Jump to content

User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 67

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60←Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70

Suspected more from User:JakeNeill1

Have a look at this edit. Given the style of edit and others by Anon IP 90.218.43.65 (talk · contribs) leads me to believe that this is the work of JakeNeill1 (talk · contribs). --Stewart (talk | edits) 21:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That's him! Thanks for the heads up—much appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

bjmullan

I was disappointed with your decision to block me and that fact that you never came back to review my unblock request. I wasn't trying to game the system and the is clearly held up by my edit history. I'm here just like you to help improve this project and I do understand that your job is not easy, just like dealing with IP isn't easy. I hope that this encounter doesn't spoil our future relationship... Bjmullan (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I did come back. I considered your unblock request, and decided to see what other admins had to say there and at AE. The only other admin to comment at AE endorsed my decision, and the only admin who commented on your talk page seemed to miss that the block was not strictly for violating the 1RR. Regardless of what your intentions were—and if you say that you weren't trying to game the system, I will take your word for it since you have an otherwise clean record—you relied on a technicality in an attempt to avoid sanction for doing exactly what you were reporting the IP for. There's further discussion of my rationale and the technicalities a few threads above if it's of interest to you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't see the above thread. Bjmullan (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Unprotect Energy

Protection was never needed related to the extremely high page views. Tagremover (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, based on this. Also, it's courteous to ask nicely when you want something. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I wasn´t courteous, because it was not for me and i wrongly felt i had the right to complain. BUT: You are right, my error was the year, saw nothing in 2012 but earlier. Sorry. Tagremover (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, its one of the SCIENTIFICALLY WORST articles in Wikipedia. And the style even worse. Tagremover (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

NYyankees51

Hey HJ, can you please have a look at the question I was asked on my talk page, User_talk:Drmies#re-block? I thought the conclusion of the AN discussion, a topic ban on LGBT topics, would have automatically entailed the continuation of the unblock (so to speak), but an editor raised doubts about that and pointed to one of your edits. Please have a look and decide according to what you think is right: if that is to reblock, this is fine with me. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I consider the terms by which you lifted the indef block to still be in operation until he and I have negotiated conditions for his return (or he can convince the community or ArbCom to lift them), but I don't see a need to technically force him to abide by them unless he violates them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
So--you want (me) to leave him unblocked? (That's my default.) Please have in mind that I'm not involved with any of the discussions at AN or ANI (though I read them), but made my decision to unblock based on the conversation and the unblock request on NY's talk page. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
If you think it's necessary for him to be physically blocked until the conditions for his return have been worked out, then by all means block him, but my personal inclination is to leave him unblocked, with your unblock conditions still in place. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to block him at all, so I'm leaving it as it is. If he misbehaves, he'll be reported at AN/ANI soon enough. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Delition of "SuperKombat World Grand Prix I 2012"

If Wikipedia is not sports result listing service why don't you delete for example "List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winners" etc... This should be "the free encyclopedia"... Master Sun Tzu (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me? I deleted SuperKombat World Grand Prix I 2012 because it was a redirect to an article which had been deleted (not by me), as a cursory examination of the deletion log would have shown. If you want to challenge the deletion, you'll need to talk to the admin who deleted 2012 in kickboxing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Well now that's not something you see every day: an article that's a redirect to a category that's an article. 28bytes (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Did that actually happen? Did they really just go and re-create the articles (fair-use images and all) in the category namespace? Policy violations aside, that's quite funny! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

DRV notice

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:TFD deletions by admin User:Fastily, which occured following the closure of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 24#Template:New York cities and mayors of 100.2C000 population. Be advised that I have opened Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 27#User:TonyTheTiger/New York cities and mayors of 100,000 population.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Paramount Group Wikipedia page follow up

Dear Harry

Thank you for your response and I would be grateful if you could send the copy of the deleted page to bran@paramountgroup.biz . I will ensure that the article conforms to Wikipedia’s guidelines and I would be happy to send this to you first if you’d like.

Best regards

Brannigan

Mbombe (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

Throne of Glass

Hi. You recently deleted this article. I'm not here to contest the deletion because I admittedly couldn't find much notability beyond Publishers Weekly. However, I'm wondering if the text and refs can be salvaged, as I believe the novel might have more notability upon its release. -- James26 (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was asking if the text could be restored, so that it might be saved for later use. -- James26 (talk) 00:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
That's easy enough. I've userfied it to User:James26/Throne of Glass. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
That's really nice of you. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Abortion RFC

