Again, thank you very much. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 00:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, thank you very much. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 00:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
:On 1, I think consensus was in favour of the status quo because none of the other options presented attracted anything like the level of support the status quo had and, of course, in the result of no consensus, we default to the status quo, especially so with policies and guidelines, which are presumed to already have a broad consensus. That's part of what I was trying to say about the format not lending itself to consensus-making. I don't mean it as a criticism of you, but I think the RfC was largely doomed from the moment it opened because it was so broad and combines discussions about multiple different issues. That's why I suggested revisiting it with smaller RfCs or less formal discussions.
:On 2, I was referring to the same principle as the AP list{{mdash}}some cities (Buffalo, {{small|nobody hit me, but}} Las Vegas, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Tulsa and quite a few more, some of which may not be on the AP list) are clearly the primary topic for that title ''and'' are very well known outside the States that the name would be recognised by almost anybody and so the [, State] disambiguator is unnecessary, Similarly, I'm sure I could go through the AP list and find a few cities whose names would be ambiguous or little-known outside the US, but that was (and this is) more food for thought for future discussions. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ Mitchell'''</font>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 01:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
== Did you know? ==
== Did you know? ==
Revision as of 01:29, 22 January 2011
This page is currently protected due to vandalism. If you cannot edit this page but wish to leave me a message, you may post on this page instead.
Hello and welcome to my talk page! If you have a question, ask me. If I know the answer, I'll tell you; if I don't, I'll find out (or one of my talk-page stalkers might know!), then we'll both have learnt something!
Admins: If one of my admin actions is clearly a mistake or is actively harming the encyclopaedia, please reverse it. Don't wait for me if I'm not around or the case is obvious.
A list of archives of this talk page is here. Those in Roman numerals come first chronologically
This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.
I don't know who the master is. There are probably 10 of these SPA/socks who were active on the article and AfD. My guess is that it's someone who knows the subject of the article. I'll let you know if there are any more problems. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at Greg L's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Help Please HJ.....
Hi, HJ, I bring this issue to your attention because I trust you. Here we go: I have the WP:HELPDESK watchlisted, and try to help people out by answering their questions. I also monitor others answers to ensure they are not rude, but I came across one that certainly was. I "warned/messaged" the user on their talk page seen here, they then removed my message calling it vandalism, as seen here. I then replaced my message (as it was not vandalism) with another note, as seen here. I see two faults here; A. Being rude to an editor on the helpdesk who had a question and B. Not using rollback privileges in the correct manner (even though it was Twinkle, he used a "rollback" function, reverting edits that certainly were not vandalism; just a message about his rude behavior on the help desk. Tofutwitch11(TALK) 02:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not much I can do, really. We're given pretty wide latitude within our own userspace and if I get involved, it may just fan the flames. The post wasn't that rude. You were right to drop them a line, but how would you feel if somebody came to your talk page telling you "[not] to be so rude" and that something was "unacceptable"? You're level-headed enough not to hit rollback (which was unnecessary, but within the bounds of WP:OWNTALK), but I don't think you'd be impressed. Maybe if you'd been a little more collegiate, they might have responded better or maybe not. Best to just leave it, if you ask me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but it frustrates me when experienced editors are rude to new editors....it gets no where. If he removes it again, It's not worth edit warring over to get it back. There was no reason what-so-ever for his response to that new editor...we will see how this goes. Thanks, Tofutwitch11(TALK) 02:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reminded him to watch it with the Twinkle, but really I don't think he was being rude to start with, and he is entitled to remove your messages from his talkpage. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Elen, I see you've joined my merry band of talk page stalkers! It wasn't exactly rude, but it was more condescending than it needed to be for a good faith suggestion. @Tofutwitch, you should review OWNTALK—you shouldn't really have reverted the revert. We can remove what we like from our own talk pages (with the sole exception of declined unblock requests while the block is still in effect)—it's simply taken as evidence that the message has been read and understood. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)::::I didn't mean to come across rude with my message, I understand that he can remove my messages, and if he had not marked them as vandalism, I probably would have moved on. As I mentioned, you cannot even be slightly rude on the helpdesk -- we have to help new users, no matter what their questions. We don't want to drive them away. Tofutwitch11(TALK) 02:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's not as if he said "go away you silly twat, that's a ridiculous idea". I know you weren't trying to be rude (it's kind of ironic that you hit a nerve with them warning them about rudeness!), but politely asking them to mind their tone might have been more effective. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed that you have declined my request for the page protection, since you're one of the admins, can you at least revert edits done until January 13? Since user Angsc09 has been adding future material and even place "Do not erase it, is very possible that they will announce after the season 4 ended". From there I'll be patrolling the article, because for a user like me, it will be to tedious to revert all those edits since I don't have any rollback right and no permanent internet connection. So from time to time I'll be overseeing this article from my laptop or from anywhere with internet connection. Thank you in advance! ^_^ SyFuelIgniteBurned 04:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your addition of autopatrolled to Kendrick because he has a history of WP:BLP problems (see his block log). NW(Talk) 04:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I didn't see cause for concern in the articles I checked, but reasonable minds may differ on their suitability and I'm only going through a database report. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff like [1] is what would give me pause. NW(Talk) 05:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. I wouldn't have been as lenient as a month, personally. I didn't see any of that kind of crap in the articles they've created (obviously), but certainly diffs like that suggest someone who should be kept an eye on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been focused off-toxic-wp (and real life). Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closure of RFC
Per this edit, you offered to close the discussion, indicating you would be done many hours ago. If you have decided not to, please indicate that you are passing at the AN so someone else can close it. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Slipped my mind, sorry. I'll make it my first priority tomorrow—nobody likes being left "in limbo" at the end of an RfC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Nice guy" doesn't begin to do them justice. :) Thanks again and take care. Dr.K.λogosπraxis 05:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'm sure they'll pay me a visit later. Ah well, every edit exposes another open proxy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HJ Mitchell, I wanted to let you know that I finished Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled candidates 5, with the exception of a couple candidates I left for a second opinion. I also wanted to say thank you for reviewing my other requests for a second opinion, and for granting autopatrol to a couple of users when I was concerned about granting them the userright. Thanks also for all the other reviewing of candidates on those pages! Best. Acalamari 15:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Every time I get to one of these lists you've already beaten me to it! That's quite alright; I'm always happy to provide a second opinion or sanity check. I did grant one that you declined, but I left a rationale there. It was a pleasure to work with you. Hopefully we'll have a more up-to-date list soon. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My user rights
I would just like to say thank you very much for granting me those user rights. Both of them came as a bit of a surprise to me when I logged on this morning. Again, thanks! EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 16:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite welcome. Your name was on a list of potential candidates for autopatrolled (I was scrolling down looking for names I recognised as looking trustworthy) and I figure you could handle the reviewer as well! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you. That means a lot to me. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 16:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jimmy Lovine?
Hello. Question, why did you move this page to Jimmy Lovine? His last name is actually Iovine (eye-o-vine). His IMDb states this, as well as a PBS article, the Interscope Records page, and other sources. Plus you protected the page, but the title is not correct! Please explain your doing. Thanks! Tinton5 (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a well-deserved barnstar. Thank you very much. - Hydroxonium (H3O+) 17:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you. Glad to see you gave one to Acalamari as well. And thank you for compiling the lists. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Autopatrolled
Thanks for the recognition mate. I'm glad to know that the articles I have created were embraced by the Wikipedia community. Tibulluscall me 17:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have neither the time nor the inclination to get involved in this.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
there doesnt seem to be a guideline for this, but as long suspected 2 editors have a tag-team partnership in supporting articles and i just got the strongest possible evidence thereof, but dont know how to take it to high-ups as theyre seemingly not sockpuppets. as suggested before over edits on the RIRA/CIRA pages the 2 editors [6] strongly seem to be linked, possibly off-wiki, to defend their pov. cabn you advice some course of action if possible?(Lihaas (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
I think it's unlikely that anything sinister is going on. Both are respected editors and I'm pretty sure they're on different continents. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was an Arbcom complaint (User_talk:Lihaas#Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.23O_Fenian) by another editor some time ago. (which was turned down citing need to discuss issues and other resolving methods, but out olive branches are continually spurned). it seems despite attempts to talk to the editor he abjectly and continually refuses to discuss citing his whims. he cant keep resorting to threats/blackmail to get his way as is his only tactic on Talk:List of armed conflicts and attacks, 2011, which wont be conducive to wikipedia enhancement as all other editors on that page disagreed with him in some or another.
