User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 49

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45 ← Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 → Archive 55

John Treloar

Hi, I've responded to your comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John Treloar (museum administrator). Thanks for the review - I don't mind the oppose at all (though I hope that I've fixed up the problems you identified!). Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It was an interesting read. I'll get back to the review a little later on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

I would like you to give assistance now that I have rollback back. WayneSlam 17:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What assistance do you need? I take it that getting rollback back is evidence that you have a better understanding of what is and isn't vandalism? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Michael Walker, Baron Walker of Aldringham

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Michael Walker, Baron Walker of Aldringham you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Harrison49 (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That was quick. Thanks! I'm aware that it could use a little polish in places, so I'll get to that when I can. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I've reviewed the article and found it to be in very good shape. Before it can be passed however, I think it would benefit from a reference for Baron Walker's place of birth and education. Harrison49 (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll complete the review. Harrison49 (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Help mediate a content dispute?

Seeing as how I had previously asked you to review Chief of Defence Force (Singapore), I was wondering if you could help mediate a content dispute that has developed there, which is outlined here? The other admin I asked, Dank (talk · contribs), forwarded my concerns on to the PR, so there's still no-one looking at the dispute right now. It would be appreciated. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 02:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well the seem, judging from their previous edits to the article, to be making a good faith effort to improve it, though their latest edit may have been a little POINTy. My suggestion would be to put the information they added (about one CDF being a veteran of East Timor) in a "notes" column of the relevant table. There's no reason it can't be included and that seems a reasonable compromise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, my contention is that him being a veteran of East Timor is irrelevant to his position as CDF. His view is that since one of the other CDF's role in East Timor was mentioned, this one should be too. But the other CDF's role was actually leading the SAF operations in his capacity as CDF. I don't know. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll wait to see if others agree. In the meantime do you think you could leave him a note to discuss more constructively? He seems unwilling to even discuss things, seeing as how I asked him to do so last night instead of readding the info and he ended up just removing the whole chunk. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 03:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
And one more request, I'm probably not best placed to do so since it might aggravate him more. Could you ask him not to use bare URLs as references and if not use the cite templates, at least write out a proper citation for his refs? Thanks. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 03:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Good luck with that one, lol. What we need is a Sinebot/Cluebot type bot to auto-template for all those bare-URL refs – but the volume of messages would blow out the servers. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, let's say it's completely irrelevant, but you add it anyway. What's the absolute worst case scenario? That a few of the tables have a column with a little bit of irrelevant information in them? Not exactly the end of the world. Perhaps if you took this suggestion tot hem and asked if they could live with it, it might buy you some good will? As for the refs, not everybody knows how to format them properly. I didn't know until I worked on a GA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

[1] I'm sorry, I'm not having this anymore. He plainly refuses to even hear my proposals to him (including your proposed compromise), I'm asking you to please intercede. He's again gone and re-removed the information (the edit you described originally as being POINTy) and I am starting to get really annoyed. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 09:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you are so active

I noticed there were no clearly defined rules regarding what constitutes a revert, so I thought I would try to change that, but I have now gone as far as I can by myself and require help preferably from many many editors to fill in the question marks, but I do not know where is appropriate to go to draw such attention, any suggestion? Passionless -Talk 03:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're just looking to attract attention, I'd try WT:EW, WP:AN and Help talk:Reverting to start with. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Michael Walker, Baron Walker of Aldringham

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Mail again!

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--5 albert square (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


Your GA nomination of Michael Walker, Baron Walker of Aldringham

The article Michael Walker, Baron Walker of Aldringham you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Michael Walker, Baron Walker of Aldringham for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Harrison49 (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! That's the second CGS to make GA. Now to decide which one is to be the third. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

--> poke

WP:ANI Jamiemichelle's thread has sat idle for almost a full day and needs to be closed. If you or another admin would do the honors that would be great. Yes I'm involved but I'd rather not dig it out of archive. N419BH 22:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI

As a courtesy, I wanted to mention that I quoted you in an AN/I here.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

David Richards (British Army officer)

I think you're right, thanks for the suggestions. Is it as simple as removing the tag from the talkpage to withdraw the nomination? Harrison49 (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done that. Would you be able to take a look at RAF Uxbridge to see if it's ready to be nominated for GA status? Harrison49 (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. It's having a peer review at present so once that completes I'm looking to nominate it. Harrison49 (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. peer review requested

