User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 86

Archive 80

←

Archive 84

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

Archive 88

→

Archive 90

That's above my pay grade

There's only one Dinting Viaduct, it's true, but viaducts generally go without a definite article (though bridges rarely do; no idea why we can't be consistent, but that's above my pay grade) Just thought I'd share this with you. When I wrote my masters thesis, I made reference to a place in England the Australians called "Perham Downs" where Australian troops were stationed during the Great War. After the thesis was placed online, I got an email from someone who said that he lived there, and that it was "Perham Down", not "Perham Downs". I went back and checked. The Official History says "Perham Downs". The war diaries say "Perham Downs". Letter from soldiers say "Perham Downs". I had someone in Britain drive out there and check, and, sure enough, it is "Perham Down". I'm not sure why everyone got it wrong, but as far as I know, there is no "Down" in Australia, and only one "Downs", the Darling Downs around Toowoomba in Queensland, and I guess the diggers just assumed that the locals must all be poor spellers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Ha! If there's one thing we Brits do well, it's giving things names. We just can't seem to be consistent in how we name things! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Reading that, I thought, "No, Hawkeye7, viaducts do usually have a definite article, for example near where I live there is The Saddleworth Viaduct." So, to prove I was right, I Googled "Saddleworth Viaduct". To my surprise, I found that about 80% of the hits I got did not have "the". However, I have lived within a mile of that viaduct for twenty-odd years, and I am willing to swear that local people normally call it "the Saddleworth Viaduct". I thought it must be just that most of the Google hits were for stuff from non-locals who simply didn't know, but then I found that the official parish council website has no definite article. Maybe when people write things down they don't necessarily write what they would say if they were speaking. Who knows? Incidentally, if you are interested in seeing what I am talking about, there's a panorama of the viaduct and surrounding countryside at http://www.urbanhaze.com/photography/virtual-tours-saddleworth-viaduct . As for "Bridges rarely do [go without a definite article]", it varies a good deal. For example, there are the Brooklyn Bridge, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Forth Bridge, the Clifton Suspension Bridge, but just London Bridge, Bristol Bridge, Hammersmith Bridge, and various others. On the basis of a fairly small sample, it looks to me as though in Britain a bridge has "the" unless its name is "Bridge" tagged onto the name of the place (city/town/etc) where the bridge is, but in the USA all the examples I can think of have "the", whether they are named after their town/city/whatever or not. I don't know about other English-speaking parts of the world. I tried Googling Australia bridge, but I found that, wading through the first 50 or so hits, when I had discounted the enormous number of hits for the game of bridge, and a small handful of hits for other things that aren't bridges but have "bridge" in the title (e.g. Murray Bridge, South Australia), the only actual bridge that I got was the Sydney Harbour Bridge, which proves nothing, because it would have "the" under either the British or the US naming convention. Surely even in a country which is mostly desert there must be a few more bridges other than that one, but they are well-hidden. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, "James". I hadn't put much thought into it when I wrote that edit summary, but now you mention it, that does seem to be the pattern, though I don't think I've come across a viaduct that's routinely referred to with a definite article.

The Aussies probably thought about building more bridges, but got fed up with the sharks, the crocodiles, the snakes, the spiders, the jellyfish and probably a few other things that would eat/bite/sting/otherwise poison you given half a chance! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

PC2 on Percy Jackson (film series)

Hi HJ, noticed you put PC2 on Percy Jackson (film series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) when you extended the expiry date, did you intend to change it to PC2? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Woops! Must have been a misclick. Thanks for the note; I've fixed it now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

