Jump to content

User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 81

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75←Archive 79Archive 80Archive 81Archive 82Archive 83→Archive 85

Advice sought for truly exceptional case.

You may think its odd that I'm writing to seek advice from someone that recently blocked my editing for a week, but actually you're probably the perfect person to ask!...

I'm writing about a situation that has arisen on the fractional reserve banking page. I have written an abbreviated history of the events here. The problem is that so much of the main page needs to be changed. This in turn means that so long as there are some editors hostile to the changes, they can always find ways of preventing edits. If I just change things a little at a time then they will have the argument that the edits are incompatible with the rest of the article. Whereas if I made big changes, then the probability that they can find something that is wrong becomes too high. The net result is stalemate. The B.R.D. cycle has broken down because my detractors are refusing to engage in the D part. The page appears doomed to remain incorrect forever. I just wondered if there was some kind of wiki policy or procedure that could help with this scenario. Reissgo (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Protection

Hi! How do you protect an article? Anuvarshanw (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I would guess that he starts by looking at entries at WP:RFPP ... yes?
Do you mean something else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
@Anuvarshanw: If you are asking how an administrator like HJ Mitchell protects an article, they use the "Protect" link in the drop-down menu at the top. If you're asking how a page can be protected if you're not an admin, you would file a request at WP:RFPP and wait for an admin's decision. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014

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) 14:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

help me please

Hi mithcell, i have 2 problem. 1)When I created my account, wiki asked me the email, which is optional, but I did not add it. But now I need to add email in this acccount. How could i do? 2) How can i change the name of this account. When i tried to change it, there was written i can not and i have to other things, but i have not understood anything about it. can you help me, thanks. Fisingi (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Since Harry seems to be away: first, to add your e-mail, click on Preferences near the top right of Wikipedia. Second, changing your username is a bit of a process, and can only be done by a bureaucrat. See WP:UNC  the panda  ₯’ 18:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Fisingi, DP's advice is sound. You can also get to your preferences via Special:Preferences. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough case clarified

The arbitration clarification request, either involving you, or in which you participated (Rich Farmbrough) has resulted in a clarification motion by the Arbitration Committee

The Clarification can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Clarifications_by_motion and the complete discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Clarification_request:_Rich_Farmbrough_.28April_2014.29 For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

IP

Hi Harry, you recently blocked 64.88.88.203 as a tendentious pusher of a bizarre Aryan supremacy theory. They seem to have come straight back to it as 64.134.99.228, including the trademark disruptive comment on an article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. What is it with theses nutters? I've blocked that IP for a week. Let me know if the problems continue and I'll look at more blocks and/or semi-protection. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I've no idea why they persist in doing it, but thanks anyway. I'm by no means the only person who has been using rollback on this issue: we've long since gone past the point of suggesting that the anon tries to discuss it. - Sitush (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

Expectations for better performance from an experienced admin and Wikipedian

I respect you commitment to Wikipedia, but I would have expected better from a very experienced admin like you. Case in point, I’d expect that you fist validate claims and evidence before issuing blocks. Granted, there was a bit of edit warring on that page, but I did not breach 3RR. If you call 3RR a red-line, then let it be a red-line. It is there for a reason.

(A a bit of advice here, if you would afford the pleasure to a not-such-experienced-editor like me to make: Always take cum grano salis any evidence presented against others in an unblock request (which you know, making comments about others or requesting blocking others in unblock requests is frowned upon, per WP:NOTTHEM)

As I did not breach 3RR, if you could correct the block log to indicate what may have been a mistake from your part, it would be much appreciated.