Greetings. I read your GA review of The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) and I'm hoping to convince you to provide a review of The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr.. Any comments and advice on the article would be much appreciated.Astrocog (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No promises, but I'll see what I can do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks!Astrocog (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Protection of article Chemistry

Hi. You have been semi- protecting the article Chemistry for infinite period. I support it but the last vandalism that took place in this article was in September last year. So I am suggesting that semi-protection of that article should be fixed for a specific time period instead of infinite period. Keep up the good work as an administrator! Suri 100 (talk) 08:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, much as I don't like indefinite semi-protection, you'll notice that it hasn't been vandalised since September because it's been protected since September. If you look at the log, you'll see that unprotection has been tried several times and each time it's had to be re-protected, so I'm reluctant to try it again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Colm Meaney redux

Hello HJ. I wanted to let you know that the activity on Colm Meaney's page has picked up again. I didn't want to bother you with this while the unsourced fan info was being reentered every few days but it is now being reentered two or three times a day. The IP's addresses are all over the map so I am thinking semi-protection would be a help. Thanks for your time and for anything that you can do to help in this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 13:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Bloody hell! These guys don't give up! An we've got 92.251, 89.101, 178.167 so no rangeblock is going to effective. I've semi'd it for 3 months. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks. Your time and efforts are appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 19:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Enfield Town F.C.

Hi, would you be able to revert the version before User:Top of this Morning made changes. The edits are WP:OR and WP:POV ridden. Thanks, --Jimbo[online] 20:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No, That would be taking a side in the edit war, contrary to the protection policy. However, if you have an oldid you want me to revert to from before this edit war, I'll consider it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
What's an oldid? --Jimbo[online] 20:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The permanent link to an old version (go to the history, click on the date and the URL you get is the oldid which permanently links to that version of the page). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The oldid is 419975995
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enfield_Town_F.C.&oldid=419975995
Actually there are lots of oldids which are the same because of the amount of vandalism by Ericsback and Top of this Morning (are they the same person?).
You could use oldid 411849726 if you want. That was an edit by Arfaz. It has no POV and only has cited references. That is the main problem with the edits from Ericsback and Top of this Morning. They (or perhaps, he) won't cite references.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enfield_Town_F.C.&oldid=411849726
Jancyclops (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

RE

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
GunMetal Angel 01:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Autopatrolled" medal

Thanks for bestowing me with this honour.

Guess you can concentrate for the new people's entries now.

(Whohe! (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

Protection of the Sudan article.

I have been waiting for that to happen,(putting the article under protection),you did well there,welldone.Earlymen message me! 13:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

4.231.168.106

I just wanted to let you know that I undid your block of this user. I had two reasons for doing this: First and foremost the block is no longer necessary because the page in question has been fully protected. However, I also think that the initial block was a poor one at the time—the IP was leaving, after a while, perfectly reasonable edit summaries: "The National Enquirer is hardly a reputable source of information" and "National Enquirer and Daily Mail not reputable sources," while Kyle1278 continued to rollback him with the same message: "unexplained removal of content". NW (Talk) 23:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I will say that they had been repeatedly asked to take the matter up on the talk page, however, I don't object to your unblock. I agree the reverts, at least without the use of a proper edit summary, were less than optimal and intended to discuss it with Kyle1278 when I had a moment, though if you wanted to take it up with them, I'll defer to your judgement. Needless to day, I wasn't aware of the full protection when I made the block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, I think the protection had not even been made when you blocked, so of course I cannot fault you for that. I'll leave it up to you to talk to Kyle1278 about it, though of course if you want me to, I'd be more than willing to. NW (Talk) 23:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Whoa, what a mess. Kyle1278's rollback flag should be removed; or atleast his huggle.css blanked, to revert this kind of garbage back in isn't acceptable. Courcelles 23:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

RE: Edit warring to keep a BLP violation in an article?

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at Kyle1278's talk page.
Message added Kyle1278 02:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I responded under the comment made by Exxolon. Kyle1278 02:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Your rangeblock on 66.87.4.0/22

I just did a CU on that range per a request on WP:ACC, and I saw quite a few good faith accounts on that range and also quite a few good faith anonymous edits. Could you take another look at the anon contributions on that range (link) and double-check that rangeblock? Thank you, –MuZemike 02:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked. Facepalm Facepalm Not sure what I thought I saw that led me to that conclusion. There were quite a few good faith edits. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

CBA

I love your "can't be arsed to fix it" tag on your user page. Do you mind if I copy it? Cheers,  Chzz  ►  18:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course you can. It's CC-By-SA after all. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure - but it's nice to ask :-) [2] Thanks.  Chzz  ►  23:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC) yes, I did fuck up the edit summ 'user:user' - meh.

