User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 53

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

→

Archive 60

AN notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mjroots (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Bradford City A.F.C. page protection

Hi there - many thanks for your page protection of Bradford City A.F.C.. I was wondering, however, if you could now un-protect the page, as we have had a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football‎#Players being released, where we have reached a possible solution for the relevant issues. Thanks and regards, GiantSnowman 12:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've unprotected. Hopefully the solution will work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I've added a note and reference to the article now. Should any more problems arise, I'll come a-calling! Cheers, GiantSnowman 14:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Kinetic operation

Noted that you'd previously executed speedy delete on kinetic operation because it redirected to a deleted or non-existent page. I was about to make it a redirect to kinetic military action, but suspected this might repeat original sequence that lead to delete. Anyways, maybe kinetic military action should be deleted. If not, I'd say kinetic operation should probably be a redirect to it. ENeville (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't know, but you don't need to worry about creating or re-creating a redirect if that was the only reason for its deletion. There's a databse report updated every night with a list of redirects to red links and it only takes a few seconds to delete them all with Twinkle, so you're not creating much extra work (and if the target is deleted, the admin should check for redirects and delete them). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Previously deleted page up and running again

Hi HJM,
Was just about to add {{blp}} to Talk:Mićko Marković when I noticed:

• 21:14, 28 February 2011 HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Mićko Marković" ‎ (G8: Talk page of a deleted page)
• 09:41, 12 February 2011 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Mićko Marković" ‎ (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)

I'll give it a quick translation and prune and then run it through Google Translate. Article is about a 14 year old lad from Serbia; instant A7 would seem somewhat WP:BITEy to me.
--Shirt58 (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It might be bitey, but it would be accurate. I would be inclined to slap a G3 tag on it because the last four films are listed as "2011th", and one of them is Roger Rabbit, for Pete's sake.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 09:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's been deleted again. Looks like I deleted it as an expired PROD a while back, so I don't have any particualr involvement with the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Hi HJ, I tweaked the wording of Sarah777's block log entry, and Jayron did so 2 minutes before me. The word "racism" appears to be a point of contention, is leading to a long drawn out ANI thread (which I just noticed you weren't notified of), and in my mind "racism" was the wrong term anyway. Jayron's fix was actually better than mine, but I don't want to continually screw around with her block log, and in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter too much. Anyway, I think this change might put out one of the 45 fires going on in this subject area, and I don't imagine you mind, so per the message at the top of this page, I went ahead and did it. Let me know if I stepped on your toes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I have ANI on my watchlist, so I was aware of the thread, but had no intention of participating unless my views were sought. To be honest, I think she was using the disingenous objection to the word "racism" to get out of having to address the reason for the block, but removing the word isn't a big deal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt actions towards User:76.11.145.146

Thanks. Really appreciate that. (If you do find time, at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Greg_Mortenson#Thoughts_from_an_insider. I've posted a personal note, but I've promised the others I'd refrain from getting involved as much as I can in person). So, thanks again. Qwrk (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. There's no need for that kind of crap and that IP has a lengthy history of blocks for vandalism, so I'm more than happy to keep them out of our hair for a month. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Editnotice

Still has that your computer is on the blink...also check your e-mail. N419BH 18:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It still is. I'm using a different computer, but you're right. The whole thing could do with a facelift—I've just added notes to it with more thought towards making important things noticebale than making it aesthetically pleasing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

RfAs

HJ, while I do respect your work, you have been getting protective of RfA candidates in recent times. I really think you should stop, there is procedure behind releasing controversial material and your asking Sven to release such informational is not good practice, especially if it concerns ArbCom. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:16am • 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asking Sven to disclose anything. If he's talking about the controversy surrounding the block of User:Sophie as he was last time, he shouldn't be bringing it up at all. Regardless of what they are, if his concerns were genuine and not hollow attention seeking, but couldn't be posted on-wiki, he would have emailed them to ArbCom or the 'crats for appropriate consideration. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes you're right, sorry, that wasn't the best way for him to go about raising his concerns, I've asked him on the RfA to not post anymore information with regards to the Sophie incident. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:28am • 00:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Gary Weiss

I blundered into this article while RC patrolling, and found an unsigned-in editor under now three IPs making what is at last count a total of six additions of unsourced negative information/speculation. My feeling is that temporary semiprotection would be the best solution, so I hope you'll reconsider the RPP. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the last three diffs and can't see any problem with what they're doing. Adiing a tag certainly isn't vandalism. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