Cheers, and happy editing. Cwobeel (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm busy at the moment (I do apologise for not being around to discuss this further at the time), but I'll get back to you early next week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) I've just reviewed the editor's edits on Ted Cruz from April 16 to 18. I can confirm that HJ's block is, IMHO, quite valid, whether called WP:3RR or WP:EW. Remember that a WP:REVERT is defined as "undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page being restored to a previous version. Partial reversion involves restoring one part of the page to a previous version, but leaving other contributions intact."  the panda  ₯’ 12:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to review this. Yes, surely there was some edit warring, but the block was specifically about 3RR based on false evidence provided by blocked user (NazariyKaminski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which was blocked before for PA and harassment. My expectation was that HJ Mitchell at least would have checked my edit history and realize that I have been quite proactive in pursuing WP:DR, thus a warning for EW would have been appropriate. But a block based on evidence that was taken face value in contradiction with WP:NOTTHEM, and without investigating? Cwobeel (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
We're not going to change the block log from 3RR to EW ... they're essentially the same thing. Besides, admins cannot modify block logs. His block, based on the evidence, was correct both in action and in face  the panda  ₯’ 15:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
We have to agree to disagree. I think that his actions were unwarranted and based on false evidence. In any case, what was done was done. Just, again, I would have expected a better performance from an experienced admin, who should not have relied on false evidence by a disruptive editor to issue a block. Cwobeel (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course I did't take NK's evidence at face value. I'd looked at the page history and noted that he was clearly the wrong side of 3RR and blocked him. I looked at your edits and, at first glance, thought you had only made two or three reverts and that NK was the root of the problem; his query prompted me to look again, and I saw that you had made four reverts within 24 hours (and that you and he had been involved in an edit war for a few days prior to that). I expalined on your talk page how the fourth diff was a revert—even if you didn't click "undo", it added ", Canada" to the infobox where NK had previously removed it; indeed, he'd reverted your addition of it, so you can't claim that you weren't aware that you were reverting him. You can claim that you didn't mean to violate the 3RR, that you lost your cool, that you'll never do it again, or anything like that, and I'd believe you. A block for 3RR doesn't make you a bad Wikipedian, much less a bad person. It just means that you were involved in an edit war and I (or any other random admin in any other case) decided that that was the best way to stop the disruption. Assuming you don't get blocked again (and you don't seem the type to make a habit of it), it'll be ancient history and nobody will care about one 3RR block from way back. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I guess I missed that one revert, I tought I was well below the threshold. Lesson learned. Cwobeel (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you...

... for my unblock. I will soon restart with the Michelin restaurants and hunting down links to disambiguation pages. The Banner talk 18:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

List of encyclopedias

Thanks for noticing. When I ran across this article, I thought it was just brilliant, and it needs expansion. In addition to the section on Warfare, I added sections on Meteorology and Marine and Nautical. So if you happen to run across some encyclopaedias O(or dictionaries) and that are not just the usual suspects, its great to add them. If we can give our readers a compass, they can find their own way. That's what Wikipedia should be about. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

A worthy project, certainly, but that could be a very long list! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I mean, Bibliography of encyclopedias#Warfare The existence of the parallel lists is something that probably needs to be addressed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

RfA nomination

First off, I'm not looking to be nominated right now, unless you strongly feel I should be an admin. I saw you on the list of editors willing to be asked to nominate. I just want to know if you would nominate me or not. Thanks. --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Operation Flavius to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,300 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be).
You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 06:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Mendaliv

user:Mendaliv came to UE Boom article inspired by The Banner's post on his talk page. He slapped {notability} and {adver} tags first as bad badges. Then he made a full edit of the article, took a look at the AfD and removed the {notability} tag. The article is well referenced with reliable sources and notability has never been called into question (even without taking a look at the AfD.) That makes me to believe that his involvement wasn't in a good faith. For the same reason he retained {adver} tag after his full edit.

Another user came and it all escalated to a bit of edit warring, with the other user making non constructive posts on the article's talk page (section: "BBB" and reverts, first post.) Mendaliv has slapped a warning template on my talk page.

Mendaliv said that in his opinion the image size on the HTC One has to be reduced, because it looks promotional. Disregarding that it is Good Article that went through GA review process.

They used 'promotional tone' as a reason for edit warring, and for not waiting for the consensus. I absolutely welcome any editor's efforts to rewrite promotional material, but in a civilized way, via consensus.