User talk:109.153.85.25

1. You're welcome.
2. I thought of rev-delling the BLP violations, but didn't, perhaps just out of laziness, or perhaps I got distracted by something else and forgot. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, it took me half an hour. Amazing what a mess somebody can make just by switching IP addresses. I'm all for "anyone can edit", but its things like that that make me think that allowing anyone to edit BLPs without an account, and with no checks before whatever some nutter has to say about the subject is out there for all to see, is only going to encourage this sort of thing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. However, there are problems with all alternatives, such as not allowing anyone to edit without an account. In fact, there are actually some advantages in having such unacceptable editing from IP editors without accounts; for example, very often it is easy to stop them with a range block or two, whereas only CheckUsers can do that if the editor uses accounts. Of course, that doesn't apply if the editor switches among several different ranges of IPs, especially if those ranges are also heavily used by other editors, but very often that is not the case. Having thought about it, I remember now why I didn't do the rev-dels. I decided it was going to take more time than I had available. However, I suppose that isn't a good excuse for not doing at least some of them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Queen's Building, Wolverhampton

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Socks of SeattliteTungsten

Hi, Thanks for blocking the obvious sock User:"I think not!" -Descartes. And then he disappeared.. Another one is User:GentleTunaTestsIt. Cheers, Zero^talk 00:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've blocked the other one as well. He's persistent, I'll give him that, but he's not exactly subtle. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I've removed there comments from below and semi'd your talk page for a day. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Callan! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2014

• Op-ed: Ships—sexist or sexy?

• In the media: College player falsely linked to sports scandal by Wikipedia; the Nobel Prizes

• Arbitration report: One case closed and two opened

• Featured content: Bells ring out at the Temple of the Dragon at Peace

• Technology report: Attempting to parse wikitext

• Traffic report: Now introducing ... mobile data

• WikiProject report: Signpost reaches the Midwest

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Avengers: Age of Ultron protection

Hi HJ. Thank you once again for the protection of Avengers: Age of Ultron. Just wondering, per edits happening after the semi protection, if WP:MOVP should be considered as well? This is an isolated incident I will say, but figured I'd ask your opinion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's really necessary—it looks like an isolated incident, and misguided rather than malicious. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer

Thanks for quickly accepting my Pending changes reviewer request. I will use the tools wisely. good888 (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Chester

Hi Harry, are you definitely coming to the Chester meetup tomorrow? So far it's just me, you and User:TimothyWF who've signed up. I once decided that if fewer that 4 people sign up then I'll cancel, but I may have left it a bit late this time. But if you're definitely going to be there, then we'll go ahead as planned, otherwise I'll try to tell Timothy. Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. I want to go to Stoke to take some photos of Winton Square, and Stoke is on the way to Chester so I could kill two birds with one stone... Do you think it's worth it? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me leave a note at User talk:TimothyWF and see what he thinks. It would be good to see you but I don't think it's going to be the liveliest meetup ever! Bazonka (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless Timothy agrees to cancel, I think I'll go along. Up to you as to whether you join us or not. Bazonka (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll plan to come, but I'm not going to absolutely guarantee it—if the weather's shit, I might not bother because I won't be able to get any decent photos. Ring me or text me if you cancel. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Weather should be OK tomorrow, so I'll see you then! Bazonka (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Admins gone wild

You wrote, "...I'm sorely tempted to haul the next admin who does that to ArbCom. People are relying far too much on BLP to edit-war over things that aren't libel and it gets on my nerves."[1] If you were serious, a perfect opportunity has arisen.[2] The admin Dreadstar first fully protected The Federalist (website), then, instead of leaving the article as it was, immediately edited through the full protection he had just imposed to remove the entire section under dispute, which is the website's main claim to fame (it's revelations about Neil deGrasse Tyson's uncertain connection to the truth, since widely covered -- see the "resource" list currently at the top of the Neil deGrasse Tyson talk page), leaving nothing but a coatrack of accusations against the website. He did this with the comment, "BLP has been invoked, take it to the talk page". As far as I can see (I just took a quick look -- it's been a while since I looked at this article) nothing in the removed section violates BLP, still less rising to the level of libel. Tyson, after all, has admitted the "misquote" (see the last cite in the first paragraph of the removed section [3]).