FYI, I'm not so sure if parties of the discussion are complying with the remedy, which states that "editors should collect systematic evidence of the frequency with which various names for these topics are used in various English-speaking countries, as well as any other material which is relevant to the appropriateness of any proposed title", however, it seems parties are just adding their personal opinions for/against article titles, as opposed to actually systematic evidence backed up by policy. What are your thoughts on how to proceed here? Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's much I can do—I thought my role was to stay out of it until the end and then sum up and determine consensus, so I'm not really keen on the idea of getting involved in shaping the discussion. You could try appealing to people on the talk page or the RfC itself, or you could try an editnotice, but if you think more aggressive management is needed, your best bet is probably to talk to an arb—it's AGK's area as far as I know. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

101.161.47.136/blocked

Thank you for blocking that user. However, I fear he is really another IP used by the same user who used this IP - [1]. Their choice of edits and inability to sign their own names are remarkably similar. 88.109.19.68 (talk) 07:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thresher & Glenny

Hi Harry. Could you please review the Thresher & Glenny Wikipedia article and advise me on what needs to be done to get my client’s article reinstated to a point where the Wikipedia community is happy with it?

While the article was deleted as a result of the BP COI Investigations, the article was originally created by an independent Wikipedian who had no connection with Thresher & Glenny and it was subsequently added to by other independent Wikipedians.

The article was previously edited by BigglesWiki to improve the structure and layout by condensing information into related sections. These sections included The Growth of the Firm, Customers, Royal Warrant and a Timeline detailing the company’s history. Existing article content and newly written content was included under these sections, with internal references to useful Wikipedia articles and external references to reliable third party sources, including The Times newspaper and Westminster City Archives.

It would be useful to understand from you and others what needs to be done to get the article reinstated and also whether any of the content that was added can be included. It is important that this issue is reviewed and resolved in accordance with NPOV. I look forward to hearing your response and please let me know if you need any additional information. BePoWiki (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Belated but heartfelt

A belated "thank-you" for your incredibly kind words here. When you make mistakes it is certainly brought to your attention, however, outside of intuition, you never really know for sure if you're doing things right. Opening yourself up to criticism in an anonymous environment can be a daunting experience, thank you so much for making my experience a positive one. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, and congratulations on your appointment. I'm sure you'll do a grand job. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Another English Editor say Hi!

I thought you'd want to know that I edited your user page to link to an identical edit counter to the one you had linked, as it (the soxred93 one) has expired (Tparis has taken over the tools). Hope you don't mind. :-) --Gilderien Talk|Contribs 21:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd been meaning to fix that (but my userpage tends to get neglected until I go and revamp it every now and then). If you're in England, you should come along to one of the meetups or to a Wikimedia UK event. We've got stuff going on in Liverpool, Coventry, Manchester, and there's always something happening in London. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

RFPP

Regarding the request for semi-protection of History of the race and intelligence controversy, it has subsequently transpired that the second IP editing there 217.64.30.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was using a banned proxy. That account has has now been blocked for one year. So some monkey business was going on there. Mathsci (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Always a sign that somebody would rather not know who they really are (or used to be). Let me know if the disruption picks up again and I'l reconsider protection or blocks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocking

Hello HJ Mitchell,

I'd like to know if you can help me with a little problem I have.

I currently have an account on the French Wikipedia, and an administrator blocked me because the IP address of the computer I use was recorded to have done vandalisme on Wikipedia.

The only issue is that the computer I use is public; meaning that hundreds of people can use it in one day. For example, today (day the blocking occured) 63 people went on the computer before me, and when I take a look at the navigator's historics section, I see that the users before me have passed lots of time vandalizing Wikipedia (the French version).

  • The computer is located in a college...*

Now, I cannot edit any pages on Wikipedia (the French version) for a month. Also, because of this IP address problem with the public computer, when I use my desktop or laptop, my account is still blocked...

Thank you for helping me, if you can, of course.

--MaxAMSC (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, the case is solved. Sorry for bothering you. --MaxAMSC (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyes@wikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Good Day Once Again

I was just looking up Crawling Back to You (Daughtry song) and stumbled upon the Backstreet Boys version - which is not as well-known as the Daughtry version - based at the page with the specific title. I think with the Daughtry version being more widely known it might be wise to move Crawling Back to You (disambiguation) to the main title location and the BSB article to Crawling Back to You (Backstreet Boys song) (at this time which redirects to the title alone). What are your thoughts? After all, I never knew BSB had a song by the same name until five minutes ago.

And no, there is no cover; they are unique songs.