The other editor mentioned that I have done 4 reverts within 24 hours and thus it is edit warring. Please let me know if this is true. I remember reverting each editor once per BRD with the intention that they will engage into consensus building on the article's talk page. And then I reverted one more time the editor who reverted my revert. If this is true, I will seriously note it and won't be repeating it. However, if my reverts per BRD were normal, please let me know.

I'm not asking for any sanctions, but a warning or an advise (to myself and/or the two editors.) In my opinion bad faith editing reduces quality of the article and constitutes disruptive editing that overshadows several good improvements that they have introduced. Dmatteng (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Got the ping for this. Not sure what the deal is. Discussion is underway and consensus appears to be getting achieved. Considering Dmatteng has already broken 3RR once I'm not sure if he should be throwing stones. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Dmatteng, at a quick glance, you appear to be at four reverts ad Mendaliv at three. I'm not inclined to do anything about it because it was yesterday and the edit war seems to have stopped (so sanctions or warnings owuldn't be preventing anything), but if it had been reported at that time, you might have ended up blocked for 24 hours, which is the standard fare for a first 3RR violation. There's very rarely any need to revert more than once (or maybe twice if you really must), so next time you find your revert reverted, take it to the talk page and don't revert again until there's a consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Eh, actually after I have reverted Mendaliv's bold edits, I reintegrated (some of) them back. Could you tell me please, 4RR refers to reverts on the same content? I think I have reverted different changes.
I was under impression, that under BRD, it is the burden of the editor who introduced bold edits to start discussion once he got reverted. Am I wrong? And, what should be done if instead of acting on the 3rd 'D' letter the editor who introduced bold edits reverts? Dmatteng (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Partial reverts still count towards the 3RR, even if you're reverting different content or different editors. The only exceptions are those listed at WP:NOT3RR. Yes, the person who made the 'bold' edits should be the one to start the discussion, and it's poor form not to, but that's not a reason to continue reverting, and at the end of the day, does it really matter who starts the discussion, as long as the discussion takes place and the reverting stops? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey hey hey hey hey hey

Message me. Message me. Message me. Message me. I need a Commons admin. Thnx k bye PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Resolved off-wiki, for the benefit of the curious! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Perinpanayagam Sivaparan

I wonder if you can upgrade to semi to prevent further sockpuppetry? Or extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've made the PC indefinite. The edits are quite sporadic (it looks like there are sudden spikes lasting a day or two, and then nothing for weeks), so I'm reluctant to semi-protect it, but if it gets busier, or there are no constructive edits from IPs or newbies, I'll consider it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Operation Flavius

Hey, um... I'm writing the summary of the FA for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-04-30/Featured content - could you please check my summary and improve it, if possible? It's a hard subject to summarize. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Adam, I think you've done a pretty good job (although it was two men and a woman, not three men); I did give a very brief blurb at the FAC and the MilHist A-class review if either of those are any help. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed the error. Thanks! I figured that there'd be at least some error that crept in, when you tried to quickly summarize a complicated subject you don't know, so... Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

MTV's Hottest MCs in the Game protection

Hello HJ Mitchell, I believe you misunderstood the edits when you protected MTV's Hottest MCs in the Game. MTV makes a yearly list of what they believe to be the best rappers of the year. Recently the person that has been IP hopping and now using an account to edit war has been changing the lists to being blatantly incorrect, seemingly in their own opinion of who was the best rappers for that year were. This is no content dispute, it is just clear vandalism that myself and Koala15 have had to revert over and over. STATic message me! 17:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor is literally destroying Black mamba and Venomous snake

He has been a problem for quite sometime now. Even admin Diannaa tried to block him indefinitely but couldn't due to the type of IP address. He doesn't adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In fact, he was caught plagiarizing an entire article months back. Now he's violating 3RR rule and the NPOV policy. Something needs to be done. Please indefinitely semi-protect the Black mamba page and temporarly semi-protect the Venomous snakes article. --Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 03:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I see Materialscientist has already protected both. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

... for clearing the RFPP backlog, but more importantly, for using fortnight, a word heard far too little. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been doing it for years, but it's always nice when somebody notices. I like "fortnight"; it's quite common this side of the Atlantic, but not as common as it should be! And thank you for dropping by despite the circumstances in which we first met. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Why are my posts being censored?

