User talk:HJ Mitchell/Alternate/Archive 2

Harvey Pekar
Added section header. dffgd  talk · edits

HJ,

Thanks for the note on the Harvey Pekar page. All I did was remove duplicate blocks of text. I'm not going to bother to re-edit it.68.9.151.24 (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Open (?) Article for deletion
Dated 12:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)?. See wp:Articles_for_deletion/Intelligence_(film) --220.101 (talk) \Contribs 02:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Created using Twinkle, I see. Sometimes Twinkle fails to perform all the steps for whatever reason. It appears to be pretty rare, but alas it does happen. When I nominate pages for deletion, I add the discussion to my watchlist. That way I'll hopefully detect such a failure eventually and fix it. Reach Out to the Truth 02:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I closed it procedurally, HJ- or anyone- should feel free to actually nominate it at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

, Talk page 'stalkers'! -- 220.101 talk\Contribs 06:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Displaytitle
Hi. For some reason, doesn't work in my userspace. Any ideas? TEK (talk • e-mail) 00:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Moved from main talk page. dffgd   talk · edits  02:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You can only have your username in it- it won't display otherwise. You can add all the fancy font etc, but the text has to be "TEK". If that doesn't help, ask User:NSD. :)  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks! TEK (talk • e-mail) 00:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ehh... Still doesn't work when I tried on my user page... TEK (talk • e-mail) 01:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Try copying the code exactly as it is on my userpage, then replacing HJ Mitchell with TEK, see if that works. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oddly, it doesn't work. Could it be because I've had a username change before? TEK (talk • e-mail) 01:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know. User:NSD did mine, so you might like to ask him. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Or you could wait for your stalkers... :) It can't change the title of the page, it can only change how it is displayed. However, the code  will keep certain text (e.g. "User:" if you want) from displaying, along with a   of course. I learned this by looking at the code for several DISPLAYTITLEs. :)  dffgd   talk · edits  01:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've done something in your sandbox to show you, TEK. I see you started out with Tommy2010's DISPLAYTITLE, so I reverted to that, replaced "Tom" with "T", "my" with "E" and "2010" with "K", and added "/Sandbox" at the end to display properly--see this old revision and this diff. dffgd   talk · edits  01:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In reply to the earlier comment about it not working on User:TEK, that's because it appears you copied it from the talk page--you need to remove the "talk". dffgd  talk · edits  02:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't work for me either, FWIW.  Connormah  talk 03:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Read my above post--you need to use  to get around the problem that you can't display anything other than the full title. So   displays as " User: Connormah", but the DISPLAYTITLE recognizes the full page name. Hope this helps,  dffgd   talk · edits  14:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. Thanks!  Connormah  talk 17:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

On the article Bhurshut
A small part is from website http://www.mandirnet.org/toi/bengal/h11.htm given by editor Ragib & not copyrighted which itself sourced from many references and any editor can see opening the link. 117.254.249.211 (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Moved this from the top of the page. --220.101(talk)\Contribs 07:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

How is astroid formed?????
how is astroid formed? how kabronis get a splode?

They need to do way instain reacters> who a splode thier plannets. becuse these plannets cant frigth back it was on the news this mroing a escorp in ar who had kill her three drones. they are taking the three drones back to soupaline too lady to rest my pary are with the furi who lost his drones ; i am truley sorry for your lots —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.61.64 (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michael Wood (lawyer)


The article Michael Wood (lawyer) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Aticle is about an otherwise non-notable lawyer who recieved minor media attention as a result of a single event.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Iftelse (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi!
Old 'news'but "suntanned"!? And I was a bit worried when you took a sudden break! 220.101 talk\Contribs 22:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * He must be taking a break. I haven't been able to get him to respond to the message above this one, twice.--22:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.190.192 (talk)
 * '71' I have added a : to 'tab' your reply right one space, standard practice here! And please use ~ or the "sign" button to sign your post!


