User talk:HJ Mitchell

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.

174.28.41.201 and Jeopardy! think music

Something should be done though. This IP has constantly added OR to the Jeopardy! theme music article and no one seems fit to stop him. He got up to a level 4 warning rather recently and shows no signs of changing. Surely this is an edit war that needs stopping, and not another set of blind eyes turned towards it? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, as you know, the only useful things in this case I can do that you can't are block the IP or protect the page. A block would be punitive and probably pointless because they haven't edited in about 5 hours (even assuming it's a static IP, the human behind it appears to be elsewhere) and protection is a very blunt instrument. If they return tomorrow and keep at it, drop me a line or go to ANI if I'm around. Oh, and maybe assume a little good faith? I know it's annoying, but I have a feeling they're not trying to destroy the wiki. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If this doesn't get solved, would it be better to go to RFC/U instead of AIV? I've been leaning on the side that the IP's edits aren't vandalism; however, they are disruptive and contrary to policy. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC/U is a very long, drawn out process and for an issue like this, is unlikely to get anywhere. It's designed more for experienced editors with a lot of good edits but some issue or other that needs to be resolved. I'm not averse to blocking for OR, but blocking an editor who is editing in goo d faith (and where even the edits leading to the block were in good faith) is quite a drastic measure and so one I would be keen to avoid if there are other options, like trying to explain what the problem is (in non-template fashion). If that doesn't work, then we have a bigger issue of either competence or refusal to listen to what he's being told. 03:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

"Good faith" is an initial presumption, not a permanent state. This user has been notified about the inappropriateness of the edits in question in every way possible. The presumption of good faith can no longer said to be operative in this case. Robert K S (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy Blanking of RfA

Hi HJ. I didn't participate in Giftiger's RfA, nor did I see the page whilst it was active - I've just taken at look at recent RfA's and saw it had been courtesy blanked - by you. I know its within admin clout but is it really fair and neutral for the nominator (who - fair enough - is feeling a bit guilty over the effect the experience had upon their protegee, what with the consequent "I'm leaving!" meltdown) to so swiftly and unilaterally do this? You blanked the page within minutes of GW withdrawing and so far as I can tell, you were not asked to. Having looked through the history, I cannot see anything objectively objectionable to warrant blanking: GW knew he had some issues, knew that RfA can be rough on such and that's what happened - indeed, that's all that happened. Injured feelings v. access to content is one thing but should such action be taken by someone directly involved; indeed by someone who clearly regrets their own involvement there? Even if blanking is a bit of a sop - after all, anyone can access the content through the history. Anyway. I'd be interested to hear your justification. Ta - Plutonium27 (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I know it's the first recent RfA to be courtesy blanked (previous RfAs have been if memory serves), but I don't see much to be gained from the content remaining there like the remnants of a car crash for all to see nor in it appearing in Google, where it could have an impact if he uses the same username elsewhere on the internet. If he were to return, I would certainly have no objection to un-courtesy blanking and, certainly, if he were ever to stand at RfA again, I would unblank it myself. For now, though, I would prefer it left as it is if only because there's nothing to be gained from restoring the content and because the content would appear very prominently in Google (especially since he had his userpage deleted). For the record, I don't consider myself to have been acting in an admin capacity when I blanked it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Then why don't you "courtesy blank" every failed RfA? What's different about this one? Malleus Fatuorum 05:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

See MediaWiki:Robots.txt. All RFA's are hidden from Google. Courcelles 06:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Your courtesy blanking was reverted by Malleus, who then was reverted by Wifione. I don't know, but as far as I know, courtesy blankings should only be done per the candidate's request (if we talk about RFAs). Courtesy blanking Giftiger wunsch's RFA doesn't seem to serve a purpose, mainly because no RFAs are indexed by any search engines other than Wikipedia' own one. HeyMid (contribs) 18:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Such a disingenuously vague response raises more concerns than it answers. Let's take a wider look at what was going down with this.

