User talk:Hersfold/Archive 25 (January 2009)

← Previous archive - Archive 25 (January 2009) - Next archive →

This page contains discussions dated during the month of January 2009 from User talk:Hersfold. Please direct all current discussions there. Thank you.

---

January 1 - 10

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!		Happy New Year!
		MISTER ALCOHOL T C wishes you a Happy New Year! Hopefully this one has made your New Year better. Spread the harmony by offering this greeting to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 04:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC) (Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Mister Alcohol/HappyNewYear}} to their talk page with a friendly message.)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 45	24 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: 200th issue
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles	News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 46	1 December 2008	About the Signpost

ArbCom elections: Elections open	Wikipedia in the news
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 5, Issue 1	3 January 2009	About the Signpost

From the editor: Getting back on track
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed	Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK
Editing statistics show decline in participation	Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments	Dispatches: Featured list writers
Wikipedia in the news	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Matter resolved

Hi there! Thanks for replying! The matter has been resolved, so you can archive that post. Regards and a Happy New Year to you, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back! Martin 16:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible DC Meetup

Some editors are planning a possible DC Wiki-meetup in mid to late February. If interested, please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/DC 5#Another date? (If you’re no longer interested in getting these notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 5#Nope, but let me know about future events.) Thanks. — Satori Son 16:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What Is Adoption?

There is something called "adoption." What is it, and does it have anything to do with orphaned pages? -BlueCaper (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Argument

I know it was wrong to write in bolds, but User:Realist didnot even check whether i added source or not. He is in a whim to undo every change done not only to this page but to any other. It was extremely disappointing to see an administrater, in stead of actually evaluating the change in consideration. Atleast i added some reference, the other informations are completely without any source. I don't see that getting undid! I did ask his help in reviewing some articles but he removed that from his talk page also. I could have reported this to WP:ANI but i didn't coz its not worth going to a ANI over such a trivial issue. But again, its really disappointing to see an extablished editor behaving like this. I am losing my faith in wikipedia. "Legolas" (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Woah, slow down there. Assume a little good faith for a moment; saying someone didn't even check for a source also isn't helping matters. He may not have, true, but you also need to keep in mind that there was a large indicator to show you hadn't added a source the second time around: your edit summary said "Undid revision 262100879 by Realist2 (talk)", which indicates no new information was added; you simply reverted what Realist had done, which was to remove what you'd added in the first place. Since he'd already looked at your edit, and found that you had neither included a source nor a reason for reverting him, there was little need for him to spend additional time reviewing it again.

Now, in looking over your edits again, I don't see where you added any sort of reference; could you help point me out? I know a lot of information in that article (and others) is not referenced. Sadly, that's one of the problems we have to deal with regularly, and it can often seem arbitrary where it is and isn't "enforced". The truth is, it's enforced everywhere, but since we're all volunteers we often only have time to focus on the more controversial statements. In this case, you were adding information to indicate that this record had reached #1 on one of Billboard's charts, despite a reference just above that which showed that the album only reached #17 on another of Billboard's lists. I'm not saying you're wrong (and frankly don't care), but for something that appears as contradictory as this, we do need a source, especially when the other peak ratings do all have sources.

Again, I don't fully agree with how Realist handled this; explaining things like this in the first place probably would have helped a lot; however, please don't take this too badly. I'm sure Realist did not intend to upset you, and as you said yourself, it's not really that big an issue. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

C'mon how can you say? An album can have two different positions in two different charts published by the same Source (Billboard). Thats what i pointed out. The source has already been given in the article in a previous section. We don't need to give it a second time in the charts. But since User:Realist didnot check that, and made a judgement, thats wrong! Hence second time i added that same source again in that section. Maybe this will cool him down and not fill my talk page with murderous threatnings and warnings which are absolutely necessary :) "Legolas" (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah - my apologies, for some reason I missed the source you added in your most recent edit (which I should note has not been reverted, hmm?). However, even if a source has been given previously in the same article, it is strongly recommended to note the source again, so that it's clear to both editors and readers that that source is in fact the one you are using. Otherwise, they have no way of knowing that the statement is in fact sourced; it's like driving down the highway and seeing a sign with only a list of exit numbers, and then a mile later seeing a sign with only a list of cities. You might assume that the cities correspond to the exit numbers, but you have no way of knowing which exit is for which city. We try to avoid that confusion for our readers, and so ask that controversial statements are immediately followed by their sources. Actually, you'll notice that reference #9 is used three separate times throughout that article. Those usages are all immediately next to each other, but you still have a little blue number next to each one, which is what we want. Does that help some? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