Protection

Good idea protecting Jimbo Wales's userpage. Too bad there are too many users to do it to all of them!--Tepigisthe498th (talk to me!) 23:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at Mbz1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

In case you did not see my response. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

White Horse

Would you mind going over the changes on "White Horse" and then comment on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/White Horse (song)/1. Thank you. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 00:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to retire for the night, but since it's you, I'll have a look when I re-emerge. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Also, which I'm really sorry for, how do I nominated The Time of Our Lives (Miley Cyrus song) for a speedy deletion. My reason is that it was already deleted and the song is has the same issues as before, no media coverage, and failure to be anything but a stub. Sorry to bother you but I just need the procedures. I can't find them at WP:Speedy deletion. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 02:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, it doesn't meet any of the speedy criteria and even if it did, it's previously survived an AfD, so the only reason it could be speedied is if it's a newly discovered copyright violation. The only way you're going to get it deleted is through WP:AfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
And exactly how would I do that? I'm sorry, but I don't remember how to do this. I've only done it once before. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
You can either use Twinkle or you can follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO (mostly copying and pasting). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind, me and the creator, which has been the only contributor of it, have both reached the agreement to redirect the page for what it was previously redirected for. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, what do you think about the separation between Miley Cyrus discography and Hannah Montana discography? Should it be united? If so, how? Because I want to fix up the page, but don't know how because of that. I previously brought it up on the talk page, but barely anyone commented. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 00:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have a strong preference for merging, then be bold and merge them. If it came to FLC, they might have strong views on it, so if you don;t have strong views but want to save yourself some work alter on, it might be worth asking for input at WT:FL. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

ME discretionary sanctions editor

This editor you had previously sanctioned is clearly back to being pov. Does he need a talking to? Well, thats your discretions since you put the ban on him (i found from his talk page).Lihaas (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

New Pages and New Users

I've recently been doing some thinking (and a great deal of consultation with Philippe and James at the WMF's community department) on how to keep new users around and participating, particularly in light of Sue's March update. One of the things we'd like to test is whether the reception they get when they make their first article is key. In a lot of cases, people don't stay around; their article is deleted and that's that. By the time any contact is made, in other words, it's often too late.

What we're thinking of doing is running a project to gather data on if this occurs, how often it occurs, and so on, and in the mean time try to save as many pages (and new contributors) as possible. Basically, involved users would go through the deletion logs and through Special:NewPages looking for new articles which are at risk of being deleted, but could have something made of them - in other words, non-notable pages that are potentially notable, or spammy pages that could be rewritten in more neutral language. This would be entirely based on the judgment of the user reviewing pages - no finnicky CSD standards. These pages would be incubated instead of deleted, and the creator contacted and shepherded through how to turn the article into something useful. If they respond and it goes well, we have a decent article and maybe a new long-term editor. If they don't respond, the draft can be deleted after a certain period of time.

I know this isn't necessarily your standard fare, but with your admin work I thought it might be up your alley. If you're interested, read Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/New pages, sign up and get involved; questions can be dropped on the talkpage or directed at me. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Not you right?

So HJBot (talk · contribs) is another HJMitchellBot (talk · contribs) right? Elockid (Talk) 03:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. Again? Looks like it. Unless it's Tipteoty (talk · contribs). I'm beginning to lose track of the sockpuppet impersonators! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Lol. I wonder what's next. Elockid (Talk) 03:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Well I've got a whole list of 'em. I believe there are at least two separate sockmasters, but I don't care which one it is as long as they're indef'd on sight. I apparently have some very strong opinions by proxy! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)@AIV

[3] Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Greetings from Oz!

I started editing Wikipedia around the end of February. I am trying to host some workshops, one of which involves trying to teach sport people about wikis. I figured if I was going to try to teach people about things like Wikipedia, I should probably learn about using Wikipedia first. As my area is sport and I already know how to use wikis, I figured I could try to learn it on Wikipedia by trying to get a sport related article to good status. :)

I've kind of given up on Wikiversity. Wikiversity is a little too tolerant of disruptive users and makes it a priority to keep them involved than they do to keep other users. And that's life.

