User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Some content-based input appreciated

Hi HJ, since you're one of a few people I've worked with and respect on wiki, just thought to ask for your opinion on the direction of an article I recently created, namely Chief of Defence Force (Singapore). I need a few pointers, namely (a) from an outsider's point of view, what could be added to the article that is currently missing; and (b) would you, as someone viewing it for the first time, consider it an article (and thus subject to GAN/FAC in future) or a list (FLC)? Your input would be appreciated.

(And don't worry too much [although I doubt you are] about the Passionless thing above, from what I've seen and read, you're spot-on.) Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 02:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would say that it's a list. I certainly think you'd have a better chance at FLC than at FAC. I'll take a more detailed look at it over the weekend and give you some feedback. You can also try MILHIST's peer review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

They say, he say, she say, me say

REF: this edit

• Hello. Per the above WP:CPUSH statement: This is getting way out of hand, the guy's rhetoric is getting from bad to worse and all he does day after day, week after week is nothing but the insertion (or the attempt of it) of content that does not readily improve the related article pages in most ways than not. Check out his contribution history and it is very apparent what I'm saying here is verified; Talk:Chengdu J-10, Talk:Chengdu J-20 and Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II being pages where he goes on and on about such crap (apologies for lack of a better word to describe it). Should we have a specially formed panel of committee members for WP:AIR or WP:MILHIST to help curb such piling of nonsense that does not serve the Military section of WP as an online free-to-edit encyclopeida (which is factual and accurately written by responsible editors backed up by verified facts and figures). Or should we refer this to WP:RFCU or WP:ARBCOM instead? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 05:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Event horizon

Sir: after your last post and then my reply, I shifted gears to stress overdrive. Assuming each edit I am in the middle of might be the one that wont save. Most of my stress is piled on by me. But if I could get away from thinking this could be any second, I could drastically reduce the current level. My76Strat (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In the Shadow of the Dreamchild

Hi, I wonder if you would restore this article, which was deleted via prod? I believe the book satisfies WP:NBOOK because of the existence of reviews etc. Thanks. Christopher Connor (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Automating submissions for Autopatrol right

I started a thread about automating submissions for autopatrol right at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Automating submissions for Autopatrol right. Since you been heavily involved in the project, I thought you might like to comment on if/how we should do it. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Prep3

I have moved your hook on Matthieu Borsboom there, but chopped it because it was too long, even though it is a double nom. Please check. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I tweaked it a little, because I think a German Army officer and a Dutch Naval officer makes for an interesting hook. Feel free to hack at it if I made it too long. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok with me - I was hesitating to abbreviate ISAF for the sake of keeping "German". Materialscientist (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, but I think the link and "Afghanistan" provide enough context. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Baby Tex

Hi, HJ. Per the text on your page, I have unblocked User:Baby Tex. The user is User:Tex's baby. :-) I hope you have no objection. After all, El C's cat has an account (User:Kitty).. not to mention User:Bishzilla and so on. Could you fill me in on how Tex can avoid further blocks of his offspring, please? Regards, Bishonen | talk 22:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

Oops! No, of course I don't have an objection (and you can add User:HJ and User:Whisky drinker to that list, which makes it all the more embarrassing!). It would be a good idea for them to make an edit from their main account to the userpage of the sock declaring/confirming that they're the same person. That should prevent any further confusion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you've already unblocked the juvenile Tex—at least, I keep getting "Block ID not found. It may have been unblocked already," presumably that's what it means. Thanks! I'll tell Tex. Bishonen | talk 22:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

It wasn't me. I thought you'd unblocked them. Could be a bug—there've been a few lately. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. No, I tried several times, with the exact same result. You mean the poor little thing is still blocked? What can I do? Bishonen | talk 22:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

I'll try WP:VPT. In the meantime, the system has been good enough to let me disable the autoblock, so at least he can edit from his main account. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed

Can you review my legitimate alternative account's request for confirmed user, Thanks. Gabesta449 ^{edits ♦ chat} 00:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

fukushima reactor

hi. could you please take a view on whether there should be a separate section on evacuations or whether info about evacuations should be dispersed through the text. Sorry, but it is quite urgent to settle this as lots of edits are running by while we argue about it. thanks. (you confirmed some of the edits?) Sandpiper (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant and PC

Hi HJ. May I request that we scrap PC on the article for now? It really doesn't work when the changes come in fast and furious as they do in this case. I'd prefer to see semi-protect be put back on. Thanks, as always, Jusdafax 23:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, if I was going to remove it, I'd be inclined to unprotect it altogether. The level of vandalism seems quite low, especially when compared to the number of constructive edits from IPs, and I'm really reluctant to shut the latter out, not least because today's enthusiastic newbies could become dedicated editors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It's good to disagree with old friends, as it gives savor to a relationship. By the way, thought I'd return the favor:

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Jusdafax has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 10:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

... To your health! Jusdafax 10:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the drink! There's nothing wrong with healthy disagreement among friends. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

File:BrookeyFrase.jpg

Can you please delete the stray upload on the above file? It had no licensing info, so I suspect it is non-free. Cheers, Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Done, and protected so it can;t happen again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Administrative request

Can you please delete this page. the person being nominated has declined my request. Thanks. Gabesta449 ^{edits ♦ chat} 20:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Your nomination subpage has been created

Your application to serve on the Audit Subcommittee has moved forward to the community consultation phase.

Please visit your nomination subpage to answer the standard questions and any additional questions that may be posed.

Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this process.

–xeno^talk 00:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"Consider dispute resolution" @ Abortifacient

As I said, I've posted on the talk page inviting this person to air their concerns, but they have not done so, and instead prefer to revert without explanation. Can you suggest what I should do next? I mean, I know there's EA/3O, but I'd rather have a discussion with the user in question and try to find out why they're doing what they're doing, so we can reach a solution that also satisfies their concerns. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That template is horribly generic and I probably should have typed something, but the board was backed up. The trouble is that it's a content dispute. As far as I can tell, it looks like a slow edit war over the inclusion or exclusion of the word "erroneously" between several IPs and registered editors. As such, semi-protection would be inappropriate, because it would favour one side of the dispute (or at least favour registered editors over IPs in an edit war). If you think it would help, I could fully protect it (ie nobody but admins can edit it) for a couple of days, but I would suggest trying to engage the editors who disagree with you on their talk pages if you haven't already (remember, IPs don't have watchlists so it's possible they haven't seen the talk page thread). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay. (I mentioned starting the discussion in an edit summary, but if zie's just repeatedly going to the page and removing the text rather than looking at the revisions, zie may not have seen.) Full protection might help just so we can establish a conversation with the IP without having to go back and forth pointlessly. Thanks! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(should I put another request on the board?) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I can do it now. I'll give it 24 hours. That should give you a chance to extend an olive branch and see if you can't at least start a conversation. Feel free to request unprotection if you can sort it in less than 24 hours, or to ping me if the difficulties continue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll get on that. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