All of the other edits were unsourced surmises, indicating that the subject was fired or termintaed from his employer. The last edit was unsourced and inaccurate. A talk page post indicates personal animosity toward the subject of the article. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've blocked 174.253.160.0/19 for 72 hours. If there's a source that the subject no longer works for (or was dismissed from or quit) Forbes, perhaps you could add that with neutral language. That way, if they come back and start altering it again, they're clearly being disruptive and not just misguided. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As best as I can see, we seem to have closed the loop on discontinued employers in that article, but I'll check again. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, his last edit was by 174.253.182.226, which doesn't seem to be in that range. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I had to check, but it is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for checking. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Harrier stuff and chatting + thank you

Hello there. As you were greatly impressed by the current state of affairs the HS Harrier has now arrived at, I thought I would show you have it looked just two and a half moneths ago, if you had not noticed; old revision, 2nd March. Through the help of many other editors, and some significant source discoveries, within a single month, the article had been massively bolstered. I would go so far as to say it is one of the most successful monthly collaborations I have worked on to date. Due to your encouragement, I am seriously considering taking the article to FAC. Previously, I have only ever taken one article to FAC, and found it immensely destructive, demotivation, and was so thoroughly belittled/talk down to by one editor in spite of wasting hours trying to tweak the article to their whims (where they could not be bothered to do a single thing...) I swore never to take on the irritation and hostility of the place ever again. It is thanks to you, that I can see perhaps facing the higher levels once again may be as constructive, and generous, as I have found the GAN system to historically be. Thank you. Kyteto (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow! I didn't go that far abck in the history, but that's clearly a massive improvement and all the editors who worked to bring it up to what it is now should be thoroughly proud of themselves. Certainly an aircraft as iconic as the Harrier deserves a high-quality article. I hope you will take it to FAC—I'd love to see all your hard work bear fruit with the addition of that little bronze star. FAC can be quite unpleasant, especially if your article is under-prepared, because of the nature of the process and the high bar set by the criteria, but I don't think this would be under-prepared, so you should have an easier time. If you were to take it to FAC (probably best to wait for everything to be wrapped up at the ACR first), I'd be happy to keep a close eye on it and help with anything I can.

You'd probably be wise to get another copy-editor to cast an eye over it before you take it to FAC—you could ask Dank (talk · contribs), who is one of the best copy-editors the MilHist project has. He's also intimately familiar with A-class reviews, so he might be able to provide the third support you need for promotion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Mitchell, do you think I'm ready for an RfA? Please give me some advice on how to further my activity and contributions to Wikipedia. Thanks! Ocean Shores 01:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This will sound blunt, but by coming here and asking shows to me at least that you aren't ready. You should not need to ask, there will come a time when you feel you are ready and you should just try. Asking just looks insecure. Trying to work your way up to becoming an admin isn't a particularly great idea either. Adminship is something that you get as you become an experienced, regular editor, but not something you "aim" for.

Some advice though, since you're asking: you're not particularly active, which is seen as a negative by many. Plus, your most edited article hasn't got a single reference. AD 01:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like the perfect candidate then. Malleus Fatuorum 03:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Was this meant to be sarcastic? Ocean Shores 14:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

^ Satirical, not sarcastic.

Among the best advice I have ever read on Wikipedia is: "People who announce early in their Wiki careers that they want to be admins, probably shouldn't be. Adminship is better approached as a duty taken on by an established Wikipedian, than as a trophy for a newbie to aspire to. The best admins are those who are drafted, and not those who eagerly await a three-month threshold or a certain edit count. Adminship is not a trophy and beware those who want to pin it on like a shiny badge." - User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior. AGK [•] 19:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

HJ!