 * He was on a break/ holiday/ (ran away and hid?), but I'm sure he's back now. He is though a 'bit' slow to answer here! (where are the alternate s?. The best thing to do is look at his contributions, and see if he is currently editing! Be advised he is on UTC(+1) time, you're UTC(-5) so take that into account. Our admins do have 'duties' in real life! (and apparently they do sleep, occasionally).
 * • There are other admins of course, other editors can help and you can put the template on you talk page, followed by any question you have, or ask for assistance at the wp:help desk. 220.101 talk\Contribs 11:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Diego Grez
It is my understanding that any edits or nominations User:Diego_Grez makes to Wikipedia at large have to be approved by you first as part of a mentorship deal. Could you clear up whether you approved his MfD of User:Murdox/GNAA? Thanks in advance. Murdox (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the restrictions got lifted. Not sure though. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a look through the editing restriction list and he's still up there, along with the talk-page notice about it. Murdox (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Since I (for some very weird reason) have no homework to work on, I thought I'd pop in and say hi to a few people. Probably won't be able to do this again for a while, since school is taking up more and more of my time. How are you? The Utahraptor&#39;s sock (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice to hear from you! You want me to confirm that account or is it too much of a temptation? ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's funny, after this I'll be just one edit away from being autoconfirmed. But yes, it would be nice if I could post directly on your talk page instead of having to come here. The Utahraptor&#39;s sock (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello
I was just searching through wiki just now and was surprised to see that I had some messages! (Considering I don't have an account) I realise now that they were sent to me on an IP basis, and after reading through some of the edits I just thought I'd make a request. The IP address that I am currently using is being used by about 1,500 school students, one of which I am. Considering the... immature nature of the majority of the edit's made by my felllow students I thought it would probably be for the best if I request that you have this IP blocked from editing, or at least make the edits need to be approved by a bot or admin such as yourself... I use wikipedia quite a bit myself and prefer not having people vandalise or misinform people. Thanks for your time, Nicholas. 121.0.4.217 (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Airazor page
This page was recently turned into a redirect. I got a TV book recently that has a paragraph about her as a character, so I thought it was a good source to cite. If I wanted to submit it as possible proof that the character is notable, what should I do? I didn't want to just undelete it and get in trouble, but I do think this is good additional info for the page. Thanks! Mathewignash (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Tony Blair
Dear HJ Mitchell,

First of all, I wish to record my admiration for the amount of Barnstars that you have received, you obviously have contributed a lot to Wikipedia and the spread of uncensored knowledge. With regard to your minor edit of Tony Blair in Dublin, the Irish media did record that hardline republicans did take part in the protests and not just opponents of the war in Iraq (from my scans of the internet this was not picked in the UK media). I was actually there getting the book signed so I am not just relying on media and thus can speak with authority on the subject! Please let me have your thoughts. Best wishes,Skreen (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Connecticut
Hello! Just wondering about the locking of Template:WikiProject Connecticut and Template:WikiProject Connecticut/class. Was there a reason? Just curious. Thanks, Markvs88 (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Old prod full
Hello, … Just glad to see that Some Other Editor also sticks Old prod full on articles PRODed by others (like this) … as the creator, I'm proud to see that it has grown to be so well used that it has been protected. :-) Happy Editing! &mdash;  00:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's quite a claim to fame! Nice to hear from you. :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I just got frustrated by having PRODs contested because there had already been a PROD, and it was not obvious even after looking at the summaries in the edit history … now there's a bot that adds them occasionally … Some One Else got the idea of creating Category:Past Proposed Deletion Candidates a few months ago … the inception may have been mine, but it has grown and matured through community involvement (see Template talk:Old prod full). &mdash; 71.166.157.40 (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And in all that time you've never thought of logging in? Even requesting adminship... I've not seen the bot, but I tend to deal with expired PRODs, so I don't often need to use Oldprodfull. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a registered account, but I rarely use it (see the User Alternate Acct userbox on my IP user page) … BTW, I stuck a Old prod on Talk:List of largest divorce settlements, since I saw in the edit history that it had been restored … I'm assuming you just forgot to add it when you restored it. :-) &mdash; 71.166.157.40 (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer Request
I just saw that my reviewer request has been Declined. Just wanted to know when I can reapply for this and are there any statistical requirements other than mentioned in the note? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levijustus (talk • contribs) 21:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Cesium Designs
Why would you decline this? If it is not blatant promo of a non-notable entity, then what is it???--Mariokempes (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing promotional in the article. G11 requires that the whole article be an advert. You're welcome to PROD or AfD it. Why not use my main talk page anyway? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that it exists on WP is an advert... Do you suggest that I can create an article about my non-notable "art supply business"? I'm writing here because I thought your main talk page was protected. Sorry, perhaps I didn't read it thoroughly.--Mariokempes (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Being an article on a non-notable company doesn't automatically make it spam. However, it doesn't exempt it from deletion. You can try A7 or, failing that, PROD or AfD it, but it's not eligible under G11. Oh, and my main talk page is only semi-protected, so only people with less than 10 edits and IPs have to use this page, but it's no biggy. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks!--Mariokempes (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Your help
Diffly (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Racism and ethnic discrimination in Israel. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —

--

Note, the 'Black Hebrew' section that Noleander has lately reinstated is heavily contested and he failed to reply with backed up sources to make a case, Why did/do you support this no consensus matyerial?RS101 (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Forbes.com
The entry on Forbes has obviously been edited by an employee of Forbes to read like an advertisement. The section I deleted with the list of the Forbes Top X lists is simply there for SEO reasons and does not belong in an Encyclopedia article. Not sure why you would see this as vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.131.28 (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Salads
I've received a message from yourself, phrased as such: "Level 1 warning re. vandalism on Israeli salad (GLOO)" There was no vandalism on that article. Apart from correcting the article based on my own knowledge (or you may say "based on common knowledge", considering that I'm from Israel), I've removed a broken link which was referenced. Do revert the change to the correct version of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.37.204 (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, did it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.7.74 (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Eglinton
Your views are welcome at Eglinton, County Londonderry where several editors have forced the protection of the page without discussion being intent upon pushing their own agenda contrary to NPOV. 87.113.24.44 (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

CNN
Please unlock CNN. This action does not fit to Wikipedia. Even if possible vandalism, unprotect the page. --93.82.1.201 (talk) 11:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for making me a reviewer! Is it likely that the pending changes thing will become official? Because right now, there are apparently no pending changes. Molly moon  22:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. There are still pages on pending changes, but if there's nothing to review, it just means that there are no edits currently pending. There will be, though, so keep an eye out! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Feedback
The article I posted (McMillan Study Guides, Inc.) was quickly deleted. I would appreciate any feedback you can provide on how to edit the article, so that it fits Wikipedia’s criteria. Thanks in advance for your time and assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattholden (talk • contribs) 16:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you review the article that I posted about Cash for Gold USA
HJ,

Please excuse me, I am new to Wikipedia. I was having trouble with the references section and my article was posted prematurely.

Please review the edited article. I made many changes to make sure that it is fact based and not an advertisement.

Thank you for your consideration,

HR —Preceding unsigned comment added by HighlyRelevant (talk • contribs) 20:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Block of user Joshinda26
I would like you to reconsider this user's block, although I initially agreed with your blocking both editors (User:Joshinda26 and User:Alacante45.

Joshinda26 is a relatively new editor. He's editing in an important area, although you might argue that all constructive edits on wikipedia are in an important area. User:Alacante45 is a subtle and antagonistic vandal. It is easy for a new editor to misunderstand policies, and when they are provoked and antagonized by someone hellbent on vandalism, and on provoking other editors, it does not serve the greater good of wikipedia to block someone for being the target of a disruptive vandal.

