User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Auto-Tune the News 12c screenshot.jpg‎

Hi. Does fair use apply if the source infringed on the owner's copyright? I.e., if Auto Tune infringed on NBCs copyright how can we make a claim of fair use? Lionel (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest you start an FfD and let the folks over there sort it out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's the relevant thread on my talk page. —Bill Price (nyb) 00:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

AIV

Well, sure, but do you really think they are going to become a useful editor? Looking at their edit history and their Talk page I find it difficult to feel any optimism about people like this and Wikipedia. They vandalize, they get warned, they go away for a bit, they come back, they do some more. I assume that they will sooner or later infringe far enough for action to be taken, but by then they'll have wasted more of my or (more likely) someone else's time. I know there are rules but I'm not sure what we're protecting here. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems to be a school IP, so it' unlikely to be the same person as it was 4 months ago. While I've seen almost no constructive edits from a school IP, I can't block them for one edit in 4 months. If they keep it up, they can be blocked, but if that's all the activity we're getting from them, it's better to just revert and ignore. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the reply. You're probably right but it still gets my goat (cue distant baa-ing noise). I do wonder, looking at the edit history, if it is not the case that it is exactly the same user, in fact - or maybe that school just has a strong suit in people with the same pathetic sense of humour. (If vandals can at least be slightly entertaining I tend to be less inclined to reach for the weaponry, though that's probably wrong of me!) I was also tickled to see that in effect I'm here complaining (well, moaning mildly but nicely perhaps) that you've been too nice, and not so far away from here under the header "Block Question" is someone else questioning whether you've been too harsh ... I am sure this fulfils some essential Universal Law that says something like "if people are griping at you from all directions then you're probably doing it about right!" Thanks again for the thoughtful reply, best wishes, DBaK (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Zhou Yu

Apparently he wants you specifically to read his bullshit um er I mean unblock request. I suppose it goes without saying what my view on the matter is. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Scripts and gizmos

G'day HJ - thought I might ask you for a pointer as you're pretty good with technical wiki gizmos. I've been blocking a few users lately and find it tiresome to manually edit the user talk page each time to give notice of the block. Is there a script that can automate that? Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There's EasyBlock (User:Animum/easyblock.js), but I've never had much luck with it - it didn't work for me at all in Firefox, and in Chrome was bizarrely wide - the block reason was typically off the right of my screen (I use a large, wide-screen monitor...) Having said that, several other editors have recommended EasyBlock, so it's likely they (a) don't have problems with it, and (b) you won't have problems with it. YMMV...! I'd be interested in alternative recommendations... I'm still using the manual approach... TFOWR 07:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I use both Firefox and IE (alternate computer machines). I'll give that one a whirl if HJ can't suggest anything better. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I use popups for a quick scan of a vandal's "contributions", block the old-fashioned way and use Twinkle to slap the block notice on the talk page. It's quicker and less effort than having to type out (or remember!) the code for the templates. Huggle and Igloo also have a block feature, but I find that's more useful for blocking vandals you've reverted with it (at least with Igloo, I only have second-hand knowledge of Huggle). Hope that helps, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, similar to my approach, except I haven't yet worked out how to get Twinkle to do the block notice. I guess that may be an EasyBlock thing - or am I'm just missing something Twinkly and obvious? ;-) TFOWR 13:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

For admins, Twinkle's "warn" tab has an extra option—"blocking". Select that and it gives you a more-or-less complete index of block templates. It doesn't include {{schoolblock}} or {{anonblock}}, but it has all the other frequently used templates. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I was missing something Twinkly and obvious ;-) Ta, that's going to come in very handy! TFOWR 13:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it took me ages to work it out! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, good old Twinkle has the answer. I never saw that. Thanks very much for the help! --Mkativerata (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou

Just wanted to thank you for sorting out the Speedy Deletion request on 2005 Thailand Open – Doubles. Afro (Say Something Funny) ^{- Afkatk} 12:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

E-mail

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.