He he. Your example was hilarious. Imagine what would have happened. I get your point. Thanks for your support in helping me understand. I hope User:Realist does check next time. By the way, since you are an administrater, can you please go to File:Luckystarmusicvideo.jpg and File:Livetotellmusicvideo.jpg and close their deletion request? It has been pending for a long time. Thanking you "Legolas" (talk) 06:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, I'm glad I could be of some help. If you ever have any other trouble, feel free to let me know. I'll go take a look at those deletion requests now; happy editing! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I will surely let you know for any guidance that i need. Please close those two requests however way you feel like (Keep or Delete). "Legolas" (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Closed as requested, and both images have been deleted. Stifle & crew are correct; while the image can be used to illustrate that point, the album covers can also serve this purpose and are there for a different reason already. I left a more detailed explanation at the discussion, but that's more or less it. Anyway, I'm off for the night. See you around. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOTD

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Motto_of_the_day/Nominations#Running_dry Simply south not SS, sorry 12:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please give me an example of the non-free use and non-free rationale labeling of images?

I do not know how to do this, and the page on how to do this is a bit confusing to me. Could you please give me a example of what I type when editing the file page? Thanks. -BlueCaper (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFCC is the relevant policy here, but I'm going to assume you've already read that; if you haven't, do so now. The criteria on that page all must be met in order for us to use a copyrighted image under the terms of fair use. To summarize all of the main points, fair use images have to be of low quality, provide substantial educational insight, used as little as possible, and cannot be replaced by something we can get without copyright. When uploading a copyrighted image, you have to provide a rationale that addresses all of these points, as well as the other criteria. An example would be:

"This image is to be used only in Sunburg, Minnesota (WP:NFCC#7, 9) to illustrate to readers the seal of the city, the symbol of the city's government (WP:NFCC#5, 8). Because it is a copyrighted work of the City of Sunburg, obtained from their website at [insert link here], no free equivalent of this image exists or can be obtained. (WP:NFCC#1, 4). The entire portion of the work is necessary to illustrate the full city seal (WP:NFCC#3b), and no other images will be used for this purpose, as this image provides the best means of doing so (WP:NFCC#3a). As the City of Sunburg is not a commercial entity, use of this logo will not negatively impact them (WP:NFCC#2). Use of this logo meets established Wikipedia standards (WP:NFCC#6)." (This rationale, as well as the proper copyright tag, meet WP:NFCC#10.)

It may look big and confusing, but most of the content in here can be easily copied with only a few modifications into other rationales, provided the image does indeed meet all of those conditions. The only other thing you'd need to worry about is finding the correct copyright tag; there is a list containing all of the most common ones at WP:TAGS/FU.

If you need help on figuring out what you can upload under fair use, you may also want to read the bottom portion of User:Hersfold/Adopt/Copyright - it gives a few examples of both appropriate and inappropriate applications of fair use. If you have any more questions, though, feel free to let me know - fair use is one of the more problematic bits here, and it's an excellent way to get in trouble if you mess stuff up. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

IP Exempt

I guess I didn't make myself very clear, I apologise. That's the IP address of the server from which my bot runs, not my personal IP address. In line with a load of other bots, I would like IP Exempt to unblock edits from that IP address by the logged in user LivingBot. Jarry1250 (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That still doesn't answer my question. Why is your bot running from a proxy, and why should I give it IP exempt to do so? IP Exempt is not something we hand out willy-nilly; there has to be a good reason for it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not running from a proxy per se, just my server; to quote BJ "That IP is from a shared hosting company, which are generally free game for hard blocking and even range blocking. I'd suggest ipblockexempt on the bot account.". I was just going on that; sorry if I'm wrong about it. Jarry1250 (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just tried getting the bot to grabs its own IP address: the result 65.254.224.34 i.e. the one that is banned. Maybe there is a transparent proxy on the server or something. Jarry1250 (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Our scans indicate that that IP address could be running a botnet; I'm personally not comfortable granting an IP Exempt on it, and I'm surprised BJweeks didn't just do it himself if that's what he suggested. I'll bring it up with some other admins, and see what they say about it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. Jarry1250 (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Raaz - The Mystery Continues

Hi Hersfold, a small favour to ask. Can you please semi-protect the above wiki-linked page untill 24th January? There has been two much of unregistered IP vandalism on this page. So i'm placing this request to semi-protect this page. "Legolas" (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Luckystarmusicvideo.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Luckystarmusicvideo.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bscar23625 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd have preferred you came to speak to me about it first (as is sort of strongly recommended by DRV), but whatever, have it your way. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Template help

