborative project; also in its rules and procedures, and how they are enforced. I think the block is probably deserved. But thinking and knowing are two different things. Thanks for illuminating the workings of your mind. I appreciate you taking the time. Best wishes. Writegeist (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My responsibility as a checkuser is to the security of this project. If that means publicly announcing a blow-by-blow checklist for how to evade blocks and run multiple accounts without being detected, then so be it. But if that is the case, I will have it come from the Arbitration Committee or the Wikimedia Foundation, not any random editor to come by who is unable to comprehend why I do what I do. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not realize that in asking how someone could prove their innocence I was asking for a blow-by-blow checklist of how to evade blocks. (And judging by MN's history he needs no instruction from you.) I am no more a "random editor" than you are. I am perfectly able to comprehend why you do what you do. That much is clear. Writegeist (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Griot is back

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/209.216.228.53
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SCFilm29#Blocked_indefinitely
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ralph_Nader&action=history

Reported privately already. Suggest another block. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.196.51 (talk • contribs)

Replied on IP's talk page. Report filed, IP blocked two weeks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I responded on my talk page also. If you have any additional questions or would like further information, I will respond privately. If you wish me to contact you, kindly provide your information on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.63.196.51 (talk • contribs)

User:Hersfold/Lockbox

Hi there. Would you please use Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items for this purpose instead? I cannot think of any reason to use your userspace to protect stuff and there are no other such "personal" lock boxes in use any more, to my knowledge. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The pages I've added recently are there because they are likely targets in an ongoing attack by a serial sockpuppeteer. I will likely place them there soon, but for the time being I would prefer to keep a personal eye on them. It is much easier to do this when the cascaded page is in my userspace rather than project space. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I have no problem with you protecting these templates, but why can't you use Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items for this? How is it easier to manage if the page is in your userspace? You can watch either page just as easily. Although you can do what you wish in your userspace, within reason, I don't think it is fair to demand that right when it affects a whole bunch of other pages throughout the encyclopedia. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is just a temporary thing, and the advantage of my userspace is that it directly implies "If you want this unprotected, please check with the checkuser first." I've only added a small handful of templates that aren't already on the more public list, so it isn't really a whole bunch of other pages. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind if we removed all the stuff which is covered by the other one, and just leave these temporary ones in your userspace? That would resolve one of the problems of these personal lockboxes, which is that often administrators are uncomfortable about changing stuff in other people's userspace (you may have noticed that I don't worry about this!) and there is no reason to expect them to ask your permission before unprotecting a template which has been deprecated or such. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, I'll go do that. Belated apologies, by the way, for the original irate protection log entry. I realized after the fact that you had consulted with me about it at the time. That reluctance is part of the point of this, as I said, but it's not necessary for those other templates at this time. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and no worries, and ... by the way, welcome back ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

What do I have to do?

Hello good sir, I just realised you just deleted a short biography of a young pianist, If I may, I would like to remake this page, with the nesecary requirements ofcourse, but you see, im new on this, would you please tell me what do I have to do in order for you to don't delete the page? Maximilian Zeth (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In order for an article to remain on Wikipedia, it must establish that the subject is notable. The article I deleted did not include any references, which is also a necessity for any article. I suggest you read through this guide for suggestions as to how to resolve these and other issues. If you need, I can restore the article and place it on a page within your personal user page area, so that you can work on it at your own pace, and have it reviewed before moving it back to the main article space. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Griot, again

Thought you'd like to know, evading the block:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/209.216.228.208

Belated congrats and a thank you

Hey, just noticed that you'd returned to wikipedia, and that you have graduated - Welcome back and congratulations! Just thought I'd leave you a note say that I found your adoption centre and run with it, creating an adoption school of my own, which has already had 5 graduates and likely to have a few more. It's helped me significantly in mentoring and adopting, so I wanted to say a big thank you for the effort you put in to yours, allowing me to create mine. WormTT · (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome! Thanks for the congrats, and congrats to you for all those graduates of your own. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Jokawich

Just a minor point - as Jokawich was apparently born in the 1890s, I think it's unlikely that this was a BLP (unless he's 110 ish). The content didn't appear as an attack page either - however, it should have been deleted, but I'd have done it under A7 - as it doesn't say anything about who he was - it could be inferred that he was a composer from the YouTube video linked to, but I could find no mention of him at reliable sources. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure if that image was supposed to be him or not; my eyes jumped to "driven to madness" and "sexual abuse" and I went with what the template said. I'll undelete one revision so I can fix the log entry. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S S Miami sock

He's back: [1]. 86.133.53.184 (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

DellSupportServices

Just a quick note - I was contacted by this user, whom you declined to unblock. They seem quite well intentioned, so I went ahead and verified they are editing on behalf of Dell (which they are). I've asked them to refrain from making any edits to articles, and to only suggest changes on article talk pages. They were quite willing to do that, and so I've unblocked . I'm partial to letting them keep the current username so it is clear we know who they are, rather than having to remember User:JSmith is editing for a company. I don't expect any problems from them, but I thought I'd leave a message. Cheers, Prodego talk 03:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hersfold, is there more to the indef block of Exxolon besides the creation and use of the Hewwo account? --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've been told, this is not the first time Exxolon has attempted something like this. I don't know the exact details of that case, but in this particular one he was asked to publicly admit to the sockpuppetry and chose not to. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the info. If there's checkuser type stuff that needs to stay off wiki, or a longer history, I'll bow out. I was looking at this based only on what's available on-wiki, and thru the filter of Nabla's ability to do something vaguely similar and not only avoid a block but keep his admin bit, and thought it disproportionate. I'm still not really comfortable with the disparity, but I'll grudgingly defer to people who know more about what is actually going on than I do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I don't know much about the prior cases, but if you're curious you may want to email Alison. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, if I change my mind I'll pester Alison. But as long as there was more to things than met the eye, I'll likely not stick my nose in further. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editrequest

Hi, please take a look at my editrequest {{IPAsym}} here. -DePiep (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply there, but for future reference the edit protected template adds pages to a watch category; you don't need to ask an admin directly. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That cascade stuff is even getting worse. Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Template:IPAsym_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29. Is it a private enterprise? -DePiep (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained at RFPP. Sorry, I didn't realize at first why you'd asked me specifically. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to expand my knowledge in this. Is it true that an article, protected through cascade (so fully protected) cannot be edited at all, not even via admin tools & {{editprotect}}? (unless the cascade source protection is lifted)? -DePiep (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I've said previously, if you can provide code you would like an administrator to put in that template and draw attention to it with an {{editprotected}} template, we can do so for you. Administrators can edit through any sort of protection. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the removal of protection, the sockpuppeteer was active again last night and again targeted unprotected high-risk templates. I'm afraid it'll need to stay protected a bit longer. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you know it's a sockpuppet, but don't know how to stop it. Interesting. Anyway, Wikipedia is finished by now and only needs to be maintained by officers. Congrats. No more editors to take care of. Sorry for disturbing your habit.
End of thread for me. -DePiep (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hersfold&oldid=437153427"