User talk:Bsherr

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		This Working Man's barnstar is awarded to Bsherr for copy editing articles totalling 10,168 words during the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 backlog drive. Your contributions are appreciated!--Diannaa (Talk) 16:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Bsher deletes real information. He isnt cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.72.232 (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Invitation

There are currently 2,781 articles in the backlog. You can help us! Join the September 2010 drive today!

The Guild of Copy-Editors – September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invite you to participate in the September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 September at 23:59 (UTC). The goals for this drive are to eliminate 2008 from the queue and to reduce the backlog to fewer than 5,000 articles. Sign-up has already begun at the September drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page. Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants. Some are exclusive to GoCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive! — ɳorɑfʈ Talk! and S Masters (talk).

TfD

Hi Bsherr, I closed your nomination of the Gblock templates as delete. You mentioned a documentation in the rationale; could you please provide a link? I can't find it. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 11:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Airplaneman. The documentation was on the page itself, not a subpage, so you've already got it. --Bsherr (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks! BTW, you have a query at WP:RFPP regarding the unprotecting of Template:SharedIPCORP. Airplaneman ✈ 06:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Bsher deletes correct info, conspiracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.72.232 (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Unilateral redirecting of SharedIPCORP to SharedIP

Unless I'm missing something, you redirected Template:SharedIPCORP to Template:SharedIP without discussion. Firstly, I feel as if actions like that should certainly be discussed first. Secondly, I don't see how the template is any more redundant than Template:SharedIPEDU, and no one seemed to support merging it with SharedIP when I had proposed such. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Bsher deletes correct info, conspiracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.72.232 (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Extra space in uw-vblock since metablock rollout?

Hello. It looks like there is an extra, preceeding space in {{uw-vblock}} now. I always put one manual line-break in order to keep the standardized spacing, but now two are showing up when the template is transcluded ([1], [2]). Any assistance you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! — Kralizec! (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is corrected now. Very sorry about that. --Bsherr (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks great. Thanks for your speedy help! — Kralizec! (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Bsher deletes correct info, conspiracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.72.232 (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

{{uw-upincat}}: what happened

I saw the change you made. What happened with my need for "just a warning, no userpage editing" by the notifying user, which need I write not just once? -DePiep (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see my reply on the project talk page. --Bsherr (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Bsher deletes correct info, conspiracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.72.232 (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I do see your concern.

I guess it could be hidden from the documentation. mechamind90 00:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note that one instance (rare, but it can happen) involves the user vandalizing their own talk page when they're not even blocked. mechamind90 00:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Now, I did change the documentation to state that "notalk" should always be omitted unless the user cannot edit their own talk page. I added the parameter for the unusual cases (given the template is subst'ed anyhow, it won't occupy extra disk space when unneeded). Hopefully that's enough for administrators to continue to assume when there's still a chance the user can co-operate, and nothing will slow down Wikipedia hardware. mechamind90 04:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Bsher deletes correct info, conspiracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.72.232 (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Talk page protection

I haven't any idea. That question is best asked of the admin. who protected the page. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Bsher deletes correct info, conspiracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.72.232 (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

ACC

Confirmation of my ACC registration. --Bsherr (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Bsher deletes correct info, conspiracy.

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Bsher deletes correct info, conspiracy.

Do not delete

Hi,
regarding WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 13#Template:Do not delete, can I ask where that CfD discussion was, or what the category was? I'd be interested in the rationale. {{Do not delete}} never used a template, and only worked through the transclusion list.
Thanks, Amalthea 12:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it's here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 12#Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. The indicated consensus from this the discussions linked there was that user pages of indefinitely blocked and banned users would not be subject to mass purging. Since there's no longer a risk of deletion of these pages, there was no longer a need for the template. --Bsherr (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, alrighty, as long as the underlying issue was discussed I'm happy.
Thanks, Amalthea 15:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Bsher deletes correct info, conspiracy. He really isn't cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.72.232 (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:SharedIPCORP

I think you have a misunderstanding of the purpose of the template SharedIPCORP. It was created mainly for major corporations like Hospital Corporation of America, IBM, Microsoft, Walmart, midsize and large hospitals, etc., not small businesses like you've described with twenty employees. I'm of the opinion it should be kept for categorization, but I'm open to other ideas, so long as they're not applied only to THIS PARTICULAR template. Perhaps we could add the word "major" in front of business or corporation in the template? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 17:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi PCHS. I do want to discuss this, but it should be at TfD to keep it the discussion all together. --Bsherr (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I brought it here because the discussion is getting mighty long over there. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I know, but that's a good thing. Discussion is a good thing, and lots of discussion is lots of a good thing. :-) --Bsherr (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I just don't want the rest of the community to think we're bickering (not the direction I'm trying to go here). I'm glad we were able to come to agreement on SharedIPGOV and what to do with the MIL IPs. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Not bickering, discussing! I'll leave you some cookies. --Bsherr (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:SharedIPGOV

I just added a note on SharedIPGOV about notifying the Wikimedia Foundation Communication Committee (I copied the message from a Senate IP's talk page), and I'd like a second opinion. Approve? Disapprove? Comments? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Replying on the talk page of the template. --Bsherr (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! :-) PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

About this particular edit...

I saw you removed the notification templates HERE per some discussion of a merge. Where/when did this dicussion take place?? I came looking for the template to notify an author of an AFD I did not begin and was stymied until I dug through the histories and found what I needed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 26#Template:AFDWarningNew. --Bsherr (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for merge. Three comments. One !vote in support of merge. And closure as merge by one of the commenters. Not exactly an overwhelming support or a wide consensus... but thank you for the link. I find when a nominator fails to notify an article author or major contributor of a deletion discussion, a friendly note that it has happened is in order... but not one that implies that it was I who did the nominating. I suppose if I find the merged template unsuitable in some circumstances, I will simply drop a polite and neutral note composed on the spot. Again, thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You'll note that the closing administrator only commented as an explanation for that administrator's decision to relist the discussion a second time. All the templates and their creators were properly noticed, and the discussion was open for over three weeks. The purpose was to create a single template that can accomodate all situations, including when the notifier is not the nominator. I believe the current template is effective at that, and that it can be used without implying that its user is the nominator, but if you disagree or have suggestions for its improvement, your comments are welcome, certainly by me, at the template's talk page. Regards. --Bsherr (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Natalism. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)"

Unconstructive? Really? Maybe I shoudln't have said that they we're insane, but why did you remove my comment about Jim Bob Duggar from "19 Kids and Counting!"? If he isn't a hardcore Natalist then who is? Come on man, I swear in my opinion there is a conspiracy with the duggar family and their 19 kids, and in my opinion you seem to be in on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.72.232 (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)