From (User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 40), 11/01: GW asks about EFM, is told to go for RfA instead and that he will be "pestered" into doing so. Although unfamiliar with the day-to-day RfA scene, GW knows it can be rough and is reluctant due to 'issues' he expects will be raised. Despite these profound misgivings (expanded upon by User: Soap, driving by) HJ instead goes with breezy platitudes: ("We need you! You won't get Speedied! User:X did it! My fanboys like you!) and so he agreed/gave in, persuaded by superior experience and knowledge.

Given his limitations, it wouldn't have occurred to GW that the Nomination statement was little more than a few too-meagre qualities dressed up in gush, doing him no favours by claiming "he is effectively already an administrator" based upon his comments at UAA, RfPP etc - whilst ignoring (or ignorant of) GW's apparent endeavour to helm the good ship ANI as Captain Ubiquitous Obvious.

GW had somewhat of a hard time but no more than many (I'd say my comment above was harsher than anything he got at RfA) and a lot less than some, nearly all of whose RfA Calvary remains for all to read and learn from. So if you don't want rubberneckers at the "remnants of [this] car crash", I am not surprised but whereas GW only got his fender torn off (even if it did cause his radiator to overheat), you were upside down in a culvert with a totalled rear end and a speedo stuck well over the ton mark.

You weren't to know GW's reaction would be so extreme but is it so surprising? Not because of the treatment he receieved so much as he cannot be assumed to have the maturity, capacity and experience to roll with it. It doesn't happen in RL that a random adult bunch of middle-aged hard bastards would sit the lad down and proceed to tell him exactly how he fucks up and squabble amongst themselves over how badly). But here that happens and peers and cohorts persuade one another to undergo it for a mark of status if they "win." WP.MMORPG - with HJ and his mates all (wannabe) admins together prima. Possession of necessary qualities secunda.

My opinion on all that would be entirely irrelevant except that GW's nomination was dictated by friendship rather than objective evaluation, and so was to some extent self-serving; that he was subjected to an unseemly expectation to comply; and was served up with a Nom even less adequate than his credentials. Which is why, when it went tits up, you hurriedly blanked the RfA. GW's flouncing out may have seemed a good cover reason but it doesn't hold up. You may have done it in the same spirit as you nominated him - out of friendship - and it may not have been an "admin action" but you are an admin and admins are held to high standards of integrity, neutrality and openness. The 'I did it to save the honour of GW on Google' is frankly as pathetic as excuse as I've come across whereas "I'd prefer it left as it is as I think there is nothing to be gained from restoring the content..." is just desperate.

Malleus has restored the page. Everyone, please, leave it be. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Was there a point to that or are you just venting your spleen? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Kesha495

Hi HJ Mitchell.

Kesha495 is requesting unblock. I think you should grant their request. The final warnings s/he received was for an edit which I do not believe was vandalism, as s/he was editing a page which was created by him/her. I feel that s/he was treated unfairly, as there is a long-standing guideline that blanking a page which you created (and which has no other substantial editors) is equivalent to placing {{db-g7}} on the page, and the warning given was for an edit made on that page. Granted, the user later voted "keep" in the AfD, but I still don't think that edit was vandalism. Regards. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, O_O at all the drinks up above. Is there enough for me to have some? ;-) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note If memory serves, the last time you were here could have been nearly two years ago when you gave me rollback! I had a look at their request and their contributions and I'm still concerned. I knew the final warning was improper when I blocked them, but their edits to The Heroes of Olympus and User:Baseball Watcher/Status are questionable at best. I'm not ruling out unblocking them, but an explanation would be nice. Out of interest, I don't suppose you ran a checkuser on them, did you? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and help yourself, I think I've got enough booze to open a bar! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't run a CU, but it appears pretty obvious now that they created another account, possibly before you blocked. Meh... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I have unblocked - I didn't think the other account was them (unless I'm looking at the wrong account - the one whose autoblock caught them doesn't appear to be them). Anyway, feel free to reblock at the drop of a hat if they appear troublesome. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with unblocking without any sort of explanation for the edits, but the worst case scenario is they end up reblocked. I guess it's a case of WP:ROPE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The edit to User:Baseball Watcher/Status was trying to change it from "Away" to "online" because Baseball Watcher was online - and subsequently changed the status page him/herself to online (Baseball Watcher posted on Kesha's talkpage prior to Kesha making the change. I haven't had an explanation for the other edits. I'll keep an eye out though - if this turns out to be a misjudgement on my part I am standing by to receive the smack with a wet fish. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with being willing to assume good faith (or take a leap of faith). Granted, it makes you bitter and cynical when it blows up in your faithface, but every now and then, it pays off. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I do very much like "blows up in your faith" - pure genius! :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, I believe Diego would've been able to edit Wikipedia constructively earlier than from April last year – I think that it would've been a good idea to unblock him already in February. I think I and Diego both have shown that users shouldn't give up too early – I was nearly indefblocked only a few months ago, but I changed my behavior and now there are no longer any major issues. HeyMid (contribs) 16:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely think Diego is one of the successes. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review review