Why are my posts being censored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.21.39 (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) Your edits to Lee County Sheriff's Office (Florida) not being censored, they're being removed because you added controversial information about a living person without citing reliable sources. Also, such coverage of controversies gives WP:UNDUE weight to them, and has been decided against by consensus on the article talk page. BethNaught (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Question

What is Interfase's status? Is he topic banned from all articles related to WP:AA2? Shouldn't this diff violate his topic ban? I'm confused here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

[1]--Interfase (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah that. See also WP:AA2#2014_2. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The Banner

Do you agree with Mendaliv that what I had written on the UE Boom talk page is a personal attack? I haven't used any attacking words, just merely stated the facts. Regarding 'frivolous' AfD nomination, several editors stated that promotional tone shouldn't have been a reason for nomination. I have written it in a small font, next to his post. I have written it in a form of annotation, similar to as {spa} being placed next to an editor's post.

I wasn't aware that it is important to post a message about The banner on your talk page. I'll note it and won't repeat again.

You have suggested that I and another editor shall leave The Banner alone and that is what I have done. But, to be fair, it should be assumed also that The Banner will leave me alone.

I'm working hard to improve the article and I have been inviting independent experience editors to contribute. However The Banner disrupts this process with clinging to ad template without stating any concrete evidence.

In the second condition for his ban, he agrees to act on the talk pages in a good faith. I'm strongly believe that his participation on the UE Boom talk page is not in a good faith. In my opinion it is a veiled disruptive editing aimed at reducing the quality of the article. Dmatteng (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you make such assumptions if it weren't for your history with him? I doubt it, which is why I suggested you either interact with him like anybody else or you don't interact with him at all. Adding small comments that he has previously been blocked for something tangentially related is not helpful. Why not just try having a discussion about the tag and about The Banner's concerns? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I would certainly not make such assumptions. However, please note, not just my history with him, but his history with other editors as well. In my opinion, if you would advise him to leave me and UE Boom article (with it's talk page) alone for some time that would be beneficial. Dmatteng (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I have no grounds for doing that. His comments (or certainly his most recent comment) appear to be constructive, on-topic, and aimed at the improvement of the article. Let's leave the past in the past. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
No problem, lets indeed give him a benefit of a doubt despite his history. I have also seen that his last post was for the first time a constructive one for that article. Dmatteng (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Singh Is Bling

Hi, Thanks for your help yesterday with regard the page. But another user involved now. Could you have a look please. Daan0001 (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent revert

I was responding to a comment on the talk page complaining about the phrasing. I'm obviously not an expert on the subject, but my changes only rephrased the sentence to improve its flow without adding any new content or changing the meaning. Where did I make a mistake? Thank you.--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 17:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Incident at location map Israel

I would like to draw your attention to March 2014 incident at template:Location map Israel, when Sepsis II modified a long-standing version of Israeli map to 1949 borders version without any discussion, suspiciously naming it File:Neutral Israel location map.svg instead of File:Israel location map.svg. Further, upon resulting edit-warring, you protected that template, but perhaps mistakenly, without restoring the stable version prior to Sepsis II edits and the edit-warring. Interestingly, there has already been a comprehensive discussion at Module talk:Location map/data/Syria, with an accepted solution regarding Syrian and Israeli map issues, but some editors apparently fail to acknowledge it. You are welcome to make remarks on your opinion/role at ANI thread.GreyShark (dibra) 18:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Harry isn't around just now, so I doubt he'll be commenting. Why do you want Wikipedia to display a map that shows the West Bank, the Gaza strip and the Golan Heights as part of Israel when the rest of the world considers them occupied territories? --RexxS (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry RexxS: Greyshark09 has been forumshopping, so an answer specifically from HJ can't be terribly urgent. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

DYK for Meldon Viaduct

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that and the TFA where you departed from your comfort zone, precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK problems with Meldon Viaduct

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Another_dud_DYK Andy Dingley (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