One can note please my efforts at offering an olive branch and discussion of his sometimes WP:Bold queries are never met by answers on content.Talk:List_of_armed_conflicts_and_attacks,_2011#lone_wolf_tag + [7] + as expected: to his latest query same response [8] where apparently he has not made it clear, expecting to own the article that ALL other editors at least discuss --> [9] + tag team evidence: [10]
appreciate your input.(Lihaas (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
I don't know what you want me to do. As far as I can tell, you've accused one respected editor of being a meatpuppet of another respected editor and now they're not very happy with you. The rest is a content dispute and not something I can get involved with in an admin capacity. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He cant scare of editors with such threats. I think an admin needs to warn him. and its not just me. See the talk page. EVERY single response of his is only a threat without ANY discussion of content whatsoever.
where on earth is his [12] "clear" response that was not ONCE mentioned on talk.Lihaas (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
please see this admin [13] "While I have had no involvement in this issue I will say that the observations made by the involved parties above about O Fenians behaviour stem way beyond this issue. I myself have had conflict with him in the past and his wording of his views to me felt less than civil. For example this incident Where I attempted to invoke WP:IAR and he responded with a closed statement about IAR itself and not even willing to acknowledge my statement. He also makes statements that are rude or could be seen as offensive about former flags of a country here. Just thought I'd bring it up."(Lihaas (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
moved to my page.(Lihaas (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Am I needed?
Anything you need clarifying, please ask. I am currently busy preparing the request for comment on Lihaas for disruptive editing, now I know that it will meet the two person cerification requirements. Obviously asking if someone previously involved in the dispute was willing to certify it makes us meatpuppets.. O Fenian (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Dark Knight Rises
I one time requested the redirection page The Dark Knight Rises to be protected. I now request the redirection page to be unprotected (or just semi protected) for a discussion of making it as a article. See here and here. Jhenderson777 19:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you want me to do. The redirect The Dark Knight Rises is fully protected so it can only be edited by admins, but none of its associate pages are protected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a typo, did you understand me now? Jhenderson777 19:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello HJ. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Status. It seems that Antichristos is evading your 72-hour block at Action at a distance (physics). This editor seems to be on a roll, and he is ignoring all feedback (since he is sure he is right). I propose that his block should extended to one month, and that a half dozen articles be considered for semiprotection. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh joy, block evading sockpuppets, as if I'm not busy enough already! I've extended the original block to two weeks. The rangeblock calculator also tells me that all those IPs are on a blockable range, so I've put in a two-week rangeblock. Hopefully that will have the desired effect and the semi-prot won't be necessary, but I'll add the articles to my watchlist. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Busy indeed. I have put a {{sharedip}} and a welcome on the most recent talk page. (Love your SeriuzAdminCatz - Cheers!) - DVdm (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
main page article
which is the other? apparently the iraq one was removed (fair enough (although i still ithinks its sub-par)). which is the other?
although you could probably take off the current tag on tunisia now, edit works seems to hae slowedLihaas (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at Lihaas's talk page. Message added 20 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
No vio result in 1RR case
Hi HJ Mitchell. You recent decided this 1RR case was not a violation. How are the first two diffs not a 1RR violation? The editor didn't self-revert those edits (reinsertion of the too long template); they were reverted by someone else (either myself or GHcool if I recall). Do 1RR violations not count if someone reverts you before you get a chance to self-revert? ← Georgetalk 22:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see 2 reverts (excluding self-reverts) within 24 hours. You yourself conceded that there was no technical violation of the 1RR with the self-revert and that's all ANEW deals with. That doesn't preclude you from taking the broader issue to AE, but that's no violation of anything that can be enforced at ANEW. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this and this are within 24 hours of each other. The editor then made a third revert, on different material. That third revert was indeed self-reverted (and not a technical violation of 1RR), but the change from the first two diffs were not self reverted; those were reverted by another editor prior to the third revert. Maybe it was confusing because I rolled two separate 1RR violations on the same article into a single case. I actually don't care in this specific case, and was just hoping the editor would get a warning to establish consensus prior to edit warring, but just curious if reverting twice within 24 hours, then getting reverted by another editor still constituted a violation of 1RR (if another editor reverts you, you cannot self-revert, which is what happened here). ← Georgetalk 22:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The second diff is certainly a revert and they made another revert later on which they self-reverted (this is beginning to hurt my head!), but the first doesn't look like a revert from where I'm standing, hence my ruling of no vio. This is where we get into the technicalities of what is a revert. Any removal or modification of anything you didn't write yourself is, by the technical definition, is a revert, but if that was the definition we used to enforce the 3RR, anybody who made more than 3 edits to a page they didn't start in one day would be blocked. If the first diff is a revert, then you'll have to dig up the diff in which that text was originally added, but even that wouldn't prove that they were reverting and were aware that they were reverting (rather than just boldly making a modification), though if you can find the diff of that content being added, I'll consider it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23:03, January 11, 2011 - I ask why the template was added on the talk page, and recommend removal. Lihaas never replies to the question, or argues for keeping it.