RevDel

Good answer; I hope you didn't mind the question; I know it was an open question, but it was genuinely interesting to hear your view on that. Cheers and good luck.  Chzz  ►  05:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. I can just click an extra button if I want/need to know what was RevDel'd, but it's easy to forget that non-admins have no way of knowing what was there unless an admin tells them (or they saw it before it went). When I saw a question about RevDel, I was expecting the other end of the spectrum, "it's not accountable", "it's used too much" etc, but it was interesting that someone was concerned about oversight-grade material being RevDel'd rather than suppressed. As I said there (in a roundabout way), I think it does a good job of taking the load off from oversight, but the stuff that needs it is still suppressed and it can be hidden from most people while it awaits confinement to the dustbin of history! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Like any tool, it is only good when used appropriately. I have a few concerns about it. Sometimes, I've seen admins make errors - missing out some previous revision, and thus leaving parts behind, or leaving the edit-summary, or just plain removing the wrong part (username not content, or whatever). Also, I worry about overuse - because if used unnecessarily, it makes it hard to see what a user has been up to, of course. Recently, there was discussion suggesting that rejected pending changes should mostly be revdel'd - Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011/Archive_1#Increase_revdel. And I am concerned that sometimes admins might exercise a little too much bold judgement, when it'd be better - if they had any doubt at all - to pass it over to OS. All of these concerns are heightened because it is so difficult for us humble non-admins to see what is going on. Not only can we not see what they did, but also - if looking at contribs - we won't even know if they've been vandalising at all; the revisions will not show as theirs - which might affect our choice in appropriate warning or reporting actions. And then, there is this tendency to request and discuss revdel material on-wiki, which of course just brings more attention to it. So yes...it's an interesting and quite important issue, I think.  Chzz  ►  09:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm the eigth-most prolific user of RevDel and I know the seven above me pretty well. Most of my uses have been to deal with long-term abuse, including cleaning up the log entries left by page-move vandalism; BLP violations; the odd privacy violation (which I then kick up to Oversight); the odd copyvio where deletion and partial undeletion is impractical and the rest is "miscellaneous crap", like the edit summaries left by those nutters on the TFAs a few weeks ago. About the same is true for other 7 most prolific users, with the exception of Moonriddengirl, who I believe mostly uses it for copyvios. I don't think it's correct to assume that something is over-used just because we made do without it before. I have seen it misused and I've seen it used when it didn't really need to be used (strangely not by new admins as you might expect, but by people who have been admins for years), but I think it would fair to say that over 90% of uses, in my experience at least, are legitimate and I'd say a good majority of those were necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That's encouraging to hear. It's hard to see what goes on, and I suppose I've only really "noticed" problematic cases; I'm sure the vast majority are fine.  Chzz  ►  23:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

AE case evidence

Not quite sure if that's really evidence, but regardless, it's the best analysis of the whole situation I've seen - and I fully agree with what you said (though I won't say we are "ignoring" the book in the IAR sense, which is more like taking some affirmative action against the rule; admins always have discretion to not take any action, owing to our volunteer status). I also like the "committee of admins" approach (or perhaps unblock if at least X uninvolved admins commented and at least Y% disagree with the block, rather than creating a fixed committee), though I'm not sure how you can adapt the arbcom procedure for emergency desysops (do you mean 3 arbs say "unblock" = unblock?). And I certainly agree that the committee should do more work instead of leaving the work to us. Looking at the AE requests in the past few months, I'd say ARBPIA3, at least, is long overdue :)

Anyway, very nice work. BTW, I hope you were not offended by this. It's amazing how different ways of presenting similar arguments can lead to vastly different results and level of persuasiveness... T. Canens (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure it was evidence either, but it seemed to just about work on the evidence page and I wanted it somewhere where it would be read! I'm glad somebody agreed with it. I'm not sure how my ideas (one of which was adapted from a conversation I had with Courcelles) would be best implemented in practice, but I've raised the ideas and if anybody thinks they're not terrible, we can discuss the finer points later. As for the comparison with an emergency desysop, it was the only thing I could think of that tends to be done without delay. I definitely think we need some kind of speedy, lightweight process that can overturn an AE block since individual admins aren't allowed to.

