User talk:Hersfold/Archive 19 (July 2008)
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Hersfold. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| ← Previous archive - Archive 19 (July 2008) - Next archive → |
This page contains discussions dated during the month of July 2008 from User talk:Hersfold. Please direct all current discussions there. Thank you.
Request
I posted two related incidents on the administrators' noticeboard and no one has replied. Please take a look here. Administrators should not allow this kind of edits to happen. 63.216.113.124 (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- You probably would have been better off contacting someone else - as the banner at top clearly states, I'm not around very often. We also get a lot of reports at the Incidents board, as you probably noticed, and occasionally one gets overlooked. He has been spoken to by administrators about his recent edits - see User talk:Hiram111. If the situation continues, feel free to contact another, more active administrator, or post another report on ANI. Sorry for the delays you've been having. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 01:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 27 | 30 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:HAU, Status, and you!
As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible system) - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 22:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. What about "busy" instead of IRC? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 00:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'll work on modifying it to allow that option in just a moment. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Done. I ended up overhauling the whole thing, since I noticed TheDJ is advertising this in his script documentation now. Anyway, it should show "busy" now by default, and you can switch it back to "On IRC" by using irc=y as a parameter. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 28 | 7 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion, question
It seems I have found the trail of breadcrumbs back to the original creator of the adoption lessons (great work btw). Anyhow I've been going through the Advanced Templates just to see if there's anything I didn't know. One suggestion would be to note that you can use p|pe characters to allow different parameters to call the same result for #switch.
Ok now on to the question. I'm trying to work out a way to transclude WP:RFPERM but supress it when there's no open requests. I've tried creating a local version of what the empty page looks like and then using an ifeq statement to compare the two, but that didn't work out me. Any bright ideas?
Hope you're enjoying your vacation! –xeno (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I do have that in the lesson already, actually - the second and third code snippets both show how that works. Thanks, though, it's always interesting to see how far these lessons are spreading. :-)
- As for your question, it looks like the forms there are separated into three subpages, which makes things easier. I'll take a look at it in just a moment, I'm having some issues with a transwiki project at the moment.
- Otherwise, vacation's going well, thanks. Should be back on regular editing in a couple weeks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not having any luck suppressing it. Using #ifeq: as you tried should work, I'm not sure why it isn't (see my test). The good news is, you don't have to transclude WP:RFPERM itself, just its three subpages, Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Acc, Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, and Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rem. Those aren't too obtrusive when added, and it'll help people add new requests if they come across your userpage or whatever. I just looked, and I don't see any parsers to help with this, although you did give me a great idea for a feature request. Sorry I can't be of more help there. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Got it, glad I sent in the feature request. Mediawiki does have something to show the size of a page, which you can use like this:
{{#ifeq: {{#expr: {{PAGESIZE:Wikipedia:Requests for permission/Rollback}} < 180 }} | 1 | ''No current rollback requests''
| {{Wikipedia:Requests for permission/Rollback}} }}
- So, if the page is so short it can only possibly contain the header, the statement is true, returns a 1, and spits out "No current rollback requests" or whatever else you want it to show. Yay! Hersfold (t/a/c) 07:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
|
The da Vinci Barnstar | |
| Smashing good idea! I knew of the pagesize paramater, but I guess I didn't think about doing it that way. Most excellent! For this brilliant solution, which will allow me to fix the {{admin dashboard}}, I award you the da Vinci Barnstar! –xeno (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC) |
I'm looking to import this into Simple EN Wikipedia; could you give me a list of everything I need to import? Microchip 08 17:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Better yet, I'll just transfer it all for you and save you the work. Hurrah for global accounts. I'll let you know when it's up, and where. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it's there, um, sort of. I'm having some difficulty with the update scripts, probably because Simple is missing something we take for granted here, although it could very well be I didn't transwiki something we need that I've forgotten or didn't know about. I've asked the script developer to take a look at it, but he's also on vacation.