/HeyMid (contributions) 13:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. HeyMid (contributions) 14:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

User:CallumV

You blocked this editor as a compromised account, and they are questioning the block. I see the deleted edit that generated the block, and I agree that a block seems appropriate for the compromise, but wanted to make sure there wasn't some additional evidence that I'm missing - checkuser results or something like that. I'm hesitant to say that the account cannot be unblocked, but the e-mail on it (which is valid) was added after the block. Other than AGF (difficult after the deleted PA), I don't know that grounds exist for unblocking. Am I missing anything here? Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The attack was the reason for the block. It seemed to me that it was unlikely that edit (and the general pattern of questionable edits today) were coming from the same person who registered the account, especially given the speed with which they made that attack after the vandal was blocked. It all seems a bit iffy to me, but I'll defer to your judgement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hersfold has brought checkuser data to the table, which confirms that the attack and the other edits come from the same computer. No chance of an unblock until a satisfactory answer comes of that - and my AGF is stretched thin. Good block. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at The Thing That Should Not Be's talk page.
Message added 18:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Near Edit War: Don Cherry (singer/golfer)

Hi:

I have reverted un-sourced edits by an IP user to Don Cherry (singer/golfer) I have warned the user several times, but am unsure if it is really worth warring about. Advice? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey. It would probably be best to try to verify it yourself. If it check out, add it in with a reference. If you can't find anything, it's a BLP violation (which means you're exempt form the 3RR) and if it turns out to be bollocks, it's vandalism (also a 3RR exemption) and you can report to AIV or ANEW or BLP/N if necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou. I've warned him about the sources. Will Do, just wanted to have someone behind me on this. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Patrolling

Hey, thanks. Surprised at first but i take it. ;-) Kante4 (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well hopefully it makes everyone's job just a little easier. I do what I can to help content creators like you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Prod tagging

The nature of the task I'm doing in AWB requires me to lock the edit summary so that it's not changeable for the duration of the batch I'm working on at the time. The only way I could add a prod-specific edit summary would be to stop the batch, unlock and change the edit summary, process the one article, stop the batch again, change the edit summary back to what it was, relock it again and then proceed with the rest of the batch. All of which is an unrealistically onerous expectation, particularly given that the edit summary doesn't actually have any impact on the ability or inability of an editor to challenge the prod if they disagree with it. The only thing it accomplishes is to make it marginally easier to find out who added the prod, and 99 times out of 100 that information only matters if you're planning to attack someone in retaliation. Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well edit summaries are helpful for a variety of reasons, but thanks for the explanations, anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. That said, I will try from now on, if I come across a proddable topic in the process of doing an AWB batch, to switch over and deal with that article in Firefox instead so that I can process it outside of the batch run — I just wanted to explain why I've been doing it that way until now is all. Bearcat (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

'Reviewer'

Wow, I didn't actually think I could get it; I also have some other right called 'Reviewer' now. What is it? Thanks for the help. :) Toa Nidhiki05 00:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It's for pending changes. It means you can accept good edits from IPs on PC-protected and if you revert them, your edits are automatically accepted (which is why I usually grant it in conjunction with rollback). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi HJ

Hi HJ, I was wondering. How much would you say I've advanced on the learning curve? Also should I rack up more content based work instead of Project-centred discussion etc? Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 4:56pm • 05:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Your edit summary usage is 100% for minor edits and 77% for major edits (odd way round, but still both good!) and your article-space edits have increased considerably since I last had a nosey (a couple of months ago). FD, I continue to like what I see. I'll butt out now and let HJ answer the question... (Also, your userpage suggest you and I could run for parliament - that's got to be the best userpage ever. But I may be biased...) TFOWR 16:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TFOWR :) hehe I like the quote too. Who knows we might be in the same cabinet ;) —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 11:24am • 00:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You're on your way. From my perspective, you seem to have been not to focused on content work or anything else other than your userpage at first. You're getting better at working on the mainspace rather than your userspace. My suggestion, pick a topic that you know about, have sources on and that you like and work on it. I can help if you want :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 00:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I learn off Wikipedia, so I'm full of facts I don't really need, I'm more a Vandal Fighter in some ways. I'm interested in Comedians, such as Stephen Fry, past Wars etc. and History related articles, George Washington for example. I'm good at doing the little things such as finding citations for unsourced/challenged material etc. But nothing more than that. I'll take all your suggestions on board. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 12:32pm • 01:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

User:AMD

Can you extend my current userrights to my new alt (confirmed included, please)? --Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 14:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Allmightyduck (alt)  What's wrong? 14:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

