User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Huggle

I am unable to download Huggle onto my MacBook Pro Snow Leopard. I have done everything the page said to but for some reason it is giving me the TextEdit page saying <GIBBERISHHERE> This program cannot be run in DOS mode <linebreak> <MoreGibberishGoesOnForever> with the tags about gibberish being random letters and symbols. And yes I do understand that that is the way the computer is outputting the Huggle code. Completely off topic, but how do you put the message above the edit box? Thanks Mr. R00t Leave me a Message 00:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to storm in on your talk page HJ, but I'll answer this one for you. Root, Huggle is compiled for Windows, not OS X. Please see this section about using Wine to run it on your Mac Wikipedia:Huggle/Wine FinalRapture - 05:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Nice to have a friendly well informed talk page stalker! :) As for the message above the edit box, see [[WP:EDITNOTICE]. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sangitalaya and Kc bhattacharya

The above pages created by User:Sharmila.c were deleted by you after I nominated the above articles for speedy del. I wanted to point out that

  1. both the pages had the exact same content
  2. the sangitalaya article was created before this and was deleted by User:Pascal.Tesson yesterday.
  3. another article named K. C. Bhattacharya was deleted by User:Fastily.

If the same person is doing this, I think some action is neccessary. Also the K. C. Bhattacharya page was not created by the same account. So a sock-puppet may also be involved.-Nilotpal42 13:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I warned one of them. As for the sock puppetry, you'd have to take that to WP:SPI, but I'll keep an eye on it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern

Hi HJ, I noticed today that you left a message on my talk page with some useful links to Wikipedia guidelines. Over the years I've wanted to contribute to Wikipedia but fear of saying or doing the wrong thing has held me back. I find Wikipedia to be a wonderful source of information and it's enhanced all our lives. You mentioned that some of my recent contributions seem to be advertising or promoting something. While it is true that I would like to promote Srila Prabhupada and Vedic knowledge it is not my intention to advertise anything but the truth. If I see, what I feel is relevant information about a subject I've studied for 30 years I would like to feel comfortable and supported in sharing that information. I don't handle conflict and argument very well so I shy away from saying too much. I wish I could do more to help, perhaps I need to be adopted by a kind sympathetic person Sahadeva 06:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC) ps I wanted to edit your user page where you missed an s at the end of 'written 6 article' but I'm not that bold lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahadeva (talkcontribs) 06:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

When I left that message, you seemed to be adding a few external links that weren't necessarily appropriate. I agree with you that Wikipedia is is wonderful and I'd be happy to help you find your feet here if you wanted. The best way of getting started is just to find a subject you're interested in, do some research to get some sources and write an article about it, or improve an existing article if it's not very good. Feel free to drop by my talk page any time or you can email me at hjmitchell@ymail.com but I don't check it very often so you'd have to remind me here! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Good advice HJ, I think I may be ready to help improve a few articles :-) Sahadeva 18:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahadeva (talkcontribs)

Richard Goldstone redux

As soon as I added the new version of the article, off2riorob (talk · contribs) - who has played no part in the talk page discussion - reverted it, falsely claiming no consensus (see Talk:Richard Goldstone#Summarizing the assessments of ChrisO's draft) and objecting to me "almost doubling the size of the article" (sic). This is absolutely unacceptable - yet more stonewalling. Please take action, or I will revert. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

So? He's had his revert for the day. You can have yours if you want it. I'll template him, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Good point, but I really don't want to see bogus claims of "no consensus" being used as an alternative means of stonewalling. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a BLP exemption to the 1RR? A vandalism exception? I think these things should be spelled out. Thanks, nableezy - 21:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will note on the talk page that there will be exceptions for vandalism reversions but not for BLP issues- the altter is what got the page protected last time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
As a matter of policy, administrator-imposed 1RRs don't override the BLP RR exemption. I suggest that you clarify that with other admins. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
No they don't, but it will be up to an administrator to decide whether the material violates BLP becuase disagreements over what constituted a BLP violation were exactly what started this mess. Forgive me for being blunt, but if you don't intend to follow the 1RR restriction, let me know and I'll ban you from the page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Jiujitsuguy might be another candidate for the ARBPIA notice, see [1]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Notified and logged, thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
[2] 1RR ignored... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I had hoped we might get through the first day at least. :( I blocked him for 24 hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I've never touched AE, and have no desire to do it, but would a note about the 1RR restriction on Template:Editnotices/Page/Richard Goldstone make sense- so that anyone who breaks it has to be confronted with the rule right before doing so? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to scare genuinely unaware editors, and I have to notify them all individually to be able to issue sanctions. AE is not my area, but I ended up breaking up an edit war on an article covered by an arbitrations case :S! Just my luck! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
It wouldn't have to be "scary" like your note on the UK election was... just a line of text that went above the BLP notice that is automatically there. But, at this point, I think I'm mistaking your talk page for WT:AE. ;) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, if I opened an edit window and saw the words "arbitration" and "restriction", I'd run as far and as fast as I could. I'm hoping it can just be edited normally, but with the restriction in place to prevent a descent into the kind of childishness it's seen over the last 10 days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at SpigotMap's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

13:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank You so much for granting rollback rights. Arjuncodename024 17:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Pirate Parties International

Why did you delete the page? It wasnt an ad page. --Anttipng (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It was written in a promotional tone, but if you undertake to rewrite it neutrally, I can userfy it for you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree with AndrewTindall on his statements, but why was there no warning? I serously doubt that the article satisfied G11 for speedy deletion! Svnee (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC) (in ref to now deleted comment!)
The page was tagged and the tag stayed on for about half an hour. Like I say, I'm happy to move it into someone's userspace for it to be re-written neutrally. Just ask. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, please user-fy it (Feel free to use mine) and I'm sure there are enough people who can rewrite it to satisfy WP:NPOV -- M2Ys4U (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Did you even bother to check Wikipedia:WikiProject_Political_parties/Assessment ? The article is clearly listed as start-class which means no danger of speedy-deletion!!! I just want to have a clear position on why you deleted it by means of speedy deletion instead of a normal procedure? Svnee (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that it was promotional written. After all a PPI is a non-profit INGO - they don't sell anything, how it can be promotional? A Criticism section was indeed missing, but this just because there is yet no criticism - it has been in formal existence just for 5 weeks. Please restore it in the original place - after all 21 other articles reference it. I will go and look if any tone can be made less "promotional" --17:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dichter (talkcontribs)

The tone, to me, and to the person who tagged it, seemed very much pro-PPI. Anyway, it's now at User talk:M2Ys4U /Pirate Parties International. Let me know when it's ready and I can move it back without a redirect. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring the content; we are currently going through it in an attempt to improve the tone. It might help if someone could point out which sections are not purely factual in nature or are particularly biased. Duke (talk); 18:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess deleting the section about the elections results might help. That could be interpreted as "advertising". --PirateJJay (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
That would be factual results about an election that happened and was noteworthy? Advertising is the deliberate promotion of a product or service by the group, or those responsible for it. Advertising is NOT the posting of verifiable facts. I think it would be best if HJ Mitchell would actually point to the sections that are "advertising". Ktetch (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Much of the article was written in a non-neutral tone and the vast majority of the links went to the website of the subject. While perhaps not spam, it couldn't have remained as it was, however it appears to be in the process of being improved in userspace which is good to see. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Frankly the whole thing looks strange to me - a green supporter from Canada propose the page for speed deletion due to spam, and it is speed-deleted with no further checking half an hour later. This just _looks_ like trolling. --Dichter (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the person who requested speedy deletion deleted a fair bit of content before doing so. I have no doubt the deletion was in good faith but I'm not sure about the CSD nomination. -- M2Ys4U (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, although it still would seem that the speedy deletion goes against Wikipedia:WikiProject_Political_parties/Assessment - Anyway, I think the "objectionable" paragraph has now gone, although there is still debate on tidying up the long list of parties. -Duke (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Daniela Lavender

Hi, You deleted this as "one author who has requested deletion", but in fact it was created as a redirect to a user page, I then made it into a sourced stub article, and I did not request deletion. Please reinstate it. It may be that the subject requested deletion, but that's no reason to speedy it. See also comments on the user page at User talk:Daniela Lavender. PamD (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

 Restored HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Will continue to watch it with interest. PamD (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Jedilego

Today i made a page for a charitable organisation i worked for and you flagged it as advertising... we are a christian non-profit organisation that only works in a small part of the country it was for showing other people from around the country about what we do and how we worship God. I was only trying to beable to have this page there for people to see we offer events for the community to come and look at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedilego (talkcontribs) 22:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist for you show people what you offer, charitable or not, that's advertising, I'm afraid. We're here to write a neutral encyclopaedia and cover notable subjects. I'm sure your organisation is a worthy one, but even if the article was neutrally written, it doesn't seem to meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. I'd be happy to email you a copy of the source text and this page may be able to help you find somewhere that will accept it. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do something

