User talk:Hersfold/Archive 7 (July 2007)

← Previous archive - Archive 7 (July 2007) - Next archive →

This page contains discussions dated during the month of July 2007 from User talk:Hersfold. Please direct all current discussions there. Thank you.

---

User Page fix

Thank you for your assistance. You made it look easy.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's no problem. I've had a little experience with tables (just look at my userpage), so I kind of knew what to look for. I'm still at a loss why it decided to format itself that way, though. Congrats on all those stars, by the way! Happy editing! Hersfold ^(talk/work) 17:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

regarding your rejection of my submitted article

I requested that a Peer Review process be initiated for SCO-Linux controversies and you rejected my request without explanation. Please advise further. Thanks. 69.140.164.142 08:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I rejected your request because the Articles for Creation process is intended for the creation of articles for Wikipedia. Since I did not see a peer review template on the talk page of the article, I assumed you had not read the procedure at WP:PR and moved on to other submissions. Since you've come to ask about it, I will open the peer review now, but please be aware that I will not be involved in this peer review process and will not relay any messages regarding it. If you intend to continue contributing in this manner, I would highly suggest opening an account to allow you to participate more easily in these processes. Due to the volume of requests we receive daily and the amount of backlogged requests we still have to review, WP:AFC really cannot continue to create project pages such as this one. It's also not the most reliable of systems, because you risk a long delay between your request and the creation of the page, as well as getting a reviewer who doesn't really know what you're trying to do, both of which happened in this case, for which I do apologize. Thank you for seeking me out about this, and again, please strongly consider making an account. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 12:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Just as an aside--I added the {{peer review}} template to the page in question twice but both times it was removed by other users. Sorry about the misunderstanding. 69.140.164.142 17:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, alright then. Good luck with the review. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 17:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I want to leave you a message.

I am a bit new to this I am Lovetheirsish2Lovetheirish2 04:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC). and you sent me a message after I said something to Irishaye. Just to let you know I was advised by my friend about the article on "me” is full of incorrect and libelous made up stories. So I went ahead to correct it. Moreover I wrote to Wiki.com to help me take care of this, have not heard from them as of today. I am sorry to offend anyone, however I feel like my life is being made fun of, Do you know how that feels?

Please advice and help if you can Lovetheirish2 04:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I, SmileToday, hereby award the User Hersfold, the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar, for frequently helping out at the help desk. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 19:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! This is quite unexpected, but quite welcome! Hersfold ^(talk/work) 21:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Aren't all barnstars unexpected? Anyway, when you help out a lot, you deserve one! SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 20:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

AFC Backlog Drive!

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long assessment drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 15, 2007 – August 15, 2007.

Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the WikiCookie to barnstars.
There is a backlog of more than one year, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

This drive was organized by GrooveDog in an attempt to terminate that nasty backlog.

GrooveDog (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, GrooveDog! I'll be there to help out. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 03:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

DC Meetup notice

Greetings. There is going to be a Washington DC Wikipedia meetup on next Saturday, July 21st at 5pm in DC. Since you are listed in Category:Wikipedians_in_Maryland, I thought I'd invite you to come. I'm sorry about the short notice for the meeting. Hopefully we'll do somewhat better in that regard next time. If you can't come but want to make sure that you are informed of future meetings be sure to list yourself under "but let me know about future events", and if you don't want to get any future direct notices \(like this one\), you can list yourself under "I'm not interested in attending any others either" on the DC meetup page.--Gmaxwell 00:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but I won't be able to attend. I just saw the message today due to a extended trip and need some time to catch up from it. I would like to be kept advised of future such events, though. Thanks again. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 03:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply (and the ping, I'm normally good about that sort of thing but I missed your reply.). You should go list yourself in the "Nope but" part of the meetup page, that way we will be sure not to miss inviting you next time. --Gmaxwell 04:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I just posted the reply a few minutes ago - I just like to leave pings as a sort of insurance. Thanks, I'll go list myself there before I forget. See you then, perhaps! Hersfold ^(talk/work) 04:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:New_Richmond_Tornado

GA holds are for no more than seven days. This article needs to be checked to see if issues were addressed bringing the article up to standards. If so, it needs to be listed. If not, it needs to be removed from GAC. Regards, LaraLove 04:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that another reviewer re-checked for hold status candidates - I've been away for the last 10 days, so haven't been able to check up on things. I'll look it over as soon as I get a chance tomorrow, thanks for the heads-up. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 03:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry!