IGLOO block template mistake

Hi Mitchell, just to let you know I fixed the mistake igloo appeared to have made in a block template here, but it signed my name when I substed it. I don't feel right adding your signature instead of mine, so if you want to swap mine for yours it's probably more appropriate for the block template to be signed by an admin than myself. Probably worth filing a bug report to igloo's developers as well. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha! You can incur their wrath when they create a sock! ;) That was my fault. I meant to replace uw-block with uw-voablock but left the dash! Thanks for the note, anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that they vandalised Chzz's userpage for declining their spammy autobiographical AfC request (and I have no idea how Bearcat must have slighted them), you're probably right there ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry…

…But am I doing something wrong? Savh (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) IGLOO can be temperamental, looks like HJ reverted you by mistake (and then reverted himself). Your edit was constructive; carry on. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

But is it necessary to do that four times? Is it going to stop? Savh (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please stop leaving warnings and rollbacking my edits. Thanks, Savh (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

this message is completely unnecessary. The sentence:"Grace, Audrey, and Amy were here!!" is not constructive editing, and the IP already undid it. Could you please stop warning me as if I am vandalizing things while I'm not. Savh (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) IGLOO does automatic warnings when it reverts edits, so you just remove the warnings when you get them since you are not vandalizing.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 22:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

help

My Governor's Cup (Texas) page has been hit! Someone has made it to where when you edit the page the edit will stay, but if you leave and come back to the page their “Fun Facts” is still there. I can go back to the history and see my changes; however their “Fun Fact” with a paragraph of the Cowboys win is still there. How can I fix this? By the way this only happens with Microsoft explorer not Fire Fox. Thanks Mickey 18:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeyp2814 (talk • contribs)

Thanks

Thanks for removing the I guess sort of vandalism on my page. I would like to you explain to the user on my talk page why his image isn't in the right place on the image, because now he is just pretty much attacking me for removing it even though another IP that watches the page believes it doesn't belong there. Thanks.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 22:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking on the case.--iGeMiNix/What's up?/My Stuff 23:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrolled permission

Thank you very much. I'm pride to receive the "Autopatrolled" permission. I will use it inserting brain ;-D. Greetings. --Dэя-Бøяg 00:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Keep up the great article writing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Help me please :(

Hi HJ, you were really nice to me when I talked to you before and said I could ask you for help and I need your help with an article I wrote. Someone came by and edited a lot of stuff out. Some of it I can agree with, but some of it I don't. Could you read through it and see if it'd be fair to undo some of the stuff he did? The article sounds really choppy now and looks...well unfinished. The citation stuff we were right in the middle of, but now it's hard to fix because half the dang article is missing! Also, the pictures I thought I did a good job providing good rationale, but apparently he challenged it. I admit I'm a newbie, but I'm trying to learn. I don't know why someone would edit my entire article and then someone else nominate the whole "edited" thing for deletion. The person highly edited and even blanked some areas and therefore the article sounded weird, and it's curious that minutes later someone would nominate the highly edited article for deletion. It was a valid article and it was still being edited and cited by me. So frustrating. Please help if you can. Thanks. Gollymolly1010 (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC) The article is http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Alex_Lambert

Hi. It appears it was nominated for deletion by a completely different person, but the AfD seems to leaning heavily in the direction of keep for the minute. If you're not happy with the content removal, then try to follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle. If you must, you can revert the removal, then try to discuss it with the editor who reverted it, by starting a discussion on Talk:Alex Lambert and leaving them a note on their talk page asking for their input. That's kind of a crash course in wiki consensus-making! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much HJ! Seems like the article is now marked for "rescue" so I guess that's a good thing! I also took your advice, reedited to make it more appeasing to the 2 users who had a problem with it and left messages asking for discussion. Have a wonderful day and thanks for your help! :)Gollymolly1010 (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad to be of service! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You get a barnstar for voluntarily sitting at your computer and watching people inappropriately insert the word 'boner' into things as though it were funny. That takes dedication! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha. Thanks! But what about dick, cock, fag etc etc...? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The people that add this sort of stuff have either Tourettes Syndrome or some mental illness, mental retardation etc. I mean what normal person willingly does such stupid things? —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 12:33pm • 01:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