Just wanted to say hi! It's been a long time since we last talked, what's up? How's life? How is it going? I've been kinda busy during the last two months, struggling to do something at Wikipedia and to complete my expansion to the Lolol article. Hope to have a response from you soon. --Diego. x 04:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

automated autopatrolled requests

Hi Harry, as you do a lot of according of this right, you might find the opinion I was asked to give here may offer some aspects that have not been considered. It's very possible you might not agree with my arguments, but as your opinions are always very solid it may be of some interest. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I might comemnt later on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

Hello. I agree with your freeze on this article, but it has become clear (see the talk page) that several of the derogatory statements made there regarding Alaya Rahm are entirely unfounded (and quite vicious.) As this has become a BLP on this person, I would like to remove them as soon as possible. Any chance of a temporary thaw? Rumiton (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide me with a link or some context? I have no idea what you;re talking about. I've protected thousands of articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I would guess Rumiton is talking about the Sathya Sai Baba article which you full-protected here. Jenks24 (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps, Rumiton, you could point out what the problems are? Your original post is very vague and that protection was, from RfPP, so I have no involvement with the article and so no idea what the problem is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realise you were so globally active. :D There are only 4 more days to go on this protect, so perhaps it is moot, but the subject of this article (Sai Baba, recently deceased) has had allegations of sexual abuse levelled at him for decades (or at least since 1976.) The article implies that there has been only one claim, by Alaya Rahm, and it distorts the result of the court case, in which both Rahm's case and the counter case levelled by the Sathya Sai baba Society were self-dismissed. I think it's best now to continue discussions and make the agreed changes when the ban expires. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Huggle rights

Can you please give me my Huggle rights? Thanks. WayneSlam 22:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No. One step at a time. I'll take you off the Twinkle blacklist if you want, and you can patrol recent changes old school, but I'm not happy enough with your knowledge of vandalism to unsalt your huggle.css. Maybe after a few weeks with Twinkle, we can think about it. Before I do anything, though, I'm going to consult a few people who've been involved in this to get more views, which I'll take into consideration. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with HJ. You will get the tools back slowly as you continue to show that you can handle them properly. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

@HJ: Yes you can remove me from the Twinkle blacklist. I would also like you to look at this and have a conversation with the user who posted that message about this topic. WayneSlam 23:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with HJ, Wayne. You are much better to ease back into Huggle rather than have all your rights back at once.--5 albert square (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you read the message that Fastily put on my talk page? WayneSlam 23:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Fastily is someone I hold in great esteem (he was my RfA nominator as a matter of fact), but, given previous issues, I think it's advisable to tkae things one step at a time. I've asked your mentor and the three other admins who've been involved with this for their opinions. There's no rush, so I don't intend to do anything until they've had a chance to comment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be receptive to giving Wayne back access to Twinkle, but I think we need to see use of other, less powerful tools constructively before handing the keys to the sports car back over. Drive the slow sedan for a while, and then we can talk. Courcelles 23:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

@HJ: Should anyone else comment here? WayneSlam 23:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• With four of us in agreement, I've removed Wayne from the Twinkle blacklist, but I'm keeping his huggle.css salted for now. Wayne, be careful. If you show us you cna handle Twinkle properly for a few weeks, we can think about Huggle. If you're unsure whether an edit is vandalism or not, either leave it or revert using a method that doesn't leave the word "vandalism" in the edit summary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Should I keep trying rollback instead or use Twinkle? WayneSlam 23:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Use whichever you prefer. Twinkle is handy for tempaltes as well as for reverting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Twinkle doesn't work on Internet Explorer, though. WayneSlam 00:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Then don't use Twinkle or get a proper browser like Chrome or Firefox. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Agreed. I highly recommend Chrome. It's faster than IE, it's safer than IE. And it's far more standards compliant than IE. I'd pick Firefox as a very close second (or first, if you need some of the plugins it has available). But that's just this web designer/computer technician's opinion (ok, it's really not an opinion - it's actually true). ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
            • I'm with HJ, Wayne. You have certainly come a long way, and you've made much progress in giant leaps and bounds, but it's only been a few months since your Huggle rights were taken away, and you must learn to be patient and take this Huggle thing one step at a time. I know you're eager to get back out there in the vandal fighting world, but you have to keep in mind that we're not only teaching you policy here; we're teaching you patience, a quality that is very important in a Wikipedia user. It's not a requirement, but since you want to become an administrator, I would recommend mastering the art of patience before having an RfA. It takes some time, but based on what I've seen with your progress in vandal fighting, it won't take a really long time for you to learn patience. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 12:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
              • And in six months time Wayne will be an administrator. This place is a poorly run zoo. Malleus Fatuorum 12:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I said that, Malleus. I simply said that Wayne must master patience before becoming an administrator. I didn't say that was the only thing he had to do. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 12:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Patience is the key, guys for me. Wikipedia isn't also a requirement. I did not have to do this. WayneSlam 20:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Wayne asked me to comment over here. Wayne has done some very good work here, and I support - at the appropriate time - the restoration of his ability to use Huggle. I think he understands that getting caught up in the competitive nature of vandal fighting was where things went wrong, as that leads to snap decisions simply to "beat" another editor who is on AVP. There will be a time when he should be trusted with the use of Huggle again, but he needs to continue showing a pattern of responsible editing. Wayne should also understand that once he gets that particular tool back, abuse will lead to a longer, if not permanent loss of the privledge. In the meantime, here is a challenge for Wayne - try salvaging some editors who are on the path to a ban. I had a guy the other night who was upset that his first edit was reverted because of no source, and then did a few "FU" edits; I put a short message on his talk page that his contribution were welcome and a short explanation of our policies of verifiability and sourcing. Wonder of wonders, the vandalism stopped, at least as the moment (this reminds me to follow up on his contributions after I finish this). In the long run, this kind of things will improve the satisfaction you get from your Wikipedia time, and improve your chances at becoming an administrator as you have indicated on your user page. Seaphoto^Talk 01:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