So, were you serious, or just funnin' me along? Andyvphil (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

While I don't always agree with the tone Andy takes in such discussions, he is spot on here. Protecting one version, then editing THROUGH that protection to remove a passage that has absolutely no "libel" (or anything close to such a thing) in it struck me as very wrong. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The relevant but of policy is WP:PREFER, which says "administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists". While the invocation of BLP is dubious, it seems a reasonable exercise of admin discretion to remove the material being edit-warred over, assuming Dreadstar is acting as an uninvolved admin (and I see no indication that he's involved—his name doesn't appear in the last 100 edit to the article or its talk page). What I was referring to when I made the remark quoted above was involved admins editing through full prot or editing through protection to make contentious edits, such as the edit that that discussion was about. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The policy you quote is not relevant as the material that was removed predates the material that remains, and the Tyson material has never been absent from the page, since the event developed, except in the midst of edit wars. Please reread "administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists" in the light of those facts. Andyvphil (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, you came to my talk page to ask my opinion on a particular admin action. I gave my opinion—that it was a reasonable exercise of admin discretion. You are of course entitled to disagree, and you don't have to accept my opinion—you can always start a noticeboard discussion or file an arbitration case (I don't think you'd have much luck, but I've been wrong before)—but please don't demand that I change my mind. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I came to your talk page because you involved yourself with this article by protecting it, and in that context said that the bogus use of BLP was objectionable to you. That is to say, I have come to your page not as some uninvited intruder, but on business directly related to your position as an administrator, and secondarily on the basis of your statement that you were interested in the misuse of BLP policy. Further, I don't see that I "demanded" anything of you. I assumed in good faith that you were unaware that the version Dreadstar reverted to was not "an old version of the page predating the edit war", pointed this out to you, and asked politely for you to reconsider your opinion. Where was the "demand"? Your unprovoked hostility is... interesting. Andyvphil (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

No hostility. I just don't appreciate being told to go and re-read a policy because I have a different opinion of an admin action. Dreadstar exercised his discretion. It's not what I would have done, but the test of whether an admin has misconducted themselves is not "what would Harry have done" or "what would admin X have done", but whether they overstepped the bounds of admin discretion, and don't think Dreadstar did. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't tell you to "go" anywhere, merely repeated back to you part of what you had quoted to me, pointing out that it didn't seem to cover what Dreadstar had done. I won't ask you to check this out, but assuming only for the purpose of argument that that the version Dreadstar reverted to was not an old version of the page predating the edit war how does the discretion he has to revert, post-protection, to an old version of the page predating the edit war make it proper for him to revert to a version of the page that only existed during the current edit war, deleting longstanding material? I must be missing something. Please explain. Andyvphil (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

When an edit war develops and an admin protects the page, it is (by practice, and bear in mind that policy is supposed to be descriptive rather than prescriptive) a reasonable use of admin discretion to remove the material being edit-warred over, and when the article is a BLP, it's not completely unreasonable to err on the side of caution and omit the contentious material while the page is protected, even if you think the concerns are "bogus"—there's no reason it can't wait a few days, and if the other editor is just being disruptive, that will quickly become apparent. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That it is quite apparent that a group of editors are just being disruptive is no guarantee that any notice will be taken of that fact. Provided the POV warriors are numerous and experienced enough Wikipedia has no effective mechanism to distinguish between actual and perceived bogosity. This hasn't just been going on for "a few days", and there no end in prospect. Andyvphil (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking for Opinion

I was doing my new user patrol and notice a red flag on a new user. user:Sunshinelifeforme I see they have made their account and proceeded to make simple edits of a space on 10 random articles. My guess is they are trying to race to auto-confirmed and that concerns me as this is someone who is familiar with Wikipedia and looking to cause trouble. Can you please let me know if I am over analyzing or should be keeping an eye on this user in about 4 days.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Could be nothing, could be something. I've seen it done the other way plenty of times—somebody creates an account, leaves it for a few days, then makes their 10 edits and goes and vandalises a semi-protected article. Might be worth keeping half an eye on (perhaps add their talk age to you watchlist so you'll see any warnings of they do start causing trouble). But it could just be an established editor creating a backup account or something else innocuous. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Question about 1RR

