Jump to content

User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 121

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 115←Archive 119Archive 120Archive 121Archive 122Archive 123→Archive 125

2600:1700:c3d0:d780:153d:aac5:dd30:2452

Thanks for blocking the above IP. Could you kindly revert his last edit to John Dowland, I've done two reverts already so can't sort it out myself. Thanks, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: done, though just for the record, blatant vandalism is excluded from the three-revert rule, so you needn't fear reverting rubbish like that as many times as necessary until an admin notices and swings the banhammer (at the vandal, not you!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for sorting it out. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United Kingdom medical cases chart indefinite semi-protection request

You previously semi-protected this chart for 1 week which has now expired. Since then it is again being changed by well-meaning but ill informed IPs (the PHE changed their way of reporting making it seem incorrect when not). Please could you consider indefinite semi-protection of this chart, similar to much of the COVID-19 stuff, given high visibility? Thanks |→ Spaully ~talk~  11:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Spaully: I dislike indefinite protection because it tends to get forgotten and pages can linger for years with protection that's no longer necessary. I gave it six months because we don't know how long this crisis is going to last. If the problems return in six months' time, just come back and I'll renew the protection. Likewise, if it needs increasing to extended-confirmed or template editor, just let me know. I'm more relaxed with templates than articles, but in principle we should try to keep things as open as we can for as long as we can. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, sounds fair. Let's see how it goes but the numbers are confusing registered editors also. Will let you know if it becomes an issue. BW |→ Spaully ~talk~  18:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Revoke talk page access

An admin blocked 123thejoker1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for trolling on Wikipedia and now they are abusing their talk page (see their talk page history). Can you please consider removing the talk page access for this user? Aasim 21:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure, done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Can you also consider leaving the {{subst:blocked talk-revoked-notice}} template on their talk page as well? Aasim 21:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
That's unlikely to accomplish anything in my opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Derby Memorial

Harry, I just left a few remarks on the FAC page. I think, some of the issues I have with the article are simply a matter of wording.

Thanks also for your efforts regarding Le Gros. Your caring is appreciated but I know that I have to make much more substantial changes to get it up to FA status. But you are right, it's not all that difficult to make these changes. Again, mostly a matter of wording... Gerbis (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gerhard, nice of you to pop in. I'd offer you a cup of tea, but in these unusual times you'd have to drink it from at least two metres away and I'd have to disinfect the cup afterwards! Thanks for for taking an interest in the Midland memorial, and do let me know when you're ready to re-nominate Le Gros and I'll look over it in more detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Changes to oversight team (II)

Following a request to the committee, the Oversight permissions of HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) are restored.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katietalk 18:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Changes to oversight team (II)

Urgent Request for Page Protection

Since you are one of the more respected amin on Wikipedia, I wanted to ask you if you could please add temporary semi-protection to The Phelps School page due to persistent disruptive editing by IPs destroying the page. The school has been the center of some controversy lately so it is not surprising, but please add protection. It has absolutely been justified by these IPs adding unsourced information and deleting other information randomly constantly. Editor940 (talk)

This editor also shopped this issue on my talk page and at RFPP. Seems like a content dispute, with the IP disputing the addition of information that stems from an opinion piece from a newspaper article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Nina Reeves Page

Hey, hope all is well on your side. I've just noticed that you have set the fully protected mode on Nina Reeves page. May I know why? So I can comprehend it better. As my only intention was for the fictional character to have it's own page, that too with good intentions. --Princessruby (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for deletion

I just need to request you that please delete page User talk:My password is poopy as the speedy deletion criteria G6: WP:DENY or the reason "talkpage of harassment username with no meaningful talk history" just like User talk:Widr farted got deleted. Thanks. 122.162.212.157 (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

2A02:C7F:5658:2C00:10FE:A3E9:15DC:EF92/64

I would like to recommend a rangeblock on user:2A02:C7F:5658:2C00:10FE:A3E9:15DC:EF92/64 as this range has been vandalizing for the past week from various IP addresses. CLCStudent (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I see Materialscientist blocked that range briefly yesterday. Given today's resurgence, I've blocked it for a week. Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

you got...

cheers JarrahTree 15:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The Safra family pages

The page of Jacob and Moise were vandalized a few hours ago by the same IP address. The page of Jacob Safra was vandalized just now by a different IP address. Both vandalism were done on the subject of their nationality and place of birth as usual. If I have requested these pages to be protected is because they have a long history of vandalism. Its not a recent thing. If im going to work hard to provide sources and solve doubts about a subject please respect the work I do and work on protecting the mentioned pages.ThanksChris O' Hare (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week

Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) up for grabs in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. Articles may be submitted for this as well as the regional Challenge you usually contribute to at the same time. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius 19:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden sexual assault allegation

I believe you made an error turning down my protection request for this article and I am relisting it. The past day has seen disruptive edits from four separate IPs, creating needless problems (as I predicted). I believe had you considered my rationale more carefully, you would have agreed. The Joe Biden page was semi-protected in large part because of disruption at the section on sexual assault allegations/misbehavior. It's a pretty reasonable inference to conclude that disruption would follow to the spinoff article, as it has. I understand the hesitancy, but a prophylactic protection here would've saved time and energy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I did say to come back if the problems get worse. It's not always easy to tell what's a sudden uptick in vandalism and will die down without the need for protection, and what's a long-term pattern. For what it's worth, I strongly disagree with indefinite protection without trying fixed durations first. I've seen too many articles that have stayed protected for years after anyone's forgotten what the original problem was. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Request

I need to request you that please delete the revision [1] as RD3 as that revision was purely disruptive or delete as the reason WP:RD2 as it also violates a biography of a living person or delete as the reason "Vandalism" because that revision is not supposed to be visible. Thanks. 182.64.71.222 (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think that edit meets either RD2 or RD3. Bear in mind revision deletion is supposed to be used sparingly. (Prbably more sparingly than many admins use it, but that's a different conversation). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

80.82.77.12

Hey! Why did you remove my report at AIV of 80.82.77.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? The IP is an open proxy. --MrClog (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@MrClog: Based on what? It looks like a static residential IP in the Netherlands. And we have bots that automatically detect and block open proxies. Though being an open proxy merely means that it can be blocked, not that it must. What is it you object to about this one in particular? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
IP Volume Inc. is not a regular ISP. Regardless, http'ing the IP returns a Traefik certificate and the IP also has a 99 IPQualityScore. And while there isn't an obligation that administrators block all open proxies, it is (both on this wiki and globally) a common practice to block all open proxies on sight. Any legitimate editor can use his/her normal IP - or in some circumstances apply for an IP block exempt flag - while LTAs love to abuse unblocked OPs. --MrClog (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Unrelated request: 81.154.188.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) continued their DE on their talk page after your block; could you revoke TPA? --MrClog (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The above request has already been fixed. However, considering 80.82.77.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is an open proxy, will you block it or would you prefer not to? --MrClog (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
It hasn't edited since the 23rd so there's no pressing need for a block. If they edit disruptively I'd be happy to block them for that but I don't know enough about proxies to determine for myself if it's open or not, and if a block is necessary or useful for an inactive IP we have two bots that can do that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Continuation of "Request"

That edit meets RD2. Check that edit. That edit violates a biography of a living person. So please delete. 182.64.71.222 (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

2601:18E:C400:A020:D4BC:AC8F:3356:2FC1, please block

Hi HJ Mitchell, will you please block this IP? There is an outstanding report at AIV but it back logged and they are making a mess at Egg drop syndrome. S0091 (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@S0091: I cleared the backlog, and blocked that IP while I was at it! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks!!! :) S0091 (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Spalding War Memorial scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Spalding War Memorial has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 14 May 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 14, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Almost ten years of Adminship

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very Mitchell happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The Flight of Dragons (again)

Hello. You recently helped block a disruptive dynamic single-purpose IP editor. The block has expired and the anon is right back to the same behavior. Can you assist again? This person is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Thanks. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@IllaZilla: I've blocked Special:Contributions/2601:648:8701:2c0::/64 again, for three months this time. Hope that gives you some respite. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you again! --IllaZilla (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
No worries. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you today for Spalding War Memorial, "not for a big city or a county or a rich company, but a relatively obscure town in Lincolnshire. It's interesting for several reasons, not least the personal tragedy suffered by an aristocratic family that led to its creation. Also curious is that little was written about it from its unveiling until relatively recently."! - Did you know my memorials? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Death of James Ashley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Jacobin (magazine) Vandalism

Hey how are you I recently joined wikipedia and added a section to the wikipedia of Jacobin (magazine), that section being "Praise, Criticism & Controversy". The section has been deleted two times outright. I believe that this is vandalism, and wanted to request an experience third party to protect the page and vet the section for inaccuracies.

The reason I believe that this is vandalism is that other editors gave great feedback and removed sources deemed "depracated" and asked for better sourcing without removing the entire section. Also the reasoning provided by the two users who vadalized the page is shaky. Thanks, please do check it out.