There is a serial vandal (one of the three sockpuppeteers who are constantly around the TV station area) who is adding sections like this to numerous pages. All unsourced, all original research, all from indef blocked vandals. I am curious, would I be out of line, if I removed all these sections from all the TV station pages, per those reasons, or even just WP:OR? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Just click rollback (there's a mass-rollback script in my monobook.js you might like) and give me a list of IPs (and a little evidence that they're evading a block or doing something block-worthy) and I'll block them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

MuZemike has a rangeblock on them for the next week and four days, but can't find anything on CU that links them, but the behavior is similar, but to all three, so he can't link them to one account. The problem I am having, is we can revert the edits, but some information is already on the page and covered over. It just needs to be wiped clean, so we can easily revert. That's what I am wondering, if I would be out of line is removing that information and since I can't link it to a sock, just say WP:OR in the edit summary. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Just lighting this up again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Patience, my friend! You should know better tha to expect a respnse at 4 am my time! Just revert/remove the edits/ Call 'em OR, call 'em disruptive, call 'em block evasion, it really doesn't matter as long as the stuff you want out is taken out. Other than that, it sounds like MuZemike has things well in hand. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL, I was trying to awaken the sleeping HJ. :) I will go through those in a bit and mark them all as WP:OR. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't out of line by doing so. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Tonyroolz on AN/I

Hi HJ,

As I was not involved in this AN/I and it was raised by an IP (and I am not sure if you're planning on heading back to it), I was wondering if perhaps someone should send out an AN/I notice to Tonyroolz, as it does not appear he was informed. Here's the link to the AN/I in question to make it easier for you to locate it.[1]. And here's Tonyroolz's User Page Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

NM, elektrikSHOOS took care of it. Just wanted to make sure he had a chance to comment before the thread gets archived and buried. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Tonyroolz is blocked as a vandal-only account and his talk page access is revoked. Not sure what you're aiming for as he won't have "a chance to comment" at all. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Strange, LTNS. Specifically this part of all of the various related AN instructions: "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion." (emphasis NOT mine) - but it's already been taken care of. Also, I suspect you may notice it's become (quite oddly) a "vandalism only" account just a short while ago. If you check the contributions, you'll note that, though few in edits, all the edits up to 08:39 today were constructive. But alas, that really doesn't matter. It's policy to notify a editor. With the edit block in place, it may be appropriate to advise the editor how s/he can respond at AN/I. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's safe to make an exception for users who are blocked without talk-page access, especially when the discussion is primarily concerned with how long the block should be, as opposed to whether they should be blocked at all. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point. :-) Thanks guys. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 11:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Right on the ball

...your comment here. We need people to chime in like this more often - we have to get rid of the crap in RfA somehow. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW. If you have a moment, I would appreciate your feedback on this. Thanks.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm becoming increasingly frustrate with RfA at the minute. Not because "my" candidate isn't doing well (the first few opposers seem to have valid points, but I avoid CSD like the plague). What frustrates me is the total lack of respect for the candidate or their dignity and this childish pile-on with rationales that took all of ten seconds to write and whose only use is to give the commenter one more edit to the project space, which they think will look good in their RfA in a few months' time. I'm beginning to think that only admins should be allowed to !vote because so many of these editors are so new they can't possibly understand what adminship is. I was here for many months before I started participating in RfA, several more months before I really understood what adminship was and 10 months in total before I thought I was up to the challenge (which, in hindsight, I clearly wasn't). I'd been editing for 14 months when i got the bit and my account was (and still is, I think) one of the newest to have the sysop flag. Anyway, rant over. Something definitely needs to change. I can think of probabably half a dozen editors who would make great admins but don't want to go through RfA as it currently is.

