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.

Hove War Memorial scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 9 November 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 9, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 2023. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!

Hi Harry, and apologies for hitting you with this at short notice. There were sourcing issues with the article originally scheduled for the 9th and eventually I decided that I needed to press that big red button and swap in my rock-solid first reserve. A strange choice for the anniversary of Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicating Germany becoming a Republic I know. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild very odd to run a war memorial in mid November but not on the 11th (I suppose that would be a Titanic effort to replace! 😉) or Remembrance Sunday. I'll cope, and the short notice is fine, but Sunday would be a better date to run it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It is, yes. The history: I prepared the blurb with the thought that it may be useful for the 11th. Then Leonardo DiCaprio was promoted and I was asked if it could run as the TFA on his birthday, 11 November. I agreed, partly because of the Cenotaph being the TFA in 2022. I put Hove to one side as a possible emergency replacement, although given that I had not previously needed to do a late switch this was possibly a bit on autopilot. Then I did need a late replacement on less than 48 hours notice, so here we are. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

November songs

my story today

Thank you today for the article, introduced: "I'm back on the war memorials after a hiatus following the promotion of The Cenotaph. This one is another Lutyens and it's in Hove, on the English south coast."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 211, November 2023

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: Hawkeye7 looks at English Civil War logistics and Peacemaker67 at Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on how WP:SIZE matters

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) 18:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism Report

Hello, HJ Mitchell,

On the Vandalism report page [1] I saw that a user who was previously blocked for vandalism as a result of a report I submitted appears to be now making false allegations about me, seemingly in retaliation for the block.

The revert instances cited were partially by users who were later blocked for vandalism, one of which was this user. The rest was to revert removal of information without any explanation or uncited information. On the reverts of my own talk page, I was not aware that this was not allowed, as I've seen other users do the same for conversations after some time has passed. On the "misinformation", it was clearly cited and I've referred the relevant section of the article to the user who reverted me.

Could you help me with this? I feel intimidated and surprised by this user's response, as I was not expecting this type of response at all, especially when the background for most of the report was harassment of myself by other users.

I thank you for your assistance in advance. SkylarEstrada (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello @SkylarEstrada, good to see you on the talk page, but I would have sincerely appreciated if you could've just left a message on my talk page before reporting me for vandalism. Also, I had put a message on your talk page before I'm posting this, awaiting your reply.

Talking up would sure have sorted things out, and while I'm not sure of the other users you have reported, I'm pretty much confident that looking at my contributions since the past 12 years on the English Wikipedia does not qualify me as a vandal. Reporting a clear contributive user over vandalism before even talking to them once might seem insulting to the other guy.

However, I have no intentions with regards to retaliating, and I would have reported you even if there was a case that I had encountered you for the first time.

My concerns regarding you are genuine, and you have been indulging in clear 1RR and 3RR violations. Also, there has been quite evident edit-warring from your side, as evident from your recent contributions. Also, regardless of the fact that a user being correct or not, they had posted a civil query on your talk page, and instead of deleting that straightaway, I would have appreciated if you'd simply put an explanation justifying why you think are correct. Thanks and giving Diwali wishes from India. Pg 6475 ^TM 09:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pg 6475, @SkylarEstrada, I think if you both took a step back and had a chat you would find that you have more in common than you realise. Please try to work your differences on a talk page. You're welcome to use this one. Pg, as the more experienced editor, please do your best to explain policies etc in plain English. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: user is reporting me for vandalism instead of replying to dialogue, really don't know what to do with this. Pg 6475 ^TM 14:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell users talk page messages were simply orders based on illegitimate reasons preventing me from editing normally. User then made mass removals based on the abovementioned illegitimate reasons, not based in policy. [2], [3], [4]. SkylarEstrada (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear, I initiated a discussion on your talk page. Pg 6475 ^TM 14:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Zahirkerimli

Hi HJ Mitchell. You just blocked Zahirkerimli (talk · contribs) for spamming. I don't necessarily disagree with it, but I thought that users only get blocked after their last warning (in this case, uw-spam4)? Also, you wrote in the block rationale that his name is in violation of the username policy, but I don't think it is. "Zahir Kerimli" seems like a person's name, not the name of a company. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Manifestation, there is no requirement for warnings before a block, much less four of them. People adding spam links know exactly what they're doing and that no website is likely to appreciate it. Accounts created for that purpose should be blocked on sight. You may be right about the name, I considered it myself, but at the end of the day they were adding links containing their username, which is what that template is for. An ordinary spam block would have been just as valid. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Tomb of Unknown Warrior

Thanks for asking for a reference which I surprisingly found very quick (I feared it would be a longer search for the reference I had in mind). Please let me know if I did it right 'cause sometimes quoting references correctly is a bit hard for me so please bear with me. If any further reference is needed, please let me know and I will try to find suitable ones. Thanks from over in Germany! --Glamourqueen (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Glamourqueen, Twitter is not a great source and I'm not entirely sure that tweet supports your content. If you have better sources it would be much appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The source is not Twitter but The Royal Family who show in this video clearly, that all major Royal brides, even the ones that did not marry at Westminster Abbey (Queen Camilla, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, The Duchess of Sussex etc.) did place their flower bouquet on the tomb. Do you want me to find sources for every single person or just two of them for supporting the claim?--Glamourqueen (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Glamourqueen, in an ideal world, we'd have a secondary source that says something to the effect of "all royal brides, including those who don't marry in the abbey, place a bouquet on the tomb" or something similar. It's a bit of a leap from one bride doing it to assuming that all brides do. But the primary source is enough that I won't remove the information again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)