I am trying to use the template you created at User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate but it will only show my status as 'lost'. I've followed the instructions but I cannot seem to get it to work properly (listed on my userpage). -- ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 17:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be working for me. I noticed that you were trying to change the status page manually, though - the template is set up so all you have to do is click one of those colored links at the bottom of the template, and that will automagically edit the page for you. Try using one of those and see what happens. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done that, i've even removed the text from that subpage but it still displays 'lost' (even after clearing the cache) -- ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 16:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. That IS odd. It looks as though you've followed the directions correctly, and I can't seem to find any sort of problem with the template, as it is working for me, and I can't find any errors in the template code. What should happen is this: when you click on one of the colored links (On, Busy, Off), it should bring up an edit box for the status page you created. It will remove whatever the contents of that box were and replace it with the appropriate message (online, Recently online, or offline; respectively). It will also fill in the edit summary box and automatically save the page. All of this *should* take about two to three seconds. Since none of your edit summaries are of the automatic sort, I can tell this isn't happening; exactly how far do you get when you click those links? You ought to get the edit box regardless, but does it do anything of what I described above? Also, if you don't mind, what browser and operating system are you using? The script should work correctly in Firefox regardless of OS, and appears to work in Internet Explorer 6 (so I'd assume it works in 7 as well). Sorry I'm not able to just fix this, but it doesn't look like the problem is on Wikipedia's end. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm using firefox and when i click one of the links, it does take me to the edit window for 'status'. It just doesn't do anything. I've even tried 'tricking' the system to think that it is updated by adding the same content as is on YOUR Status page, and that didn't work either.. -- ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 17:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Humm, seems to be working now.. I ... Don't get it.. -- ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 20:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for help on user contributions. (Duh, am I blind or what?). Per the top of this page, "you're welcome" is assumed! Gerardw (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, it happens. And you are indeed welcome. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the note on how to link a category page. I'd tried to link it the normal way (which you probably saw) but simply had delinked it when it "vanished" from the text the first time. WW,QuisCustodio (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. You had us quite confused for a moment, I was expecting an unblock request. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing the block that I was wrongly subjected to. Is it possible to recover the material I had tried to save when I was blocked? I can't recover it. Pexise (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not, I'm afraid; you might be able to get it by hitting the back button on your browser, but that doesn't always work. By the way, the block was not directed at you; you got hit by an autoblock, placed by the software against another blocked user. Since you happened to be on the same IP address at the time, you were affected as well. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:IFU submissions

Hello. I was told by User:Matt.T that you uploaded the images I submitted to WP:IFU. I just wanted to say I appreciate your help and the effort to upload them all. Thanks again. 72.74.195.83 (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, glad I could help. I don't suppose I could convince you to get an account so you can do this yourself in the future? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Raaz - The Mystery Continues

Hi Hersfold, did you check the above page and see whether it needed semi-protection? Regards "Legolas" (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops. No, I seem to have forgotten to do so. Ideally, you should request at WP:RFPP, but there's not much point in sending you there now. I'm afraid I have to decline, though - there's nowhere near enough vandalism there to be causing a significant problem, and since it seems you and other editors are working actively on the article, any vandalism should be quickly removed anyway. Protection is only applied in cases of persistent vandalism where blocks have proven to be ineffective. Usually, I look for several vandal edits per day over a course of several days before I'll consider protecting something. Best of luck on the article, all the same. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Rollback permissions

Thanks for granting rollback rights to my account. I do realise that it is to be used for blatant vandalism only. Shreevatsa (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for unblocking 163.153.122.213. I especially appreciate the well phrased note to the students.

Take care. --NERIC-Security (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite welcome. Seems a bit pointless to let your efforts go to waste. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for clearing things up at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hpfan9374. I thought I'd come forward myself, and am very glad you did not decide to block my main account, as I enjoy editing Wikipedia and it is a hobby of mine. I will never do anything such as this again and am happy to have this in the past. Thanks again. Hpfan9374 (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing reports at WP:SSP

When closing reports at WP:SSP subpages, please do not subst use of {{SSPa}}, but just use {{SSPa}}. I believe this is fouling up the Bot's archival from the main page of WP:SSP. Thank you for your work on the WP:SSP pages! Cirt (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. For some reason I thought it got subst'd. I'll keep an eye on that from now on. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Cirt (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Check

This is a user named User:Banana7070. I just wanted to tell you that you need to check my friend's discussion page. User:Jibajabba —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banana7070 (talk • contribs)

Thank you, I've declined his request as he did not follow the instructions. In the future, we should be notified about his requests through a category, but since he messed it up this time I do appreciate the heads-up. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

January 11 - 20

A favor to ask

Dear Hersfold,

I have been thinking for some time about beginning an RfA process. However, I don't know if I am qualified at the present time. I was wondering if you can look at my contribs, and see if I have a shot at adminship.

For full disclosure: I was banned by admins for 12 hours in September for NPA violations over a AfD discussion. I have regretted my actions profusely since then, and I have apologized to the other party in question. Since then, I have not been on the wrong side of Wikipedia rules and regulations. I have also learnt how to back off in heated situations, something that I believe is essential to civilized conversations on the internet.

