User talk:HJ Mitchell

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.

IKMJ

Thanks but I do all the changes based on reliable sources like allmusic.com take a look at this : http://www.allmusic.com/artist/miley-cyrus-mn0000551762

It says: Genre: Pop/Rock Styles: Pop Teen Pop Dance-Pop

You make sure that you have any clue that Miley Cyrus is ROCK!!! Hi, HJ Mitchell. I have been Active for four months. Can I please be an admin? Johnsc1234 (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Johnsc1234

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

• In the media: Wiki Education; medical content; PR firms

• Traffic report: The Cup runneth over... and over.

• News and notes: Wikimedia Israel receives Roaring Lion award

• Featured content: Ship-shape

• WikiProject report: Indigenous Peoples of North America

• Technology report: In memoriam: the Toolserver (2005–14)

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania Fringe 2014 Awards

Fair use image removed	Penny of Thoughts Barnstar
	On receipt of a penny, in return for my thoughts. 930913 {{ping}} 14:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox curler

Hi Harry,

In your edit summary when you fully-protected the template today, you directed "take it to the talk page, folks". Well, it's been on the talk page for five days now, Template talk:Infobox curler #Recent improvements reverted with just one editor, Nikkimaria, maintaining opposition to changes (for what I would have to characterise as purely spurious grounds) against the arguments presented by four other editors. I'm going to ask you to reconsider full-protection as a means of resolving the edit-warring, in lieu of a solution that does not handicap one side of the dispute (Nikkimaria is an admin) and prevent useful improvements being made.

Nikkimaria has a history of stalking Andy and was admonished by ArbCom for editwarring: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes #Nikkimaria admonished - she made her first ever edit to the template only on 29 July 2014 to revert an edit made by Andy. Since then, she has removed the same piece of code a further three times (within the last day) against two other different editors. I am so exasperated by her edit-warring that I broke my self-imposed 1RR for the first time in six years, but I don't see why she should be able to get away with this style of imposing her version on articles, particularly when she often has no stronger reason than that the change wasn't discussed first. So much for WP:BOLD.

Nikkimaria was taken to ANEW a couple of days ago (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive249 #User:Nikkimaria reported by User:BrownHairedGirl (Result: Declined)) by BHG and even though the report was declined - despite four clear reverts - there was plenty of evidence of edit-warring on other articles as well.

Frankly, Harry, I don't edit-war and I'm dismayed that you've implemented a "solution" that prevents me from editing the page (but technically allows Nikki to do so), while the real solution is to stop Nikki from edit-warring. I have no intention of pursuing Nikki myself, as we have too many interactions for me to be objective about it, but you're an uninvolved admin and are capable of seeing the bigger picture. --RexxS (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It's been on the talk page where there was consensus to implement gender but not how to do it, which I pointed out when removing it; surely it would be more productive to finish that discussion before attempting to move on to another issue? Frankly, Rex, you do edit-war, and you have made several other false statements above. But don't worry, no one will edit through protection here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a lie, Nikki. I don't edit-war. My second revert was the only time I've done that in six years. You, on the other hand, are unlikely to go more than six days without a double revert. If you have another idea about how a decision may be implemented, just pipe up with it - I'm more than happy to discuss constructive ideas. What is not acceptable is gaming the system by reverting a possible implementation without offering anything in its place. That is destructive, not constructive editing and you need to understand that. --RexxS (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Demoting an administrator

Hello HJ, I was wondering if there were things administrators could do that would lead to their demotion back to regular editor, if they harass/stalk others via their contribution edits, or make bold edits without replying to ongoing talkpage discussions, or remove referenced information, or start saying that some references which are not there are "likely" to be there, while others which are primary not secondary are deemed "not notable," etc. They've also removed complaints from other Wikipedians about their edits on their own talkpage (only to add it back after I asked of there was a pattern here, of not accepting criticism.). I have been editing Wikipedia since 2006 and have only encountered this type of behaviour now, so I was wondering if there was nothing to do or if this could happen. Thank you and have a nice day.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Always be careful to know the difference between abusing admin priviliges, and not following typical editing processes. The former would direct you to WP:RFC/ADMIN while the other would be a simple WP:RFC/U. Most of what you say above is not related to admin tools, but perhaps to "not modelling behaviour" - however, your explanation is nowhere close to something that would warrant a desysop the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I am asking a question. I don't think I need to "careful" before I ask a question, unless there is absolutely no freedom of speech left any more.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Who said you had to be careful before asking a question? Panda is telling you that you have to ensure that you choose the right venue was the message, or else it will be declined out of process. Admin action-related issues go to one RfC/Admin, non-admin related-actions by administrators go to RfC/U. If you start an RfC/Admin based on actions that did not involve their administrative actions, you will be told to take it to the appropriate venue (RfC/U). Also freedom of speech is not a component of Wikipedia. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You could also, of course, initiate an WP:ARBCOM case. Be aware, though, that arbcom case submissions where there has not been a full and thorough attempt to resolve the issue by other community processes, will be declined. (I think the admin you have in mind has been admonished in an arbcom case previously, which may go part of the way, but not really all the way.) The RfC processes mentioned by others above would be the most obvious "other community processes" to try at this point.

Someone told me long ago that an RfC/U rarely resolves the problems with a persistent troublesome editor (or admin), instead in most cases it is merely a necessary stepping stone to an arbcom case. In my experience this advice has turned out to be correct.

Finally, it is best not to regard the admin bit as a "promotion"; it is merely an indication that someone has certain technical rights to carry out certain dogsbody tasks as required and requested by the editing community. Thus of course, the removal of the bit would not be a "demotion", merely a period - indefinite or otherwise - of rest from such menial tasks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Your edits to Israel location map templates

I noticed that you restored the edits of Sepsis II on a number of Israel location map templates, and then locked those templates from being edited. His edits were in direct violation of the RfC discussion at Template talk:Location map Israel where the recommended course of action was to revert the maps back to how they were before he made his edits. Please restore the maps to how they were. Thank you. --PiMaster3 ^talk 20:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@PiMaster3: (talk page stalker) I already asked this at User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 82#Template:Location map Israel. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What I can't understand is why you folks want our readers to think East Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied territories are part of Israel? --RexxS (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I stated my reasoning in the RfC discussion on the template (and I object to the politically loaded term "occupied"). What matters is that there were 15 different templates which each had zoomed in maps of specific regions, and in an attempt to push a certain POV Sepsis II replaced all 15 of those templates which one generic map of Israel without being zoomed in for each region. --PiMaster3 ^talk 00:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You can object all you like to the term "Occupied Territories", but when you deny a term that is so non-political and universally accepted, you simply betray an extreme POV that indicates you're unsuitable to be editing Wikipedia. To cut out all the bullshit, what actually matters is that you've been fighting hammer-and-tongs to keep a series of maps that are coloured in such a way that many readers will be unable to distinguish the occupied territories from Israel proper. You should be ashamed of yourself. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)