In general they seem to either not discuss their changes when reverting, or make a comment and revert immediately after, without bothering to actually building a consensus for the change prior to reverting. I'm not really looking to get the editor blocked, just hoped someone could explain to them the issues with this sort of behavior and how consensus building works. Anyways, if you decide to do nothing that's fine too... they'll probably learn how to work more constructively with others eventually, or just get blocked a lot. ← Georgetalk 23:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've just checked WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions and it seems that I can do what I'm thinking. What I propose is to either 1) ban Lihaas from the article for a period of time or 2) compel them to leave a justification on the talk page for any reverts they make or 3) a 0RR restriction. I'm inclined towards option 2 myself, but only if you think it would help to resolve the situation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would favor 2 as well. I'm not a big fan of bans (they're too often ineffective at solving problematic behavior), and a 0RR restriction may just discourage them from editing altogether (when I would rather just encourage them to edit more constructively with others when there are disagreements). Thanks. ← Georgetalk 00:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great. And thanks again for taking the time to review the (headache-inducing) diff history. Really hoping there won't be anything to report as well. Cheers. ← Georgetalk 00:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The socks were blocked, so I don't think protection is necessary anymore. Thanks for the reviewer rights. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) The page is a BLP anyway so having the article be under pending changes isn't a bad thing --Guerillero | My Talk 01:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RFC: United States cities
That was brave! I do have one comment on your closing comment. It implies that cities better known by the single name could be placed on a list of cities where disambiguation can be removed. The problem with this, as demonstrated in the past, is that this gives editors the impression that they can make these moves even if the city is not the primary use. You might want to consider adding and it is the primary use to your comment. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was only a suggestion as a topic for discussion rather than a suggestion to actually compile a list (though, as an Englishman, I'd be happy to review any list and tell you which ones aren't that well known) so I don't think anybody would take it as a call to arms. Out of interest, is it a common occurrence that there's something obviously more notable than the city? The only example I can think of is Buffalo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think so, about your question. Buffalo might even argue it is more notable than buffalo. The main thrust of my argument and the argument of many at the RFC who supported the AP list status quo is that there is little you as an Englishman or any non-American, Indian, Irish or South African persons for example, could offer that would seriously sit alongside the AP list as a reliable source. It along with the NY Times[14] list and perhaps similar style guide lists which likely exist at other publishers are really the only avenues worth pursuing. Other avenues always lead to original research in my view. Primary topics are very often in the eye of the beholder. To give you an example you may dispute, M1 motorway is the primary topic because of a preponderance of British editors, not because it is known outside of Britain to a vastly wider degree than any other M1. But, see HJ, that is my view. And so wouldn't discussions about many cities that the opposing crowd wants to remove the state name from cause a variety of opinions to surface. It is not practical, the AP list as a neutral reliable source is very much so. It maintains stability and reduces reliance on conjecture. I would like to thank you very much for closing the RFC. Not that I don't understand your willingness above to offer naming well known cities, it certainly is an interesting topic to consider, kind of like naming authors or musicians that are well known. But the two sources alone are enough to convince many that the vast majority of places in the United States, independent of how well known they are worldwide, require the state name be included when the city is first referred to in writing, such as within a news story dateline. I think perhaps some who are not convinced the state name inclusion is necessary might be focused on the listings involved with business travel, where airport Arrivals and Departures have often been listed just by city unless there are two cities with the same name in two different states. That often has to do with economy of characters in the limited tabular space of a data terminal,[15] and has little in common with the idiosyncrasies of Wikipedia and its pillars. But the AP, NYT and Wikipedia aren't dealing with a limited subset of places with airline-serviced commercial airports: we need to consider the entire country. What people who aren't in the daily business of writing about thousands of locations and serving millions of readers may see as quaint is standard practice for the reliable sources we employ when building the encyclopedia. Thank you again. Sswonk (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and two questions
I would like to thank you as well for this effort. As the originator of the RFC, thank you very much for taking the time to read it all, give it the careful consideration you obviously did, and draw some very helpful conclusions out of this highly contentious situation. I do have a couple of questions.