Many thanks! Arbiteroftruth 23:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Even though your block was back in September, that may very well be too soon for most of the RfA crowd to take well to you running. That aside, I did take a look at your contributions through this thingie; you've got a lot of article edits, which is good, but only about an eighth or so of your edits have been to Project space, which may throw off some of the die-hard people. Your activity looks pretty good. As for your contributions themselves, I took a look at your recent edits to the Wikipedia: namespace to try and get a feeling for your understanding of policy. The problems I noticed include: This RFPP request will probably be declined; you're the only user who appears to have substantially edited the article in the last day or so, and not all of IP edits are unconstructive. Be careful about what you say when referring to legal action; I know you said "I don't intend to", but it's usually best to avoid saying it in the first place. Within the last 50 edits, those are the only problems I noticed.

So, basically what I'm saying is that I would probably support you. Unfortunately, I can almost guarantee you that most of the RfA crowd will probably look at your block log, and then look no further. I know of at least one user who automatically opposes any RfA candidate who has had a block in the last year. If they do continue looking, some of them maybe turned back by some of the older discussions on your talk page; I notice you were having some misunderstandings about the username policy back in August. You also seem to have had some other problems with reports and working with other users throughout your current talk page. Because of all that, I don't believe you would be able to succeed at RfA at this time.

Now, don't get me wrong. I would love to see you run, if only because I'm part of a group that really really really wants to see more admins. I would strongly recommend you look into Wikipedia:Admin coaching - this should be a good way for you to sort out any policy problems you may still have, get a better concept of what adminship entails, and should give you the time you need to "recover" from the block. When you do go for RfA, please be sure to drop me a note - it's not canvassing if I specifically ask you to. Best of luck with it, and let me know if you have any questions. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 2	10 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: December themed Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Your Comments on My Page

Look, I'm not going to get in a prolonged discussion about this because I know I always lose. But for the record, User:Golbez is the one who has been reverting my edits, not the other way around. As for your comment that "When you are reverting another editor's edits, you are expected to discuss the issue with them to come to a consensus on the matter," you should be telling that to Golbez, not me. If you check the History page and the Discussion page for both List of Governors of California and List of Governors of Pennsylvania, Golbez is the one who has been reverting edits without providing an explanation.

Adam_sk (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at my Talk Page, it does appear that User:Golbez had made a comment on my page that got lost in the midst of a flurry of bot-generated comments. My bad. Though I do think that, as a matter of policy, it's better to have these discussions on the page's talk pages than on individual editor's talk pages so that, once a consensus has been achieved, it's viewable by future editors who might make the same changes - I did check the discussion page to make sure this wasn't an issue that the Wikipedia community had already decided on.

Adam_sk (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

In general, that is best, yes, and if you could hold the discussion there that would be great; although a note on the article talk page doesn't leave you with the orange bar of doom. Anyway, good to hear you got the message, and sorry if I sounded like too much of an evil admin there. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I actually think that the best practice is to launch the discussion on the page's discussion page, and then make a comment on the editor's Talk Page notifying them of that.

Adam_sk (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: My signature

Is it possible to substitute if calls?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not without making a really big mess, and even then I don't think it always works. I'm almost certain it wouldn't work in a signature (so please don't try it). Thank you for removing the ifeq, though. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I unprotected Four chan

The reasons are thus:

1. It is, after all, Today's Featured Article.
2. Right now, most everyone from 4chan is asleep, and will probably not be on for at least four hours.
3. There are plenty of Hugglers about who can easily revert things at a moment's notice. I know because I was one of them earlier tonight.
4. If nobody tells them, they may very well not notice (so SHUT UP and keep it off ANI)
5. We have several bots reporting every edit made to the article on IRC.
6. We have a handful of other bots which are blocking obvious 4chan trolls on sight.
7. A handful of other admins (myself included) have non-automated scripts (not bots) which revert and block in a single click.
8. If things do go to hell in a hand basket, it's the work of a few seconds to reprotect it. I expect as much, but in the meantime, there is no need for the protection.