• I made the nomination so my vote was to unprotect and recreate
• Spartaz, the closing admin, endorsed his own deletion and protection
• DGG wanted to unprotect and permit recreation
• Umbralcorax endorsed the original decision but wanted to unprotect and permit recreation
• Jclemens wanted to unprotect and allow recreation
• Oakshade wanted to unprotect and allow recreation
• The Hand That Feeds You endorsed the protection
• Hobit endorsed the close and opposed the protection
• Starblind wanted to unprotect and allow recreation
• Fetchcomms endorsed the close and protection
• Uzma Gamal wanted to unprotect and allow recreation
• Pnm endorsed the close but decided it was at least notable enough to merit a section on iPad
• SnottyWong endorsed the close and redirection
• Blueboy96 was neutral
• The ip wanted to unprotect

There is consensus here to recreate. In addition, there is consensus to reword CHRYSTAL. Marcus Qwertyus 02:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You should do your homework. A consensus (which you dond;t have to start with) in one small venue at one item cannot override WP:NOT, which is a policy and cannot be changed without a much wider consensus. When there's something to write about the iPad 2 that doesn't violate policy (or you've managed to gain a consensus to change the policy), then we can talk, but a DRV just days after a close that most people agreed was decent is never going to go well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOT contradicts WP:OR. As you said, small scale policy cannot override wider consensus. Marcus Qwertyus 02:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want to change WP:NOT (and I don't necessarily oppose that), then you need to start with WT:NOT. Even if everybody at the DRV agreed with you (and half didn't) about CRYSTAL, it doesn't change anything because policies are implemented and amended by much wider consensus than a single DRV. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

CHRYSTAL was added in March 2005 by Dpbsmith with the edit summary "Be bold, Dan, be bold" (i.e. no consensus). If I were to ask Dan his opinion on the iPad 2 (which I will), I'm sure he would tell me that his intention was not to create a policy that barred all articles from reporting speculation originating from outside original sources. WP:NOT is just a mirror of policy dumbed down enough for beginners to understand. This should not be a go-to source for policy in deletion discussions. Rather, editors should look at the original policy and exercise common sense. There is consensus on WT:NOT to reword the policy. A wording has not yet been agreed upon. Marcus Qwertyus 03:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if I had a penny for every AfD I've seen hinge on WP:NOTNEWS, I'd be a rich man. The fact remains that there is nothing to write about the iPad 2 that isn't speculation, regardless of whether it's Wikipedia doing the speculating or journalists who think they know more than the rest of us. Hence, there isn't a consensus to overturn the original AfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

So are arguments for the Aurora. There are people who claim to know the release date of the iPad 2 and people who claim to have worked on the the Aurora. These assertions are presented as claims and not as fact. These arguments will be presented in the same way on the iPad 2 article. Marcus Qwertyus 04:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

With respect, even if that weren't a WP:OTHERCRAP argument, this isn't the place to re-re-argue the AfD. The AfD was closed as redirect and there wasn't a consensus at DRV to overturn that, so now would be the time to admit defeat. It would be a better use of both our time if you spent the next few months making the iPad 2 content in iPad the best it can be so it can be easily spun out into its own article when the time comes. I'm not sure why you need a separate article for a slightly-updated version of the same thing, but that's a matter for another AfD (and not one I have the time or inclination to start). Out of interest, is the iPad any good? Not that I can afford one, but it looks interesting! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't got one but my friend does. Don't believe all the marketing that suggests it is an immediately useful tool. My friend just thinks of it as mostly "a hobby".