You wrote: The formal result of the RfC is that the consensus is in favour of maintaining the status quo. By the last raw vote count, only 57% (39 out of 68) favoured the status quo over the proposed change. Doesn't that indicate a no consensus result, rather than a "consensus is in favour" result?
I certainly agree that no alternative is favoured over the status quo, but that doesn't mean that consensus favours the status quo (that would be assuming the false dichotomy of lack of consensus support for an alternative implies consensus support for the status quo).
Contention over US city naming history goes back almost 10 years, to at least July of 2002 (see here for summary of history), and one of the main obstacles to reaching consensus is that the small majority that favours preemptive disambiguation has little reason to work with the sizable minority that favors only as precise as necessary as long as the guideline wording is to to the liking of the majority, especially if it is formally declared to be favoured by consensus.
So, ironically, formally declaring that consensus favors the current wording makes it more challenging (if not impossible) to actually develop real consensus. As an example of what I mean, your formal declarative statement about consensus favoring the status quo has already been used as an excuse to curtail discussion [16]. If that was not your intent, I urge you to reconsider the wording of this sentence.
In your comment you imply that certain US cities may be "well-enough known internationally for the City, State convention to be dropped ". The only cities for which dropping ", State" can be considered are those that have unique names or are already determined by community consensus to be the primary topic ([City] redirects to [City, State]). For those cities, what relevance does their international notoriety have to the question of whether their names require additional WP:PRECISION or more disambiguation in their articles titles? Is international notoriety relevant to this question for any other articles in Wikipedia which have clear, natural and unambiguous (i.e., not Buffalo) concise names like these cities? If so, which ones? If not, why is this relevant to this question for US cities? I am not aware of this factor being taken under consideration for any other article titles, nor is it addressed at WP:TITLE or WP:D. Many people seem to take it for granted for U.S. cities, and I'm curious as to why.
Again, thank you very much. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 1, I think consensus was in favour of the status quo because none of the other options presented attracted anything like the level of support the status quo had and, of course, in the result of no consensus, we default to the status quo, especially so with policies and guidelines, which are presumed to already have a broad consensus. That's part of what I was trying to say about the format not lending itself to consensus-making. I don't mean it as a criticism of you, but I think the RfC was largely doomed from the moment it opened because it was so broad and combines discussions about multiple different issues. That's why I suggested revisiting it with smaller RfCs or less formal discussions.
On 2, I was referring to the same principle as the AP list—some cities (Buffalo, nobody hit me, but Las Vegas, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Tulsa and quite a few more, some of which may not be on the AP list) are clearly the primary topic for that title and are very well known outside the States that the name would be recognised by almost anybody and so the [, State] disambiguator is unnecessary, Similarly, I'm sure I could go through the AP list and find a few cities whose names would be ambiguous or little-known outside the US, but that was (and this is) more food for thought for future discussions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know?
I have a question about this topic. Would I be able to add "Country Strong" to this list? I created the page on January 17, so is that still eligible to be nominated? Oh, and if you wouldn't mind, could you reply to me on my talk page? Thanks. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 01:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. PER WP:3RR AND your own comment thereof on the page self reverts, 2. you will note that the edits i have discussed on the talk page when you see it. not just the controversial stuff, but even the tag that was removed without a response to my talk page comment.