HJ, when you imposed the 1RR on Richard Goldstone you said: "Incivility, assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks do not help the situation and may well result in blocks, especially if they disrupt the discussions here." The situation is as bad as it has ever been - Epeefleche just attacked me with the statement that "I don't expect anyone w/a pro-jihadi POV to agree with me" [3] As someone who was in the vicinity of the 2005 London bombings this is gratuitously offensive and totally unprovoked. I asked him to retract this personal attack.[4] He has not done so. Wikifan12345 is also as tendentious and hostile as ever; he's never not assumed bad faith. You're an admin; you have the bit for a reason. Please use it. If you don't want to, you're leaving me with no choice other than to take the whole matter to arbitration enforcement. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I've resolved the issue with Epeefleche. However, please be aware that Georgewilliamherbert has had to semi-protect the article. Someone attempted to evade your 1RR by restoring the deleted content while logged out. George has blocked the IP. Unfortunately I can foresee this continuing for some time to come, just as E. Ripley forecast above... -- ChrisO (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I went to bed shortly after my last post on the talk page. I'm not surprised some idiot tried to get round it by logging out, so it's a good job it's semi'd now. As you say, it will be interesting to see who doesn't edit while the IPs are blocked. I'll warn a few people to keep their tempers under control and hopefully that will calm things down. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Warning vandals.

I don't think I understand what you're trying to say. Will you please explain? Homework2 TalkWhat I do 02:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Challisrussia

HJ Mitchell, thanks so much for semi-protecting my user page. I previously was looking for many ways to protect my user page in fear of the many vandalism that could occur in the future. This is my very first attempt to protect a page that I've created. However I'm not a very good Wikipedia writer because I don't have much experience; I only created my account 3 months ago. Please reply to my message and also suggest some tips about how to make Wikipedia articles in a more professional quality. But thanks so much. Challisrussia (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Challisrussia (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK nom for Albert W. Barney

Hello, I just looked at the DYK history page and saw your username. I nominated Albert W. Barney which is on the frontpage as part of Queue Six. I just a DYK credit for Ana Maria Canseco who I successfully nominated several days ago and already received my DKY credit for. Can you straighten this out? TIA. ----moreno oso (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It also appears that RFD, Barney's creator, did not receive a DYK credit either. ----moreno oso (talk) 06:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Another admin took care of this last night; ergo, no worries. ----moreno oso (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Change User Name

Please could you change my user name to ScofromScotland, if this is availble.

Thanks Sco 1996 | I will respond. 12:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:CHU. This has to be done by a Bureaucrat, and logged there. (NOt to mention that HJ isn't a 'crat. (Sorry for jumping in here, HJ) Bradjamesbrown (talk)
Thanks Brad. Talk page stalkers' input is always appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Islamic views on anal sex

Please once again protect the Talk page and I'd recommend an extension of the main page, the 78 range is at it again.--SKATER Hmm? 16:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh fun! I have to deal with Muslim-hating nutters now! As if I don't have enough on my plate dealing with Israel/Palestine arbitration enforcement! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Nice... Let me read this article :)) Aregakn (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

request

can you just delete my user talk edit notice? I think it looks too negative... and you can delete my user page edit notice too. Thanks —Tommy2010 16:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I'll restore them on request if you want. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at LightningMan's talk page.
Message added 16:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tim Song (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 Stavropol bomb blast

Hi, this is expanded and waiting... ;) --candlewicke 18:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Re Danica Patrick etal

You do good work no matter if that kitty staring at this bear doesn't know it sneering at the wrong guy. Take the rest day off with pay and tell Jimbo I said you could go home early. ; ) ----moreno oso (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks! While you have godking's ear, you can tell him he ought to at least pay admins! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Indef Protection of Theodore Roosevelt

