User talk:HJ Mitchell: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
m Reverted edits by Ruhgpodo (talk) to last version by Lowercase sigmabot III
Line 100: Line 100:
</div></div>
</div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=614627263 -->
<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=614627263 -->

Hi HJ, i have a question. I have also another account. When someone undid my revision, i always received notifications telling me that an my edit was reverted. But now if someone undo my revision, i am not be notified. What has happened? What can i do? [[User:Ruhgpodo|Ruhgpodo]] ([[User talk:Ruhgpodo|talk]]) 17:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC) thanks

Revision as of 16:34, 1 July 2014

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!!!

Okay, this is going way out of hand...

I had a disagreement with Dr. Blofield regarding Grand Restaurant Karel V. And promptly SchroCat, Cassianto and Aymatth2 showed up to poke up the row. In a nice team, SchroCat and Aymatth2 are now busy to destroy the article. As it looks, because I did not agree straight away with the edits of Dr. Blofield.

This teamwork feels to me as harassing and has quite a chilling effect on me. The Banner talk 20:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So much for AGF on the motives of others when it comes to editing, and your constant edit warring on articles and incivility in talk page threads is something I find more chilling than anything else. Have you thought that it may not be teamwork ganging up on you, but the fact there is a genuine and honest consensus against some of your edits? - SchroCat (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, what about your remark Removing obnoxious trolling. Is that the kind of civility you prefer? The Banner talk 20:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Considering your harassment on my talk page (at 16:50, 20 June 2014‎; 16:55, 20 June 2014‎; 17:04, 20 June 2014‎; and 17:10, 20 June 2014‎), you calling me "a henchman", and accusing me of tag teaming, followed by your edit warring against four other good and reliable editors, and then the hugely patronising talk page message, yes, I did lose my temper, but I think with some justification, given what I have had to deal with from you recently. – SchroCat (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More bloody Banner edit warring? You were introducing mistakes and you knew it. The Banner talk 21:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Not true. Even it it was true: you should not deal with it by edit warring: you need to use the talk page constructively to change people's minds, leaving the article in whichever state someone last left it. - SchroCat (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Use the talk page constructively? Like More bloody Banner edit warring? The Banner talk 23:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Asking, in complete bewilderment, why you haven't bothered with the talk page, but simply gone into edit war mode, is entirely understandable. I'm just saddened (but not surprised) that you hadn't bothered with the talk page yet again. - SchroCat (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not lose my temper, even given what I have had to deal with from you recently. The Banner talk 21:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's even more concerning: you were in full command of your temper, but still saw fit to harass me on my talk page? Still saw fit to insult me on several occasions? Still saw fit to edit war against the consensus of the talk page? Still saw fit to deal with others in a patronising and insulting way? If you did all that while in full control of your temper, then I am afraid that a consensus-led project is always going to be a bumpy ride. - SchroCat (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When played in a level playing field, like one-on-one, it is not a bumpy ride. The Banner talk 23:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But look at the history of the restaurant now. You're not meant to be reverting anybody under the terms of your return agreement Banner. Yet you've done so or restored former content/sourcing at least five times. And there was nothing wrong with my initial edits which you reverted in the first place. This was completely avoidable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected this edit in which you introduced a mistake and in which you removed valid sources without explanation. And you ignore this edit. But you and friends get reintroducing the mistake three times. The Banner talk 21:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's another clause you've violated, labeling good faith edits as "introducing mistakes". You've dug a massive hole for yourself over this and what makes it worse is that you've now nominated a perfectly valid article for deletion. This could have been completely avoidable. Even long after we agreed on removing the irrelevant history info you sneakily added it back but without reverting to make it look as if it was constructive. I really want to assume good faith and get on with you as an editor but you keep doing things time and time again which make it incredibly difficult.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I corrected this edit" isn't the truth tho, is it? If your complaint was around the chefs, then a tweak from "chefs include" to "chefs were" is all that was needed, not this: how is that helpful? What is better about "de period"?
You keep ignoring this edit. The Banner talk 23:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes because you didn't correct the "de" part and didn't restore the decent copyediting apart from my "error" with including.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Dr. Blofeld. But with a list of all chefs it is incorrect to state chefs include. That suggest that there were more.
And secondly, I came many times across your work when hunting links to disambiguation pages. Most of the time, I just skipped them. Why don't you skip my articles? Wikipedia is big enough for the two of us when we carefully avoid each other. The Banner talk 21:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you exhibited common courtesy and decency towards fellow editors we wouldn't have to avoid each other. I don't make it a habit to troll your work. I simply came across it in the new pages and could see it needed some work. When created the article becomes as much mine as it is yours and I'm not content to see articles with seven citations for one fact and clumsy phrasing. I'm happy to wait for the dab bot to hit my page and then do it via dab solver. Couldn't get the cleaner thing you suggested to work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you are making a nice act of it now, but you skip the main problem of this discussion. So, I will ask it directly: why are SchroCat, Cassianto and Aymatth2 always showing up after I have a disagreement with you? The Banner talk 22:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wil answer for myself: I am a tps of Blofeld, and look at his history from time to time when I'm looking for a distraction. This caught my eye, that is all. No drama, no conspiracy, despite you accusations of "henchman" and "tag teaming". - SchroCat (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "tps"? The Banner talk 22:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page stalker methinks :) Irondome (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had figured that out already. The Banner talk 23:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Before the internet, it meant "two-penny slut" ... but talkpage stalker is much more polite - not as fun, but polite :-) the panda ₯’ 23:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must say it is quite interesting to see that you found the discussion as tps. It looks like this edit posted 13:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC) was the first one on Dr. B's talk page. But your first comment was 08:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC). So your comment was more than a day before you found the discussion as tps. The Banner talk 23:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reading, rather than stopping after the first five words: I said that I "look at his history from time to time". It is from his edit history. Plastering diffs from Blofeld's talk is all well and good, but a bit meaningless! - SchroCat (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some people are stalk page talkers at more than one page at once. I, for example, watch both this (HJ's) page and Blofeld's page. A dangerous combination! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that's a dangerous combo, I watch HJ's, Bloe's and yours the panda ₯’ 11:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Touché :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting here is sort of like commenting on Jimbo Wales's talk page, unlikely to get much of a response!♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harry hasn't been around much lately, RW stuff. Maybe you should take this elsewhere? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC) (talkpage stalker)[reply]
  • Gents, please, if you can't play nice, can't you all give each other some space instead of pissing in each others' sandboxes? I'm busy at the minute, and likely to remain so for the next few weeks. I might have time to look into this in more detail over the weekend, but I doubt it's going to change my opinion, which is that this sort of bickering doesn't help anyone. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced articles

Can you protect this all articles as a #redirect International Indian Film Academy Awards?

That all are fails in WP:V. Actually i was try to remove all unsourced content, but user reverting my all edits without providing a source and i can't tag citation needed per WP:BURDEN, And i don't want to delete this articles, because edit history has better content and anyone can easly revert content with a source. Chander For You 19:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

108.162.24.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Also - 64.134.179.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hello HJ,
This guy is back at it again for the third time. His block expired and he is back making the same nonconstructive edits again. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell&oldid=615173848"