Also note that those tags need consensus for removal when controversial where George unilateryally removed it despite discussion (and near-consensus to solve it) Talk:Hezbollah#page_split_per_WP:Article_size hwere you can see the time stamp (mine: Lihaas (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)). vs. Grourge: 02:51, 19 January 2011)that nothing was responded to after my comment and his removal of the tag. because he appealed your decision you too kl the arbitrary stand? What then about his controversy on a controvrsial page?
are you looking for the excuse to sanction based on the above today? also note that page where everything is duly mentioned AND i respond to other peoples' concerns on talk page. other editors have willingly woked together where the said editor hasnt done so with ANY edytor.(Lihaas (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Absolutely not. If I was, I could have just blocked you outright and labelled it as an AE block so it can't be overturned. I'm simply looking for the most painless way to end the edit warring on that article while keeping it open to editing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
my point exactly that you agreed there was no war after my own revert of not just the old reverts but even Bold edits (not the christian/druze part which you cant now say i was or ever had warred over) AND edit summaries AND my response to both the long discussion on talk and geroge's concerns of "who leads the March 8.
and why not answer my grievance as well then?(Lihaas (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Well, from looking at the history, it looks like you and others have been involved in a slow edit war over tat tag, among other things. As long as you stick to the 1RR and discuss/explain any reverts you do make on that article, you shouldn't even notice the restriction and it'll soon be lifted. I assume by your grievance you're referring to O Fenian and Republican Jacobite? I don't want to get involved in that. It looks like a bitter dispute over nothing much and you should either work it out, go to mediation or leave each other alone, but, unlike ARBPIA, it's not an admin issue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
see this my friend. 1. he accuses of me lopholign 1RR when that edit wasnt at all a revert at any point, 2. ive also agreed to witholdthere on removals until more discussion. is that then good enough?(Lihaas (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
slow edit war? i added it and then the time after his own unilateral and deceptive edit summary (although you dont seem to have told to have clear edit summaries)
per the other thing then, we have tried other mediation disputes on the article and noticeboards, i then tried to hasten that by asking an admin but you dont want to get involved with it. numerous editors seem to support that. but ive already removed it from asking you. in addressing grievances of mine too i was talking abuot right here where george took itt off (see the aforementioned time stamp) despite not discussing and an apparent deceptive edit summary(Lihaas (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
I can see what he means about "loopholing" the 1RR, but I don't believe that was your intention (I've seen people try to get round the 1RR before and the last person who tried it was topic banned for 4 months) or I would have given you a much tighter restriction. Why don't you try wiping the slate clean and interacting with George as if you'd never come across him before. In return, hopefully he'll be more willing to assume that you're acting in good faith and you can both work out your disagreements on the content issue on the talk page like friends (or at leas gentlemen).
OK, what would make you feel happier about me/you/George/Hezbollah? Would you prefer I impose the same restriction on him as I have on you? I'm willing to consider that if you have a legitimate grievance. I don't have an opinion on the other dispute and I don't want to get involved because I have enough on my plate as it is and some maniac using open proxies to vandalise the TFA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am, and i am discussing. what pissed me off was that the ANI bit was closed and agreed, i thought, on all sides with your reasonable commeny that the warring is not happening then suddenly voila i get that message on my talk because he personally appealed to you despite an agreement that crisis solves (see where he said hes game and would leave to the admin, then comes to you personally). I get attacked from all sides, your bound to see an adverse reacition. i also explained the tag on the top that he then removed with that edit summary that was not ereally AGF, and then i get told "maybe HED assume good faith..." at least give him some warning too, im not the wholly wrong party.
do you think the christian/druze edit was wrong? (note- NOT the other part that i agreed i was in the wrong for) if so how? (so i can then learn from it)
you see, time and time again i do try to use talk but many editors dont een wantt o see talk, let alone discuss, until they see siome warring warning. (see the national electoral clanedar for one) (of course im not saying i havent overstepped at times too)
i mean come one, im here nursing all these current articles and given up old tiffs (per agreement with you before, i think youll remember, even though the other editor was wrong (he has since been permanently blocked)) and then i get attacked. im bound to be have this powder keg reaction, its perfectly natural.