How is merry old England? :) Australia is lovely and I'm not leaving (except to go to New Zealand) unless some one is paying my airfare round trip again. ;) --LauraHale (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

ITN

Get the article created... Stephen 12:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#05FALL07_10_21_07.jpg

Hello, there is request for refund at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#05FALL07_10_21_07.jpg of a picture that you deleted. I've restored it to allow for fixing, but am not much into images, so wouldn't be sure what exactly is missing. Maybe you can advise the requester better? Thanks. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I left the uploader a note explaining what we need, thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for removal from protection: {{Political parties in Slovakia}}

I'm tempted to say that the trouble at {{Political parties in Slovakia}}, regarding one editor unilaterally adding the EU flag to the template, has died down. Certainly, the three other templates subjected to the same edits have not been targeted since they were unprotected. As such, I don't think it needs to be protected any more. Bastin 09:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

contionuous IP eduts for the last two days for Rajinikanth: 15:12, 25 March 2011 122.174.111.19 14:53, 25 March 2011 68.45.222.243Vensatry (talk) 10:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi Protection for rajinikanth

continuous IP edits for the past 2 days: 15:12, 25 March 2011 122.174.111.19 14:53, 25 March 2011 68.45.222.243 Vensatry (talk) 10:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That was yesterday, and neither of those edits was vandalism, which is why I declined your RfPP request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The Sham

He is still editing List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011 against his sanctions. Passionless -Talk 18:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

And on another matter; since I don't want to be going to AE/ANI unilaterally right now as people think I'm battling, what do you think about taking User:Rym torch to ANI for hounding me after I warned him to stop. The purpose of that account is pretty much an SPA to hound me and a checkuser has in the past shown that he is editing from a mobile device, so he probably has a second real account and uses his phone to hide the connection. Passionless -Talk 18:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, not enough hands! I've blocked The Sham for a week and reset his article ban. I notified Rym torch of ARBPIA. There's not really enough concrete evidence for sanctions on the grounds of hounding, but I would suggest giving them enough rope and they'll likely end up the wrong side of discretionary sanctions or even a "normal" indef block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Favour/Wehwalt's talk page

Wehwalt answered on your post entitled "Favour" and I posted some notes I had about the article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 19:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Homer. I saw your comments earlier and I've just seen Wehwalt's. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. Let me know if I can be of assistance on the article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 20:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Pending chances request

Could you place the article: Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents under the pending changes protection. Jessy T/C 20:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I would, but I don't see a legitimate case for it. There's not much reverting going on, and when the main article was under PC protection, it got a lot of complaints that it slowed down editing due to the sheer volume of edits to be accepted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP violation by user:passionless

Hi HJ, you and Elen told me to avoid user:passionless and it is my greatest wish as well. Today after you deleted the attack page I felt now user:passionless and me could go our separate ways at last, but it was not the case. A week or so ago I wrote an article Murder of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran. Almost at once user:passionless nominated it on deletion. As you could see 15 users voted to keep it, and only a single user voted to delete it. So, AfD was closed as "kept", and I hoped that's it, but it was not. Today user:passionless made this comment at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. There are many problems with the user claims, but one of the biggest problem is a violation of BLP. "I believe these books are spouting lies and cannot be used as sources for facts". In other words passionless is claiming that Barry Rubin, who is the author of one of the books, a professor at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) in Herzliya, Israel, the "director of the Israel-based Global Research in International Affairs Center" is "spouting lies".

HJ, with the bottom of my heart I'd like to get user:passionless off my back, but what should I do, if the user keeps attacking either me personally or the articles I wrote? Please do advise me what to do. I am opened for suggestions.

Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

With regard to this edit, I do not understand your action in changing my user rights based on the statement "edit warring with rollback". An admin had added headers and {{section stub|date=March 2011}} to the article, which had been removed with the edit summary "just doesn't make any sense", which I felt was nonsensical. Perhaps this was a mistaken use of rollback, but it was in good faith and not "edit warring", as none of these actions had been done by anyone before. Another editor then reverted me, and if I had used rollback again to reverse that then it clearly would have been edit warring, so it was clear I should use "undo" instead, including an explanation (diff). I think you may wish to reconsider? Moonraker2 (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Just listen to yourself: "An admin had added headers ..." Are you really suggesting that anyone disagreeing with an admin's edits should be rolled back? Malleus Fatuorum 03:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
BTW, nobody needs rollback; it's a useless bauble that you won't even miss. Malleus Fatuorum 03:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
In reply to this, no, not at all, but it seemed to add credibility to the original edit. The main issue in my mind was that the edit was unconstructive, borderline vandalism, and the explanation nonsensical. I am sorry if I got it wrong. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I won't comment on the edit that you were reverting, because that's for you gents to sort out on the talk page, however, it certainly wasn't vandalism (any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia', unless you want to imply that we let vandalism-only accounts rack up 101,000 edits. If you paid enough attention to notice that the guy Malleus reverted was an admin, you must have noticed that there was an edit war going on. If you want to dive in and revert until someone protects the page, that's your prerogative, but you'll do it without using extra buttons that are designed to revert vandalism. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I have been aware of PBS as an admin for most of my time at Wikipedia. The edit I was reverting is surely the issue here, and I wasn't aware of an edit war over it. I also wasn't aware of Malleus Fatuorum having a particular number of edits, and I don't know how I should have been. I don't believe rollback is intended only for use with vandalism-only accounts. Anyway, I can only say I'm sorry if I got it wrong, but it was an honest mistake. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
OK. Take a step back. Go read WP:RBK, make sure you understand the "right" and "wrong" use of rollback and how your revert falls into the latter, than come back in the morning and I'll think about restoring it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
But you're still getting it wrong. Rollback isn't a weapon to be wielded against "vandalism-only accounts", it's to be used against vandalism. Whether the vandal is an IP or an administrator is irrelevant. Malleus Fatuorum 03:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Malleus, I'm not sure the above is addressed to me, but if it is then it's a misunderstanding and I agree with you.
HJ Mitchell, as you asked I have read the Wikipedia:Rollback feature page carefully, and I do understand that the issue (when not dealing with my own edits, edits in my own user space, or edits by a banned user or a malfunctioning bot) is simply whether an edit is vandalism (as Malleus says, by any user) and that Malleus's edit was not arguably that per Wikipedia:Vandalism, which essentially means that an edit needs to be abusive and not merely misguided. I was plainly wrong in this case. I also note the circumstances in which rollbacks should be explained on the talk page. If I have the tool in the future I shall use it with more caution and understanding, especially of Wikipedia:Vandalism. Thank you for your understanding. Moonraker2 (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, have you had a chance to look at this? Moonraker2 (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Puffin

Hi HJ,

On Puffin's talk page it says, "and the edit you are responding to came with the (HG) tag in the page history, keep in mind that this edit was made quickly while I was patrolling recent changes for vandalism." Last I checked edits using Huggle and other automated programs should be checked and shouldn't be carried out as though one were skimming a book, if you'll look further down his talk page you'll see he has ignored civil comments by stubbornly asserting he was patrolling recent changes and was getting a rough idea of each edit. In some cases he blindly reverted justified edits because content was removed and just now he accepted a promotional AfC which I promptly tagged for CSD. I'd like your thoughts on the matter. Regards, —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:34pm • 11:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

He seems to have re-emerged today from a three-week wikibreak. Perhaps cut him a little slack on the reverts, all of which seem to have been made a while ago, or try chatting with him and encouraging him to slow down. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
From what I've seen that's been done before, I know I may sound hypocritical given my own history I mean you remember my AfC debacle early last year. But the thing is this is a recurring problem with him, you'll see the problems span from October 2010 and have begun to re-emerge again. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:48pm • 11:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
No, you're right I'm being entirely unfair. I'll take note of that and ask him to slow down, thanks HJ! —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:49pm • 11:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Any time. Persuasion is (almost) always a better approach to a problem than coercion and maybe they'll appreciate some advice. We've all been there at some point—my earliest talk archives make for an interesting read! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, it's part of the learning process. I understand you're taking a break from using the mop and bucket, but could you weigh in here: Talk:Hap Glaudi#Re: CSD? The CSD for the article is being contested by the original AfC submitter. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 11:02pm • 12:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't have time right now. I've picked my mop back up, but I've got a few things to sort out before going AFK for a little while. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue's been resolved, almost all of the weasel words and biased statements were removed. Thanks anyway, HJ. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 3:39pm • 04:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Patricia Petersen