Thanks, and no offence taken—life would be boring if we all agreed all the time! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Matthieu Borsboom

Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Rossmanith

Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

edmurphy(labor/social justice) images deleted

Hello HJ, I noticed that you recently deleted 2 images on my page edmurphy(labor/social justice) because I did not name that source of my image. I have permission to use both from The Workforce Development Institute www.wdiny.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Victoriakereszi/edmurphy

How can I get these photos back up and list that I have permission to use them? Thanks for your time. Victoriakereszi (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)victoriakereszi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriakereszi (talk • contribs)

• HJ, as you probably know there is a section up on refund for these images. Protonk (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I didn't actually. I'll head over there, then, thanks! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

CSD review

You are not named in this discussion, but in light of [1] I want to draw your attention to WT:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Inappropriate_speedy_deletions. Gimmetoo (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You've lost me. I've hit the delete button about 11,000 times so I'm afraid I don't recall that one. It was 9 months ago. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was a while ago, but I would hope this serves as a reminder to perform due diligence. If you look through the history you can see the article had valid versions prior to the deletion. It also had prior AFDs. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Need your advice

Per this section at ANI, I thought it was a requirement that blocking admins have to leave talk page access open unless the blocked user in question has abused the use of their talk page (such as multiple unblock requests or help me requests or tirades, things like that). The blocking admin in this case, Ruud Koot, doesn't seem to even be responding to what i'm saying and is leaving me quite perplexed. Silverseren^C 22:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well the blocking policy is vague, but that and the instructions in special:block would seem to suggest that it's poor form to revoke talk-page access by default. I'm not sure there's much to be gained by allowing this particular editor to edit theirs, though. They're obviously a troll and I'd bet good money that a CU could tell us they're a sockpuppet of one banned user or another. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

But until that is either confirmed or they do start abusing their talk page, I don't think it is appropriate to block their talk page access on such assumptions. Silverseren^C 23:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

They're obviously a troll and user talk pages of blocked editors are only there to facilitate an unblock request and there is no realistic chance that they'll be unblocked, so you're right in principle, but this isn't the right case to take a stand on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever happened to WP:AGF?

And I'd really like to know why they were magnanimously declared banned.  Chzz  ►  07:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I could have understood a temporary ban to prevent him from the disruption of multiple user talk pages at once and force him into a dialogue about it. But an indefinite ban does seem a bit overboard. Silverseren^C 07:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the {{banned}} from their userspace, since they're clearly not banned (though I'd put money on their sockmaster being community banned), but I don't understand why people are defending somebody who has contributing nothing even approaching an attempt to be useful to this encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There are now four other people besides me who have commented at the ANI discussion saying that talk page access should be restored. And if you are so convinced that this is a sock, then why don't you file an SPI and get a Checkuser done so that it can be confirmed. If you're found to be right, then there won't be any further complaints. For now, it seems like a user was banned for putting positive notes on peoples' talk pages. That's why so many users are concerned. We can understand putting a temporary block to create a discussion with him about why he shouldn't do this, but an indefinite block, after there was little attempt to discuss with the user? That's not how we should be doing things. Silverseren^C 08:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Hugh Kennard

Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Shortcuts to Wikipedia:Vandalism#How to respond to vandalism

Hi,

I notice that you deleted several shortcuts to Wikipedia:Vandalism#How to respond to vandalism. Do you think it should have one? I mostly ask because I recently linked to it from User talk:Yaris678/Deny automated recognition#More on IPs and now have a red link. The shortcuts box at Wikipedia:Vandalism#How to respond to vandalism will also need removing or updating, depending on what we decide.

Thanks,

Yaris678 (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

They were among 23 redirects created by the same editor, which I mass-deleted using special:nuke. The vast majority of the shortcuts thy created were implausible and they were editing in violation of a block, so any of those redirects that didn't fall under CSD R3 were deleteable under CSD G5. If you think any of the are useful (ie people are likely to use them as a common shortcut), then by all means re-create the ones you want. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I have restored WP:R Van. As far as the other redirects are concerned, I have no idea how useful they are, or even what they are in most cases. Yaris678 (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch/doc