I've left a comment at RFPP regarding this. Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, HJ. Much appreciated. Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
No worries. You know where I am if you need anything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Lahore attack

woops, not really a "double bomb attack" gunmen held hostages after firing and grenade throwing. Maybe an "assault on two mosques/Ahmaddiya places of worship" or something of the sort.Lihaas (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Even better now.Lihaas (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Good good. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
We were tweaking things there at the same time. On my screen, removing Korea actually causes ITN/OTD to be about four lines shorter than TFA/DYK, but whatever I tell you, the next newsworthy thing that happens had better have a free picture! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. I was hoping we might have one of the bird but it's fair use. We definitely need a new image. On my screen, ITN is shorter than TFA, but the bottoms of OTD/DYK are about in line. I'll check viewlikeus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, you might be right. What do you make of it? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
In almost all of them, ITN needs one more item- ROK/PDRK should come back, and ice hockey should stay gone, in my opinion. (Mainly because the Korea rift is still news.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I added t back then. I think DYK might benefit from one more hook but I don't want to go editing fully protected pages where i don;t know what I'm doing... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know... if DYK needed another hook it would need to be a one-liner... and they're dealing with a pretty substantual backlog getting queues set up over there anyway. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sharron Angle Article

I note that you previously put a protect on the article Sharron Angle. I am very concerned as the edits on this page are largely a flame job on this individual who is running for a high profile public office. Specifically, when I found the article today, 75% of it was devoted to a rumor that the candidate was a scientologist - including links to three scientology articles in Wikipedia as "references" and multiple statements using citations that had little or nothing to do with what was actually stated. I ended up in an edit war with an editor who seems to have an affinity for scientology articles [5]. I'm sure this isn't a coincidence. ;-).

In any case, the Scientology "scandal" in this article - if it can even be called that is a thing can be summed up in a single paragraph or at most two - and certainly, we don't need to know who paid for a trip to mexico and didn't want his name mentioned or whatever that crap was (LOL). If this seriously warrants more than 2 paragraphs, then I would suggest that it probably deserves its own article for being so incredibly notable (its not).

Anyway, I'm asking for a protect on this article. Also, the citations need to be verified and sections need to be rewritten.Dougieb (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Barony of Galmoy

Why is there a log report about the deletion of the talk page for Barony of Galmoy? I don't understand. Is this a normal admin thing? Or was it the subjuct of a vandal attack? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement re Richard Goldstone

I'm completely fed up with the endless personal attacks against me and the repeated reversions - without the consensus required by WP:BLP - of content which was removed as a BLP violation. I've therefore filed an arbitration enforcement request against four editors. Please see WP:AE#Wikifan12345 et al. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Admin Barnstar

Admin Barnstar.png The Admin's Barnstar
Despite only being an admin for almost a month, you're doing an excellent job. May you have more years of adminship to come ;) Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with Narutolovehinata5: richly deserved! TFOWRpropaganda 10:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you please check?

Hi again :)

I've made a referenced historical map. As an experienced guardian of images :), can you have a look at it [6]? Thanks Aregakn (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, to be honest, images really aren't my area. You might want to contact someone more knowledgeable in the area and explain it to them. You might like to try User:Fastily. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Great! I'll follow your advice. Thanks! Aregakn (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you advise me what to do, if an AE appeal was archived by a bot (along with others) but it was still in process? Aregakn (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, can you advise what to do or where to apply to for this? Aregakn (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Goldstone 1 RR

I still maintain that I didn't know of the 1RR in connection with this article. Prior to the subject revert, I had never made an edit on this article and the last time I even looked at it was on May 12 or 13. It wasn't on my watch list and as such, I wasn't aware of the edit war. Water under the bridge. Just to make sure, I'm entitled to no more than 1 revert, in connection with this article, within a 24 hour period. Is that correct? Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That's right. 1 revert per 24 hour period- ie you have to wait 24 hours to make another revert, you can't make one at 23:59 and another at 00:001- and a revert includes reinserting previously removed material and reversing the effects of another's edit. I'm genuinely sorry if the block took you by surprise but I did everything I could to make you aware of the restriction before your second revert. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't sweat it. No big deal.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, don't take it personally. You were the first, but not the last. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Real world obligations prevented me from responding sooner to the AE request. As you are aware, my sole contributions to this article were two reverts within 24-hours. I was unaware (my fault for not paying closer attention to my Talk page) of the 1R restriction and you issued a sanction of a 24-hour block. I have not made an edit to the article since and intend to abide by the 1R restriction. Please explain why you would consider now banning my participation for 2-weeks? Essentially, you're santioning me twice for the same offense. Perplexed--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, I saw the correction. My apologies--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio?