For laughs of course. I'm sorry to say that I know some vandals IRL. They are generally intelligent and nice people, but don't understand (or care about) Wikipedia's mission. Airplaneman ✈ 01:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's strange. If you don't want to be a part of Wikipedia, why not just leave it be instead of making it that bit harder for those of us who do want to be a part of it? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the troll gene is all too common, and people will happily cause annoyance for people on the internet because they can get away with it without confrontation or real consequences. Sad fact of the internet, I'm afraid. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at 24.45.188.56's talk page.
Message added 05:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Andrzej Majewski

Hello. You have deleted the article Andrzej Majewski because it was previously deleted. As I understand the original reason for deletion was the lack of reliable sources. However, as far as I know, in the newer version of the article, the sources were already there. Note that the article exists also on several other Wikipedias. Can you explain me what the reason for deletion is - it is unclear to me. Thanks. --Botev (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)(talk page stalker): The reason was "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". Which means, the page was nominated for deletion, put through an Articles for Deletion discussion, the consensus was to delete it and it was. Apparently, the article your created didn't meet the General notability guideline (or GNG) as well. I would consider reading WP:FIRST, create the article in userspace and then before moving to mainspace, ask HJ Mitchell if it meets the GNG. If it does, then move it into the mainspace. If it doesn't, work on it some more. You can work on an article in userspace as long as you like. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not about the GNG or anything like that, it's that you created a very similar article on the same subject as the one that was deleted just a few weeks ago, which is seen as an attempt to override community consensus and qualifies it for speedy deletion. I will gladly userfy it for you if you want, but you would have to run it past King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and/or WP:DRV before moving it back into mainspace or it'll be deleted again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

A quick note as the original nominator; there was an extensive check for sources by a couple of editors and there was no significant coverage or sources available in any language. Phil Bridger clarifies all the venues that were checked in the Afd discussion and there was essentially nothing out there. The fact that the article is available on other language Wikipedias is irrelevant, as I noted in the AfD the other articles were all unsourced as well. If the article is userfied, I would hope that there is time limit of sorts imposed so that the article is not simply hosted in userspace to circumvent deletion (see Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication of deleted content. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Irish Theatre Magazine

Could you please undelete this article? We have received OTRS permission for it which I can add as soon as it is restored. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've tagged it now. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Windows taksbar in Screencast videos

You produced nice videos like this one, but I doubt the taskbar is free, so it should be removed from the videos even if it is in very low resolution.--Kozuch (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright is not my area of legal expertise (tort and criminal law are much more interesting), but I'd say that's sufficiently low resolution and the shapes are basic enough that there's no copyright issue. It would be similar to having a photo that happened to have a piece of artwork in the background. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Consona Corporation

You recently deleted the Consona Corporation page due to the fact you believed it to be an advertisement. It is not uncommon for companies to post information about themselves - which is what I was trying to accomplish. Could you please undo your delete and let me know what changes i can make to get it better? I tried to keep it as factual and "non advertising" as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch Briggs561 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Long enough?

Re your message: Yes, thanks. It will give me a three week break. =) Though I suspect it will resume shortly after that. There are a lot of persistent fans for a few particular artists. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's one of those articles that attracts nothing but crap, but it's borderline good faith crap. If it were plain ol' vandalism I'd have no problem with an indef. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is all in good faith, but it is getting tedious (though sometimes funny, too). I have this feeling that I'm going to be permanently watching this page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

AusTerrapinBotEdits

G'day HJ Mitchell, re Wiki-lawyering, I did note that it was a technicality and did not include it in the actual unblock request (it was a remark made deliberately outside of, and after, the request). Moreover, the fact that I haven't requested an unblock until now is an acknowledgement that it is a semantic argument and that there was justifiable concern that the account name was sailing pretty close to the wind. After Wifione originally raised concerns, I have pursued bot flag approval for the account (something that I had earlier investigated but was thrown off by the focus on automated bots designed by the operator). I have now reached the point in this process where a trial has been approved (see here) — a note on this approval and the link was provided in the original unblock request (I don't know if you saw this as you made no mention of it in your unblock declination). Obviously, I can't get the bot flag until I conduct the trial and I can't conduct the trial until the account block is lifted. AWB approval has been granted here. Interestingly, Rodhullandemu approved use prior to bot trial approval on the basis of the username technicality (without any prompting from me). The long and the short, as noted in the actual unblock request, I have approval for a bot trial using the account and request the unblock be lifted so I can conduct it. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Very well, I've unblocked it. The rest I'll leave to BAG. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. AusTerrapin (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you update the template to reflect this on User talk:AusTerrapinBotEdits? Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Man

Hi HJ. I noticed your 12-hour protection of man. Given the article's protection log and page history, I'm fairly certain that the edit-warring will resume almost immediately after the protection expires. Do you think it would be better to extend the duration until after the ongoing RfC ends (about three weeks)? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Bloody hell! I protected it against a pathetic edit war over an image or something, but if you think an extension is necessary, I've no objection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's that image that has caused months of edit-warring. Anyway, I've extended the duration to three weeks. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

YGM

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.