List of Adventure Time characters

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I've given it another six months from today, and we can review it again then. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Jan to Mar 14 Military History reviews

 Military history service award 
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2014, I am delighted to award you the Military history WikiProject Two-Stripe award. During this period you undertook 5 reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Rupert. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

IP editor ignoring MOS:RETAIN

Hello Harry, I saw the note at the top of your talk page – best wishes for a favorable outcome. I see you did some editing earlier today, so I hope that means you're thinking straight once again. If so, perhaps you could take a look at something if you have the time and inclination. The IP editor involved in the "discussion" at Talk:Monastery of Saint Moses the Abyssinian doesn't seem to be interested in following the MOS (unless I'm totally misinterpreting MOS:RETAIN). Maybe a message from you as a fellow British English speaker might convince the IP editor. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 06:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Actually, I see both sets of spelling in the 2009 version that you pointed to on the talk page. It might be against the MoS, but is it really worth getting into an edit war over? Granted, suggestions of "American imperialism" aren't exactly conducive to collaborative editing, and he might need a stern word if he carries on with that, but British English isn't any more or less arbitrary than American English on an article with no ties to either, so personally I'd be inclined to leave it, as frustrating as it can be. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
True enough. It's also an obscure article and he's made quite a few other good contributions. Hopefully, he's read the MoS links and refrains from making similar edits. I'll try to keep an eye on him for a bit, just to make sure he doesn't persist (or graduate to WP:ERA or music genre changes) . Mojoworker (talk) 07:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Approve Please

I have seen that you are an administrator and I wanted and admin to approve or deny my request for account creator rights, so could you examine my request please. Thank you. Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk smile 19:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Your request has only been up for an hour. All good things come to those who wait. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchel: Thanks for telling me.

What you said about not having to put templates was accurate! I posted that message like for half a minute, and BAM! You answered! Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk smile 19:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Crab rangoons: Check out the {{tlx}} template (and its friends). These allow you to put {{YGM}} and {{Tb}} without showing the template. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

DVB-T2

Hello, you recently blocked an IP that was causing vandalism in the above page. However, it seems that the IP block is not sufficient, as it keeps vandalizing the page. Is it possible to improve this block? Thank you. Cantalamessa (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell

HJ Mitchell, there are two users with similar user names:

User:Boobydpng and User:Boobydong

If you are questioning why I am asking you this query because I am accusing the two users or two user accounts used by the same person.

So could you communicate with one of the users who is part of Wikipedia's CheckUser group? Thanks. Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 22:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as neither has made an edit, it's possible that the first one was a spelling mistake, and the second they created to fix their mistake. As long as they do not use them abusively, they might have 2 accts. Remember, the first rule is to WP:AGF the panda ₯’ 22:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I highly doubt this but did you mean to spell "accts"? Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 22:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I think we should keep an close eye on these two users. They haven't made any edits yet thought. @ the panda ₯’ Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk
(talk page stalker) Accts=accounts. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I don't generally use abbreviations, but thanks again, for helping me. Cheers!-- Allied Rangoon‧talk 23:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Oscar Lopez Rivera

What happens now? As you can see from the talk page of the article, the editors Mercy11 and Sarason do not reach a consensus with my editing. Sarason has threatened that if I inject primary sources or original research, that I will answer for it. I am confident that my text recommendations are accurate. I would like to alter the second paragraph to read what I place below. It includes most of their text but changes the statement that OLR is non-violent to an opinion. I predict these two editors will continue to revert my material.

My recommended temporary compromise would be to delete the present second paragraph in the text, and then block the editing again, and to have a group of editors, including those editors and myself and anyone else interested revise that paragraph. Then we can move to the third paragraph. This is going to be a long and arduous process.