Sorry to publicdomain-ify your image, I forgot that I can't actually release someone else's work! Sorry again! =P GrooveDog (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It's no problem, it's not like it was copyrighted or anything. Thanks for fixing it, though. :-) Hersfold ^(talk/work) 03:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That barnstar looks great. Thanks for designing it! GrooveDog (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Five-A Barnstar Template

Five-A barnstar template

is based entirely on your image AFC-Barnstar-2.png.

I'm going to add it to the BarnStar/Awards wikipedia pages as a template. First though, if you can replace it with a "sharper" version with no compression artifacts it would make for a better image. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sure. I'll have it up shortly. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 16:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Your PNG files have background clutter. You can see this if you open them in Microsoft Paint. I replaced your version with a clutter-free version. I used the poor-man's decluttering technique: I opened the picture in my web browser then took a screen shot, then saved it as a PNG with white being transparent. That loses information but it's okay for this purposes. I also announced it on Wikiproject Awards. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm. That's funny. Ok, I'll keep an eye on that. Just so you know, I've got a higher resolution version of your AFC barnstar if you want it. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 18:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, upload it if you like provided it is clutter-free. A super-high-resolution or even vector version of the Five-A barnstar template would probably be A Very Good Thing. If you upload it, make sure it is clutter-free and include a recommended image size for actual barnstars.

(reduce indent) Good job with ad 69. Miranda 14:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Hersfold ^(talk/work) 17:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bobology

While it may be an joke to you, I as well as others are committed to guidelines listed. We follow them and promote them throughout all social groups to create a better community for all. I invite you to schedule a time with the founding members to help make this a suitable article. While it may not be history yet, current events are indeed added to this wiki on a daily basis as you well know. Some maybe childish editing by some users, others hold a high regard to what is posted. If this posting is not accurate by the wiki standards, I assure you this is most definitely factual. Once again we wish to be a part of written history and keep an accurate account of it. Questions can be answered via the email posted on the article, or by messaging the group on one of the community driven sites.

Thanks,

Nicholas Hester

Coolsilverman 05:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that your new religion isn't notable. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. It's more or less a neologism, which are not allowed to have Wikipedia articles unless they have had significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Your article did not make any such assertion. Any content on Wikipedia must be verifiable, meaning it cannot contain any original research or personal stories. Furthermore, Wikipedia isn't a webspace provider. I can see you've got your own website - I'm afraid that you're going to have to stick with that for a while, as you cannot create a article here on that subject until it meets our notability guidelines.

I can see that in addition to your AfC submission being declined, your article has been created elsewhere and been the subject of an Articles for Deletion debate. I suggest you look there for more information about why your article is not acceptable. That, and the policies I have linked above should provide all the information you need, but if you still have questions about this, then please let me know, and I will try to help you out. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 15:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a more accurate description for your rejection. While it is noted that history can not always be made in a single "school day" as you may call it. There are however verifiable links showing activity for the group. I do accept your request for a secondary source. However, I feel what has already been provided is sufficient. If I may clarify this further, it is apparent you would rather see a traditional media source such as news or other outlet. Given this is the case we will have to provide this proof once our goals are reached.

According to the content and description of Wikipedia, it accurately describes the site as an encyclopedia. I agree with you completely that the site is not and never will be a blog, or other web hosting service. I am sorry to imply that ignorance runs rampant across the site with so many articles locked due to "vandalism". It certainly is self-defeating to run a user edited site when the site does not allow the articles to be edited.

Thank you again for your time and patience in the matter. I assure you it may look like a child's game to those who do not understand the gravity of communication. The supplied links will be noted and reviewed by our group to help satisfy any false justifications.