Would you mind considerably if I moved this WikiLove template to the template name space? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really, it is CC-By-SA after all, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it where it is. Btw, if you want to re-add the documentation, could you make it less overwhelmingly bright and distracting? I think most people could figure out how to use it pretty easily. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you HJ, I am trying to get all the related WikiLove templates together and have them work similarly. I'll eventually convert them to use the {{Blank WikiLove}} template once everything is setup and in place. I'll see what I can do to minimize the documentation harshness. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Heads up

I'm good and you HJ? It has been a while since we've talked. Well, if you want to collaborate on a project or whatever how a copy edit on Elizabeth Banks and we have our project. :) Thanks for the heads up [the arbitration committee bit] maybe people will know who I am. ;) I hope you're well cause I'm well. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ping

Hello, HJ Mitchell. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Airplaneman ✈ 01:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Why did the Image of Wart are deleted?

Hello, this is Super-tony980. I've been wondering why did you delete the images? An article without images, especially for a character, is impossible. I'll be having to reupload them again. Please contact me until you get this message. Thanks. --Super-tony980 (talk) 07:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't help you if you don't tell me which images I've deleted. Please provide a link—like [[:File:Example.jpg]] for File:Example.jpg—so I can tell you why it was deleted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

These ones: File:WartEarlyAppearance.jpg File:File:WartLeap.jpg File:WartTwo.jpg It says that you've deleted these. If you can tell me why, I may know now what I should do.--Super-tony980 (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The first and third were deleted because you didn't state where the images came from, who created them, who owns the rights to them or the license. Images need to have all those pieces of information. The second title has never existed—it might just be a typo in the name. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Sorry, I didn't knew that, Wart was my first edit in Wikipedia. Thanks for the info. I'll be more carefull of what I'm doing. :(--Super-tony980 (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Better Than Today Editnotice

Could you create an editnotice on the article stating it uses dmy dates and Australian English? I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 01:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

PS, send me a TB.

Is there a history of problems with people not being consistent in ENGVAR/date format? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to get it to GA and people are helping... But they use the wrong date format. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 22:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Frank J. Tipler

Jamiemichelle's final revert before you protected the page was her fourth in a 24 hour period. Would you like me to report this at the 3RR noticeboard or can you take care of it here? N419BH 03:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

A block and full prot seems like overkill. Which of the two would better facilitate consensus building and end the edit war? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Jamie's the one doing most of the edit warring. See the current ANI thread for background. Jamie's version is what is currently protected. If this stays the same blocking them would be appropriate. The alternative would be to protect the page at the consensus version and force Jamie to the talk page. The current status quo will just provide more evidence to Jamie that their version is correct, and they will continue to edit war to defend their version once the full protection expires. So in short, either leave the page as is and block them, or switch it back to the consensus version and leave them unblocked. That's my analysis of the situation. Should I file an AN3 report or is that not needed at this point? N419BH 04:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I protected it as soon as I saw RfPP pop up on my watchlist. It looks like they waited all of 61 seconds before reverting you. Since they seem to be over the 3RR and were certainly edit warring, I've blocked the in lieu of the protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That was my first revert on the article too. Get ready for fireworks; they're NOT going to be happy when they find out they're blocked. I'll let someone else revert them as I'm now officially involved in the dispute. N419BH 04:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Andrew George(Politician)

Hi HJ. I am wondering what to do with Andrew George(Politician) for the best, looking at the edit history it looks clearly that it is a single person that has been repeatedly re-adding this for the last year ans similarity a single user that has been repeatedly removing it and made the report to the BLPN. Looking at the report I have a lot of agreement with it, although the press, especially the telegraph had a go at him, he subject doesn't appear to have done much wrong or have had any action taken against him either, a reduction in a claim is about what it boils down to. I have left notes on three of the users IP addresses and on the talkpage of the article directing and informing them of the thread at the BLPN but so far not a whisper, and I am doubtful if the user will move to discussion prior to the 48 hour full protection and I expect that in the near future the user will simply replace the undue section (cited) again. Can I suggest we drop the protection down to semi protection for three or four weeks which considering the status of the users that will have the same affect of encouraging the user to discuss the content. Without discussion the ping pong will likely just continue, what about this rewrite removing the undue weight? I posted a rewrite - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Expense claims - without discussion I imagine a rewrite will still need a little protection, again to encourage discussion. Thoughts? Off2riorob (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Request reconsideration of you decision to decline protection of the Mathematics in medieval Islam article

Good day,

I hope I am following the right procedure to ask you to reconsider your decision to decline protection on Mathematics in medieval Islam. I tried the discussion page and searched for the appeal procedure.