I'd make the moves myself, but being unable to delete redirect pages without admin. assistance precludes me from being able to do that. CycloneGU (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It's probably best to raise it on the talk pages to be absolutely sure that one is the primary topic, and then have that one at the un-disambiguated title with a hatnote linking to the other one—a dab isn't really necessary when there are only two topics to distinguish. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I doubt there would be much discussion on the talk page at the current one with the primary topic; it's not that well known, the history shows no edits since February, and the talk page has no discussion at all, and no activity since 2007. The talk page for the current one might merit better results, but it doesn't seem there is a huge following to the one at that title ATM.
As for the DAB, I would agree if not for the Tom Petty one. With three, it merits keeping, perhaps. CycloneGU (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've rearranged them so that the dab is at Crawling Back to You. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Excellent. I'll do the cleaning up between the articles. Thanks! CycloneGU (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The Doon School

Greetings Mitchell!

Please take a look at the Doon School protection request. It is the first potential Good/Featured School article from India and it has been repeatedly vandalised. I'll be grateful if it can be protected. Many thanks! 59.178.154.9 (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't feel the page has enough recent disruptive activity to justify semi-protection. See the history that includes the last 1,000 revisions of the page. --Bmusician 12:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

TheDarkPyrano and a sock or two

You blocked the above user last August for page-blanking behavior. WP:VG is under the impression that he has created a new account at User:TheDarkPyrano100 as well as editing under the IP 82.8.135.203 and is being disruptive in the process. Can you do something about him? (See also WT:VG#Still undoing the merges.) Where would the most appropriate place for this request be? --Izno (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

he account is pretty obviously a sock, and clearly disruptive anyway, so I've indef'd him. If the IP is the same person, it'll be caught in the autoblock. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. --Izno (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Though, I'm still curious, I guess. Where would have been the most appropriate place to bring this up? --Izno (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Probably AIV if you can make your case in ~200 characters and you think any reasonable person would see that they're being disruptive or evading a block; otherwise ANI, but my talk page works just as well! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: February 2012



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 23:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

202.156.10.0/24 block

Hi HJ, the 202.156.10.0/24 block is hitting a lot of users. So far, it has reached 7 unblock requests on the unblock mailinglist, which is quite a lot seeing it's a block from February 11. I haven't looked into the background of the block at all, but with the amount of collateral it is getting, I'm wondering if vacatign the block could be a good idea. Cheers, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That's odd for a soft block on a relatively small range. I've lifted it for now, but if the vandal it was aimed at comes back, I may have to re-apply it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
yeah, 24 isn't all that big, but I never seen so much collateral from a rangeblock. Feel free to reblock if your vandal reappears. shameless plug: I wrote a small thingy for guesstimating how much people rangeblocks may affect: user:Martijn Hoekstra/checkrange.js. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey HJ, I do understand that this could be a legit block made, but we've had two additional appeals in the past 48 hours. There was also a comment by another on the unblock-en-l mail list that I want to look into though. But this is StarHub Cable Vision Ltd, with very heavily shared IPs from my experience, but also another issue could be that we are currently trusting XFF headers from them. Depending on what information I come back with, maybe we can consider removing the account creation part of the block? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The collateral damage is regrettable, but I wouldn't have re-applied the block unless it was absolutely necessary. There's a very persistent vandal editing from that range across multiple articles, and blocking that range completely stops the vandalism—the vandalism resumed almost immediately after I lifted the block at Martijn's request, which is why I re-blocked it. You can try allowing account creation, but if I end up chasing a string of vandal accounts around the place, I'm lost as to what I can do except re-block account creation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

FPC discussion closure

Thanks for your closure at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Overturned delisting, which I recognise as a sensible one, despite my own views on the matter. I have updated the instructions to reflect the result of the discussion- would you consider the wording fair? J Milburn (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I would say that's fair enough as long as you're planning further discussion on the issue, but if you're not, then saying that something happens but there's no consensus on whether it should or not is only going to lead to further disagreement next time somebody closes a delist nomination below the quorum. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I hate complaining or nagging, but yeah this just doesn't feel right...

Ummm, is this edit summary appropriate? I've came to you about this guy before misusing his rollback privileges and I don't know about you, but I'm sick of his bullying kind of attitude. Especially in the case of talk page comments that he's made to me before like this. • GunMetal Angel 08:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really. I left him a note asking him to use edit summaries to summarise his edits. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Justin Martyr

Does the removal and addition of the word Palestinian is under WP:ARBPIA sanction?Anyhow in my opinion the users try to use this article as WP:COATRACKto promote their views on the conflict--Shrike (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC).