This youtube video is being used as a source. [7]. It looks to me like a copyrighted newscast being put up by a user, then our use of it furthers the copy vio. Can you take a look and see what you think? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it's almost certainly a copyvio and we're not allowed to link to copyright-violating content any more than violating it directly so the link should go. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Since I am involved in the AfD on the article and one of the defenders has been having a personality conflict with me, would you mind removing it with the explaination? I also believe the other 2 videos in that section should go. Neither would be RS's. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion at Taya Uddin‎

Just thought I'd leave a quick note regarding this page; thanks for pointing out that I used the wrong criterion; I think this was a cross between brain-freeze and slight misinterpretation on my part. I was deciding between A7 and G11 and I have to agree that it doesn't quite meet G11 and I should have filed A7. I've refiled as A7 now. Regards, GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries :). I wont be dealing with it, though- the only speedies I handle are vandalism/copyvio/spam/attack pages and some of the uncontroversial G6/7/8 but certainly not A7. I'm sure another admin will get to it eventually. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
And as if to demonstrate why I don't handle A7s, the speedy was just declined again! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. I thought it was pretty straightforward as the greatest claim of notability seems to be "she is well known" and a series of non-notable magazines, but I guess I'll have to BLPPROD and/or AfD it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada-Marshall Islands relations

Could you please clarify, what this was a copyvio of? I didn't actually see that argument raised in the discussion and you didn't include a citation. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It was pretty much a word-for-word copy of [8]. Hope that helps, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Jane Fonda

Thanks for the protection. I keep a close eye on this article, and there is FREQUENT need to remove that sort of garbage from it. I'll let you know if it resurfaces. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Please do let me know if that kind of crap continues after the protection expires. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the vandal ban

Thanks for banning 72.68.229.217 for vandalism. S/He was getting on my nerves. Gopher65talk 01:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiDefender Barnstar.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Here's a barnstar for your troubles;). You can never receive enough of these babies. Gopher65talk 01:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Diego_Grez

Quick note, not knowing all of the long past, but;

  • I am impressed with your consideration and work with Diego_Grez (talk · contribs) - to summarise, 'complicated but a net+'
  • I have interacted with Mr. Grez during their sanctions, and he has been co-operative, collegiate and reasoned

Is all, best,  Chzz  ►  03:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Lucy Beale and Melissa Suffield

Hey HJ!

How are you? Ain't spoken to you in what seems like ages!

Anyway it's your talk page stalker back again :), I'm looking for your assistance with the above two articles. Y'see Melissa Suffield who plays Lucy Beale in EastEnders was sacked from the programme today, allegedly for unruly behaviour (getting drunk, getting into nightclubs underage - the usual). Already the Lucy Beale page is constantly getting changed, the characters classification changing from present to departing when there's nothing to suggest that the character will go - EastEnders may well decide to just recast the part especially given that the new Executive Producer has already axed what seems like half the cast! Melissa Suffield's page also got tagged as having BLP vandalism damage to it, what was said wasn't untrue but I think it may have triggered off some filter for one of the bots so I just erased what was said as it was already mentioned elsewhere anyway.

The BBC have yet to confirm that the story is true, however all indications are that the story is true, just most of the press are choosing to wait until the BBC have confirmed it before saying anything. So far myself and a couple of other editors have been able to keep a lid on things but I'm thinking once the BBC confirms this story and it really hits the headlines then both pages might be subject to vandalism? I would really appreciate it if you could please add both pages to your watchlist, an extra pair of eyes watching them might help :) --5 albert square (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll keep an eye on them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks HJ, it's just been confirmed that it's true :( --5 albert square (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Kabul mediation

I've let Ariana and Tajik know that (due to Ahmed shahi's block being increased to indef) I'm discontinuing the mediation.

I've not said anything about resuming it if the issues arise again. Though obviously I'd be fine with that, it might be better if a non-involved newcomer took over ;-)

Personally, I'm kind of glad it's over - my heart wasn't in it while the key participant was blocked.

Cheers, TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 18:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Let's see how it goes. I hadn't noticed that his block had been extended, but given the socking to get round it, I don't think anyone will miss him. Now, what about this RfA you're evading? ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The Bill

Hiya

Yep a bot is supposed to be adding them but editors are helping out too :). I'm going to try and help, I would normally use AWB but don't have access to it :).