Hi Mitchell. I wanted to ask you if I'm allowed to make more than one revert per day if this is only to undo edits made by anonymous IPs, like in this case. Thanks in advance.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's Harry, and reverts of IPs "are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." But I would add two cautionary notes to that: don't revert IPs just because you can, and don't make it a habit of relying on the exemption—if the IP is being disruptive, seek admin intervention, and if it's a content dispute, seek input from other editors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Nick-D on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Your block of 24.151.94.26

24.151.94.26 has returned from your block and immediately attacked Marriageable age again. It may be an attempt to insert a bogus claim that underaged marriages are allowed in Canada for religious purposes. See discussion at Talk:Marriageable age#Canada. Meters (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've re-blocked them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in World War I

NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!

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) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Admin Help

Hi HJ! A certain anonymous IP address edited Loboc Church, an article I created creating several red links, category not found in commons and capitalization issues. (here) The anon IP user insists of his own capitalization rule. When he announced that he will be giving me a 3RR for reverting his edit, I asked for another editor to copyedit it, reinstating my capitalization issues (here). I also applied for semi-page protection which was granted. This proves that the IP user is disruptive and his edits are not constructive. He showed up using his username, Johnmperry and insists again of his edits.

I do not know what is his points for his edits. He even insists that several lines in the section on 2013 Bohol earthquake is a violation of WP:ROC, where in fact, the article was patterned after Maribojoc Church, an article I also created and currently in GA status; and he removed several refs. Thanks. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure they're being deliberately disruptive—much of the capitalisation looks like a matter of opinion to me. Have you tried discussing things with them on the talk page? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page but he did not gave a reply. He still uses anonymous IP address and even left a WP:3RR warning on my talk page using one of his anonymous IP. I think, the edit of another editor must be enough to prove that the capitalization issues have been addressed since the use of the word church here is part of a proper noun, just like White House (which you do not write as White house). --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I've directed him/her to WP:OWNERSHIP and the relevant style guides, but still s/he insists it is his/her page (read first line of complaint above, and whole of para 2). And here of course s/he deliberately flouts WP:PRIVACY (even though it may not necessarily be true). Just think, a 3RR warning (Oh! the cheek of it!) which s/he ignores.

I don't know what his/her complaint is, apart from NIH syndrome. My pov is getting a consistent and literate style across all of wikipedia, even including this WP:PEACOCKery. BTW s/he's been an editor only since May 2014.

112.198.82.96 (talk) 04:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Punta Cruz Watchtower

The DYK was "... that the Punta Cruz Watchtower is the only perfect isosceles triangle tower-fort structure in the Philippines? "

My only question is what is a perfect isosceles triangle? It's not stated on the page, unreferenced, and not on isosceles triangle either. It is stated on one of the page's citations, but again without further reference.

I suggest that before you bang out trivia such as this, you make some attempt to determine its veracity. 112.198.82.96 (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Presumably an isosceles triangle, rather than something that looks like one. It is in the article, and it is referenced. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

IP user insists that it is not cited in the article by adding citation needed tags. I manually reverted it saying that it is cited in the suceeding paragraphs. He reverted it again. (here). I do not know what is his point again, it will not pass DYK if this hook is not cited. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Broadbottom Viaduct

The DYK project (nominate) 14:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For blocking a trigger-happy IP vandal. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. And you're welcome—there's something very satisying about blocking a vandal in mid-spree! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hi,