THENEWMONO 00:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

{{Reviewer granted}}

Hi. First of all, thanks again for granting me the flag. By reading your message, I see that the template above is outdated when it says "(...) is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.". I thought that maybe you would want to fix it. Have a nice day.” T_eLeŞ(PT @ L C G) 05:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Pre-coffee, however, so a more suitably caffeine-equipped editor may wish to check my edit... Incidentally, the template isn't protected - Teles, you can edit it, too, if you wish. TFOWR 08:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, TFOWR. I was not aware about the outcome of the discussion, so I didn't want to make any mistake. Regards.” T_eLeŞ(PT @ L C G) 05:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permissions

So I'm curious - what kind of standard is being used to grant people this permission? VernoWhitney (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I tend to dole it out to anyone with enough experience to know what vandalism is. The bar is deliberately set pretty low—lower than for other permissions like rollback, but there's not much damage one could do if it were misused, unlike the mess that can be made with the more powerful anti-vandalism programs rollback grants access to. Any particular reason or idle curiosity? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, my ulterior motive, I'm afraid you'll have to forgive me for not being upfront with it. I occasionally look over previous copyright offenders to see if they've relapsed and I noticed that you gave it to Anikingos (talk · contribs) who had his very own CCI which revealed 22 cases of confirmed copyright violations, including 8 G12'd articles. Similar instances were brought up before at WT:REVIEWING but nobody bothered to comment, so I figured I'd bring the question to someone who's still doling it out and see what your reaction to the situation is. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That's concerning, but not really reflective of their competence to accept decent edits and revert bad ones. I certainly wouldn't grant them autopatrolled, but reviewer is very trivial. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Even though the proposed guideline states "You should not accept the new revision if in analyzing the diff you find that ... it contains obvious copyright violations"? It seemed to me that if this was part was really meant to be enforced then creating copyvios should disqualify someone from being a reviewer just like making legal threats should, or doing any of the other things which are supposed to be screened out. By the way, I really don't mean for this to be personal about your actions or this editor, so I apologize if I'm coming off that way, I just saw it as an opening to have an actual discussion with someone about the general case. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm reluctant to do anything unless there's evidence of misuse of the permission. At the time it was rolled out, the moronic idea that a permission doled out by admins to anyone who asked could only be removed by ArbCom somehow worked its way into the policy page. As an aside, if the copyright infringement is such a major issue, would a block not be more effective than the removal of a permission? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that removing (or rather not granting in the first place) would be more long-term preventative. If I was an admin, I would've blocked, but I've found that short of any massive ANI threads or years of violations I have to directly bother a copyright admin before an editor is blocked for copyvio and given how few of us work copyvio I generally don't bother them since that would take them away from all of the other work they're doing. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to raise it at ANI or another appropriate, but I'm reluctant to do anything that would see me dragged there, I've filled my quota for "admin abuse". ;) Otherwise, I'll keep a lazy eye on them and if there are any more copyvio issues, you're welcome to bring them to my attention and I can take some sort of action. On another note, have you ever thought of requesting your own admin bit? I'm sure it would make things easier for you and, as you say, there are so few copyright admins at the minute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh I have no intention of inviting you to ANI or any other dramafest; I like things quiet, which is one of the reasons I've stuck around copyvio. As I said, I was really just looking for some discussion about the issue, so thanks for obliging. As to your question, I'll get around to it sooner or later. I figure if I pester enough admins with undeletion requests in the meantime they'll vote for me just so I'll leave them alone. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well if you find yourself lacking a nominator, let me know. Otherwise, feel free to pester me (I like to do what I can for copyvio stuff, even if it's just zapping G12s) and you can count on my support when you do get round to that RfA! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a nom lined up, but I appreciate your support. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

man...