I would say it's borderline, and you would probably have to go to AE or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification to get a dcision on whether ARBPIA applies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Lazyfoxx

Hi. Can you please properly notify the above editor about the IP sanctions? S/he has already violated 1RR at Justin Martyr. Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the thread above, I think it's debatable as to whether that article falls under ARBPIA. That said, I've always bee under the impression that a formal notification was unnecessary for a 1RR block (provided that the article in question is clearly marked as being subject to the restriction). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Paloma Faith

This is for you or a talk page stalker. I've just seen that an editor has uploaded three images to the Paloma Faith article and I immediately suspected they weren't free as I checked for some just yesterday. The images all have been taken from Flickr and have a CC BY-NC 2.0 license, however the uploader has given them a CC BY 1.0 on Commons. What should I do? - JuneGloom Talk 17:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Go to commons, and, on the image page, add {{db-copyvio|YOUR REASONS}}. That should flag down an administrator to delete the file as having an incompatible license. You should also notify the user that the CC-by-SA and the CC-by-SA-NC are incompatible (he probably didn't know). Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Reaper Eternal! I probably sound like a moron, but images and Commons really aren't my strong point. - JuneGloom Talk 18:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thanks Reaper! June, the parameters of the template on Commons are a little different to the enwiki template, but easy enough to figure out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I know that now. :) I've sent you an email, btw. - JuneGloom Talk 20:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Sent a new email about a new problem. - JuneGloom Talk 22:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Could you possibly move User:JuneGloom07/Rhys to Rhys Lawson for me, please? - JuneGloom Talk 00:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Just making sure you don't miss this. ;) - JuneGloom Talk 01:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Woops, I did miss it. That's the downside to having a busy talk page! But it's done now. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I'm relieved to get that one out of the way. - JuneGloom Talk 01:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you going to nominate it at GAN? At a quick glance, it dens;t look like it should have too much of a problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
It is tempting, but I might wait for Lewis Archer to be reviewed first and see how that goes. - JuneGloom Talk 01:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. When did you move onto Corrie? Did you run out of Neighbours articles? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I seem to be looking after quite a few articles from the British and Australian soaps these days. Lewis is the first Corrie character I've wanted to improve though. It's because he's played by the wonderful Nigel Havers, who I have a slight crush on. Rhys is the last notable Neighbours character that can be split for now. You know, I think I will nominate him at GAN. I'll blame you if he fails though. ;) - JuneGloom Talk 02:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia's coverage of red-haired actresses would be dramatically improved if I followed that logic (and could find the time and inclination to sit down and get on with some writing instead of chasing vandals around and dong housekeeping)! ;) Sadly, there's only so much that's written about most of them (and most of that is already included—I'm far from the first Wikipedian to have that idea!). I wouldn't trust my judgement too much—I'm a bit rusty when it comes to GA reviewing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

Review

Please review the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Tiamut
Regardless if I am sanctioned, I would really like the antisemitic content removed.
Regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 17:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit Counter at the bottom of you page

Just saying, the toolserver account is inactive it says, and will not show the counter. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 18:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You could've fixed it yourself.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 520,847,060) 18:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, NYYankee kvetch

NY51's repeating of the SAME EXACT BEHAVIOR again and again is the responsibility of the Admin(s) who insanely repeated the SAME EXACT MISTAKE while expecting different results. Letting Ny51 back will bring his apparent personality disorder like conduct to a Ford auto page, a computer game article, a baseball page or some other non-political page. The too indulgent admin will be the only one to blame. The Honor Rally page only calmed down with his departure, and in his return, he knew he'd have no slack cut or baloney allowed. But other editor's not used to him and his myriad ways of edit warring will pay the price if he is let back anywhere. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Re User:Pass a Method

Hi,

I have received a post at my talkpage User talk:Milkunderwood#Compromise from an anon IP, and also notice that User talk:SMcCandlish#Heads up, Pass a Method in disguise has received a similar post, where I have responded. Going to User talk:Pass a Method I now see that apparently you have imposed a block, but this entire discussion has been deleted from his page. I'm not sure what's going on other than as posted in my comment to SMcCandlish, but I thought you might be interested in taking a look. Otherwise it has been my general experience that Pass a Method seems to have issues with human sexuality, and his posts in this area are unhelpful to the encyclopedia. Sorry to bother you with this. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

I see on the list of users who will grant people with Rollback, you're on there. I am asking for Rollback from you. I have reverted vandalism and have started making 90-120 edits per day. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 19:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to have to say no. I've seen you at RfPP lately and most of your reports have been good, so I was slightly inclined towards granting it, but I see you asked for it earlier today and an admin for whom I have a lot of respect declined your request. Coming here just two hours later is poor form. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. I just wanted a second opionion on it. Because I've seen some administrators accept at about 10 reverts, and some only at about 300+ reverts. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 20:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Then you should have said so, and informed Optimist on the run that you'd done so. I suggest you follow his advice for a while and then ask again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I have some concerns regarding TomTom's editing in general, but chalk it up to over enthusiasm. I believe that holding off on rollback for now is the right call. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I shall not be requesting it until Late April/Early May at the least. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 21:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
That's probably wise. It's only one button, but the user right gives you access to some pretty powerful tools, so we like to see some demonstrations of clue and experience first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Germany Product Treemap from MIT/HARVARD -- EDIT ACCESS REQUEST

I am on a team at MIT/HARVARD doing work on Product Exports Maps for International Development analysis. The graphical output for these maps are incredibly useful for visualizing exports. The project hopes to add these maps to every country page on Wikipedia. We would like to put a map on the Germany page but it is semi-protected. Is there any chance you could allow access?