Quick question (hopefully). Ive been closeing off reports at WP:ANI where there obviously done or incorrectly reported etc. for a while now. Is there any reason/policy that should stop me from doing the same at WP:AIV when its obviously not something requiring action, not warned not vandalism etc. There seems to be an ongoing backlog here and figured it might be something I can help with. Amortias (T)(C) 17:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Getting involved at ANI is not the best idea—you don't want to get yourself a reputation there. As for AIV, it wouldn't hurt to remove reports that had been declined and had sat there for a while, or obviously frivolous reports, but it's not really necessary—admins usually do it when there's a convenient moment, but those don't always come around very often given the high edit rate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thats fair enough. ANI hasnt caused me any problems so far I've stuck to closing things off when its things like should have gone to AIV or when its been dealt with and sitting there unclosed. I'll keep an eye on AIV when im not busy throwing reports at it. Amortias (T)(C) 18:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

historic events and people
Thank you for quality articles on historic events and people, such as Iranian Embassy siege, and for voicing support for an "overwhelmingly constructive contributor ... quietly making improvements to articles", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (27 July 2010 and 16 January 2011)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 280th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow, has it been two years? Thanks Gerda! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Can't believe it myself. What do you think of joining our cabal of the outcasts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"don't revert admins on admin noticeboards"

In reference to this edit,[4] is there a policy/guideline that actually says that editors are not allowed to revert admins on admin noticeboards? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's implicit in the page title—it's the administrators' noticeboard for incidents, not the peanut gallery's noticeboard. The entire problem with that page is that far too many editors who have nothing to do with anything (most of whom contribute nothing or next to nothing to the encyclopaedia) get involved and muddy the waters and pollute the atmosphere. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Rollback permissions

I cannot figure out that why did you grant rollback right to Jayakumar RG. He has been edit warring on this article, if you don't argue him uselessly, he will consider it to be unresponsive.[5]

He had turned a 9 year old long standing page like Anil Agarwal (businessman) (a billionaire) into redirect. He based his reasons for some nonsensical claims like subject lacks notability after reading an essay.(e.g [6]) When told, his reply is I consider no such thing.[7] Not to mention, that when I had found this redirect, I was alleged of stalking. [8]

That's just one of the many reasons that why I am failing to consider him as a trusted user. Would you tell something? Bladesmulti (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want me to do. It seems like an everyday content dispute, and you don't seem to be suggesting that he's abused rollback, so how is that relevant? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Just for your ease, his rollback was removed, he was blocked for 31 hours by other admin. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Still not seeing what this has to do with me, nor with rollback... I'inclined to agree with him that removing rollback was unnecessary, ice he hasn't used it in a content dispute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Template parsing for blocked user Ballsdeep12345

Hey HJ, first off thank you for dealing with the disruptive user. I thought you'd like to know though that your template, {{vaublock}}, didn't parse. I looked it up in Templatespace and I was redirected to Template:Uw-vaublock, which lists the syntax as {{subst:Uw-vaublock}}. Just thought you'd like to know! RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 01:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't transclude in the log, but they'll see it when they try to edit—the software tells them they're blocked and displays the reason given in the log, and when that reason is a template, it transcludes that template. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

SeattliteTungsten is back, alas

Hi, Sorry to bother you with this sockmaster again, but I'm "involved" so I can't squash it myself. User:Take The Long Road Home was created 34 minutes before the sock who vandalised this page, made minor edits to random articles, then went to the target page Israeli West Bank barrier as soon as it was autoconfirmed. Such persistence is unusual. I'm wondering if it isn't someone who is paid to edit this particular article. This user does not at all behave like a typical I/P pov pusher. Zero^talk 08:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No apology necessary. I've blocked that account and asked for a check for sleepers. I hadn't thought that he might be paid. I don't know how likely that is; I've seen more persistent and more prolific sockmasters in I/P and elsewhere, but it does seem a massive over-reaction to what started as a 48-hour block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Thai Lottery Winner

SNAP!! Peridon (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I went to delete the userpage but you beat me to it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I usually delete the page, then block. Get the spam off first... Peridon (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I was looking at AIV; I went for the block button because it was closer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Soapbox