dude... ever heard of WP:IAR? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedily deleted under G3. The speedy criteria are very explicit, and it's the tagger's responsibility to tag the article correctly. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Undelete request

Hi HJ, could you restored the subpages for Template:Box portal skeleton? Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:12pm • 08:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I can, but that's 30-odd subpages that were deleted over a year ago. Any particular reason you want them back? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It was just for some sandbox testing. But now that I think about it my request's a bit silly so nevermind. Thanks anyway. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 1:44pm • 02:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Repeat copyright offender

I figured I ought to go ahead and take you up on your invitation to pester you: I came across WikiEditor44 (talk · contribs) today and noticed that they were first warned about copyright violations back on 3 September, but have made no attempt at communication and have still been creating more copyvios at least as of 30 September. I believe I've cleaned all of their contributions, but apparently their understanding of copyright policy needs some encouraging. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I've left them a note explaining things. If they create another copyvio, let me know and I'll block them. Otherwise, ping me next time you need something! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. I tried to warn them (a couple times) and the user talk page just gets wiped and he stops doing it for a few days, then starts up again. I'm not sure how to be any more plain/direct about it than I was... anyway, good luck to you.

-- Joren (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Request

HJ, if you have time, would you mind looking at something Fridae wanted me to do for him? I said no, because I couldn't figure it, not because I didn't want to do it for him. I was wondering if you would know what it was. See here in the Account creator section. He wanted me to give him that right, but I didn't know what I was supposed to look at, and now I feel bad that I couldn't help him. And I think you need Toolserver access. But if you're busy, no worries. SlimVirgin ^talkcontribs 02:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know what the requirements are for granting the permission and I don't have toolserver access, so I'm not sure I'd be much use. I believe Fridae was recently denied the permission at the requests page by an admin who does have toolserver access, so I would suggest (addressed to Fridae as much as you, since I'm aware he follows this page closely) he discuss it with them or another admin who does know what they're doing. I wouldn't want to grant something that I shouldn't and I'm not happy with granting access to something I don't have access to and so couldn't adequately understand. Sorry I can't be more help, Fridae. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, HJ, many thanks. SlimVirgin ^talkcontribs 03:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks as well HJ! Thanks SlimVirgin for trying to help :) Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 3:59pm • 04:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at Jeff G.'s talk page.
Message added 03:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Happy 10/10/10

Double Ten Day is, really, unrelated—but we don't appear to have a cool pic for this one

I suppose I should've timed this message at 10:10:10 too, but frankly, I can't be arsed. You know how it is.

Did you know... that tenten in Japaense writing are a little wiggly thing, a bit like a quotation-mark, which makes e.g. "ka" (か) into "ga" (が) or "fu" (ふ) into "bu" (ぶ) ?

So, take time out to have a bit of a giggle.

All the best, and 10-10 'till we do it again.  Chzz  ►  08:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for protecting Jews and slave trade (which a user is trying to completely distort historic accounts), obviously notorious Noleander is trying to push his POV agenda on many wikipedia pages and engaes often in etd wars.Lawsmass (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Move a rewrite?

I'd appreciate some of your mystical admin powers. A copyvio clean rewrite has been provided at Talk:Tenfu Tea Museum/Temp which needs to be moved over Tenfu Tea Museum and there's also a page at Tenfu Tea Museum/Temp that needs deletion. Any chance you could make that happen? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. The admin bit really is incredibly useful—I just made three log actions in one click to sort that! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much! VernoWhitney (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Name Tag

Hi HJ! How did you change your name at the head of the page to match your signature? I tried to cut and paste

{{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="color:Teal; font-family:Tahoma">
 <span style="display:none;">User:</span>'''HJ Mitchell'''</span>}}

but nothing happened. I changed my skin from Vector to Monobook, and still no joy. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Try replacing my name with yours. I believe it only works when the title you're trying to display is part of the name of the page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That's right, and it has to be the full name, as well. You can get around that by removing parts using <span style="visibility:hidden">User talk:</span>, etc. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It worked! Thank you both. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirects to deleted articles