The homepage for this project can be found at: http://macroconnections.media.mit.edu/featured/economic-complexity-observatory/

Below is what the map looks like. It would go in the Economy section of the Germany page. You can enlarge it to see more detail

Thanks very much.

Talmage Cooley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doubleodd

Germany Exports (2009) by Product Category
That's doable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much. User:Doubleodd
Historic Coventry Edit-a-thon - You are invited!
The Herbert Art Gallery and Museum is hosting an edit-a-thon on Saturday 31 March 2012. 15 Wikimedians will have to learn more about "historic Coventry". The day will centre upon editing, however and we aim to improve the coverage of Coventry's illustrious history on Wikimedia projects. For more information and to sign up, see the event page. We hope you'll join us! Rock drum Ba-dumCrash 16:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

RFA Advice

I was wondering if you would look over my past editing history and give me your opinion on how I can improve my chances for a successful RFA. Not that I'm standing for a RFA yet but you are well respected on wikipedia and I would appreciate your insight. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 05:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Derrick Bell

Hello HJ,

I see that you protected this page on BLP grounds. As Derrick Bell is deceased, are your BLP concerns with regards to Barack Obama? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I second this question, BLP does not apply to bell. (The page may or may not justify protection if it is being vandalized, but BLP is not a valid justification.) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a problem with the protection itself or are you fussing over my log summary? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the protection, as there certainly was an outburst of ugly vandalism. In such cases, I tend to hope that normal editing can control the vandalism, but if an administrator judges that an article needs protection for a while, I have no problem at all with that decision. And if you thought that the BLP issues regarding Obama justified the protection, then that's fine with me. Just say so. I just don't like the more stringent BLP standards to be applied to an article about someone who is no longer living, without further explanation. I don't think that my comment amounts to fussing, but if you do, I won't bother you further. No need to feel bad about any of it. You do good work here, and I appreciate all that you do. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Harry, while you're about it, you might want to semi Critical race theory as well - it's being overrun by the same Breitbartian dunderheads that I presume are causing problems on the Bell article. Prioryman (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I personally dont care about the block itself, as I am obviously not subject to it, and I would prefer that almost all edits (to any article) be made logged in in general. However, this page is likely to become much more visible and fought over going forward, and I am concerned that being protected due to BLP will lead to BLP being applied (and used as ammo) in general content discussions as well, which I think it inappropriate in this situation unless it is being applied to Obama (as both bell and brieitbart are dead at this point). @prioryman personal attack much?Gaijin42 (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Advice re vandalism

Hi, thanks for blocking User:Shakingjoker117. I'm an old admin but very new to this area of admin work, would you be able to look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Percussion#Vandalism to the Drum kit article and offer some advice? Andrewa (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've replied over there, and protected the article. Hopefully that will suffice, but if you need anything else, just give me a shout. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The Ice Hockey Mafia Gang