Like you, I wish we could shut the soapbox down ;) - Sitush (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Alas. The place is just a magnet for serial trolls and ban-evaders, and I can't remember the last time I saw a thread there that contributed in any way to the encyclopaedia. I'm reminded of Obi Wan's description of Mos Eisley! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I've often wondered why the thing exists, given that he has some sort of global status. Surely, if such a talk page must be present then its rightful home is on Meta. - Sitush (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Nobody gives a shit about Meta! It's a dumping ground for things that don't have a home on any of the projects and is run by admins who couldn't pass an RfA on a real project if their life depended on it and who think it's a full-blown project in its own right. So yes, perfect place for that sort of nonsense! If we could persuade all the trolls and the people who want to discuss meta-aspects of the project to move over there, we could all spend more time on the encyclopaedia and they'd be much happier without all those pesky writers and admins getting in their way! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Rocking horse droppings

I love that phrase. I've never heard it before, it's gold. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Glad to be of service. We Brits are famous for our idioms, but I do particularly like that one! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Wlglunight93

Is there any progress with the correspondence you mentioned at AE? Unless you think you can get the editor to accept a voluntary restriction from the topic area for at least six months I think we should go ahead with the topic ban. The editor gives the strong impression of not listening to any advice. Due to the disappointing sequence of events, I'd favor keeping the one-month block in place whatever happens with the ban. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I haven't got anywhere so far, but I think there's a time zone difference so I'm not abandoning hope just yet. I agree it's disappointing, but I don't think he's beyond redemption. I'm hoping I can get him to agree to some sort of voluntary restriction because there don't seem to be any major problem with his edits themselves, he just can't or won't stick to the 1RR. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I've seen nothing but good things from you! Keep it up! ;) Amanda Smalls 18:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that' very kind. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It's my pleasure!Amanda Smalls 19:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Well deserved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks mate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 6, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 20:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa

Thank you for move protecting 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa. I am currently trying to gain consensus on the matter by soliciting name suggestions, and putting the (hopefully) short list to a vote. I'd appreciate any input you may have, I have not been so engaged in discussing an issue with the community in a while, and may not be aware of new ways to handle these things. Regards. --Natural R_X 22:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, it might be a bit early to be thinking about a definitive name. It might be that a name for it emerges over the coming weeks. But regardless its the best thing all round if it stays at one title until there's a consensus for another one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

• Featured content: Admiral on deck: a modern Ada Lovelace

• Op-ed: Hong Kong's Umbrella Revolution—a wiki-protest

• In the media: The story of Wikipedia; Wikipedia reanimated and republished; New UK government social media rules; death of Italian Wikipedia administrator

• Traffic report: Death, War, Pestilence... Movies and TV

• WikiProject report: De-orphanning articles—a huge task but with a huge team of volunteers to help

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous from the 21st century

I unblocked this established user with an otherwise unblemished record per my comments on the talk page. (It seems highly likely that the other "Anonymous" accounts were either deliberately doing a Joe Job or just got the inspiration for the sock names from that user. If someone runs a CU that suggests that they are involved, then a reblock would obviously be warranted. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll assume good faith in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion

Hey Mitchell (mind if I call you that?) Would you please delete this page? Thanks!--Amanda Smalls 15:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You can call me Harry, and it seems I've been beaten to it! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Question II

Is changing the headline of a cited article vandalism? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Depends whether you think it was done in "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea if it was deliberate or not to be honest, but we now have citations with different headlines to what the actual citations have Darkness Shines (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Well... Revert and ask them what they're doing. They might have been trying to do something else. I'd assume good faith if there's no reason to assume it was deliberate disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I ought to have been clearer, the article falls under the scope of my tban. Which is why I asked, I`m not getting my arse blocked for a slip up Darkness Shines (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

What's the article? I'll have a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the diff I noticed, the refs which were changed are this one and this one Darkness Shines (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's not vandalism, but it is disruptive. I've reverted it, although I would suggest that part of the point of a topic ban is that you disengage from the topic, rather than watch from the sidelines. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