Last week, I reverted the stubbing of this article, and another editor reverted it to the stubbed version. The next day, the same cycle repeated itself. I then opened an RFC on the content dispute. This RFC has been underway a few days, and I am afraid there is much left to be done. In the meantime, some of the editors on the other side of the content dispute began to add content to the stub. This is a distraction to me, as I am also trying to prepare an RFC/U to move forward regarding this same incident. Editing the stub is an attempt to change facts on the ground during RFC. Or perhaps just a provocation.

I will not take you through the dispute, but I can tell you I intend to see this RFC through and it may take some time. Am I left with the option of reverting the page to its former state in order to try to stop their work? Should I rush my RFC to appeal in order to stop them? Should I ignore them?

In other words, their edits on the stub are disruptive in themselves. They are disrupting the RFC and other processes I have under way to resolve the issue. I could be working on the actual issue instead of learning how to protect pages. And I should not have this hanging over me as I move through the process.

Please help.

Thanks for you time, Aquib (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk page comments

This edit just caught my attention. For my own sanity I'm going to unwatch that page now, but I thought you should be aware that your comments were so popular that one talk page couldn't hold them. 28bytes (talk) 06:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrol rights for user:KVDP

I've just noticed that KVDP (talk · contribs) has been granted Autopatrol rights. I would see this editor as someone who really should not have such a right.

They are a sincere and well-meaning editor. However their technical skills fall below WP:COMPETENCE and there is a long track record of really badly structured images on Commons, which keeps several "stalkers" busy in checking and deleting them (I declare an interest here, but just take a look at Commons:User talk:KVDP). Fortunately they don't often create new article pages, but even these have been poorly thought out and range from the thoroughly misunderstood to bizarre psychoceramic inventions. Although I would not describe them as a vandal, any new page they create warrants as much flagged review as we can attach to it, not an auto-pass through it.

As a separate minor point, they also have a tendency to edit as a morphing IP, often creating an image as KVDP, then logging out before adding it to articles, which I believe to be a deliberate hiding mechanism (we assume logouts are accidental, but some of the timing here is suspicious).

I would ask that you revoke Autopatrol for this editor. Thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi there. I noticed you have blocked User:Villaair. I have some reasons to suspect that they might be a sockpuppet of User:8qblog. I believe so because User:8qblog has created the article FlyMe (Maldivian Airline) which had been AfD'ed. They might have created User:Villaair to avoid deletion of the same. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 16:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Imposter

Another one to add to your list - User:HJ Mitchall. - JuneGloom Talk 17:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Just what I need! Another random sock. Thanks! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

After blocking and reverting, I left two welcome messages on your behalf in place. Feel free to adopt them anyways or handle as you wish. --Tikiwont (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift block and revert. I'll leave the welcome messages, since the users probably won't know the came from an impostor. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Jonalyn Viray

Hey, you protected a BLP that doesn't have reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 18:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did. There was a content dispute on the page. If you have any sources to add, by all means add {{editprotected}} to the talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any sources to add. I had removed the entire section per the requirement at WP:BLP that contentious unsourced claims be removed. Corvus cornix_talk 19:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Which entire section? Please don't assume I know what you're talking about. My only involvement in the article was answering an RfPP request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Biography section. There are also unsourced lists in the article. Corvus cornix_talk 20:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wonder World Tour