Hi. Working my way through CAT:CSD, I have just found myself deleting a whole string of G8s which were redirects pointing to articles you had just deleted. On the "Action complete" page you get after a deletion, there is a line "you may want to remove any links to this page (articles)" and a click on the word "articles" shows you any redirects - then you can zap them and it saves somebody having to tag them separately. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For using your administrative powers to fight vandalism. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 21:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I do what I can. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with I dream of horses. HeyMid (contributions) 13:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Rollback template

Hiya HJ, you would probably want to mention that Rollback shouldn't be used in edit wars to your Rollback notification template here. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:20pm • 10:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar 2

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		There are many reasons as to why you shouldn't leave Wikipedia, and in fact, I can't even ignore the enormous efforts you've made in vandal-fighting, both reverting and blocking user accounts and IP addresses, as an administrator. HeyMid (contributions) 13:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Pokemon Platinum

This redirect is fully-protected; could you also unprotect it? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Joan Sutherland

I've had a go at re-writing the info and adding some more, what do you think? And good evening, btw. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 20:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Good evening to you, as well! ;) I'm way ahead of you. I just posted it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

So you have, lol. Well, I'll go back to writing my next Neighbours article then. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 21:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

HJ, you may have seen this already but I've just reverted back to the old T:ITN picture - there's a thread at WP:AN#Copyvio on Main Page suggesting the Joan Sutherland picture may be a copyvio. TFOWR 21:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well it's a Commons image that was uploaded nearly 5 years ago. We need more than a vague suggestion that it might be a copyvio if you ask me. The website cited has a 2010 copyright date, so is there any proof they didn't copy us? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Their image shows her lower body, the one from Commons doesn't. And the copyright notice is always the current year for every page of that website no matter when it is updated. For a main page image there's one by Allen Warren on Commons. Hekerui (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Their image is narrower - it's a cropped version of a larger picture from an as-yet unidentified source. But their picture isn't the source of our picture. Ours compared with people.famouswhy.com, theirs compared with people.famouswhy.com Theirs is identical to the one at people.famouswhy.com; meanwhile ours is identical to the one at operaviva.leonardo.it. I'm still digging, and it's possible ours is a copyvio, but it's not a copyvio of nndb.com. TFOWR 21:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the links above to TinEye won't work, but TinEye is easy enough to work. TFOWR 21:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Moot. I'm de-camping to commons ;-) TFOWR 21:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Rinat Akhmetov fully protected?

Why did you completely lock it down? I was trying to clean it up and insert references; I'm a bit confused on this decision? --Львівське (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Because of BLP violations. It seems you were reverting the removal of what could be libel either without checking what it was or without regard for how the material is not in compliance with policy. I've referred the matter to WP:BLP/N. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did check what it was...I inserted the refs in the first place and wrote the prose as neutrally as possible based on the source text. It is the responsibility of those who are accusing broadly of libel, "I don't like the source", or not commenting at all to discuss the removal of the content, throw up an NPOV or other tag, or just engage in due process - not WP:OWN the article and revert all additions and citations because they don't like it.--Львівське (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Please read WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content. The onus is very much on you to establish that it doesn't violate the policy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering consensus would be a ridiculous way to handle a situation like this (arguing with a meat-pack isn't the best way to improve an article), WP:IAR surely rules here. I ensured the material was compliant, I did my part.--Львівське (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Off topic, but is there a related guideline to WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content for non-bio articles? --Львівське (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at TomCat4680's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello.

Okay, so, what's going with my contributions? - Zhou Yu (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Not trying to sound rude, but I'd like to know -- thanks! :) - Zhou Yu (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I tried to reply last night and thought I did, but apparently not. I asked another editor who knows about such thins. Your answer is at User_talk:Jeff_G.#Quick_question. You'll have to bump a bugzilla to get a dev's attention. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you think you could see if you could do it? It seems rather complicated. Not only that, but I don't have Bugzilla. - Zhou Yu (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've re-opened the bug, but I won't be able to keep an eye on it, so you should probably set up a bugzilla account and add yourself to the CC list. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, H.J.! - Zhou Yu (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting to get really worried. No replies on Bugzilla, and I still don't have any of the edits I made before the username change. - Zhou Yu (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

Hello there! I spotted your name on the Peer review list of volunteers, and thought that as you like bios, I'd ask you to have a look at James Cagney.