Despite your rangeblock yesterday, another IP (113.197.9.10 (talk · contribs) ) has continued their disruptive editing on this page. I've left a note on their talkpage inviting them to discuss their concerns, but they've continued reverting without explanation. I'm not comfortable getting involved as an admin here (I wrote the current article, and I've been involved in related disputes for months), so I'd greatly appreciate it if you had a look.  -- Lear's Fool 03:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

King of Hearts seems to have set up a filter. Let's see if that has the desired effect. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ajw522

He's requesting unblock, saying he understands the copyright policy. It has been some time since you blocked him. However, his block log shows some significant past blocks. Do you have any thoughts? Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I left a note. If they can convince you they understand copyright policy (or will not upload anything until they do), then don;t wait for me, just unblock. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Another

user:Shrike is also following my edits after I got him topic banned from I-P. I warned him at the first occurance here, since then he has followed me to ITN, an AfD, and to an RfA...all three coincidences, I doubt it. Passionless -Talk 04:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform

Hi HJ Mitchel. Following Jimbo's recent comment about RfA being broken, a task force is growing to evaluate suggestions for reform of the process. The project development is intended to be the absolute antithesis of the kind of long drawn out consensus confusion that getting BLPPROD off the ground was. Some interesting discussions have started but the immediate effort is to get the work group together . That's the background.

Would you have time, and would you be interested in being on the list of proposed task force members? The page is here. --Kudpung (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Passionless

Am I being totally impatient/out of my mind, or should there be a full topic ban here? Their recent edits do not exactly inspire confidence... T. Canens (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

An honest answer to that is I don't know. I would suggest keeping tabs on things for a few days. I think once Passionless and Mbz1 go their separate ways, things will calm down, but we'll see. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
What this has to do with me? Anybody would have been topic banned for this post alone, but there are many more problems with that user edits.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Drop the stick, before I topic ban the pair of you into the next century. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
What HJ said. I really think you two should just leave each other alone, before a more forcible method of separation ends up being employed. At this point, the acrimonious interaction between the two of you are not helpful no matter how well-intended. T. Canens (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
How I should drop the stick? Did I attack the articles he has written? Was I edit warring, and removing sourced information? I have done nothing wrong! If you want to topic ban me, please be my guest. Passionless violated BLP, and did not even get warned, unbelievable. And, Tim, I cannot wish for anything better than an interaction ban with that user. If you are to ban us from interactions, it would be the best solution with me.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
You need to stop commenting every time you see Passionless' name on your watchlist. Tim and I are quite capable of discussing Passionless without your input. You might mean well, but the acrimony between you an he means that neither of you is capable of commenting neutrally on the other. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
You told me do not respond to passionless, and I did not respond his post that was directly concerning the article I wrote, and that was wrong all around. Now you're telling me to stop commenting on him? Was my comment a false accusation? If so, you should warn or block me because a false accusation is PA. Are you one side banning me from interaction with passionless why passionless is allowed to do anthing? If so, please post the ban conditions on my talk page.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm advising you (both of you) to keep as far away from each other as physics will allow. I think any reasonable person would agree that I have been more than reasonable with both of you, but I'm beginning to feel that every time I put the flames out, one of you is busy starting a fire somewhere else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
HJ, it is going to be my last response to this thread.
I posted a message to your talk page last night. If my message contained a false accusation, you should have warned me. If my message contained a valid accusation, you should have warned passionless. Instead you simply ignored it.
Then independently on me and in a different thread Tim expressed his concerns about passionless. For some unknown to me reason, in your response to Tim you connected passionless to me. How passionless claiming that a respected professor that has a BLP on wikipedia is "spouting lies" is connected to me?
If I wanted to hound or harass passionless, would I have asked for an interaction ban with that user? The only thing I want that passionless stopped hounding and harassing me.
I am afraid so far your dealing with the situation is missing any logic. With this I am dropping the matter now, but I am still not sure what should I do next time,no, not, when I see passionless on my watch list, but, when I see passionless Wikipedia:Tendentious editing,edit warring, BLP violations concerning directly the articles I wrote. Thanks for taking the time to respond me.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
This isn't a matter of valid accusations. I'm sure you didn't make your above post to spite Passionless, but I do think you are making more of it than it needs to be—plenty of admins watch RS/N and my talk page and if one of them thought it was such a serious matter it needed blocks, I'm sure they would have done it.
"plenty of admins watch RS/N and my talk page and if one of them thought it was such a serious matter it needed blocks, I'm sure they would have done it." Guess what, Tim did express concerns about passionless, and you were the one, who connected his concerns to me.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
You also need to realise that you can't claim your own conduct has been perfect over recent days and for every accusation one of you makes, the other has a counter-accusation, so the reason I haven't been employing sanctions of some form is because I have better things to do than work out which of you did what first and who is more culpable for that.
If I thought my conduct were perfect I would not have asked for an interaction ban for both of us, but my conduct as imperfect as it is cannot be compared even remotely to the conduct of the other user. I am more than ready to be taken to any board and have my conduct to be examined.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
As much as you think I'm being too lenient with Passionless, I can assure you he is equally displeased with my supposed leniency towards you, so whatever I do, one of you is not going to be happy and my hair is doomed to turn grey a decade or two early. As I said above, I have been very patient, but every time I get anywhere in dousing the flames and getting you guys to stay on opposite sides of the street, one of you starts a fire somewhere else.
I really think you would benefit from spending your time taking more beautiful photographs like the one on the Main Page today (which made me smile this morning, because I love San Francisco), something for which you obviously have a real talent, and giving Passionless a wide berth. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting on my image.If under "giving Passionless a wide berth" you mean keep silent when he is edit warring, removing sourced info from the articles, violates BLP and so on, so it be.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
With my response to this post I have just broken my promise do not respond anymore that I gave to you in my prior post, and if you are to warn or even to block me for this, you would be right. I responded to you not because of passionless, but because of me. From my prior experiences with not responding such posts I realized that it creates me a false reputation. For example, for some unknown to me reason I have a reputation of being a single purpose pro-Israeli account. That claim was made by at least 2 admins, and dozen of users. Encyclopedia dramatica calls me "Josef Stalin of I/P conflict" , I was told that "the picture-taking, though, it does provide you with a good cover when you get in over your head", when in reality I contributed not only hundreds of high resolution images, but also more that 70 articles from which maybe 5% are related to I/P conflict, and I very rarely edit old articles related to I/P conflict. So the vast majority of my contributions has nothing to do with I/P topic at all. I am being accused in making "racist" comments. In reality I have no prejudice towards Muslims/Arabs. I wrote such articles as The Mountain of Israeli-Palestinian Friendship;Sayyida al Hurra;Liar paradox in early Islamic tradition;Arab rescue efforts during the Holocaust just to name a few. I doubt there is any other user from the other side of the conflict, who wrote a good word about Jews or Judaism. I am editing under my real name. My accusers are cowardly hiding behind their user names. I wish I would have been taken to RFC/U. To me it would have created a great opportunity to defend myself. On the other hand I probably should stop worrying about my reputation as it is said "A man's reputation is what other people think of him; his character is what he really is.". Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