What I can't work out though is the bot is supposed to be adding the templates yet I can't see them displaying on the pages he's adding them to such as this one. There's no GA symbol on the article I can see there at all. It's not like that for just one of his edits it's like that for every single one! Is it just me being thick or is there no template displaying there? --5 albert square (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict)It's you being thick ;). That's a different bot doing a different task. That template, {{link GA|language}} is for GAs in other languages and it shows up in the interwiki links on the left hand side. The one for our GAs is {{Good article}} and it goes at the very bottom of the article. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Thought it was me being thick! Thanks HJ, I can go back to sorting them out now! --5 albert square (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say it has to be placed at the bottom? Is the bot actually up and running as of yet?I started helping earlier and there isn't exactly that much information on it yet.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 23:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

See Template:Good article/doc. It's the same as {{featured article}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Thankyou! I can carry on adding them without worrying that I might have to go back and change them.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 23:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ebola ITN

just saw that on the main page. it says its a "potential cure," then that is WP:Crystal Ball. Many articles (like elections) are not put on ITN till affirmation, (some still hadn't, like the Philippines) why did this "potential" get on?Lihaas (talk)

It's more my bad wording than anything else. As far as I know, they've tested it on monkeys and it worked. It went up because there was a strong consensus at ITN/C and a prose update to the article. From an admin perspective, I can;t decide to not post it because something else wan't posted, I just weigh up the consensus and check the update is sufficient. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Yep, it worked on the monkeys.Malke2010 00:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

Is this 3RR? [9] [10] [11] [12]

Original [challenge]: [13]
Attempt at dispute (which he started, i responded too, thenhe responded and immediately reverted, without waiting for consensus) [14]
(Intentions: [15])Lihaas (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Not as far as I can see. A violation of 3RR requires a fourth revert in 24 hours. From a look at the history, I only count 3 sets of reverts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply Rollback

Thank you for giving me rollback rights. I will remember to be careful with them. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Let me know if you need anything :). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I have one question on rollback. It says I am only allowed to revert vandalism with this tool. Am I allowed to revert my own edits with rollback, or should I just use twinkle to do that? Thank you --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

AFD close, please.

Hi Mitchell, when you did the GA reviews for June and I a while back I did not know you were an administrator. Did you just recently become one? Anyway, I'm not sure if you close AfD's or not, but this one has been running for almost two weeks and it's basically an IP that keeps using the other stuff exists argument and the discussion is really going nowhere; it's been dead for a week. I was wondering you could determine the consensus and close it? Thanks. Mike Allen 01:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Mike! I've not seen you around on my travels for a while. I've been an admin for about a month, so I wasn't one back then. I've closed that AfD as delete- you're right, the discussion wasn't going anywhere and it had been open for 2 weeks already. I don't often close AfDs but I don't mind dabbling every now and then. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Well I missed your nom. I don't usually take part in RFA unless I've had contact with the nominated. RFA can become a very nasty place for personal attacks. Therefore I don't spend any time there. Oh well, you passed and there weren't really many opposes so it's good. I've seen you lately on the WP:RFPP which is how I figured it out. Anyway, the IP claimed that their sister was in the film, so that explains why they were passionate about keeping the article. I've never seen an AfD that long, lol. Thanks again, and I'll probably see you soon on RFPP. LOL Mike Allen 02:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I've seen a few longer than that, but I tend to avoid closing the more contentious ones- my talk page is busy enough as it is without more people accusing me of admin abuse which is what happened after my first ever AfD close! I seem to be spending a lot of time at RfPP atm, but it seems to get backed up quickly. Good to hear from an old friend anyway :). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Admin Barnstar.png The Admin's Barnstar
To HJ Mitchell: I'll be simple and to the point ... I think you are doing a fantastic job. Fast, speedy and gets the job done. Tommy2010 01:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Well thank you :). I'm honoured. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Just make sure to hang the barnstar and eat the cookie, not vice versa. --an odd name 02:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at TFOWR's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 10:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Goldstone and 1R