as an aside, do try to offer olivebracnhes (although i can predict with very accurate certainty the reactiob...)(Lihaas (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
This probably isn't the best venue to discuss this, but I'd like to address Lihaas's comment about "...the tag that was removed without a response to my talk page comment..." You started a discussion on January 10, which I replied to the very next day, on January 11, asking why the "too long" tag was added and arguing it didn't belong. You didn't reply, and on January 16 - five days later - GHcool removed the tag (not me). You then re-added it two days later, still having failed to address my earlier comment. Above you cite your own edit from 03:06, 18 January 2011 as proof that you were engaging in discussion on the issue. Really? Here is the diff of that comment. Where in there do you in any way argue to keep the "too long" template? You don't. GHcool removed it again an hour later (again, not me). You then reverted GHcool again the next day, still having not addressed the issue on talk. I then reverted you, noting in my edit summary that "nobody has argued for its inclusion since I asked why it was added 7 days ago."[17] Even today, you have in no way addressed my now 10 days old comment that the too long tag shouldn't be included. ← Georgetalk 18:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IPBE
I'm pinging you about this:
(del/undel) 03:40, 21 January 2011 HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs | block) changed rights for User:Dusti from Account creators, Reviewers and Rollbackers to Account creators, Reviewers, Rollbackers and IP block exemptions (editor in good standing caught in a hard block)
Our IPBE policy states that a user should have a "genuine and exceptional need" in order to get IPBE from a hardblocked proxy address. The fact that Dusti wants to access Netflix while editing does not constitute "genuine and exceptional need", and he's probably violating the TOS by overriding one of their security features while watching outside of continental US. I have explained to Dusti in #wikipedia-en-unblock that he should not have been granted IPBE for the reason he stated, and have suggested that if he needs to simultaneously access Wikipedia *and* a site that he requires a US proxy address for, he should run two separate browsers, one unproxied for Wikipedia and the other proxied as he sees fit.
Please reconsider this IBPE; this is not what IPBE is for when there are other perfectly workable solutions available. Risker (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With the very greatest respect, that does seem a little like process for the sake of process. We prohibit editing from proxies because of the potential for abuse by evading blocks and checkuser, as evidenced by the nutters on the TFA, but Dusti is an editor in good standing making positive contributions. It's none of our business what Wikipedians do on the internet other than Wikipedia and any possible violations of TOSs are between Dusti and his ISP. I grant you that watching films from outside the continental US is is not what was in mind when IPBE was created, but the risk of abuse is as negligible as if they were editing from a "regular" IP.
I'm not trying to be awkward (I have better things to do), but I don't see the point in removing it, though I will if Dusti informs me that it's no longer needed or if ArbCom wants to make a thing of it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HJ, if you think the policy is wrong, go get consensus to change it. Otherwise, I think it is reasonable to expect you, as an administrator, to follow it. Risker (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have already left a note for Dusti. If your suggestion of separate browsers works, then I'll gladly remove it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Autopatrolled
I didn't want you to see my post as a permission. I know I have no authority to give permissions etc. I just agreed the template should be removed, considering the fact I was the one who made it. Please, don't take it as a "licensed permission". I thought I would work faster on the articles related to Gordana Kuić, but, obviously, I was wrong. Anyway, thank you for your advices and for making some thing clearer. MarizzaRojas (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC+1)
Yellow Monkey
So what exactly has your RFC done to help wikipedia?? We've lost two months of quality edits from him and counting not to mention some likely future FAs related to cricket and Vietnam (valuable content which we are crying out for). Very sad indeed. The bollocks over moving his poll from his user page too was the icing on the cake. I never thought YM would be the sort to leave wikipedia. He was a solid, no-nonsense admin who remained level-headed at the best of times but now it seems we've lost him. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for protecting that page. The transaction is complete, he is now a member of the Washington Nationals.[18] The page should be safe for unprotection. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, more than a month ago I requestedThe Dark Knight Rises to be protected, the page should only be created when filming has begun, which is somewhere in May. I'm not sure why Jhenderson777 said he was the one who requested the protection, maybe he did as well, at least not at WP:RFPP. Please protect the page again, the edits made were edits for the sandbox or incubator and have been reverted and the article is yet again a redirect. It should not be recreated until May, which was the point of the protection in the first place. If you rather have me do an official request at WP:RFPP, I can do that as well. Thanks. Xeworlebi(talk) 16:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your kind words, I will definitely re-run in a few months time once I've polished a few of my rough edges. Also thanks for the rollback rights, a bit out of the blue but certainly not unwelcome! Thanks again, GiantSnowman 20:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's unsourced, but so is all the other crap there and it's not a BLP, so it looks fine to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewer help