I do believe that all though there may not have been enough consensus to recreate, there was definitely enough consensus to overturn the protection (which was imposed on us without consensus by an overprotective _{(excuse the pun)} admin). Sem-protection should be sufficient. Marcus Qwertyus 04:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If I do that, I take you at your word that you wouldn't re-create it, but I'd bet a tenner that somebody would before the day is out and then there'd be an edit war and somebody'd probably end up blocked and the protection would end up back where it started. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Google for 10 reasons ipad (no quotes) and you'll get lists of things both good and bad about the iPad (but mostly bad, as people are less eager to write up a blog post telling you how good something is). —Soap— 12:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

HJ, You made the comment in the close that it has to have a ref from Apple, but surely you have enough clue to know they never announce until the day it goes on sale. That criterion makes it impossible to have an article even when the NYT , notably conservative on unreleased products, has one, e.g. : this, which is a staff column, not a user blog. Similarly, any rumor reported in the mainstream eweek and eweek again, and pcworld and the extraordinarily staid computerworld is surely enough ? DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, you're asking the wrong person. I can't arbitrarily unprotect it or allow its re-creation. As I'm sure you know, that requires either the agreement of the admin who closed the original AfD (who stuck to his guns in the DRV) or a consensus at DRV, which wasn't established. There wasn't no consensus at the DRV either way and, in a "no consensus" situation, the status quo prevails. I honestly couldn't care less if the iPad 2 has its own article or not on a personal level, but I'm pretty sure someone would complain if I cited WP:DGAF as my close rationale. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask you guys seriously why you STILL haven't bought this up for discussion on Talk:iPad. That is the appropriate venue for this discussion, not anywhere else. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Because this is a simple matter of we already have consensus to recreate. Marcus Qwertyus 20:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, of course, that explains why the AfD was closed as redirect and how there was no consensus at the DRV. Now I see where I've been going wrong! For crying out loud, there is no consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Everyone, drop the stick, please; this discussion seems to be going nowhere. HeyMid (contribs) 21:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would I just let HJ off easy? The consensus here is clearly to recreate. Marcus Qwertyus 21:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This would be the consensus that three uninvolved administrators have failed to see? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently. 5 people endorsed the protection and 9 asked that it be unprotected. Then there is all the people at WT:NOT who are willing to reword CHRYSTAL. I know it's not a vote but you should not have disrupted the consensus building process by closing the debate with your Supervote. Marcus Qwertyus 21:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Supervote my arse. If you have nothing else constructive to say, then I'll take that as the end of this conversation, which is deteriorating rapidly into an argument. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

HJ, I have great respect for your closures, but this time it either was a supervote or a plain error.

As for the protection, it was protected by User:HereToHelp, but he protected it back on Dec 27, & you were the last admin to take action regarding it. Of course any admin who decides the material is sufficient can remove the protection. Courtesy is to ask first, but I think he'd might say it would be you who should get the request. My own view is that the deletion makes us look like fools collectively, which obviously harms Wikipedia. and anyone who can take corrective action should do so. But as a matter of prudence and tactics, and to avoid the absurdity of harming Wikipedia further by a possibly denied request or another fight about it, it will be a much stronger case when it is further expanded. As for rewording CRYSTAL, it would be better to wait till this one is over--it's not a good idea to rewrite fundamental policy to meet one actively disputed problem, given that the basic way of meeting individual problems is by making exceptions under IAR. The reason for rewording (soon but not immediately) is there have been too many of these absurd objections to articles on obviously forthcoming things, so it's a general problem. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• If someone is not happy about HJ Mitchell's conduct as an administrator, they can take this issue to WP:AN. HeyMid (contribs) 10:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK prep area