Hey, can you please comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wonder World Tour/archive1. I decided to skip the peer review to make the process shorter. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 18:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've stuck it on my watchlist. I'll babysit it for you, but since I did the GA review and I'm no real expert on FAC, I'll just stick to fixing issues as they come up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That's so sweet of you. Thanks. Also, small question... which sentence is correct "In a panic, Swift runs away" or "In panic, Swift runs away." -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 22:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Always happy to help you out. :) Erm, I would say either is correct, but my preference would be the first. It might be a WP:ENGVAR thing, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

How would it be correct? -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 01:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Note on Commons talk page

Please see my note on your Commons talk page.--Chaser (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

User NYyankees51 yet again

I'm not sure what's wrong with this guy. Despite the several times both you and I have asked him to keep a low profile, it seems like he's just not getting the message. See: [2] and [3]. It looks like he's just not able to prevent his beliefs from clouding his objectivity. Nice way to repay you for your good will -- perhaps it was a mistake to unblock him.

Oh, and best wishes for your Audit Subcommittee nomination. I don't know if it will help, but I posted an endorsement for you there. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

He's entitled to defend his userbox. I'd like to delete all provocative provocative userboxen myself, bur for some reason MfDs on them produce inconsistent results. Besides, with the new discretionary sanctions, he'll find himself topic banned if he doesn't keep his nose clean.

Thanks for your support. It's appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Wierdness

Hi, I'm puzzled to see someone monkeying about impersonating you, this second impression seems intended to get attention. Presumably this is a pattern, if you know of a related SPI case or similar I'd be interested to see it, if only for my curiosity. Cheers Fæ (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Another one, huh? I noticed this SPI case was opened yesterday if it's of any help. - JuneGloom Talk 14:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

On an AFD I just filed...there is another. [4] Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Meh. I've had random sockpuppet impersonators for ages (see User:HJ Mitchell/Accounts for the ones I know of). I think the most recent are the same as Tipteoty and this is just the price I'm paying for blocking that account. Thanks for catching them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi, in January you granted User:Fernandosmission the autopatrolled permission. Sadly, many of their recent creations contain(ed) massive copyright violations. Of the 7 articles I've looked at, 4 had glaringly obvious problems – Long_Run_(horse), The_Crush_(2010_film), Miinnehoma, Hurricane_Fly (I've cleaned up three of these and the other has been greatly expanded since creation and I've not checked for remaining violations).

Alarmingly, this includes articles created in the days prior to being given the green flag, and Coren's search bot had posted several notices on the users talk page. I am hoping a CCI case will not need to be opened on this one, but I haven't the time to dig deeper at present. In the meantime please consider revoking the autopatrolled permission from this user as soon as possible. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 18:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

ClueBot III

Could someone block ClueBot III (talk · contribs), as it looks like it has a malfunction. It archives section multiple times from WP:FFU, because it don't remove these sections. (like [5], [6], [7] and [8].) Thanks. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 21:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to block it? That bot archives a lot of talk pages. Have you contacted Cobi (talk · contribs)? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not yet, but Cobi (talk · contribs) is inactive since one week. About blocking, the bot archives this page every 6 hours, creating multiple archives from the same requests. If not blocked, then it should be added to the edit notice, so reviewers can archive manually. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 20:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it doing the same thing on any other page? If it is, then a block might be in order, if not, you could just remove whatever markup makes it archive the page until Cobi can sort it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like, it does this only for this page and only since 13:25, 16 March 2011. Could you add the notice: "ClueBot III (talk · contribs) isn't archiving this page properly. It is recommend to archive requests after review, until the bot isn't working properly.", to the pages editnotice? Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 20:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Swedengirl