I think your essay contains a lot of helpful advice, especially for the relatively new editor who would have no hope. It could perhaps do with more advice aimed at experienced editors who, for one reason or another, have failed an RfA—like the two most recently withdrawn candidates. It's often tougher for them because, in a way, they have more to loose, having invested more of their time into the project. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Only admins allowed to vote? Horrible idea. Yes, there are a few inconsiderate RFA participants, but on the whole the vast majority comment respectfully. It wouldn't wipe out the problem because there are inconsiderate admins out there too. AD 11:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Very true. And it would never get consensus anyway. Still, far too many participants in recent RfAs have too little experience to be qualified to judge whether someone would make a good admin or not. It's also often those same inexperienced (though usually not malicious) editors who come up with the worst reasons to oppose or who have to !vote in every RfA for fear of the wrold ending and so just make silly pile-on comments without bothering to evaluate the candidate. We need to do something to remove those problems, though limiting !voting to admins obviously opens a whole new can of worms (not least that there are a decent number of non-admins who are at least as qualified to judge a candidate as most admins). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that only allowing admins to vote in RfAs is a terrific idea. If you're seriously intent on driving the wedge between admins and non-admins even deeper that is. Malleus Fatuorum 11:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

As I say, a whole new can of worms... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

J.Williams (singer)

Hi, I'm surprised that you didn't initiate any discussion on J.Williams (singer) when fully protecting it. I think that semi-protection would have been appropriate to stop anons edit-warring, but (coming to the article only after noting the protection on my watchlist) I cannot see any BLP violation. dramatic (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken on all counts. I did (see WP:BLPN#J.Williams (singer)), semi-portection would not have been sufficient because at least one of the editors repeatedly re-adding the BLP-violating material was autoconfirmed (and expereinced enough to know better), and there most certainly was a BLP violation. The BLPN discussion is still open if you want to contribute to it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It was not a BLP violation (Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be inserted and if present, must be removed immediately), it was declared as an off topic material. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Being sourced doesn't mean it can't be a BLP violation. It's actually quite disturbing how common that view is among experienced editors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The protection template on the article points to the article's talk page for discussion, and there is nothing linking to the discussion on WP:BPLN - if editors who have been around 8 years don't necessarily know that page exists, then many participants in this edit war have no show of finding it. dramatic (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah. You may have a point there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

About disambiguation

Hello Harry,

If you have a moment, may you please take a look at this? I'm afraid I may have created a bit of a mess while trying to disambiguate and never got around to requesting a second pair of eyes on this one. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 23:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think I get the gist of the problem. We're assuming that the writer is the primary topic and should therefore be at Foo, which is currently a dab between him, a 17-year-old footballer highlighting how ridiculous WP:ATH is and a red link. I would say that's a sensible conclusion. So move the dab to Foo (dismabiguation), move Foo (writer) to Foo and stick {{otheruses}} at the top. Does that leave everyone happy? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