fyi, Alarbus (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a joke banner created when someone commented that Wikiprojects were like Mafia when they fell short of getting consensus. -DJSasso (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It's interesting that they would be the people to turn up to defend (as they presumably see it) their template, but not really surprising given that they're united by an interest in one of the many North American sports Brits like me consider so bizarre! ;) I wouldn't make any more of it than that. Anyway, I consider myself far too involved to act as an admin without at least the appearance of impropriety, which is why I'm limiting myself to intervening when I think somebody is being unfair. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • That is what is so stupid about the situation. We aren't defending our template. We are asking to discuss and find a way to do what they are asking us to do that works for everyone. We have actually agreed with them. We just need to work out how to do it to serve everyones needs. -DJSasso (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, as somebody who only understands the snippets of accessibility issues I've heard from Rexx and who couldn't care less about ice hockey (or sport in general, sorry!) if he tried and so doesn't really have a dog in this fight, may I respectfully suggest you do that? Bickering is satisfying in the short term, but it doesn't bring the dispute any closer to a resolution. I think both sides here have been quick to assume the worst of each other, and if you could put that aside and work out how the template can be made useful to the visually impaired but still aesthetically pleasing to the sighted, you would make the wiki a better place. And that's directed at Alarbus as much as at you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)With respect, we have all said the same thing in the thread at WT:HOCKEY: We would like to keep as much of the style choices we have as possible, but we also wish to accommodate the accessibility guidelines as well. We have been asking them to work with us to see what is possible. If they were actually willing to discuss the options rather that dictate that their project's beliefs must be followed without question, then we might have gotten somewhere. I tried very much to direct the conversation into a positive, collaborative direction that could satisfy everyone. All I/we got back was battleground mentality: "will prevail here / "not negotiable". We saw canvassing: [2], [3], [4], [5]. RexxS misrepresenting my request to find a way that satisfies everyone and attempting to argue against a false dichotomy that I did not make ([6]). And frankly, I think the 3RR noticeboard complaint is a case of one individual getting broadsided by three editors engaging in a tandem edit war. The timing seems to indicate that at least one of the users got involved after the canvassing notices which is why I considered it a bad faith nomination. As to your request there, I am perfectly willing to strike my comments if RexxS is willing to withdraw his complaint, allow everybody to step back, and start again.
For myself, I am, and did, only ask that we look at what might work and what might not. And if it is ultimately decided that a stylistic choice cannot be retained and meet accessibility guidelines, I am very open to discussing alternative layouts to ensure the templates are accessible. But the behaviour of the editors who have come in attempting to dictate numerous changes without even the pretense of respecting the people who work with these articles and templates every day is disappointing, and frankly, embarrassing. To see that Alarbus has run over here complaining about my ice hockey gang joke after canvassing to build his own gang is really quite hilarious. But I make it a point not to hold grudges, and if he, RexxS, Andy or anyone else brought in are willing to simply collapse the trainwrecked discussion at WT:HOCKEY and start again to work with us to see what has to change, ways to try and retain styles (if possible), and what should be reformatted going forward, I am more than happy to. I believe the other hockey project regulars are as well. The invitation is extended, and the puck is in their zone.  ;) Resolute 05:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
This nicely demonstrates my thinking behind my previous post. You're happy to accommodate what Alarbus & co want within reason, and they're happy to accommodate what the Ice Hockey Project folks want, again within reason. I know some of these folks in real life and know others pretty well on-wiki, and I can assure you that they hold similar policies about grudges and take a similar dislike to the animosity. It seems to me that both sides got carried away with the reverting and their frustration with the other side.

I think your offer of start afresh is one that both parties would be wise to accept, and I would humbly (as someone who has no idea what he's talking about!) suggest that the new discussion focus on the technical implementation of a compromise, which makes the assumption that both sides want an accessible but aesthetically pleasing template, and will hopefully save some of the arguments. You;re al quite welcome to use my talk page as a venue to talk things out with each other or vent your spleens. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm

I'm not sure what happened with that, user:Gnetwerker the main sockpuppeteer account doesn't have any edits but on the history of the userpage it's also been attacked by IPs - my guess is user:7265 was created by an account rename or something, I don't know, very weird, you'd have to talk to the blocking admins I guess. the Reseaunaut one (where he was impersonating someone using stolen photos) has had stuff repeatedly removed in the past too --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 08:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, that took me a few minutes of digging, but I found this. Gnetwerker was renamed to 7265 in 2007, but his block log got left behind, which explains my bafflement. I've blocked the 7625 account (housekeeping mostly) and upped the protection of the userpage, so those tags will be staying where they are. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive 13-year old user