A favor?

Could you please rename two images I uploaded last night? File:-Sea foam at Ocena Beach in San Francisco -2 on 3-25-11.jpg and File:Sea foam at Ocena Beach in San Francisco -1 on 3-25-11.jpg. I misspelled the word "ocean" in both of them. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 12:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The Big Mistake (BM)

Pyfan has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

For pointing out my BM. — Oli OR Pyfan! 16:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC) P.S. Notice I used my sig this time? :)

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Just wondering

You seem to be busy, but I was just wondering if I had understood your last request correctly in the thread now at the top of the page headed "Rollback". Would you please be kind enough to let me know if you wanted anything else from me? Thanks again for your help. Moonraker2 (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I assume you read the page I directed you to, then, and that you understand why your revert wasn't appropriate? If the answer to both of those is yes, then you can have it back, but if you use it in a content dispute again, you'll be unlikely to persuade an admin to give it you back a second time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, HJ Mitchell. As mentioned above, I read the Wikipedia:Rollback feature page carefully, and that called for a good read of Wikipedia:Vandalism. Indeed, the answer to both of your questions is Yes. Thank you also for your advice. Moonraker2 (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

What are YOU lookin' at? Excellence in Reviewing
For great work at Milhist's A-class reviews, with appreciation. - Dank (push to talk) 16:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! I consider it a quid pro quo since you and others have given me great feedback on Jacko, but it's nice to be appreciated, especially when it means I get to read interesting articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Consider it as more of a bribe to keep helping; you're an excellent copy editor. - Dank (push to talk) 18:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Well flattery will get you nowhereeverywhere! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Your redaction from User talk:Fukbdhwendebduyew