I have reinserted the Goldstone edit, changed the contentious sources and removed the weak ones including WND. I intend to abide by 1R. Please let me know if there are any other restrictions and if there are, I will self-revert. Respectfully--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The other restriction, naturally, is BLP and it applies without notification to any individual editor. If Jiujitsuguy doesn't know that (and somehow thinks 1RR means he is entitled to put that stuff back without gaining consensus first), he needs to stay off BLPs, particularly this one. I now regret arguing that he should be taken off the AE case. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Jiujitsuguy has very clearly, unambiguously and knowingly violated a core rule of BLP - that "consensus must be obtained" (note the imperative "must" there) before contentious content removed for good-faith BLP reasons can be restored. He has made no attempt to get consensus for his edits. The majority of editors and every uninvolved editor who has commented do not believe the deleted material should be in the article. Jimbo Wales himself says it should not be in the article. I included Jiujitsuguy in the AE case not for further punishment but because he was clearly going to continue to violate BLP and needed to be restrained. He has duly done so. I'll await your response with interest. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I took him put of the AE case because I hoped the block he'd just served would have been sufficient.
Jujitsuguy, I don't want to take sides here, but ChrisO is right on policy grounds. I'd hoped that you would discuss this on the talk page rather than continue to revert which was the point of not extending the page ban to you. Please don't restore that material until consensus has been reached on the talk page as to whether and how it should fit in. Instead, make use of the talk page to try to reach a consensus. I've banned three of the most vocal editors from the article and its talk page in the hopes of making it easier to discuss things there without getting shouted down. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
So if I understand you correctly, notwithstanding the fact the edit is supported by a lengthy list of reliable sources including Ynet, JPost, Haaretz, Yediot Achronot, the Atlantic, Business Day, the New York Times and the Huffingtonpost, among others, it can still be precluded so long as ChrisO and those who support his viewpoint oppose its inclusion? If that’s the case, the edit will never be included and regrettably, you have taken sides in an Israel-Arab dispute. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not taking a side, I'm upholding Wikipedia's single most important policy. I don't necessarily agree with it, but material removed in good faith as a possible BLP violation must not be restored without consensus. You are advised to make use of the talk page to try to establish such consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Jiujitsuguy, it's not necessarily an either/or situation. As I understand the gathering consensus on the talkpage of the article, there's general agreement that some sort of a mention of the negative information may be appropriate, as long as it's done in a balanced and neutral fashion, which is not giving undue weight to this controversy, in context of the individual's entire biography. Or in other words, instead of edit-warring about the entire section, a better way to proceed might be to move slowly, with small incremental steps, per WP:BRD. Try adding one very solid, very neutral, extremely well-sourced sentence, and then wait. See how that is received. If no one objects after a day or so, maybe expand the information a bit. If there is an objection, take the new information to the talkpage, and see if perhaps the information that you'd like to include, can be condensed or reworded in a way that represents consensus. There is no deadline here, there is no need to proceed with urgency. Small incremental changes to an article are more likely to result in longterm stability. --Elonka 18:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
“Consensus?” I fear that this will never occur in this article. Arguing for the edit’s inclusion in the talk page as others have done will be an exercise in futility. ChrisO and those of like-mind will never relent on this issue and will never allow the edit’s inclusion no matter how well-sourced or neutrally phrased. By hanging the sanction card over our heads, you’ve effectively taken a position on an Israeli-Arab issue. The latest edit now contains mainstream sources, all of which have strong vetting processes. The previously complained of sources, like WND and "Emunah" have been removed. There is no shortage of reliable sources to support the disputed edit. The only reason for its exclusion by ChrisO and friends is that it does not comport with their particlar POVs. ChrisO's views on the IP subject are well known. Will I be sanctioned by you if I comply with 1R? If the answer is yes, I will refrain from engaging in any edits on this article. Awaiting your response,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Understand, the policy is crafted very purposefully to require a consensus before disputed contentious information can be re-inserted. This is done to prevent libeling a living person. If a fact is so obviously relevant/appropriate/well-sourced, even if it is contentious then it should have no trouble garnering a consensus to be in the article. If it has trouble garnering that consensus, then it's most likely not appropriate for inclusion. In that case Wikipedia's policies favor keeping it out, in order to protect the encyclopedia from becoming a venue for smears of living people. That's just the way the policy is designed, and very purposefully so, to err on the side of caution. — e. ripley\talk 20:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
And understand further, this is not simply an issue of sourcing. Something may be attributed entirely to reliable sources but may still not be suitable for inclusion. I suggest you consider the import of what Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia's founder, has written here about the issue of including these claims. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If you comply with the 1RR restriction, you need not fear sanctions, but if you violate it, you'll be blocked- as will anybody who else who does so. To be quite frank, I don't give a flying fuck what your views, Jimmy Wales' or ChrisO's views or the views of Her Majesty the Queen are on I/P. We, as editors, are bound by WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. I suggest you join in the discussion on the talk page and rationally and calmly present your view. The point of the 2-week ban I've just imposed on 3 editors is to better facilitate discussion there, so why don't you prove to me that wasn't just a waste of everybody's time? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd hope you wouldn't tell Her Maj you wouldn't give a flying fuck - not so bluntly at least. Lèse majesté and all that. ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) HJ Mitchell, I'm slightly confused now, by your saying just above that the 1RR restriction is what applies here. Saying that 1RR is what matters might be interpreted as indicating that those four paragraphs can be added by each editor once a day. The BLP provision requiring consensus before deleted material is restored seems more stringent: my understanding is that something like those four paragraphs, having been deleted, should not now be added unless/until there is consensus to do so. In your post above at 13:19, you seem to say that the latter is the right approach ("please don't restore that material until consensus has been reached..."). Can you please clarify which approach applies here -- 1RR or the more stringent provision of BLP? thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Protected content at Talk:Gaza flotilla interception