NFCC mentorship and roadmap to get topic ban lifted

I know you were involved in the ANI case and would like for your advise/suggestion. In order to get the topic ban lifted, I am propsing aa stage by stage roadmap towards the lifting of the topic ban. Maybe a page where both me and the mentor can carry out an accessment and countersign it? What do you think? I think that would be the best way forward. I have started User:Tyw7/topicban appeal. Also, can you be my mentor/can you suggest who would/could? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 21:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. I'm probably not the best person to be your mentor though. Perhaps you could try asking someone who you know disagrees with you to be your mentor, such as Treasury Tag. If either you or he is not willing, might I suggest asking HJ Mitchell? NW (Talk) 21:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not willing with him and I believe that me+treasuretag = war. I will copy and paste this thread to HJ Mitchell talkpage. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 22:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm copying and pasting the above thread from NuclearWarfare's talk page so you would understand the case. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 22:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am watching this page so you can reply here to keep the thread linear. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 22:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that's either a vote of confidence by NW or he's having a laugh at my expesne. Or perhaps both. ;) NFCC isn't exactly my speciality, but it's something I know quite a bit about, so I'm sure I could be of some help. Besides, it seems you're being batted from one person to the next like a tennis ball. First thing's first, I will have to dig up the ANI threads that led to this situation, but you could save my some time by giving me your side. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the story: I upload a screenshot of 3 Doctor Who seperate episodes to Wikipedia but each of them was deleted on the basis that they are "not significant." The last screenshot was deleted by an admin WITHOUT following the usual File for deletion route so I opened up an ANI case against him. At the ANI, the tide began to turn against me. I was labled as incompetant/ignorant (partially due to my wrong usuage of {{own}} on one of my screenshot). Nobody ever said why that image was not significant and neither can I get a consensus of which "Doctor Who" screenshots could be considered "significant." I have to admit that number 8 is a little confusing as it entails that if a picture does not significantly adds to the knowledge of Wikipedia, it cannot be used. Hope others don't find this forum shopping :D and please don't take this the wrong way. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 22:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you still looking at the ANI or just ignoring this thread? Don't take this the wrong way but many admins I approached ignored me completely! --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 01:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

HJ, please be informed that the community's concerns with Tyw7 go beyond simply his topic ban on NFCC uploads. Some recent threads you might find interest in: here; here (where he revert-warred on SNOW closing the appeal); and indeed the section right under that here. If any mentorship is to be undertaken, it should not be limited to his NFCC topic ban and for the reason of being unbanned. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I reverted because I believe I have a right to appeal such cases (limited exeptions to be made in the topic ban). Also, I undo it after telling to C. Carnes to let the discussion go until closing time. I undo treasuretag because I know he wanted to have me topic ban for a long time and perhaps have some vendatta against me. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 01:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Copying discussion about this thread from my talk page:

Tyw7, I would suggest telling HJ that you want him to be your mentor in everything. Not simply as part of a roadmap to get yourself unbanned, because once you're unbanned and if you start causing trouble again, you'd likely be indefinitely blocked. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. But problem with mentorship is that overtime, I tend to loose interst as schoolworks or more important things takes over. Therefore, I tend to rely on #wikipedia-en-help to answer any questions I may have. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 02:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• I will revisit this, but this post is just for the timestamp to stop the bot archiving it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Tyw7 claims he has retired. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

National sport of England

Hello HJ, as you are English, you can resolve the dispute over the "De-facto national sport of England", is it Cricket or Association Football?, this is related to listing a national sport of England at the National sport list-class article, where few weeks back cricket was listed but now because of some football fan it is football. — Bill william compton^Talk 06:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well even before I read past the header, I said football. Still, "de-facto" national sports are hard to judge bcause they're de-facto. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Logged-out edit

Suppressed ;) I happened to see it on my watchlist - Alison ^❤ 10:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. I'm pretty sure there's nothing useful you can find out from my IP address, but better safe than sorry. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Article

HJ, as a result of my AE request I was allowed to write the article in my user space. The conditions stated by 2/0 include that the article should be reviewed by at least two administrators. I've chosen you to be one of them because you were the one who suggested what restrictions should be applied to me during writing this article. The article is here. May I please ask you to review it, when you have a time, and state your verdict either on the article's talk page or on my talk page? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course. It'll probably be early evening (UTC) byu the time I can spare more than 5 minutes for WP, so I'll look a t it then. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, just do not forget, please.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Swedish WP reconfirms at 75% not 70%