You are now free to trout the admin. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Four hours? seriously? You were way off, [1], :-). worth a shot though I guess --Jac16888^Talk 07:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Four hours was assuming someone not on IRC wasn't going to walk by and freak out. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I-semi protected it again. It was vandalized five times in the roughly half hour between them, and given the nature of the article, I don't think there's any reasonable hope of it going away. Sorry if you see this as stepping on your toes, but, again, given whom we're dealing with, and the discussion on ANI which was leaning very heavily in favor of protecting contra the FA protection policy, I feel unprotecting is fruitless. seresin ( ¡? )  07:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It is perfectly fine, and in fact we were holding bets on IRC as to how long it would be until someone reprotected it (slakr won, by the way). I was completely expecting it to be reprotected sometime soon; I wasn't expecting it this early, but I do thank you very much for not going nuts on me. I will not unprotect it again, as you are correct, it is picking up again and there were at least two threads on 4chan pointing out that the article had been unprotected. Good protection, and thank you again for not biting my head off. :-D Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Who won the bet for how long it took to get unprotected? seresin ( ¡? )  08:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that was a total surprise. I'm giving it another half hour, although it's been surprisingly quiet. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

Hey! Sorry to bother you, but do you know any admins I could talk to to help get the Water fluoridation page semi-protected? Or, if I must go and use some sort of Wiki-procedure, do you know the appropriate page for me to do so? Here's my rationale: I occasionally listen to a program called Coast to Coast AM, a conspiracy theory whack-job radio talk show (for the entertainment value-- some of those people are absolutely insane). Anyway, the topic was "The Hazards of Water Fluoridation". Once I heard this, I feared for the security of the Wiki page. It turns out I was right-- the page has become a vandal magnet. It would be a great help for the people who are actually contributing to the page if you could help me out here. Thanks! -Murphy2010 (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, it's no problem. I took a look at the article, and it doesn't appear to be getting vandalized badly enough for protection to be necessary right now. All the vandalism from the last day or so has been coming from two IP addresses; if they do keep it up, we can just block them. Plus, vandalism was rather high last night and some today all over the project because of Tuesday's Featured Article. If it does get really bad, let me know and I'll take another look, or you can drop a request at WP:RFPP (probably faster response there unless I happen to be online). We don't protect pages pre-emptively except in extremely rare cases. Anyway, see you around. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

User :BlassFamily

Could you sort out the name change request of this editor, he's left the request on his talk page, it seems unlikely an admin will stumble across it and the unblocking admin seems to of missed it. — Realist² 05:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm not a crat, I can't do that myself, but I'll try to find one. If that fails, I'll copy the request over to WP:CHU. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

My bad, I thought admins could perform name changes, sorry. — Realist² 05:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, someone just did it, that was odd timing. — Realist² 05:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why I like IRC. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If User:PinkFunhouse13's image problems resurface for a lengthy period, can I ping you on the issue. I'm not a fan of WP:DRAMA and post about image problems go unnoticed unless you drag the thread back out of the archives. — Realist² 06:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. Keep an eye on 'em, but leave them a bit of slack. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Will do, I just happen to watchlist the topics he adds images too. — Realist² 06:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Need help

I was wondering if you could help out on the Anderson Cooper talk page. There is this user User:Tool2die4 who says that we cannot take a poll (oh, and this is under the discussion "Gay") on whether or not to include some quotes about Cooper (read the discussion). He is not helping and has a reputation for being a bully after I suggested one. Could you streghten this out please??? --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 20:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Tool2Die4 is actually somewhat correct, but only to a point. Polls can be used to help get an idea of where people stand on an issue, but do not serve as a substitute for discussion, and cannot be used to form a consensus on an issue. When you do see a poll start up somewhere, you'll usually see one of the options listed as "Polls are evil" for just that reason. They tend to polarize issues and limit the options available, making it more difficult to collaborate (which is what Wikipedia is about). That said, there isn't anything saying you can't have a quick poll at times, and that's where Tool2Die4 starts being incorrect. I will drop a note in the discussion and make it clear that further unconstructive comments will not be tolerated. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!!! --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 23:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Alan Cabal

I think you forgot to remove the deletion message from the article. Xasodfuih (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm. That would be the script's fault. Thanks, I'll fix it in just a moment. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection for Delhi-6

Please i need Delhi-6 to be protected atleast for two days. IP vandalism and unsourced informations are getting out of control. Seems like i'm the only one reverting the changes, hence its quite a pain. Please help !!! "Legolas" (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of the IP edits do not appear to be vandalism, and in fact you look like you're in the middle of a content dispute with one (that is a warning, by the way, the track listing does not qualify as vandalism and so you are subject to WP:3RR). You're welcome to make a request at WP:RFPP (which I would prefer you do in the future rather than contact me directly), but I have a feeling you'll get the same answer there. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The content in question is without any source, hence it cannot be accepted. Once a source is provided, i'm ok with it. Untill then it can be allowed can it? "Legolas" (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't entitle you to continually revert it. As things go, that's not the most crucial thing to have referenced. Yes, it'd be preferred, but it's not vandalism to have it in there while a source is found. Have you considered looking for one yourself? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ya i have, but most of them are blogs. So couldnot use them as sources. Hence i reverted. I think since the album under question was released just now, hence waiting a day or two would produce the full album list along with singers and times etc etc. in all the authenticable websites. "Legolas" (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Then wait a day or two. There's no deadline, so don't worry about it for right now. If it was just released, then you're right, there should be some reliable sources in relatively short order. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool, love you "Legolas" (talk) 07:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Signatures