Sincerely,

Nicholas Hester

Coolsilverman 01:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am always glad to be of assistance. I apologize that my "ignorance" may have clouded the issue somewhat, but that may be partially due to the fact that I try not to word my communications in such a manner that seems condescending. I assure you, that while our apparent contradictions may seem to follow the rules of a child's game, that we hold verifiable truth and knowledge above all other concerns, as should any project of this nature. I'm sure you can sympathize with your recent troubles in getting an article written about "Bobology". Anyway, I am, as I said, happy to help, and wish you good editing, as always. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 03:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

AFC Barnstar

Congratulations on being one of the first two recipients of the the AFC Barnstar. You may use the Barnstar or the ribbon . davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. As a note, ribbons are intended to represent awarded barnstars, and can be displayed at the same time. ;-) Hersfold ^(talk/work) 02:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, will I get negative barnstars for making everyone else's job bigger than it was a week ago? :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha - the job's no bigger than it was before, it's just more noticeable. Any archive needs further review if it isn't marked as complete, in my mind. Good luck earning your barnstar. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 02:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

only...nine...left... :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive News!

We are one week in to the drive, and it's already going fantastic. Numerous days of backlogs have been tackled, with hundreds of articles having been reviewed. We do, however, have some news!

First off, a HUGE congratulations to everyone participating so far. I understand some members are inactive due to vacation, but we are still making great progress.

Secondly, make sure that before you go off and review old submissions, that you review all submissions for the present day, and the day before, so that we aren't actually making a bigger backlog, by letting submissions get archived while we're checking stuff from 2006.

Third, remember to update your running total, on the drive page. Honesty is the best policy, so if you lie about the number of articles you've reviewed, we'll all make angry faces while looking at your userpage.

And, last, if you have any questions about the drive, feel free to ask me, or any other members of the project.

Great job, everyone! We're going to get that backlog!
GrooveDog

Automatically delievered by HermesBot 08:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC) ^(Owner)

Oscar the cat

I clearly made my point that I consider Oscar to be notable based on the NEJM article, given that NEJM is more prestigious than your average local newspaper. I'm sorry that you cannot tell the difference between humor and seriousness. Then again, I did not take your comment seriously that articles are deleted based on consensus; I've been around Wikipedia long enough to know better. Quidam65 03:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall saying the cat wasn't notable, in fact I agree that he is - I just said that the article violates WP:NOT. We don't publish news articles, that's why Wikinews is around. They'd probably love to have the article there. I can easily tell the difference between humor and seriousness, that's why I made a joke. You made one about how to decide the debate, so I played along. I do have to admit my sense of humor isn't the best, however. Anyway, my position remains unchanged, sorry. Happy editing, as always. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 03:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

re:margolisbrownadaptor article

thanks for the tip about too much text in the debate...i'm not exactly sure as to how to proceed or how i need to approach contesting the proposed deletion- so i'm just trying to put all the info out there that i can think of..... your guidance is appreciated. Zena0727 04:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make further comments about improving the article, I'd say your best place to do so is the talk page. Right now, the best way to contest it is to read all of the reviews in favor of deletion carefully, read the policies they're citing even more carefully, and work with the article until it falls very neatly within them. Here's a few you could start out with:

• Deletion Policy

• Criteria for speedy deletion (Read in particular General 11 & 12 and Articles 7, since those are the ones used to delete this previously)

• Neutral Point of View

• Conflict of Interest, not sure if that applies here, but it's related.
• Advertising in Articles

• Notability guidelines
• Verifiability
• What Wikipedia is not

Those are the most commonly referenced policies and guidelines during AfD debates, and the ones that I think most apply here. I've seen that you've done some work on the article already - good work - but it's still got a ways to go. Writing an article is hard work. If you take care to stay within those policies, you should be ok. If the article does get deleted (and I do still support deletion the way the article is currently written), I'd recommend making a subpage of your user page to draft up a new version. Before posting it, though, take your time on it and have a few editors look it over to make sure it meets our guidelines. If it does, you'll probably need an administrator to help you create it at that point, but it probably won't be put up for deletion. Good luck, and good night. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 04:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)