My recommended second paragraph:

President Clinton's offer of clemency to former FALN members, including Oscar, was strongly opposed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the US House of Representatives (311-41) [1] and Senate (95-2) [2] While President Clinton and others defended the clemency offered to Oscar stating that López Rivera was never convicted of specific crimes that resulted in deaths or injuries.[3] and that López Rivera was never convicted of any act of violence.[4][5][6][7][8] Others point out that Oscar Lopez was convicted, among other charges, of armed robbery[9], which is considered by the Department of Justice as a violent crime.[10][11]. The consider additional evidence that he is violent that the conspiracy for which he was convicted included being:

prime recruiter for members of the underground terrorist group, and has been a key trainer in bombing, sabotage and other techniques of guerilla warfare. He has set up a series of safehouses and bomb factories across the country, (with) literally hundreds of pounds of dynamite and other forms of high explosive, blasting caps, timing devices, huge caches of weapons and stockpiles of ammunition, silencers, sawed-off shotguns, ... and the proceeds of the armed robberies of locations such as a National Guard Armory, Chicago's Carter-Mondale Re-Election headquarters, radio and communications companies, as well as a variety of stolen vehicles. [12]

  1. ^ Congressional Record — House H8019
  2. ^ "Congressional Record — Senate S18018
  3. ^ Puerto Rican Nationalists Freed From Prison. Charles Babington. Washington Post. 11 September 1999. Retrieved 2 June 2013.
  4. ^ Arecibo clamó por la libertad de Oscar. Gerardo G. Otero Ríos. Primera Hora. 29 May 2013. Retrieved 29 May 2013.
  5. ^ Free Oscar Lopez Rivera. Camaradas El Barrio. 2014.
  6. ^ Free Oscar Lopez Rivera. National Boricua Human Rights Network. 2014.
  7. ^ "Eleven Puerto Rican Nationalists Freed from Prison". Washington: CNN. September 19, 1999.
  8. ^ Brooklyn Group Rallies for Release of Puerto Rican Political Prisoner. Jeanine Ramirez. NY1 Warner Cable News. 25 February 2014.
  9. ^ New York Times article By Nathaniel Sheppard Jr, Special to the New York Times Published: July 25, 1981.
  10. ^ Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
  11. ^ Federal Bureau of Investigation, uniform crime reports.
  12. ^ House Report 106-488, page 21.

Rococo1700 (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Bhumihar edit warring

Hi, you protected Bhumihar last month, seems that edit warring has flared up again there this week. Please would you take a look. Thanks Rjwilmsi 09:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

Follow-up on Fractional reserve banking

Hello HJ. A while ago, you blocked user Reissgo for edit warring on this article. He's been back rather aggressively on the article and talk pages and on his own talk page in a failed dialogue with @Lawrencekhoo: to try to make some progress on the article. I just noticed that he's canvassed several editors to the article. The situation doesn't seem to be resolving and if you're so inclined, I'd appreciate it if you could keep an eye on things. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi

I'm in need of an admin and I was hoping you could help me. I was thinking of changing the name of this map of mine at commons to the more neutral title "Israel proper location map" but this map is used at the Template:Location map Israel which you locked and if I move the map the template would break. I was hoping you would move the map and edit the template. I can edit the other templates, , that use the map if you want. Thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Sepsis II: It shouldn't break, provided that a redirect is created as part of the file move process. If it can be shown that the template will break as the result of a file move on Commons, I think we should wait for the outcome of c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Neutral Israel location map.svg where other names are being suggested. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: April 2014



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

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

The Banner

I think one of the conditions for The Banner's unblocking has been violated. He has made a personal attack on the talk page of UE Boom and immediately disregarded advise of an experienced editor to use the talk page to discuss the content of the article.

To make myself clear, I have asked Sam Walton to review The Banner's participation on the talk page and didn't plan to escalate the issue to you. However The Banner immediately proceeded against the advise and restored the personal attack that I have stricken per [[WP:NPA]. Dmatteng (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice when you finally stopped canvassing and fishing for blocks, Dmatteng. The Banner talk 16:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, let the admin review your actions. I'm not fishing for blocks, nor canvassing. I have even thanked you for one of your edits. And I was happy for your participation until it deteriorated and you started to use the talk page inappropriately. Dmatteng (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
And you were so happy that you struck my comments twice, with the second time reverted by Sam Walton as being a case of WP:POINT. And for your information I tell it you here too: stay off my talk page, as I will consider it as harassing. The Banner talk 17:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I think he might have misunderstood. I wasn't making any point. I would like the article's talk page to be used in appropriate way. Your talk page was used to notify you about my post here. Dmatteng (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Tesco Hudl now connected