I was stunned to see numerous people try to oppose a re-RfA, as voted 166/63/10, but that was considered a success! The Swedish WP has held quarterly admin re-elections since early 2006 (about 27 times?), but the threshold to remain is still "75%" not 69% rounded. Why would anyone lower the standard for re-election? If numerous people "accidentally" find a re-RfA, and manage to find time to !vote before WP:SNOWfall, why would they continue to waste their time trying to warn of problems with an admin? Almost anyone can win an election near a 65/35% split, based on "name recognition" (aka Stockholm Syndrome?). I think that is why the 3/4 rule (75%) is used in Swedish WP, as a form of supermajority to overcome systemic bias keeping people there. Why bother to even vote, when nothing changes. Just some thoughts to ponder. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Possibly because Wikipedia is not a democracy and the oppose !votes weren't very strong. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, assuming we are talking about Sarek's recent RfA, the oppose !votes were quite strong. Throughout the oppose and support sections, there was evidence of a significant concern that Sarek had not abided by INVOLVED in the past and would also breach INVOLVED in the future (and INVOLVED is part of policy, not just some random essay). There was also a strong concern that he regularly made poor decisions with the block tool. Very few opposes were actually based on the whole 'I oppose all re-RfAs'. If he had been a non-admin seeking election (which is how the RfA should have been treated considering he had given up the tools), there is absolutely no chance that a 'crat would have passed him. I think Wikid raises some interesting points. Jenks24 (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I believe support/(support + oppose) put Sarek's RfA in the low 70s, which makes it 'crat discretion. Whether there was any possibility of it ending in teh discretionary zone and Sarek not being re-sysopped is debatable, but it was their discretion. Getting hot and bothered over what would have happened if it had been below 70% is pointless because that's total guesswork. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not saying it wasn't in the discretionary zone, I just highly doubt that he would have been promoted had it not been a reconfirmation RfA. That said, the decision has been made and can't be undone, so no use getting worked up over it; I was just stating my opinion that I thought the oppose !votes were actually quite strong. Jenks24 (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Knowing nothing about who the RFA was on I would agree that its possible some of the Opposes were weak. One example of a weak oppose IMO would be to oppose solely on the grounds its a self nomination. So I would give those less weight then others. But thats just my opinion.--Kumioko (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Well, speaking hypothetically about reconfirmation RfAs in general (which should not be infered as a comment on Sarek's RfA), the advantage the candidate has is that we've already seen how they perform as an admin. An experienced admin will have a muich clearer idea of where he wants to work and where his strengths and weaksnesses lie than a non-admin going through RfA.

In Sarek's case, there have obviously been issues, mostly surrounding WP:INVOLVED, and if a non-admin gave indications that he'd make blocks where he was arguably involved, it would sink his RfA. However, the closing 'crat clearly thought that enough members of the community believed Sarek had a strong record as an admin when one puts the INVOLVED concerns temporarily to one side. Whether that decisiopn was right or wrong, we could argue about til the cows come home, but hopefully Sarek will be much more careful when he's arguably INVOLVED as a result of the comments made in the RfA. If he doesn't, then the worst case scenario is that we end up at ArbCom, who I'm sure would find the RfA very interesting reading, but I hope he'll take the concerns on board and that doing so will make him a better admin. That way everybody wins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I Am Woman

Hi there, could you please remove the protection template on I Am Woman (Jordin Sparks song). The song is now notable, since its charted in the US. Thanks, Ozurbanmusic (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I just realised I had to make an edit request at the article's talk page. Ozurbanmusic (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Made in Chelsea

Disappointed that you didn't semi-protect this. The history is just a list of ip users (more than one, btw, and now I'm pretty sure one has registered as a user to make similar edits) adding either childish abuse, or completely false information about their friends. That's not a 'content dispute', but if you like I'll happily sit and carry on reverting it every half an hour or so. Still, since this show is likely to have a long run, this sort of thing is only going to go on. Hence the request for semi-protection.

Never mind, never mind.--Korruski^Talk 16:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

With the exception of the registered account which popped up this evening, I see one IP going back quite a long way. I can't see how it's vandalism, but your RfPP request was very vague. If it is vandlaism, then I suggest you request a block at ANI (if you can get a ahrd block of the IP, that will tell us if the account is the same person). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies it was vague, I honestly thought anyone looking at the page would realise that it has been, and will continue to be, a serious target for small-scale, childish vandalism that will be a pain to keep rooting out. I don't want to argue with you about it, I'm just genuinely a bit disappointed you didn't see what I was getting at.

IP one (Primary/Secondary may be a content dispute, but changing the age of a 22 year old to 100 is not. It's vandalism, sorry.)

IP two (clear vandalism, surely?)

IP three (I'm pretty happy that putting 'badass MC' where everyone else has 'lead role' or 'secondary role' constitutes vandalism.)

And since I made the request:

another ip (More subtleish vandalism)

Seriously, I could spend my whole time trying to revert the childish rubbish that people keep posting on this article. It's obvious from the nature of the article that it's a prime candidate for unregistered users going on to change ages, add the names of their friends, add derogatory comments about people they know, or their schools, etc.