I just realized something. As far as you've told me, having a #if expression, such as #ifeq, #if, or #switch, is prohibited, as it causes severe server lag. Now, you've told me that if I didn't change my signature, you would have blocked me in regards to such, well, I just remembered something that I think you should know about:

The user Roux has of course his signature substituted in from a separate sig page, seen here. I see that he has it substituted apparently, but is such allowed?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I will be speaking to him about that, but will not require him to change it. I don't mind placing signature code into subpages like that, provided the whole thing is less than the software limit of 255 characters; that's what I do, and WP:SIG#NT allows that. Roux has managed to get it substituted without making a mess, and so the end result is less than that number, and doesn't pull as much on the server each time the page is loaded. On the other hand, the code itself is three times that length, and the software does have to calculate those templates each time he signs. I'm not going to require a change as he's *technically* within the guideline and actually arguing it would just be a mess of wikilawyering, but I'll see if he's willing to change it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In regards to that, seeing as how he's apparently found a way to substitute a parser function, would I be able to do roughly the same as what I had before, but modify it like he has? Or would what I, and he, is doing, be bad?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'd prefer you not, as the software still has to figure out what's going on everytime you sign; a little more work than is normally involved with typing ~~~~. Although WP:PERFORMANCE says that's not really an issue, so if you can work it out to keep it under 255 characters, I won't care. Just don't blow up the wiki. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SSP filed for Nangparbat

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nangparbat Most of "their" articles are still semi-protected, so I filed this before they can run free Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Filed in the wrong place. See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Nangparbat_(2nd) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Note, I was unable to list it under open cases Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet reports and the checkuser request pages have been merged into one operation now; located at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Try filing the report there. Note that I have withdrawn from any involvement in this matter as of a few months ago. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nangparbat redirects to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Nangparbat_(2nd), is that ok? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably not; start a new one following the procedure listed in the new page. I've not had time to take a look at how the new process works, but it looks substantially different from either process previously. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat‎ is the main article; Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Nangparbat_(2nd) is the redirecter now. Damn this is confusing. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 3	17 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Showing me the ropes, again.

Hey brother, thanks for the help. DO you reckon you could, out of the kindness of your heart, possibly consent to showing me aorund my old stomping ground? My name used to be mud around here, sock puppeteering here and there, but new leaves are easy to come by as spring approaches. And I created this account in June, when Spring was approaching. People don't seem to hate me as much, and I haven't been blocked in a while. And after my self imposed exile from Wikipeadia, I seem to have forgotten a lot about it. So could you, help a brother out? That would be great. I am not asking for anything as formal as adoption, but just a helping hand. Thanks man. Will Thompson (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier; I'd meant to but apparently lost track. I'm usually available if you should happen to need help; if there's anything in particular you'd like a refresher on, let me know. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of the Da ! Heard It Records netlabel page

hi,

Disclaimer : i'm posting here as the deletion policy page advises to first talk to the administrator who deleted a page before going any further. Please accept my apologies if i'm mistaken.

And now for why i'm posting : i do not agree with the deletion of the Da ! Heard It Records netlabel page. Your deletion log states that the label is not notable enough (per policy Wikipedia:CSD#A7).

Why i don't agree :

• the label has been created several years ago (http://www.daheardit-records.net/en/informations/)
• it has released eight albums from different artists (http://www.daheardit-records.net/en/discography/)
• google returns quite a few results when looking for the label's name : http://www.google.fr/search?q=da+heard+it+records
• it's at least as notable as most of the netlabels listed in the electronic netlabels category (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Electronic_music_record_labels)

regards (and really hoping i'm posting in the right place),

Mbertier (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a second look at the article, and had some other administrators review it. We believe that the deletion made was correct and in accordance with policy. The arguments you have provided do not establish that the record label is notable:

• Age of a group or organization is not an indication of notability; further more, the link you have provided is a primary source (produced by the label themselves) and therefore not considered reliable.
• The artists who have released records on this label do not appear to be notable themselves; furthermore, eight is a rather low number when discussing record labels. Also, the given source is not reliable.
• The number of hits on a website cannot be used as a measure of notability: my own username gets over 2 million hits itself, for example. Also, one of the top hits for the record label appears to be your own blog.
• The deletion was based on the content of the deleted article; not on other record labels. Please see this page for more information.