The wiki is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobin_(magazine)

The two potential vandals are: Dsakey1978 and Asoka89

Hi BuilderJustLikeBob. Welcome! :) From a quick look at the page history it appears the other editors have some concerns about the content you're adding. I would suggest you start a discussion on the talk page (Talk:Jacobin (magazine)) and outline what you think the article is lacking, then wait for other editors to comment and discuss it with them. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Will do. However I did point out the errors in their reasoning and they still deleted entire sections. If the problem persists may I ask for you assistance again?

Your GA nomination of Death of James Ashley

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Death of James Ashley you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SchroCat -- SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sadko reverted me under false reasons

On Sarajevo wedding attack, the user Sadko has reverted me under false reasons. While I did have a dispute with another user Amanuensis Balkanicus earlier, because he was distorting sources and seemed to be POV-pushing, I did resolve it. Thus I don't have a dispute anymore and Sadko reverted me under false pretenses.

Regardless, AB unilaterally changed the article to "Nikola Gardović was the first casualty of the Bosnian War" when the sources he used only said his death is only regarded by many as the first death or often regarded so. It didn't claim it as a fact. There are opposing viewpoints as well which AB despite adding himself earlier, unilaterally decided to remove. He didn't object to it, there was no dispute for now.

However after I corrected the false claims in his edits, I also wrongly believed the Economist source he used was a blog withiut any credentials. So I removed it and we had s dispute He pointed out I was wrong and the author was the journalist Tim Judah, I realised my mistake and let him revert me.

I even let him remove my edits which he claimed were flimsy like only one person saying that only one person claimed the wedding attack was taught in schools, so I can't say it as a fact is taught in schools. I didn't agree with his reason but I didn't want a dispute.

I made some further edits which Amanuensis Balkanicus never disputed (nor has he disputed until now). Sadko reverted me and claimed there was an edit dispute (the aftual edit dispute was already resolved)

Later he changed his reason to "there was clear disagreement before". I just added a small sentence about when the war is considered to have started. That wasn't a major change unlike what Sadko claimed and I do have the right to present opposing viewpoints since AB had decided to unilaterally consider only one viewpoint as true and remove everything else.

This is only done so the article is balanced and AB hasn't disputed with me. When I pointed out there was no dispute, Sadko started claiming that there was a dispute earlier so now I must discuss even my new edits. I am not opposed to discussion, but no one seems to have any dispute with them.

Also Sadko earlier taunted me for being Indian saying "Dear Indian editor". I didn't like it and thought he was making fun as I couldn't see any other reason for it. He also hasn't cleared up why he made such a statement like that. [2]. His behvaiour since then hasn't helped. While he initially claimed to be a fan of my nation and culture, his garbled English later on with a smile seemed to be like a stereotype, it certainly doesn't appear to be a typo mistake based on Serbian, American or British keyboard layouts [3].

But what has pointed my suspicion to him the most is that numerous users have stated that he is wrongly (or falsely) classifying them as unconstructive or a vandal over him actually not agreeing to their edits even if they're not unconstructive. If this was just me, I would have let it go. [4], [5]. I don't believe he is being neutral. 117.199.87.125 (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

Hi, I really don't try to do edit wars. There's one user called Isaacsorry, who's doing biased edits on the Ariana Grande Page, and other pages he edits. Please, can u unblock me. I'm slowing down! xx

@Mirrored7: No, I won't be unblocking you, at least not for the time being. You're very lucky that it's only a block from one page. You need to discuss your edits on the talk page and not keep reinstating them when other editors disagree. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Isaacsorry is doing literally same thing on the Frank Ocean page, why he's not getting blocked, for at least three days? Mirrored7 (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Move / page name change

You protected Draft:Upcoming Ellie Goulding album until an album title was announced; it now has, however, exists at Brightest Blue. Is there any way to merge these two pages, and likely put a new protection into place to avoid more unwelcomed edits? livelikemusic (TALK!) 13:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, some user is not creating multiple cut-paste articles of the draft article, so those should either be deleted or merged, as well, maybe? livelikemusic (TALK!) 13:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Livelikemusic: I'm confused. What needs to be done? I can move the draft to mainspace, but then what to do with the history currently at Brightest Blue? Is that just a c&p move from the draft (in which case it can be deleted without worry), or is it an original contribution (in which case it needs to be preserved somewhere)? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Most recent edits to Brightest Blue are cut-paste moves from the draft; same with Brightest Blue (album), which was created with the sole purpose of a user uploading the cover art. livelikemusic (TALK!) 14:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Livelikemusic: The draft is now at Brightest Blue. The history from there is at Brightest Blue (album), minus the junk edits that were just copy-pastes from the draft. If you use any of the content from there, make sure you attribute it. If I've missed anything, let me know. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Thank you so much! livelikemusic (TALK!) 15:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Death of James Ashley