- The bright side is, the template is there, and does work, however, you'll have to manually update your status. Click on any of the update links and type in "online", "recently online", or "offline" to the edit box that appears, and save the page. As long as you type it in exactly as I have shown here, with no quotes, it should work normally. I'll let you know as soon as I can once things start working correctly. Sorry for the inconvienince in the meantime. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, link is thus: simple:User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate. Documentation and usage is essentially the same as it is here, I'll simplify things down when I get the chance. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Double vote
I just removed a double vote from AfD. Upon looking closer, I noticed it was done by someone else. Anyway, thought you might have wanted to know. ^_^ Synergy 08:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 29 | 14 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Transparency | ||
| WikiWorld: "Goregrind" | Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 30 | 21 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
You are mistaken
I have not used my rollback powers to edit war, when reverting any edits I have used the undo function, NOT rollback. I would appreciate if you would please restore these powers as I use them to moderate lacrosse articles as part of my wikiproject lacrosse membership. Thank you. --Xander756 (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that was fast - I was about to leave you a message, but it seems you beat me to it. Anyway, I removed the tool based on these edits on the Forrest Griffin, which did not appear to be blatant vandalism, especially considering your recent report to ANI.
- I will not give you the tool back immediately, however this removal does not prevent you from getting it back in the future. Your membership in Wikiproject Lacrosse should not be affected by this (if it is, someone else needs a talking to), but this tool cannot be used for anything other than what is obviously vandalism. The four edits above were not that by any means, and the ongoing discussion and ANI report confirm this. You're welcome to ask another admin about this if you'd like, but no, I'm not restoring the tools now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please note that in
I was under the impression I was dealing with a vandal. His changes ignored referenced material and changed them without reasons given. If I am correct that would be a definition of vandalism. This change: :*[8] Was a mistake and I did not mean to revert nor undo it. As you can see in an edit note on one of my undo's after that I said it was an error. --Xander756 (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- I still would not consider the first three links to be blatant vandalism, especially considering this is an established user. I am about to sign off for the night, but I'm willing to continue this tomorrow if you feel it is necessary. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- When you check into him. Also note the reverts that were just made. I believe Xander756 has now resorted to sockpuppetry. After he returned to the page and left the new subsection alone. @ mysterious accounts were created the first one has one edits in it. And it was to revert my last additon. The second new account also has one edit, and it was to remove the new subsection. Kind of weird don't you think for a new user to create an account and come directly to Forrest griifins page and do this. They both seemed to remove exactly what Xander756 doesnt want on the page, and yet that are their only editsSwampfire (talk) 05:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think that you're making a big mistake as I have contributed a lot using my rollback and you are feeding directly into Swampfire's hands here. He is making bad faith edits and your removal of my powers based simply on our differing of opinion on what constitutes as vandalism (removing referenced material without any reason repeatedly IS vandalism no matter how you look at it) is a victory for him. As for him being an established user, at the time of his edits on the page his account was not yet a week old and his edit history included multiple edit wars and edits that have been since reverted. Hardly established enough look the other way on his actions I just described. to As you can see from the message above he stalks and harasses me. An admin has even warned him on this on his talk page. Also please check into the IP 72.75.107.249 as it has just defaced my usertalk page moments ago. --Xander756 (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes please check into the IP you will see it wasn't me if he is trying to say it is. And if you actually check times stamps. I have not stalked or harassed him. I have merely responded to him. He is the one that continually initiates contact. An admin did not warn me for stalking him, or harassing him. He merely suggested I try to avoid him. Which I did, Infact after I avoided him and he came to my page and initiated things again. First thing I did was go back to that admin before responding. I have tried several attempts to resovle this by incorporating everything into the page. He just refuses to let things go. And now to resort to what I believe is sockpuppetry just makes him take even one step farther. If you would like I can provide links to all the pages these discussion have taken place on. You will see including my edits that I have tried time and time again to resolve this. But Xander756 just refuses the same as he is doing now with you in refusing to accept your decision as an admin. Thank you for your time. Swampfire (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think that you're making a big mistake as I have contributed a lot using my rollback and you are feeding directly into Swampfire's hands here. He is making bad faith edits and your removal of my powers based simply on our differing of opinion on what constitutes as vandalism (removing referenced material without any reason repeatedly IS vandalism no matter how you look at it) is a victory for him. As for him being an established user, at the