I was working on reverting two of her edits when the bot did it for me. Was in the process of going to another admin's talk page and I decided to refresh her page one more time to see if you'd done it. Thanks. I've been seeing a lot of blocks today for vandalism. Cliffsteinman (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Always happy to put a vandal's spree to an end. Looks like that one should have been blocked a long time ago. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You'd think, I've seen a few of those with long records but most are anon IPs from schools. Which still should have been blocked before it became such an issue. Cliffsteinman (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

They often are, but we can't indef an IP. Once they've had a few blocks and it looks like it's static, I usually just block them for a few months to a few years. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Janet Wood

Sorry about stepping on your toes on this. I guess you must be much faster with the "Protect" button. =) —GFOLEY FOUR— 22:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries. That's happened to me dozens of times! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/File_mover

I have some files I would like to move. Would you be so kind as to grant me the File Mover permission? Thanks...Ng.j (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Passionless

I have had a lengthy email exchange with User:Passionless. He has now calmed down, accepted that you didn't block him out of spite etc. He has agreed to edit in full accord with our policies, and circumspectly in order to demonstrate his good faith. On that basis I have unblocked him - if he steps out of line, he knows he will be blocked again. I hope this is OK. --Elen of the Roads (talk)

I couldn't have hoped for a better result. Certainly it wasn't something I took any pleasure from, so it's good to see him back. As for him "stepping out of line" again, hopefully there won't be any need to think about that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think he sees that he's picked up a bit of an unfortunate reputation, and he needs a spell of quiet editing to put it behind him. I hope it works outElen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've a feeling that just having somebody to vent his spleen to helped a bit, so kudos for being that being that person. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, it seems Neutralhomer has something against me, I was wondering if either of you would care to comment on the conversation that occured on my talk page and this related dif-[9]. Thanks, Passionless -Talk 09:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just shows me you are following my edits. Anywho, you can say that he is "fails to meet the international and high notability aspects required for the current events portal", that's fine. Doesn't bother me one bit. But don't go running to the admins acting like I am saying anything that isn't true: "...or at least against the actions took by HJ Mitchell against me." You have an obvious problem with me cause I chose to stand up for HJ (who was backed up by numerous other editors and admins) and not you. You aren't Mr. Innocent, you just came off an indef block (not me), so find one of the more than 3 1/2 million articles to work on that doesn't involve me, that would be really helpful. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 09:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could (both) wipe the slate clean? Or at least make an effort to remain on opposite sides of the street? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no doubt in my mind that User:Passionless is a wikihound, and it ought to stop because as much as I am concerned wikihounding is the worse, the dirtiest kind of behavior one could exhibit.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If either Mbz1 or NeutralHomer make another disparaging remark about me I will take them to the appropriate noticeboard. Passionless -Talk 17:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I love that. Report the bad things that Passionless does and he threatens to report you. Love it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 04:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I've had a brief look at this. I wasn't previously aware of any history there may be between you (Neutralhomer) and Passionless, but I do think that as he commented on the ITN entry before, he or she has good reason to comment again when I submitted it for the second time (after another editor submitted it the first time). If there is any objection to be raised here, it would concern the first time Passionless commented there, not the second time, but if Passionless contributes at ITN anyway, there seems no problem with that. As long as Passionless comments on a wide variety of ITN submissions, and doesn't focus on any that you submit, that should be fine. My rule of thumb when participating in a process like that is to not just comment on the reason for being there, but to help out by increasing participation at the other submissions (in general, ITN needs more people commenting anyway, otherwise you get the same people hanging out there and the same sort of comemnts). Carcharoth (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Carcharoth, though I think it would be beneficial if you two made a conscious effort to avoid each other if you can't put your (albeit brief) history behind you. And yes, ITN does need more participation. Though what it doesn't need is arguments not related to ITN. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Moved a comment of yours

I just edited your ArbCom offering to give separate subsections to facilitate individual discussion, and moved your comment to the indicated subsection; diff. Please fix this if I erred and move my comment where indicated if you would like to keep the unified rather than compartmentalized discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! I don't often get this intimately involved in arbitration cases. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)