The article Death of James Ashley you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Death of James Ashley for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SchroCat -- SchroCat (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyediting

Hi there,

Do you have some time to help with copyediting an article? If not, do you know someone who can help polish an article related to film (BLP)? Shahid • Talk2me 10:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this Dimple Kapadia? I'm in the middle of a couple of things but I'll see if I can take a look today or tomorrow and leave some comments on the FAC if you want. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd be more than grateful! Shahid • Talk2me 11:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, this is just a reminder, in case you have interest or time (to either review or simply copyedit it yourself, both would be fine). If not, then it's really okay, I'm sure I could ask for your help in the future. Shahid • Talk2me 11:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Luisa Neubauer

The user who caused the protection came back logged in (compare Special:Contributions/DTilmann and Special:Contributions/5.61.169.51). He cite quotes from her book that he doesn't like and says that they are controversial. Furthermore he never used the talk page. I think this article needs a longer and higher protection.--PibeDeOuro (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Luisa Neubauer

Hey Harry, I just jumped in there, reverting one editor and restoring content, and then pruning that to comply a bit more with the BLP and WP:V, but I see now that this has been going on for a while, and you semi-protected the article. That took the IPs out of it (though I'm wondering what running Checkuser might reveal), but I'd appreciate it if you could keep an eye on that article a bit; it might well remain contentious for a while, and I can't really act administratively. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

May you take a look at the talk page for "George Floyd"?

Hello HJ Mitchell,

There's an ongoing discussion on Talk:George Floyd about the recent move, and about the strong WP:SNOW consensus to move "George Floyd" back to "George Floyd (American football)". May you take a look at it? Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for taking an IAR-ish action in your absence given the highly visible page at Talk:George_Floyd_(American_football)#Requested_move_28_May_2020. Let me know if you have any concerns. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Bagumba: No apology necessary. @Paintspot Infez: My apologies, I hadn't seen the talk page discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You've got 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017 (talk | contribs) 17:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

One more missing semi-protect

I noticed thanks to a helpful (?) test IP that Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/6 somehow slipped through as well; would you mind semi-protecting? Thanks! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Done. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Another request Dimple Kapadia FAC

Hi there, again, Harry, Thank you so much for your help. As you can notice, that user who is on a sort of mission to destroy this FAC (just because I refused to remove one word!) is now addressing you. Good luck in trying to understand what he wants, if you have any intention of replying.

I have another request - since you've been so helpful, may I ask you to consider doing a source review on the article? I'd really appreciate that. I've asked several editors who couldn't and even logged a request on WT:FAC but no one seems to be taking notice, and right now all I'm doing is dealing with you know what. If you can find some time, that would mean a lot. Shahid • Talk2me 13:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi there Harry, eventually Encyclopædius​ did a very meticulous source review, and during the process many more quotes have been removed. You might want to have a look at the article and like the result. I don't mean to nudge - it's just that right now it's Fowler's name all over the FAC, he's getting in the way of every reviewer's comment section, creating new sections, even went as far as asking Encyclopædius​ to oppose the nomination. I wish there was something more constructive, and since I respect your input, I'd like to see what you think about the outcome. Thank you, Shahid • Talk2me 15:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Shahid. I can see some great work going on there, but it's become more like a peer review, and with Fowler commenting everywhere at such length it will be difficult for the coordinators to work out what's been addressed and what hasn't and where each reviewer stands. The cynic in me wonders if that was the aim, but then I'm a cynical person. At this point I would suggest withdrawing, working through the remaining points with Encylcopaedius, maybe getting some more independent eyes on it from people who know the subject matter (which isn't me, I'm afraid, my area of expertise are British history and architecture, so while I'm happy to look at the prose I can't offer much when it comes to the content, and then re-nominating it in a month or so. It would help if Fowler could distil his concerns into a sentence or two or a list of bullet points (as opposed to a novel) so that everyone's on the same page. I know it's not the advice you're looking for, but the FAC has been open for seven weeks and now contains more bytes than the article itself, and there's no end in sight. The coordinators shouldn't have let it carry on for this long. Renominating it later gives you time to work on the article without pressure and then you get a fresh start at FAC. With all the previous concerns addressed, you should be able to attract support more easily. I'd be happy to have a look over the prose again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Harry, thank you so much for your elaborate reply. I'm honestly not taking Fowler's comments seriously (ever since he opposed the article based on essentially one word), and I was told by several editors and reviewers, that co-ords know how to deal with his behaviour. I was even told that he'd anything in his power to mess up the FAC and post messages all over the place to discourage the nominator, confuse the coordinator, and just destroy the FAC. It's exactly what he's been doing. I feel it would be unfair if I had to withdraw just because of his comments. I spent too much time on it, and am too busy to go into another such process. Anyway, I thank you for your kindness, professionalism, and suggestions. I appreciate it. Shahid • Talk2me 10:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