time of his edits on the page his account was not yet a week old and his edit history included multiple edit wars and edits that have been since reverted. Hardly established enough look the other way on his actions I just described. to As you can see from the message above he stalks and harasses me. An admin has even warned him on this on his talk page. Also please check into the IP 72.75.107.249 as it has just defaced my usertalk page moments ago. --Xander756 (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- When you check into him. Also note the reverts that were just made. I believe Xander756 has now resorted to sockpuppetry. After he returned to the page and left the new subsection alone. @ mysterious accounts were created the first one has one edits in it. And it was to revert my last additon. The second new account also has one edit, and it was to remove the new subsection. Kind of weird don't you think for a new user to create an account and come directly to Forrest griifins page and do this. They both seemed to remove exactly what Xander756 doesnt want on the page, and yet that are their only editsSwampfire (talk) 05:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- I still would not consider the first three links to be blatant vandalism, especially considering this is an established user. I am about to sign off for the night, but I'm willing to continue this tomorrow if you feel it is necessary. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- See I knew Swampfire would have a field day with your little decision here. He has already posted three separate times that your removal of my rollback privileges serve as evidence that I am wrong and should not be listened to. You are dealing with someone with a personal vendetta against me so you need to understand that these kind of actions are going to have consequences that you might not have foreseen. I wish you had not acted so hastily (as I clearly explained away the instances of rollback). --Xander756 (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- I do not have a personal vendetta aginst you. You just refuse to let thnigs go. In fact if you check into it and look at Xanders contribs you will see where after you you did not side with him. That he then began going to countles other admins and trying to get them to side with him. I also found a third and new personal attack on me here [9] yet another clear viloation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL against me.Swampfire (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- You have posted this nonsense about my new personal attack over six times now across four different talk pages and two discussion pages. If he had good intentions I do not think he would be posting the same thing over and over and different pages. I don't even know what he is referring to, there? The word belligerent? --Xander756 (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have had to because you are running around to so many admins trying to play mommy against daddy. Mommy said No, so I'll go to daddy. I am pretty sure there is a policy about admin hopping to find one to take your side after one says no.Swampfire (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Swampfire, I think you should stop following Xander and posting accusations on every admin's talkpage he posts on. The removal of rollback has noting to do with the dispute. Again, please keep this where it belongs (WP:AN/I). Sorry for intruding Hersfold. --aktsu (t / c) 16:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, Aktsu, at all. Swampfire and Xander756, both of you are to stop fighting on my talk page at once. This page is not a battle ground, and this section is dealing only with the removal of Xander's rollback. The conflict between you two is being dealt with at ANI. The removal of rollback has no impact on your dispute at all, and quite frankly isn't any of your business, Swampfire.
- Now, if Xander has any further concerns about the removal of rollback, he is welcome to continue this discussion. However, the accusations from both sides will stop, now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- I do not have a personal vendetta aginst you. You just refuse to let thnigs go. In fact if you check into it and look at Xanders contribs you will see where after you you did not side with him. That he then began going to countles other admins and trying to get them to side with him. I also found a third and new personal attack on me here [9] yet another clear viloation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL against me.Swampfire (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- I can work without rollback yes, but it kind of puts a thorn in my side when patrolling recent changes or reverting vandalism. The reason I am disputing this is that I think it is rather unfair that someone who has reverted dozens if not hundreds of instances of vandalism for years without an instance of abuse would immediately have it revoked based on one incident that I explained away. As I was explaining, I thought I was dealing with vandalism (user less than a week old, prior edit war history, removing referenced info without reason). Even Pedro agreed that I was most likely acting in good faith, which I was. I just do not think it to be fair or just to remove someones rollback that was acting in good faith. I also fail to see a point in waiting to restore it if you plan on doing it at all. --Xander756 (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- The tool was removed because you were using it (from what I could tell) to edit war. Even if you thought that the edits you removed were vandalism, they aren't what I would consider blatant, which is the only thing rollback is intended for. Since the edit war in question is not yet resolved, I'm waiting until it's over to review your access to the tool. I am willing to accept at this point that you were acting in good faith, but I also note that you were not using the tool as it was intended, which is why it was removed. The wait is to make sure that you have a chance to smooth over your current conflicts, so that there won't be any chance of you even accidentally misusing it again in the meantime. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)