Remember when you blocked that 11-year old that one day due to not having the maturity and/or contempency to edit Wikipedia? Well I strongly believe we have the same old song & dance with this new user. If you look at his editing contributions, all of them are disruptions and ridiculous genre changes while he admits himself that he is 13-years old on his userpage. I'll leave this up to you if you want to block him on the spot, otherwise I've already started giving him warnings for his disruptions. As you may have figured, I didn't want to take this to AIV but bring it to you instead; mainly because you've seen this behavior of really young users before and thus you'd be more understanding. • GunMetal Angel 08:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well at least it's not a drive-by genre warrior on a dynamic IP! You could spend lifetime chasing them around! I don't think we're quite at the level of a block here just yet. If they keep it up, you can give them a final warning and then report them if they don't take any notice, or you could try a hand-written message—I'm guessing English isn't his first language, and he's young, so he might not fully understand how he's being disruptive. Once it's clear that he either isn't capable of understanding, or just doesn't want to listen, then a block becomes necessary to prevent further disruption, but we should give him a chance first. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
He feels like a long-lost little brother of mine hence all the metal he listens to. But heck, I wish he was so I could keep him away from the computer and away from genre-changing over Wikipedia >__< - but yeah, I agree. I hope those warnings come clear to him that what he's doing is annoying/disruptive. But if he doesn't get the message, should I go back to you or AIV? • GunMetal Angel 10:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Whichever you prefer. I'm currently having an argument with my body clock, so I'll be around for another few hours if you want to come back here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Just an observation. The only indication that this new user had that there might be a problem with his edits were 2 warnings posted 1 minute apart. I would recommend seeing if he actually does stop and how he reacts to these warnings before taking any further action. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That was my plan. The hope is that we can persuade them to stop by explaining how their edits are problematic, and there'll be no nee for anything else to be done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Most do not notice but I'm actually twelve, weirdly. My thoughts on this; he should have a last warning next time he vandalises Wikipedia. Then after that one, it would be time to block. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 19:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Which nicely proves what I (and others) have said for a long time—that we should judge people on their maturity, not their chronological age. the two are often closely related, but especially in teenagers, one can often far exceed the other. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, quite. If I started a new section here entitled "Disruptive African user" or "Disruptive Jewish user" or "Disruptive octogenarian user", and said that I'd seen you'd blocked an African or Jewish or elderly editor before and therefore you were the right person to approach for the right response, there would be uproar. We should judge people by their behaviour - even if we might sometimes take their circumstances into account as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Also there has been another person, I slightly know, the same age of me who was blocked. User:Bradkill2 - He just went on about to me how he wanted to ruin Wikipedia at school. Anyway, that's another matter. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 15:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Wow, you know you have no life when you've blocked every random vandal anyone can think of! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not send in the ARV for User:Bradkill2 though. However, I think that an unvandalised Wikipedia would be best, and will try anything to accomplish that. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 16:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gateway Church (Australia)

Was full indefinite protection really necessary here? Wouldn't cluebatting the editor who was making post-deletion additions have been more useful? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The effect might have been the same, but there's very rarely a need to edit a long-closed AfD so I don't think protection is unreasonable. If you would rather unprotect it, though, you don't need my permission. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Probably best to at least let said user know why he was wasting his time, though. But cheers for the response. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thresher & Glenny

Hi Harry, a message was posted on your talk page regarding the deletion of the Thresher & Glenny Wikipedia article. Could you let me know the best way for us to proceed? Thanks, BePoWiki (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to get back to you on that one. Poke me again if I haven't replied substnatively in a couple of days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Harry, let me know your response when convenient. Thanks BePoWiki (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Undel

Can you please undelete Talk:Van cat naming controversy and fix its redir to point to Talk:Van cat/Archive 2 (where it was moved to) instead of the bogus Talk:Van Cat/Archive 2? It was deleted because the latter doesn't exist, but it was just a typo, due to move of Van Cat [sic] to Van cat. It will likely be important to keep the Talk:Van_cat_naming_controversy redir in existence since there is controversy and people may well look for older discussions, without knowing that this page moved. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 17:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure;  Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

AE

Hello, I just come to inform that I left you a message at AE report and to ask you please to take look to actually happend during the dispute that led to their reports against me. They now come to the report itself making further phalse statements, knowing that they will probably get to influence the opinion of you or any other eventual intervenients hoping you will not bother tyo check the facts. It is an anfair situation, I am asked to apologise for something I didn´t do (TE, neither I edited, neither I had a tendentious attitude on the discussions) and I really cannot see how can I be sanctioned for discussing at the dispute, and reporting... I am not a disruptive editor, I have been positivelly editing in many areas, I have been policy follower and I even contributed to several policy discussions, all I ever had was a problem with this specific group, which is clearly a one side of one specific dispute and their attitude on wp has been disruptive on many occasions and on many levels. It is not fair to assume they are right by default and if you actually see their complain is based on the compilation of my most polemical posts of mine found during months, and in which, even so, it is not possible to see even one policy being broken by me. I wouldn´t have had any problems in apologising in case for having done something wrong, but the only actual thing I regreat from the entire episode was that I reported AniMate still heated fromt he discussion, but his attitude was also not the best one, as he shouldn´t have had come to the report providing wrong info and trying to turn the report against me... I should have been more cool about it, but regarding the rest, I still see that I actually proceded well and as recomended by policies. I am really asking you for advice and help. FkpCascais (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Repeatedly telling me in 2,000-character posts that you disagree with with a sanction, that you're being treated unfairly, that somebody is lying about you, etc, etc is not an appeal, as I told you (much more diplomatically) at AE. When you're ready to talk about what you did, not about how unfairly other people are treating you, and you can explain yourself in less than 1,000 characters, you might have merit to an appeal, but your current appeal has none, in my opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
But I am talking about what I did... I did my best to explain every single action. The problem is that I am being charged with many abstract accusations instead of concrete actions which include diffs showing clear fault on my behalve. I was charged of TE and FORUMSHOP, and I am continuosly explaining how the two are not well founded, the only problem is that no one is actually listening to me neither giving me the chance to explain myself. FkpCascais (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will follow your advice of being concise and see how it goes, would you please consider it at least? Here it is:

Appeal:

I was charged of TE and FORUMSHOP with a harsh sanction of 6 months topic ban. I appeal because I did not edited at all, neither I have been tendentious at any discussion. I appeal FORUMSHOP because I had reasons to report (as recomended by policies) several situations I was confronted with. Even if the reports are consider forumshopping (although none is repearted as WP:FORUMSHOP is applied to) I find too harsh to be sanctioned by 6 months topic ban. Beside, I was not disruptive in any way at the dispute and also I have been abscent from the dispute long time before the sanction was imposed to me, thus the sanction not having any preventive nature, as recomended by policies, but purelly punitive. Regarding the issue of the dispute, the exact same concerns are also expressed by numerous other editors, so it has nothing to do with me being "tendetious" but it is actually a dispute worth getting a consensus troughout policy appliying, not elimination of participants. I was quite ironically accused of that, as I never asked no one to be blocked, but the other side did hounted me down all the way. This doesn´t mean I will not report when I se reasons to, and this doesn´t mean that in that case it should be me sanctioned, as much as the other side distorts the reality.

OK. I am here to talk and to provide all evidence necessary and clarify all and every doubt. I am perfectly willing of apologising if that becomes the case, but I will not apologise just in order to get me de-sanctioned by being the easiest way, and by ignoring what actually happend. FkpCascais (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I just noteced the appeal was closed. HJ Mitchel, I am sad, none of the evidence I presented there was at all taken into account and none good-faith or credit was given to me. I already exposed a shorted version appeal, and what I got was continuos furhter excuses that ended up with no clear evidence presented to me and with the kind-of affensive "go edit somewhere else!". But if I present all evidence I can get, and make a large much more complete appeal, I see it actually doesn´t get considered, neither any will of clarifiying anything further by my side is wished on your behalve, in case of me having missed something. I am really concluding that there is no real wish in actually considering my appeal, but you rather want to have the easiest solution and not actually hear my arguments. As I say, I was not presented with any clear evidence of any disruption on my behalve for me to possibly ask for forgiveness (no diff to which I could say "oh, I see, OK, now I understand the charge"), also I cannot see any action of mine that I have done which could have been dealt better than I did (except for the attitude towards AniMate which I could have dealt with it more smoothly; but even so, is it worth 6 months tp?). Don´t forget that what counts is not the numbers of you supporting eachother, but the actual evidence provided at the complain.
So, I will ask you to please tell me weather should I have any hope of being actually considered and provided with clear evidence of the charges against me in case of making a new appeal which would be more concise, similarly to the one I posted you just above? FkpCascais (talk) 04:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
An appeal should generally take the form of "I did this, but I was wrong" (you don't have to say "I edited tendentiously" or anything like that, but something along the lines of "this was tendentious in the view of several uninvolved admins" wouldn't go amiss), followed by "this is why it won't happen again", and "this is how Wikipedia will benefit from the sanction being lifted". It should not be an attempt to re-argue the original AE thread, nor should be it an attempt to re-write history, and that's where yours ran aground. It won't help you to keep arguing with me—I have no power to lift the topic ban without a consensus of uninvolved admins, and one uninvolved admin after another has endorsed the topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
No, not only I wan´t argue with you, but I want to actually thank you, because it is the first time someone in this case actually listened to me and advised me.
There is only one catch: as far as I understand, this AE appeals only get considered if the appealing part actually admits guilt, something a bit controversial in cases as mine where I actually disagree with the charges presented against me. I do leave with the feeling that in a case of an editor coming at AE and presenting all the evidence and diffs he can have, he wan´t be taken into accound if that implies that another admin made a precipitated decition, and I don´t see that correct. It will be hard to do the exercise you suggest as I really can´t go around the fact that I did not had an tendetious attitude at the dispute and I had a consensus building approach which was unfortunatelly clashed by a group of editors that had a quite agressive approach and which did their best to turn things out in their favour and getting their way. I will wait a couple of days, and I will follow your advice and try to make then a more concise appeal based on your suggestions. I never, for instance, talked about any possible future contributions, as I assumed that a positive participation on my behalve is something already understood, as I have been positivelly contributing for long time, however now I do understand how that may have been naive on my behalve, cause after all, e.wiki is a large universe. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Archive_67&oldid=1178457041"