I do appreciate your coming to talk to me first, however I do not believe the record label has sufficient notability for it to be restored. If you would like, I can "userfy" the article for you by restoring it and moving it to a user subpage - this will essentially give you a "drawing board" to work off of, where your article should not be deleted provided it is still being worked on. When you believe it meets our standards, you can contact me again and I can help you move it back into the main article space. If you would like this, please let me know. However, if you still believe the deletion was in error, you are welcome to request a deletion review, where members of the community will review the article and determine if my action was correct. The directions for that process are posted at that link. I, however, would strongly recommend the userfy option if you wish the article to be up on Wikipedia at some point in the future. Again, thank you for contacting me, and welcome to Wikipedia. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for that quick and clear answer. I'll follow your advice and take the "userify" option. One last question : the "notable" characteristic is pretty subjective, especially for a music netlabel. What criteria do you use to measure notability ? I'd be happy to try to meet wikipedia's standards for main article space inclusion, but i don't fully get what does standards are for a netlabel page.

regards - Mbertier (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll restore the article in just a moment then. The general criteria for notability is at WP:N - basically, subjects are considered notable if they are covered in a non-trivial fashion (more than a passing mention) by multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of both the subject and Wikipedia. These sources should be easily verifiable by other editors. Some subjects fall under one of our more specific criteria: the most applicable one here I think would be WP:CORP, which covers organizations and companies. When you think it's ready to go, give me or another administrator a heads-up, and we'll take a look at it and help you put it back into the article space if it seems to meet our guidelines. If you need help at any time while writing it, you can add {{helpme}} to your talk page along with your question, or leave a question at the new contributor's help page. Happy editing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey

My name is Herd McWeefin, and I just want to apologize for that hymen that happened playa. yadidaboopie? skeet skeet. thug life. Fortyniners9999 (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you're aware, but this is the English Language Wikipedia - I'm not sure what language that is, but it's not anything I speak. In any event, please take some time to review our policies and refrain from causing disruption in the future. You were very nearly indefinitely blocked for that stunt the other day. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Native Canvas.JPG

What are the results of your mysterious test? (Or, if we messed it up before the results came in, revert as necessary). Icewedge (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I completely forgot to remove that. We were checking to make sure that {{prod}} works in the File space now without throwing up a huge warning. Thanks, you were fine. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

January 21 - 31

re: helpme

Just wanted to say thanks for the helpme. per your header, the "your welcome" isn't needed, just wanted to be polite enough to express the appreciation. thx, see ya around the wiki. Ched -- Ched (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome anyway. Thanks for the heads-up on that article. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit request to Template:Lf made on Template talk:Ln (reply)

Template:Ln is NOT protected (as you stated), however, Template:Lf IS protected. I have made the request using {{editprotected}} on Template talk:Ln with specific instructions to edit Template:Lf because Template talk:Lf redirects to Template talk:Ln.

I even made a change to Template:Editprotected so that when an edit protected request is not directly used on the talk page where the edit is being requested due to the talk page being redirected (i.e. an edit request to Template:Uw-vandalism1 should be done on Template talk:Uw-vandalism1, however, that talk page redirects to Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace). --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 06:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC) --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 07:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that. The two template names do look rather similar at a glance, and I wasn't expecting a request for another page. Looks like it's been handled, though. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

Hey i'm sorry I had a bad day yeesterday and I took it out on you people, can you unblock me from the IRC channel? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanIloveYou (talk • contribs)

I will, but only on the understanding that it does not happen again. You were given multiple warnings to stop your disruptive behavior, and from what I heard from other users, last night was not an unusual occurrence. #wikipedia-en-help is one of the more laid-back channels, yes (that's why the bot has the weird functions) but it is still a business channel, and it's irritating to other users to be pinged constantly. If it happens again, you will be put on channel quiet or ban indefinitely. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Google Books IFU Requests

Hey, there's a couple of requests at WP:IFU using Google Books as sources. Do you think you could (pretty please) grab the images for me (again :P)? You don't need to upload them, if you email them to me I can do that (matt.wikipediagmail.com). They're JohnDecker2.jpg and JohnDecker3.jpg. If you're busy don't worry about it, it isn't a matter of great importance. Cheers, Matt (Talk) 03:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Gah. Ok, working on it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm. This book isn't available for download (probably because it was much more recently published), so while I can get the pictures for you, they won't be the best quality; it would just be a screenshot cropped down to the desired picture. That ok? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That'd be fine, I assume that's what the guy must want. And thanks :D Matt (Talk) 03:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done - email sent. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, uploaded both of them. Thanks again :D Matt (Talk) 04:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblock please

ok fine. Please do unblock me from #wikipedia-en-help DylanIloveYou DylanIloveYou (Talk) 03:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I did, I said that. Yelling at me in all caps, however, isn't the best way to get me to do what you want. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 4	24 January 2009	About the Signpost

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions	Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more	Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 04:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

Hulk (film series)

Thanks for the advice .