Hi, thanks for your help yesterday connecting a Tesco Hudl to my wireless router. We eventually had to call PlusNet support, and do a full factory reset followed by a power-cycle. It's working now, as is the Android mobile. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Jayaguru-Shishya again

See here. QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
good job Bronson Naylor 22:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

Gary Barlow

hi!

could you please take a look at this edit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Barlow&diff=prev&oldid=608750064

it's the picture I'm querying. To me it looks a bit photoshopped and it may have been uploaded just to cause disruption to the article. I tried to look on Commons but can't do anything on there from my mobile device.

Can you have a look please see if there's anything you can do?

5 albert square (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's photoshopped, just taken from another site, so non-free. The lack of metadata is quite telling. - JuneGloom Talk 00:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
It's probably a real photo, but it's not legit for our purpose. I've deleted it on Commons. (Having the bit on both rojects really comes in handy from time to time!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014

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) 22:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

173.63.173.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

You blocked this user last month for edit warring (he kept adding incorrect information to multiple templates and lists, with multiple reverts by multiple editors). He is back at it again (I just spent half an hour reversing the same set of edits he made last time in the multiple templates and lists).

Same MO as last time, just keeps replacing reverted edits without a single communication. Could you please look at this again?

TYVM

--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I've given them another six months off. Let me know if that doesn't solve the problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank You,
--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Protection

On Gravida - might be worth lifting after 4 years. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC).

Hmm. I must have had a reason to do something so draconian, but I can't remember what it was, so there's probably no harm in unprotecting it. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Note to self

Carys Bannister - OBE (1935-2010) Brazilian born, first female consultant neurosurgeon in Britain. World leader in neurosurgery who worked and lived in Manchester. Pioneered much of the research for the successful treatment of hydrocephalus. (Currently exhibition at the Museum of Science and Industry 9.8.2013) HJ Mitchell (default II) (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

Disruptive edits

Hi, IP address 174.19.6.83 has made changes on 6 (now more) different upcoming UFC events without proof or a reference for those changes, I have reverted them changes and have asked politely that they don't make unreferenced work, they have also broken links in the tables.

He has since changed the results of UFC 172 a past event, changing one of the competitors to a retired fighter this is pure vandalism now, please help. Lukejordan02 (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Where have you asked them politely? Their talk page doesn't even exist. Normally when a user doesn't have a talk page, I'd say it's a bit early to be thinking about admin intervention. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I asked them on the history page when I reverted them and just because they don't have a user account that means it is ok for them to vandalise the pages!? Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
It's entirely possible that they didn't see your edit summary, or saw it and didn't understand it and didn't know how to follow up. I'm not convinced the edits are vandalism; they may be disruptive, but there's no way of knowing the IP's intent until you talk to them. I'm not going to use my admin tools unless (and until) you've left a message on their talk page that explains why you think their edits are problematic, and then they carry on regardless. And you'll get exactly the same response at AIV or ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

That's fair enough thank you for taking the time to reply, it's just the first time you responded I felt like I was doing wrong for voicing my concerns kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

David Luiz

Hi, I noticed you put David Luiz on extra serious lockdown. Could you revert the one edit before yours, which prematurely changes his team to PSG? Thanks. Mosmof (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops. That's not what I meant to do. I've dropped the protection to semi (must have mis-clicked), so you should be able to make all the changes you want. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

84.236.225.130's new IP

84.236.225.130 has a new IP Special:Contributions/2.219.153.109, I posted it on Sockpuppet investigations/84.236.225.130 yesterday but no one reply. Destiny Leo (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Military History at Wikimania 2014

Hi,

Thanks for submitting your leaflet. I noticed that the "Email contact" field was left blank. Please fill this in as soon as possible.

Thanks. Adikhajuria (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Archive_81&oldid=1178737797"