I see that you redacted the content and summaries of a number of edits at User talk:Fukbdhwendebduyew. I did notice that the content hwhich aparently justified this rdaction is also present in the content of 3 other versions of the page. I redacted the content of these other edits; in the future, please check things like this yourself. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You might find you get a more welcome reception if you're a little less abrupt, but point taken, thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted image that I own

Mr. Mitchell, could you please undelete the image you deleted here: File:Gravilux-BubbleHarp-Tripolar.jpg, and also restore the various links to it? I am the legitimate author of the image, Scott Snibbe. The images can be found on my website at http://snibbe.com/store. Thanks, Snibbe (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Your website says © 1988-2010 Scott Snibbe. It doesn't say the images can be used under the GFDL, which is the license tag you put on the image description page. You'd need to either change your website to state that images are available under the GFDL or a Creative Commons License (of which the most restrictive we allow is CC-By-SA) or you'd have to email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with some proof that it's your website and a declaration that you release the image under one of those licenses. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Mr. Mitchell, I did send such an email yesterday and received the following response: We have received the permission for the image and have made the necessary modifications to the Image page. Thank you for providing this to us, and for your contribution to Wikipedia. Yours sincerely, Verno Whitney — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snibbe (talk • contribs) 15:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
And I see Verno Whitney has undeleted the image and put the appropriate tag on it. You don't need to do anything else to verify the license, and you can add it (back) to the relevant article(s). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Troubling matter

Hi HJ,

In the past I've been getting a lot of nonsense in real-life, now these problems have escalated to the point where I'm considering vanishing completely or getting a rename. The harassment was originally out of fun, but my "friends" have decided to make it a habitual part of their lives. I need your advice before considering an option I may regret. Regards, —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 7:18pm • 08:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well if you know these people in real life, can you not persuade them to leave you alone? If not, then it might be worth completely abandoning that account, leaving it a few days and then starting a new one from scratch so there's no connection to the old one. If you email me from this account and then the new account, I'll sort your rights out etc. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I've exhausted all avenues, is it possible to get renamed without creating redirects? They access pages in my userspace because they know my name. My sig uses a different username to redirect to my userpage, if I get renamed and the pages in my userspace were to be moved with redirect surpressed then they won't know who I am (telling them what my username was, was a mistake) and with only my sig redirecting to my new user name, they'll most likely move on and tease me about something else (I'd much rather prefer that). Thoughts? —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 8:10pm • 09:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe 'crats can rename without leaving redirects, much as admins can move pages without a redirect, but anybody who reached your old userpage would see the log entry, which will connect the two usernames unless you have someone willing to RevDel 120 log entries. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
That reassures me, not to worry, none of them know how to access logs... funnily enough. I'll request a rename after tomorrow rolls over... I want to see how things pan out at school. Thanks HJ, —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 8:27pm • 09:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) As an uninvolved observer, I'd advise you to reconsider HJ's comments. Many years in IT/MIS have taught me that reliance on the ignorance of potential attackers is a very poor security procedure. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll send you an email HJ. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:25am • 23:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

UK Supreme Court case drive

Hi! Thanks for taking the time to read this message.

As you may know, the United Kingdom Supreme Court has been hearing cases for about 18 months now, taking over from the House of Lords as the Court of Last Resort for most appeals within the United Kingdom.

During that time, the court has handed down 87 judgements (82 of which were on substantive appeals). Wikipedia covers around 11 of these and rarely in any detail. Some very important cases (including Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42 (prenups) and Norris v USA [2010] UKSC 9 (extradition)) are not covered at all.

I'm proposing a drive to complete decent quality articles for all, or at least a good proportion of these cases as soon as possible. If we can eliminate the backlog then a small group of editors might want to stick around to ensure articles are created relatively speedily for new cases. Since the Court process, on average, one case a week this shouldn't be too great a task.

I'd like to ask you to help with this drive, and help make Wikipedia a credible source for UKSC case notes.

How you can help

  • Complete that template and add it to existing cases.
  • Improve formatting & prose. Copyediting.
  • Improve the coverage of cases we have articles on, including adding content, sourcing and fact-checking
  • Create new articles for UKSC cases
  • Improve the categorisation and listing of UKSC cases.

Thanks for reading!, Sincerely Bob House 884 (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Archive_49&oldid=1176945046"