Hi HJ Mitchell, in my absence the "reviewer" right got added to the list of userrights admins can hand out. I was wondering, what is the "average" standard for handing this right out? Things like rollback are down to admin judgment, and autopatrolled is mostly the same, but I viewed the recent request for reviewer on the requests page, which you answered, but prior to you granting the right, I hadn't been sure whether to give it or not. Do you have any advice? Thanks! Acalamari 21:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I believe the standard is if you think that they could use it well, you should give it to them. I know sysops have been giving it out to people getting rollback, and since it's not particularly dangerous to give out the standards are lower than rollback. demize(t · c) 21:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hey! Reviewer is a funny one. There are no set criteria for rollback and autowotsit (were you around when the changed the name of that?) as you know, but there are unwritten standards that we all know and it's rare that somebody who doesn't meet those would be given the permissions (or vice versa). Reviewer is a much greyer area. There was a lot of fuss when pending changes was rolled out about it depriving autoconfirmed editors of something or other (total crap if you ask me), so the bar is pretty low. I look for a respectable number of edits (only once or twice have I granted it to someone with less than about 60 edits) and a basic understanding of BLP and vandalism. All they have to do is check edits to PC-protected pages and catch BLP violations/vandalism/copyvios and other serious issues before they reach the version the readers see, so the standards are similar to, but lower than, those for rollback (if I grant rollback, I usually throw in reviewer at the same time). Also, we're not generally concerned by things like edit warring blocks for reviewer, whereas we might be for rollback. Hope that provides a little enlightenment for you! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, User:Amalthea has come up with some handy scripts to make it quicker to grant permissions—just add importScript("User:Amalthea/MakeReviewer.js");
importScript("User:Amalthea/MakeRollbacker.js");
importScript("User:Amalthea/MakeAutopatroller.js"); to your monobook or vector.js and you get tabs at the top of user pages so you can grant a permission in 2 clicks and the comment is pre-filled. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, both HJ Mitchell and Demize, for you helpful advice. There's been a few editors who I've encountered recently, and I was surprised they did not have reviewer, so I think I'll start handing the right out to them. I do know that Courcelles went on a mass reviewer-granting spree to reduce the backlog (he even knocked me off the top of userrights here :D), and obviously they were ones who got missed. For the record, when I went on a break in May 2010, I remember "autopatrolled" being "autoreviewer" back then, though I could be wrong (I came back with my alternate account a couple of months or so later, but I wasn't on my own internet until recently, and I kept to articles for the most part with that account and left admin-related stuff alone pretty much). It's also actually kind of funny having to ask about new userrights: I can remember when rollback for non-admins came out...and how much fun all that was. :) I'll have a look into that script too. Thanks again for all your help. Best. Acalamari 22:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I even had an account when rollback was rolled out (excuse the pun!) and autopatrolled used to be autoreviewer, it was changed a while back to avoid confusion with "reviewer" because the former has nothing to do with pending changes. I saw that Courcelles rocketed himself to the top of that chart (you'll just have to live with being the second admin to change more than 1000 rights). I only got as far as humble number 3 while you were away! Feel free to raid User:HJ Mitchell/monobook.js for any scripts you might find useful, but the permissions-granting scripts are great! The autopatrolled one was only made yesterday, though, or those lists would have been much easier to work through. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser
Hi again HJ Mitchell, I just have a question. There are a few IP addresses that I have used in the past for a couple edits when I forgot to log in, before my block. If I log in now on those computers, will CheckUser show a problem? I use several different computers in several locations so I just want to make sure it's not mistaken for socking. I can provide the IPs of computers I regularly use if you need it. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not. I don't have CU so I couldn't tell you for certain because I don't know all the workings, but if I understand it correctly, a CU can tell what IPs you edit from and who else edits from those IPs, but if they were looking for socking, they'd check the other accounts on the IP as well. It's pretty obvious if two accounts are the same person between behaviour and CU, so if two accounts were using the same IP but they were completely different people, that would probably be easy to tell so no, it shouldn't be a problem and no, you can't hide a sockfarm so don't even think about it! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, CU don't connect users to IPs generally, just users sharing the same IP. And by the way, HJ, you forgot to sign your comment above :p demize(t · c) 22:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for clearing that up. (P.S. No sockfarm planned!) NYyankees51 (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 16:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Unprotected HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