I hope your admining hasn't had as bad an impact on your editing as it has on mine, and that you've got some time to have a look over this. I've got it to GA, but before I really think about FA, it needs some other eyes on it. I'm good at copyediting other people's stuff, but not my own! Any help greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance, GedUK  14:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sadly I don;t have time at the minute. Real life issues mean I probably won't be on much for the next few weeks. Sorry, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries! GedUK  08:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Chicago Marathon

I updated 2010 Chicago Marathon just now. Can you check and see if it's ready for ITN now? Thanks in advance. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I like the pestering bit in the template, nice touch. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 16:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Your assistance please

User:Iqinn tagged User:Geo Swan/working/Khalid Khawaja as an attack page.

You confirmed that deletion request. We are all human, and capable of error. But I find it hard to believe I created an "attack page". And I request you email me the contents of that page.

If this was not an "attack page", can I ask whether you considered declining the speedy request, and telling the tagger to use another channel to get their concern addressed?

Wikipedia is not a battleground. If I have genuinely lapsed from policy, without realizing it, then I suggest it is both in my personal interest, and in the interests of the project in general, for those who have a concern to make a good faith effort to explain that concern. Geo Swan (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Since I'm not an admin I can't see the content of the page, but note that as well as attack pages, unsourced negative BLPs are also eligible for deletion as G10; if the page only made negative claims about a living person, and without reliable sourcing, that's probably why it was speedily deleted. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It wasn't an attack page. {{db-g10}} also covers "negative unsourced BLP, as GW notes. This page falls under the latter, as it implied negative links between a living person and an organisation. TFOWR 11:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There was no mistake, the page made negative assertions about a presumably living person, which qualifies it for deletion under the second part of G10. You shouldn't make negative comments about living persons anywhere on WP except in articles, backed up by reliable sources. It wasn't, though, an attack page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• I request that you look at the this version, from Decemter 2005 of the main space article on Khalid Khawaja.

• Back in 2005 I was still a newbie. If I worked on a draft of an article on Khawaja in user space, and then decided I had enough references to put an article on Khalid Khawaja into article space I should have moved my user space draft. But, with only a few thousand edits under my belt I didn't know this. I suggest this does not make me the author of an "attack page".

• I see you changed my rights, removing the autopatrol right. Would you care to explain why? Geo Swan (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's accused you of authoring an attack page. The page contained negative unsourced information about a presumably living person. That's another part of the same criterion that deals with attack pages rather like G3 deals with both vandalism and hoaxes. I removed autopatrolled from you because you have various notices on your talk page warning you about problematic image uploads (autopatrolled affects image uploads, not just new articles). Nothing to do with the main reason for my visit to your userspace, if that's what's worrying you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that the heads-up from the nomination is an accusation of creating an attack page. It explicitly starts:

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

I asked you to email me a copy of the contents of the deleted page. I was under the impression that this was a routine courtesy administrators offered good faith contributors.

I asked you to compare the deleted material with the version where I started the article in main article space. I thought this was a reasonable request.

We are all human, and thus fallible. Even the most experienced administrator is human, and thus fallible. My record shows I own up when I realize I have made a mistake, and try and fix it. One concern I have is that some administrators routinely do not inform other contributors when they exercise their administrator authority.

I know I am fallible. If I am innocently lapsing from some policy I do not want an administrator to speedy delete articles I have started, without telling me. If they think I am lapsing from policy I want to be told. I'll stop whatever I was doing, if I am actually lapsing form policy. This will save not only my time, but it will save other people's time, because if it is a genuine lapse, I'll stop, and other contributors won't have to clean up after future lapses.

I think good faith contributors should feel entitled to be informed of any time an administrator thinks they were authorized to use their administrator powers, because no good faith contributor wants to make the same mistake twice.

No offense, administrators are subject to normal human error, and make good faith mistakes. Earlier today I asked another administrator to please reconsider a decision they made. They had no problem reconsidering their initial decision.

However, when administrators don't inform contributors when they exercised authority, there is no opportunity for a question to prompt reconsideration, and those administrator's occasional good faith mistakes will stand. This is, IMO a second good reason for administrators to do their best to exercise their authority in as open and transparent a manner as possible.

Now, I did get a heads-up that User:Geo Swan/working/Khaldid Khawaja might be deleted. But I did not get a heads-up that you were considering removing my autopatrol permission. Would you please consider the possibility that there is value in informing good faith contributors that you felt it was appropriate to exercise your administrator authority? Geo Swan (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)