List of Neighbours characters

I was just wondering if you think the above article needs some protection for a couple of days? There's an ongoing edit war between two editors who should probably know better. - JuneGloom Talk 15:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I've left both editors warnings about edit-warring. Hopefully that's al that will be needed—I'm reluctant to protect it an shut everyone else out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, probably a much better idea. Thanks! - JuneGloom Talk 17:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Filmography expansion

Hi, I was trying to expand the filmography of an celebrity Shobana by adding the Director & co-stars field from the respective movies she acted, but a editor TheRedPenOfDoom reverted the same and said that 'unsourced, still complete trivia'. But those details are the existing wiki pages and do I need a reference for that?. Please guide me.Vaidyasr (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I got figured out with the editor. You can ignore the same. Thanks.Vaidyasr (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Utility of Force

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Utility of Force you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello HJ Mitchell:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Dinting and all points east.

After your great success at Picadilly platform six- I made us a new userbox.

This user crosses over the Broadbottom Viaduct frequently.

I expect it will go viral- and amaze the Etherow cognitenti. Next task is the Dinting Barnstar. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I've never been over it! I'm a bit further south, so it's not on my route to Manchester. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This user crosses over the Broadbottom Viaduct frequently, in his dreams. This is a real candidate for HS3..

.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 09:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ha! HS3! Because that's going to happen! Manchester and Leeds aren't in the leafy London commuter belt, and they don't vote Tory, so the chances of "HS3" surviving the general election are about the same as those of hellthe Thames freezing over! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello HJ Mitchell:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – The Herald 12:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Just Popping in to say Hello!

Not sure if you remember me, My username used to be Skater. I was glad to see that when I got back from the military you were still around and doing great things here! Hope all is going well for you.--Church ^Talk 05:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey! Of course I remember you! Glad to see you're still about! Why the name change? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Mainly just because I felt Skater to be too childish. Considering I made this account in 2007 when I was about 13 :p. I wasn't particularly interested in starting over with another and losing my edit count, my DYKS and everything I worked hard for so I usurped Church which is my uniform handle for things now. --Church ^Talk 22:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sometimes I wish I'd chosen a clever pseudonym (mainly because I keep thinking of them, or somebody pops up with a good one and I think "I wish I'd though of that"). But I quite like editing under my real name and I couldn't be bothered with the hassle of changing my username. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Friendly request.

Hey there! I see your signature quite often, and since I see it so often, I see that it is not HTML5 compliant. This is a minor annoyance to me, as I'm sure it is to many other users. I would very much appreciate to see you bring it up to the new HTML5 standard. It's fairly easy to do, and if you're interested, I suggest replacing:

[[User:HJ Mitchell|<span style="font-family:'Tahoma'; color:Teal;">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</span>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; color:Navy;">Penny for your thoughts? </span>]]

with:

[[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="font-family:Tahoma;color:teal">HJ&nbsp;Mitchell</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color:Navy;font-family:Tinos">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]]

which will result in a 190 character long signature (2 characters shorter) with an appearance of: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

compared to your existing 192 character long signature of: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

— Either way. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move: 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa

You move-protected 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa. A move has now been formally requested, FYI. --Natural R_X 17:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The Utility of Force

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Mark Udall

Now that finally editors are coming to agreements in talk, may be not the best time to protect the article [9]. Could you re-consider? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Some protections

Hi HJ. As you have been extremely helpful in the past, was wondering if you could add some protection to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films and List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors. Marvel had a huge announcement today, and myself and the other regular editors to the page are attempting to corral it all, and protection here would be most helpful. Some other pages may need some protection as well, but these are the major ones. Thank you so much in advance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I've protected them both, but only for three days each. We'll see if it blows over, and if it doesn't, just drop me another note and I'll re-protect them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!!!! Always appreciate the help! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)