User talk:Hersfold

Welcome to my Talk Page!

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

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

Archives

This page will be archived every month. If you can't find what you're looking for, check the most recent archive.

User:Hersfold/Talk Header - v • e

reply

sounds great! i've got settled back into school pretty well now and have classes well in hand. i'm still looking for a project to get involved with but maybe i'll find one as we go :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katieishme (talk • contribs) 18:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great! I'll get things ready to go for you and let you know once they're posted. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i use safari and firefox :) Katie (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got the assignments up :) Sorry again it took a few days. I've just finished my first round of examinations. I'm still having a bit of trouble with this one but I think I've got it. cheers! Katie (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I figured it was something school-related. I've actually got an exam tomorrow in my least favorite class, which I really need to be studying for, but I can take a quick break. I'll post a reply to your responses and get the next half up. Hope your exams went well! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your help! ZAPMUT (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Would you respond to my statement regarding your decision for deletion?

Elicrichton (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly do so. Just a moment. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for speedy deletion of Loch Fyne (restaurant)

Hi.

Could you allow a little more time before requesting speedy deletion of a brand new stub article. We are not all speed typers, and two minutes isn't that long to construct an article sufficient to justify its own existence. -- Chris j wood (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be more than glad to. Sorry, I didn't realize you were still working on the article. Good luck with it! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Alias user page

Thanks for the info. Entbark (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: speedway leagues

I'm just filling in missing data. Seasons 1967-1976 are all filled in and no-one is deleting them so i don't know why people keep wanting to delete the info? It takes ages to format it so i'm just getting the basic data down first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rml123 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's really best to get the article properly written before posting it in the mainspace. By posting the rough data only, it looks like jumbled nonsense and can be speedily deleted. Try developing your article in a subpage as I suggested; it may take longer, but it'll save you having to start over and risk getting blocked. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to format it like previous seasons but that will take me all night. I was thinking that if i got the basic data down someone who is a computer whizzkid could format it quickly for me - instead i get people instantly trying to remove it! Seems a bit unfair on people who like me who are not experienced enough to know how to format everything. Every time i put spaces in and preview it the wikipedia takes the spaces out again!!! Now i've confirmed that's not jumbled nonsense, can it now be left alone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rml123 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like, I can try to develop a template that will make things easier for you. It'll generate a table that formats the data so it doesn't look like gibberish. I'll try to format 1979 now.

By the way, please remember to sign you posts on talk pages with four tildes. (~~~~). Thanks! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Rml123 (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC) i'm getting rules and warnings coming in from all angles here, not as easy as i thought it was going to be. But your offer of help is very welcome.[reply]

Sure. I'll start working on the template later tonight. Don't forget to look for some additional info for the articles. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Rml123 (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Hi the other guy has done a format and so it looks a bit better now see also seasons 1977 and 1979. I intended to add a little introduction at the top because i was basically trying to mimic the style of the articles of 1965-1976, but you all jumped on me before i got the chance!!![reply]

Big Brother Help

REcently you responded to my problem with the Big Brother 9 page. I still maintain that watching a live feed is not verifiable! The changes are being made based on these lives feeds! Can you help me create a REQUEST FOR COMMENT? I've never done this before. One of the editors is starting to get PERSONAL... calling me names, and I don't want things to get out of hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RMThompson (talk • contribs) 22:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, this should be done yourself. The page at WP:RFC provides instructions on how to do this; it's not very difficult. Before you do this, however, I do recommend you step back from the situation for a short while. You are getting rather excitable, which isn't helping matters. "Bub" isn't an offensive name, and while that editor was certainly being sarcastic, he wasn't out to insult you. Please remember to assume good faith and treat the situation with civility. Try keeping the CAPS LOCK turned off so people don't think you're shouting, and look at the situation one more time. If you still need help with the RFC, I will start it up for you later tonight. I'd prefer you be the one to do it, however, as I'm not really involved in the situation. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine card

Greetings from Kitty53

Hersfold, Happy Valentine's Day!Kitty53 (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want one. Cremepuff222 (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kitty! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.Kitty53 (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Extremism" - and "The notion of 'extremism'"

The reason for my recreation of the page under the different title (and for the associated redirect) is that it is at least highly (if, perhaps, not "extremely") controversial to assert, or imply or assume that there actually exists a phenomenon appropriately characterized as "extremism".

I appreciate that I may not have chosen the best way of addressing this diffculty. I would be grateful if you would advise me accordingly.