Was your omission of the third article from the McCormick-Hickory Hill hook deliberate? (It's a long discussion, so it's easy to overlook things. However, William Grigsby McCormick was also supposed to be included -- unless you found a problem with that article.) --Orlady (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I just copied the hook from T:TDYK into the prep, but WGM didn't seem to be included. It might just be me being an imbecile (it is half 3 in the morning), so feel free to fix it if I've cocked up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem -- I inserted the latest alt hook into the prep area. There was too much discussion there for a drowsy person (or even an awake person) to parse reliably. --Orlady (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Those proxy edits

Thanks HJ, but tomorrow you may see the same request. This user has been a pain in the arse since John L. Helm' maindate, and apparenlty won't stop. For example, yesterday started to expand his attacks, you can click in almost all the blue links of this blurb and you'll see the padlock in the;, and you protected all links of today's blurb, except for the TFA, which may be protected per BLP. The probability of have all tomorrow links protected is high. Tbhotch ^{۩ ۞} 05:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Again

I notified the IP, and he has once again violated the restriction:[1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. I hope you understand my discomfort at blocking them without any hint that they're doing anything wrong. Experienced editors (and this could easily be a block evader, but AGF for now per WP:ROPE) should know about it without being notified, but, assuming the IP is a newbie, they would have no way of knowing about the restriction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please reconsider your deletion of File:Yucca flowering.jpg

Hi, I see you recently deleted File:Yucca flowering.jpg. The original uploader has now confirmed that they released the photo to the public domain when they uploaded it. Would you please restore it accordingly? Thanks, Avenue (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Range block

Hello! Because of your range block, the block of 24.106.59.228 is now unnecessary, since the range block covers that IP. HeyMid (contribs) 16:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Rollback and Reviewer rights

Hello, thank you for adding the reviewer and rollback rights to my account. Hugahoody (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Mail!

Hello, HJ Mitchell. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--5 albert square (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Hi there. Just wanted to shoot you a quick message to say thank you for approving my reviewer and rollback rights. Take care. peteg913  ^message 22:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think I ever thanked you... So I'll thank you here, now! :p Thanks, HJ. demize (t · c) 22:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You're both quite welcome. Use wisely. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled candidates - Thanks very much

WOW! Thank you, thank you, thank you. I was getting another batch of users from that old list and found that you have already checked a whole bunch from the list I put up. Thank you very much. So I'm wondering if I should add users to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled candidates 1 or should I make a new page at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled candidates 2. Or maybe do something else. Please let me know as you are the master and I am the student. Thanks again. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd create a second page, because I will be very unhappy with you if you give me an edit conflict while I'm working my way through the last two dozen! I've been hoping for a list like this for some time. I don;t suppose you have anything more recent? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll create a second page. I don't currently have anything more recent — but — a few days ago I asked for a new list at WP:DBR. Unfortunately it requires somebody with access to the database to write a query and run it, but somebody has been working on it. When it's done I'll put it up on a similar page. Thanks again. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Just in case you are not watching

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at User:HJ Mitchell/Sandbox 3.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 06:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's sorted now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

DRV closures

I thought your closes of the three long-outstanding DRV discussions the other day were thoughtful and balanced, BTW. It was obviously a lot of work to read them all and write that, but those were solid closes. Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. They weren't the easiest closes, which I guess is why they had been lingering for days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Kenneth O'Keefe

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)

many thanks

Many thanks for your granting me the "autopatrolled" permission! --Pengyanan (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, now I'm confused! You talk page is a redirect and I flagged the account it redirects to. Which one do you use to edit? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, for some personal reason, I don't use my main account Neo-Jay right now. The account Pengyanan usually do minor edits and only occasionally create new pages, and all of them are disambiguation pages. Probably I will re-activate my main account Neo-Jay later this year. Sorry for the confusion I caused. Thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll flag both then. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! --Pengyanan (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)