Please? :) --Korruski^Talk 08:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Your point is well made. I see King of Hearts blocked one of the IPs, and a rangeblock might work, but it's not as if we've got lots of constructive IP edits, so I've semi'd it for a month. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated!--Korruski^Talk 14:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: disambigs

Thanks, that works out well :). Airplaneman ✈ 14:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet activity

Hi, I thought you might be interested in WT:Did you know#BabbaQ's sockpuppets. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Harvey Carter

Hello HJ. Thank you for finalising the ban on this prolific sockpuppeteer. He seems to have been busy in the last few days creating hoax articles about actors. Fortunately, admin Ponyo deleted the two that I came across today. I wont clutter up your page with all the links but if you are interested some of them are here User talk:Ponyo#Thank you. I don't know that there is anything else that we can do at the moment except keep our eyes peeled for more activity. Thanks again and have a nice weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 19:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Airazor page

Hi, I don't know if you remember but you oversaw a deletion review of a page for the fictional character Airazor a while back. It was borderline from keep or merge, but you went with merger. I was working on it in my userspace, adding sources and the like, and rewriting the introduction. I was wondering if maybe the page could get another shot. Thanks! User:Mathewignash/Airazor Mathewignash (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The name doesn't ring a bell. Any chance of a link to the AfD/DRV/whatever forum I was involved in? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, here you go: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airazor, as you can see the article was borderline, with some KEEP and some DELETE, you went with a MERGE. I added lots of sources to the article and cleaned it up in my userspace, so I was hoping it might justify it going to KEEP. Let me know if you have any questions. Mathewignash (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look at this later today. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I might also point out that the first DELETE vote was from a guy who was later discovered to be a sock puppet, so you might want to discount his opinion.Mathewignash (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Harry, it's been a while since we've chatted. How have you been? What have I missed in my abscence from Wikipedia? Anything major? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Do I take it that means you're back to your fromer levels of activity? Mine are dropping off atm because my laptop's buggered, so I'm having to use a shared desktop, but I hope to get it fixed when I have some money (which could be a while). I don't think you've missed anything major. The PC RfC was closed and PC is being removed, Wayne has got Twinkle back, other than that... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I probably will never return to what could be considered my "normal" level of activity, but yes, my activity here has increased, as this page displays. I probably won't be able to get on daily like I used to, as my life is still pretty hectic...Ah, computers. What are you gonna do? I've had my fair share of computer problems myself, so I understand why your levels of activity have decreased. I see you had a third RfA; tell me a little about that. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 17:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That's good to hear. There's more to life than Wikipedia, but it can be a welcome distraction sometimes.

Well it was my one-year anniversary of adminship (is that the right term?) and I wanted to mkae sure I still had the community's trust and, more importantly, get some honest feedback on where I've screwed up. Although some were critical of it, I think the altter objective was achieved to some extent—the prospect of my head being on the chopping block seemed to intice some people to comment who wouldn't have bothered with Adminstrator Review. I think most of the comments were fair enough, and there were some examples brought up where I've been a bit hasty or just plain bollocksed-up, which are certainly things to bear in mind for my next 12 months of adminning. IO probably won't do that again next year, but I might think about coming up with a recall process that I'd be willing to abide by. The qualms I have about recall is that without a fairly stringent procedure, it can be too easily abused by editors who think (rightly or wrongly) that I've wronged them or applied in the spur of the moment next time I do something stupid (which, inevitably, I will). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You know, one thing I've noticed is that several Wikipedia users expect admins to be perfect, and when an admin makes one simple mistake, next thing they know, they've had their admin rights removed through recall. This does not include the vast majority of Wikipedia users; most of them do understand that mistakes happen, and that we cannot learn without making them. But a small (very small) group of users believe that, if an admin makes one little hiccup, he should have his admin rights removed. I've seen some great administrators that have been brought back to RfA because of one simple mistake they made. I am by no means trying to offend or attack those users who believe admins must be perfect, I'm just saying that they should be a little more understanding towards administrators and the small mistakes they make. You know what I mean? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 19:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work you've been doing...

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I feel you deserve this, given the sheer number of vandals you've blocked, pages you've protected from vandalism, and socks you've indefblocked! Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Always nice to be appreciated. Now if we could jsut find a way to stop the little blighters vandalising in the first place, most of my admin work would be unnecesasary! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)