Hi there, Harry, the FAC has been achieved and I started Wikipedia:Peer review/Dimple Kapadia/archive2. If you have any comments, please do post them. Shahid • Talk2me 16:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey Shahid. Sorry to see it end that way but I think it was the right decision. Partly because the waters got so muddied but partly because you're still heavily working on the article. There have been hundreds of edits just in the last few days; an article shouldn't need that much editing during an FAC. Hopefully the peer review will help to iron things out. I'll watchlist it and have a look over the prose again when things settle down. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks so much, Harry. You're absolutely right. Honestly, I'm very happy with the outcome! When I first came across this article, this is how it looked. I've been its sole contributor ever since and as you know it's not necessarily a good thing. To see its current state where it's comprehensive, well sourced and written, when no article on Indian actors her age is half as developed, is a big achievement. It's not just about getting FAs. You'd be surprised to know how few of her films I've actually seen! It has just been a very engaging project. Shahid • Talk2me 21:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXX, June 2020

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Arch of Remembrance scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Arch of Remembrance article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 4, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 4, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: A British war memorial on American Independence Day? Are you sure about that? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
There is no relevant FA linked to that date, and none of the other three TFA coordinators, all Americans, commented on that when I emailed them my provisional list, so no reason not to run Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm happy to see it on the front page , it just struck me as an odd juxtaposition. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Moxie Marlinspike

You told me "You must not re-add the claim until you can produce an indisputably reliable source which explicitly makes the connection you're making." My claim was: "Moxie Marlinspike is also known as Mike Benham".

Btw, I *had* added two sources from respectable publications (ComputerSweden and Lokmat), which explicitly made that connection, don't know why you reverted the edit regardless. Anyway, I don't wish to beat a dead horse.

Slate, which is explicitly listed as a WP:RS in this list, has published this (link, archived link) article, which contains this direct quote: "Début mai, Marlinspike, également connu sous les noms de Matthew Rosenberg ou Mike Benham, a reçu un mail dont le sujet –«Solution pour gérer les informations encryptées dans la télécommunication»– l’a intrigué."

Can we re-add the claim now?

45.119.12.188 (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, that's a reliable source that explicitly makes the claim. I would still suggest you raise the issue at WP:BLPN, but I won't intervene as an admin if the claim is re-added. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't really have any experience with this, never having had to resort to it in the past (haven't made that many edits to begin with). Would you please go into a little detail about what kind of resolution I'd seek at WP:BLPN?
After going through the history of the Moxie Marlinspike page, I've learned that this particular edit is VERY contentious there. New accounts regularly pop up and remove it (happened most recently in my case). But I also noticed that nobody has cited reliable secondary sources for the claim so far, only primary sources.
So I was thinking I'll add this exchange (between you and me) to the Moxie Marlinspike talk page, also add the secondary sources, and seek consensus between the editors who have been most active on that page. Is that an okay way of going about it?
45.119.12.188 (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
BLPN is the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard. It's a good place to get opinions from editors who are experts in the policy on issues concerning how we write about living people. If an addition to an article about a living person is contentious, it's good to come to a consensus on whether or not to include it. If you get a consensus in favour of your addition, anybody wishing to remove it has a high barrier to overcome to justify their removal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay, got it. Thank you!
45.119.12.188 (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey!

Hi, I saw you listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests, so I was wondering if you could help me out. It's all of the revisions between this and this. They contain a lot of personally identifiable information about a certain editor named Dattisan. Thanks for everything! Regards, ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 17:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Prahlad balaji: I don't see a problem there. The information is work contact details and they disclosed it voluntarily. As a general rule, we only remove personal information that was posted accidentally or improperly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I'm sorry, just saw that Bri.public redacted it and wanted to check with somebody. ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 17:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Could someone help me with my article Laura Harrier?

It's a Good Article and a current Featured Article nominee. It's been reviewed and edited significantly and three editors told me to look for other editors to review it. Here's the featured article page: Laura Harrier FAC. Please help. Thanks. Factfanatic1 (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

FAC mentoring

Hi, I'm considering submitting Cymmer Colliery explosion as FAC and saw your name and interests listed at WP:FAM. I'm a first-time FA nominator and would appreciate your guidance if you had the time/interest. Cheers,  ~ RLO1729💬 04:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Archive_121&oldid=1141180070"