Regards,

LJ

Left justified (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are certain naming conventions that have to be followed when titling pages - Someone isn't likely to search for "The notion of "x"", just "x" itself. Likewise, the inclusion of the title in "quotes" could cause searches to malfunction or create technical errors. For ideological theories such as extremism, it is understood that there may not actually be a definitive example of it anywhere; the purpose of the article is to describe the foundations of the theory and how it could be or has been applied. Also, Wikipedia may contain controversial or offensive information. This is an inherent risk in trying to create an encyclopedia on a wide range of topics. Trying to censor this may be considered vandalism in certain cases. I hope this helps. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your rapid response. It helps to clarify matters, but of course it doesn't solve or help to solve the problem. When you write "ideological theories such as extremism" do you mean that "extremism" (if it exists) is an "ideological theory" or that the notion that "extremism" exists is an "ideological theory"? It is of course in any case questionable whether there is such a thing as an "ideological theory" - ideologies aren't scientific hypotheses, although (notoriously) some ideologies pretend to be.

If one entitles an article "extremism" without scare quotes (or at least something which comes close to doing the job of scare quotes) one is tacitly endorsing an ideological position, whether one is conscious of doing so or not. The very use of the word "extremism" is question-begging. It isn't that "there isn't a definitive example of it anywhere." That would be merely contingent. It would be just a case of there happening not to be an example of "extremism" anywhere. The problem is that the very notion of "extremism" is incoherent. Therefore there couldn't be an example of it anywhere.

There can be very few things - I would say that there is in fact nothing - more damaging to clarity than a failure to use quotation marks correctly where they are necessary. If there are technical difficulties in the way of so using them then those difficulties really need to be overcome.

With regard to someone's searching on the term "extremism" wouldn't such a search come up with, for example, an article entitled "The notion of 'extremism'" if there were such an article? And, if not, why not?

I would be grateful if you could suggest some practical means to address this problem.

Regards,

Left justified (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make things clear, I'm not debating the merits or even the existence of extremism or any other of a whole host of -isms, I'm simply trying to explain how things work. As Wikipedia functions on consensus, you are welcome to start a discussion about this, however there is nothing you or I alone can do to change this.

I should also note that simply having an article on something does not express an endorsement of it. Wikipedia has an article on Extremism, but we also have one at Moderation. We have an articles on Nazism and Communism but also Democracy and Capitalism. We have, of course, an article on Wikipedia, but also an article on the site whose sole purpose is to make fun of Wikipedia, Uncyclopedia. One of the foundations of Wikipedia is that it tries to maintain a neutral point of view at all times. If an article is for some reason non neutrally written, it has a problem that requires correction. To insert your own point of view without backing it up with reliable, verifiable sources is likewise a problem. It is for this reason I have just rolled back your most recent edits to Extremism.

As for the search issue, the best answer is this: Wikipedia's search sucks. Badly. If you don't spell an article's title exactly correct, or your capitalization is off even slightly, and someone hasn't created a redirect in anticipation of the specific typo you made, you get a search that quite often yields no results, or at least very unhelpful ones. Titles such as "The notion of extremism" also imply a certain point of view, which as I've already said, isn't acceptable. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the fact that you cite the existence of an article on "moderation" as if that somehow counterbalances the existence of an article on "extremism" shows that you have entirely failed to appreciate the issue here. There is something very questionable about talk of (political) "moderation" - precisely the same as what is questionable about talk of "extremism". These are the two sides of the same counterfeit coin. The entire language of "moderate/extremist" is tendentious and propagandist(ic).

I consider it a slander to suggest that I was merely inserting my own point of view. If I had been doing so I would have phrased things differently. Contrary to what you claim, it is tendentious, it is not compatible with a neutral point of view, to endorse the notion that extremism is a tenable concept by presenting the word as a title and without any caveat.

It is simply bizarre to suggest that the title "the notion of 'extremism'" implies a certain point of view whereas the title "extremism" does not. All that the former does is imply that there is more than one point of view, which is undoubtedly the case. Someone who fully endorses the notion of extremism can still quite happily refer to the notion or concept of extremism. That doesn't in any way imply that the notion or concept is not coherent or tenable or valid or sound.

Again, your citing communism, Nazism, democracy and capitalism suggests that you have simply failed to comprehend the issue here. There is no comparable difficulty or controversy as to whether communism, capitalism and Nazism are usable notions or concepts. There is of course plenty of "controversy" (and then some) over whether communism, capitalism, Nazism, etc. are "good things", but that is a different issue. (The notion of "democracy" is a bit trickier, and I'd be inclined to think it inappropriate to have an article entitled "democracy" without a (so to speak) question mark against the concept.

Perhaps I should try to express this in terms of a concrete example. One might be this - it is not controversial or tendentious to describe Lenin as a "communist", but it would be to describe his as an "extremist" (or, indeed, as a "moderate"). Those who admire, or even idolise, Lenin, and those who revile him, can on both sides acknowledge that he was a communist. But to describe him as an "extremist" would be to characterise him unfavourably. Likewise those who regard Henry Ford as an evil exploiter and oppressor, or by contrast those who regard him as a great and noble man, could on both sides I think comfortably describe him as a capitalist. That is, the word "capitalist" is relatively value-neutral, whereas for example the term "free enterprise" used in place of "capitalism" would not be value-neutral. One would not speak of "free enterprise" unless one supported capitalism. "Capitalism" tends to be used pejoratively but is not necessarily so used. I haven't checked yet, but if there is a Wikipedia article entitled (without any caveats) "free enterprise" I would be outraged.