-- Thulasi12345 (talk)

Quite welcome. I didn't want to delete it outright, as it looked like you were working on a valid article, but as it stood the article didn't meet our criteria for inclusion. Best of luck, and let me know if you need any help with it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

How'd you know?

Hey, where can I find where that user was blocked? Demortes (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Two methods: you can use Special:BlockList, which shows all currently active blocks (example for Wikitotalmesser); or you can look in Special:Logs, entering the name of the blocked user's userpage in the "title" field (example for Wikitotalmesser). Hope this helps. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Was what I said, about the ublocking page the correct policy to refer to then? Demortes (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I closed this page accidentially and got distracted. The correct page to send them to actually would have been Wikipedia:Appealing a block - you sent them to a disambiguation page in the article space. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and clarification. Demortes (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

1636 in sports

Hi. What is the best way to effect deletion of this and the several similar articles which are pointless redirects with no potential? Thanks. --Orrelly Man (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

They may qualify for deletion under WP:R3, however as some of these have histories as articles and could very probably have some incoming links from elsewhere, it's probably better to leave them as is. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your replies. You're very helpful and I appreciate that. I'm still developing the project so I'll think about these redirects going forward. All the best. --Orrelly Man (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

MOTD interview

Good evening, Hersfold :) iMatthew and I would like to write a report on the MOTD project for the Wikipedia Signpost. I would greatly appreciate if you could help me in this via an interview for the report. As you a major contributor to the project you seem the ideal person to ask about this. Would you be interested at all? If so, please write back to me (or go ahead and answer the questions at User:Garden/int). Thanks in advance, Garden. 23:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I will be adding more either tomorrow or later today, so please try to keep an eye out on that page. I might even tell you here too ^^ Garden :  Chat  20:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The last questions are now up. Thanks again!  GARDEN  22:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Decision maker

Robot???!!! Simply south not SS, sorry 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(falls over laughing) I haven't closed any in ages because you always beat me to them! It was, of course, meant as a complement to your outstanding work ethic. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

[Please insert motto]... *beep* *beep* Simply south not SS, sorry 16:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Thomas Richter (footballer born 1980)

I have just created that page a couple of hours ago (if that), and it had content about an athlete that passed WP:ATHLETE and you deleted it with (R3: Recently-created, implausible redirect). If there was a redirect there, then somebody else vandalized what I created. I'll recreate the page. Geregen2 (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't; the page has been moved to another title. Hang on, I'll try to find the new page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. There are actually 4 different football players named Thomas Richter that played professionally in Germany, see de:Thomas Richter. I'll create at least one more to justify creating a disambig page. Geregen2 (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That'll work. If you need help moving things around later on, let me know. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Toes

I wasn't trying to step on your toes, but it looked like you were doing it manually and I thought I would pitch in =) –xeno (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering who was doing that. It's fine, I was actually using Twinkle to do the batch deletions. As long as they get deleted, it doesn't matter a whole lot who does it. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hrm , can you do a batch deletion right off the prefixindex? If so I made it a lot harder on myself than I had to!, lol. –xeno (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to work. There were a couple times it didn't hit everything, but you can just run it again or do things manually then. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion EVo:R Independent Musician Resource

Thank for getting that page deleted. The New Mikemoral (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Templates For Borders

I wanted to make a table for Senate votes, I got the idea from the Tim Geithner article last week. And I figured I could use {{American politics/party colours/Democratic}}, along with the Republican and Independent ones as the borders to show which parties the Senators are in, and then something else for how they voted.

I guess those two criterion (party and vote) could be done by the text itself and the background rather than the border, or I could bold the border for the votes and the background can have the template.

I thought the text of the Senators' names should be standard since it might look awkward with certain combinations of text and backgrounds. Spinach Monster (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok then. If all you want is the color and not the bgcolor thing, then you can use {{Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color}} (etc.). That just has the HTML color code without anything else. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Let me try that and fool around with different combinations. Spinach Monster (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

ProtectionTaggingBot

This is fairly pointless, ProtectionTaggingBot doesn't respect {{bots}} (nor should it be editing user pages, that was a bug). BJ^Talk 05:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's good to know. I'll probably just leave it there anyway, since it's not hurting anything. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

CU

Yeah. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Could you checkuser User:Inferno, Lord of Penguins and User:Inferno, Lord of the Losers in regards to User_talk:Inferno,_Lord_of_Penguins#Somebody_likes_me...? Penguins claims that his brother is controlling the Losers account, and that the two computers are using different operating systems. Can you confirm that they are different people, please? If so, I'll unblock Penguins. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

MOTD interview - last questions

Just a quick ping to say the last questions are up. We're publishing at 20.00 UTC, so I'll need your responses sharpish. Thanks again,  GARDEN  09:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)