Hi there. Saw that you protected the redirected Talk:Gaza flotilla interception – do you think you could remove all the misplaced talk page content underneath the redirect? I've already moved the content to the newly located talk page, but the still-existent content on the redirect page is causing it to appear in categories etc. where it shouldn't. Cheers, haz (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It should already have been moved; one editor (sean.hoyland) moved some (correctly), I moved the last lot (possibly incorrectly). Anything remaining is either because it's simply not been deleted - or because I'm an idiot. Both are quite likely...! Let me know if it's the latter and I'll re-move. Cheers! TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 16:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I put the entire content except the redirect code in comment tags and removed the {{editsemiprotected}} templates. Hope that solves the problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed it does, but why not remove it entirely? Surely that's what page histories are for? In any case, thanks for sorting it out. TFOWR, the content had indeed already been moved, it was just the removal of the content from the redirect page that I was concerned with. Cheers, haz (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, when the protection expires, someone should check that everything there has been copied over to the new title and then remove it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Cool! I've been feeling like my poor ol' brain isn't working, so it was entirely possible I'd messed up here - glad that wasn't the case ;-) TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 16:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Coincidentally enough, I just spotted your note here. Sorry about that, it took me a while to cotton onto the Vector rollout and a bit longer to update the script. It's now back in action. haz (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Aaaah! Thank you. Not that it makes much difference because I switched back- I like my buttons where they are! ;) Good to know, though, I love those menus- they make finding things so much easier! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

LÖVE server downtime

It seems as if the article on LÖVE (the 2D lua game framework) was deleted because the homepage went down a few days ago. We're currently working on restoring it to its full extent but we already have revived the forums. If this was not the reason for the deletion of the page, please elaborate on the reason. Bartbes (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The article was deleted via the proposed deletion process. An editor tagged it for deletion and nobody objected to it in 7 days so it was deleted. The reason given for the tag was: "Subject does not appear to be verifiable through reliable secondary sources (WP:V); by extension does not meet the notability guidelines (WP:N)". I can email you a copy of the content if you wish, but if I restored it, it would more than likely end up deleted again because your organisation doesn't appear to meet our notability criteria. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I would argue that LÖVE is as notable as any other lua library, or indeed any other small open-source project. We indeed lack press, but is this not a problem all small indie and/or open-source projects are subject to? Bartbes (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you provide evidence that reliable sources, such as reputable newspapers, have provided in-depth coverage of it? That's the required threshold of notability for an article. If you can find some decent sources, I can restore the article and you can add them in. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I have been unable to find an in-depth article about the engine (which is surprising really), but I wonder, is a collection of games that use it a base for an article? Or should we/I focus on getting some press? Bartbes (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The best thing you can do for the minute would be to get a reputable newspaper or magazine or something like that to cover you in enough detail that an encyclopaedia article could be written from it. You might like to send a few emails to journalists to try and get an interview. I can restore the article if you want me to, but I fear it won't remain for very long. I'll also be happy to email you the text. Just ask. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I'll look into getting some press. Regarding the content of the old article, I would like it if you email it to me for archiving purposes. Thanks for your time. Bartbes (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I've sent it to the email address you provided when you signed up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
FYI pages deleted via the proposed deletion process should typically be restored on request (they may, of course, be immediately sent to AFD). –xenotalk 18:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, I'm just trying to save it from a potential future AfD at the moment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Yea, good idea. –xenotalk 18:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)