You purport to invoke the neutral point-of-view. The whole point here is that the very terminology of "moderate" and "extremist" encapsulates a tendentious, non-neutral point of view (in a way in which "capitalist", "communist", "socialist" etc. do not).

So . . . still unresolved.

Regards,

LJ

Left justified (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It just now occurs to me that the most succinct way of expressing this is to say that the language of "moderation/extremism" is loaded whereas the language of "right/left" or "capitalism/socialism" is by and large not (although I suppose "loaded" is just a more vernacular way of saying "tendentious").

Regards,

Left justified (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe part of the problem is that I'm not really understanding what your point is. I am a Computer Science major, and have never taken any course on psychology, sociology, existentialism, or anything of the like, so this could be part of the issue. If it isn't, that just goes to show how much more I am missing or misunderstanding the point. We title our pages based on what they are about - hence, the article on extremism is titled "Extremism" and so on. We have a guideline on having no disclaimers in articles, as they are redundant to the five official disclaimers linked to at the bottom of every page and violate other policies, including some things that Wikipedia is not (censored, among others). Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation do not support or endorse any person, group, product, ideal, etc. that they may happen to have an article about. I certainly do not intend to insult you, and I do apologize if that is how you took my comments. Should you wish to continue this discussion with the community at large, I recommend you either bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view, or the talk page of one of our other policies or guidelines. I'm sorry I wasn't able to clearly explain things to you, but hopefully you'll be able to get a broader perspective at one of those venues. Happy editing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bertrand Russell

That's great news - I thought you'd forgotten :) I'm still only too happy to nominate you for RFA whenever you like, just let me know - it is in no way dependent on the Russell article, don't feel pressured to do it. Neıl ☎ 21:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I would very much love to make a point of having improved this article at my next RfA. It's more of a personal pride thing at this point. ;-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be fine to reference Russell's own works when discussing his views if nothing else can be found. Obviously a more removed source would be better, but we have to make do with what's available. Neıl ☎ 17:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kahtmayan AfD and Exir

Can you do the Afd of exir for me? This is my first afd and i think i have screwed around enough :P. (I was doing the afd for an hour and half i think). First time jitters, will appreciate the help. Thank You, Welt^anschaunng 13:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll just tack it on to the existing one. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Well actually its {{subst:afd}} instead of {{afd}}. Found it out when the code was showing on the article. Welt^anschaunng 13:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Oops. Thanks for fixing that. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I visited the twinkle page, and it scared me a bit. I really have no experience on AfDs or CSDs, so as of now I will let it be. Welt^anschaunng 14:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

Your userpage is too big for screens sized 1024x768 (Runs off the page). Could you please make it a little less wide? Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried having a lower-resolution page for a while, but deleted it as it was annoying having to work two different versions. I can try to set up another one of those, however my resolution is set much higher, and to make my userpage fit the smaller resolutions would require a lot of re-coding, so I'm probably going to keep the main one as it is. I'll let you know when I've got the changes done. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's a lot less work than I thought it would be. How's it look? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Thanks! Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox parameter not there

Hi there, thank you for clearing the stuff for me. Although it would have been much better to also know what parameter or stuff I had done wrong in the Infoxbox . Would have taken care of that as well. Thanx for clearing it up though [[User:Shirishag75|Shirishag75]] (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The changes are recorded in the article's history - I think you had a "frequently updated =" parameter in there which wasn't having any effect. Glad to have been of help. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey, would you mind if I stole your AFC barnstar to use on a project I am working on? Thanks, Tiddly-Tom 19:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I had, I wouldn't have licensed it the way I did. Go on ahead. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfC

Gah!! You keep beating me! ;) _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{that one guy who buried stuff} 21:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could say the same. That's the third edit conflict I've had that's your fault. :-P Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bwahaha! Well, it is kind of your fault for sending me that newsletter... _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{that one guy who buried stuff} 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well then! How's this: You work from the bottom, I'll work from the top. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would that work? I mean, wouldn't it still conflict? _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{that one guy who buried stuff} 21:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically not - we're working in different sections, so I think the software should be able to handle it... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, I'll do that next time... _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{that one guy who buried stuff} 21:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you did most of the work...

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar
		For virtually clearing the backlog at WP:AfC single-handedly, I give you this barnstar. Well done, and glad I could help! _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{that one guy who buried stuff} 22:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :-) I'm just glad we were finally able to finish that mess. It felt really good taking off the backlog banner. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I really appreciate it. -Flubeca^Talk 22:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]