Please re-evaluate Joshinda26's block in light of his short time on wikipedia, his editing history, and the editing history of Alacante45. Heck, at this point, he/she looks like the flip side of Alacante45. Thanks, --184.99.172.218 (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to reduce the duration to twelve hours (from the time of the original block), however, I got an edit conflict when making him this offer, only to see that he'd "retired", which is a shame. I hope he calms down and returns, but I'm not sure that reducing the block duartion would do any good and may risk antagonising him. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would do good! Sometimes on wikipedia just giving an inch helps. On the other hand, if you do it, and get slapped down for it, then at least you've tried. The last bit is, in my opinion, just as important as succeeding. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well, I've reduced the block duration by twelve hours and left him a note. Let me know if there's anything else you need. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving it a shot and for not inflaming the situation in any way. I think he/she'll be an asset to wikipedia if he decides to continue editing in spite of this nasty run in with a disruptive editor, and it could fortify him early on for future such encounters if he sticks it out. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully. And if Alacante45 doesn't get himself indef'd for block evasion, I'll be keeping a very close eye on him once his block expires. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey.
I read the whole talk page. Ian 06:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC) (I mean your main one) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian.bjorn (talk • contribs)

Blocked editor
Hi HJ Mitchell, I noticed you blocked User:PeterRoyce for the infringed images he's uploaded. In case you're interested, I have opened an investigation at WP:CCI about the case. You can communicate to me there or at my talk page, if you need to. Thanks, Jsayre64 (talk)  01:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The case has been closed. Jsayre64 (talk)  15:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Somaly Mam article
I was wondering why you reverted my edits? I added an infobox to the article, as well as various sources. I also added additional info to the article. It's not vandalism, so I do not understand why you would revert an edit. --72.152.238.177 (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop reverting my edits without giving me a good reason. You're not even looking at what I edit. If you feel that I'm vandalising the article, then please tell me what lies or slander I wrote to the article. --72.152.238.177 (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing the reverts/warnings were purely accidental, it looks like a legitimate edit (adding the infobox) to me. FYI, you may want to create an account if you plan on doing much editing, that'll make it much less likely that your edits will be flagged/misconstrued as vandalism.  Also, you'd then be able to drop a message on this person's normal talk page. :) -Kgasso (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I moved the book citation and attach it to another sentence. I didn't change the paragraph or any of the sentences. --72.152.238.177 (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate your attention to the matter and advice. 68.197.167.149 (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of wiki Rathenau Institute
Hello HJ,

You just deleted my (very first) wiki about the Rathenau Institute. You say it is 'inappropriate advertising.' Of course, i don't agree with you. I added the wiki to complement the list of organisations on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_assessment See "Technology assessment institutions around the world"

Other TA-institutes also have their very own wiki, for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_technology_Assessment_TA-SWISS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Technology_Assessment

Why was our wiki singled out for deletion?

Regards,

Heleen van Kooij —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeleenvanKooij (talk • contribs) 07:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Shinji Nakano article edit
The reason why I blanked out that section is because those results do NOT belong to that driver. The records can be checked on the corresponding pages of the ALMS seasons, the driver in question never raced the Peugeot 908 and never raced it in the ALMS. I was just trying to remove the vandalism from another user, and this also applies to the edits that user made to the page related to the Peugeot 908. 188.24.89.224 (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies. By all means feel free to re-do it. If you give an informative edit summary, you're much less likely to be accidentally reverted. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Have done so. On second thought, could you please ban the user in question (Cloudfinalfantasy)? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%96sterreichring&action=history There was another "incident" where this user added to a motorsport-related article information which was clearly false and misleading. 188.24.91.103 (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC) (I'm used to editing anonymously; different IP is due to dynamic range from the provider)

Untitled section
Dear HJ, I would have appreciated it if you had gone through the text edited on Biodiesel more carefully before you had tried to remove it! It was definitely constructive! any way leave it to you. Cheers, Sam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.110.170.92 (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi HJ, Further to our conversations, please do restore the wiki page for Richard Beck. It's bonafide and stands up. Cheers man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardbeck (talk • contribs) 21:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of St. Paul Principles page
Your deletion of the St. Paul Principles page for "copyright infringement" was asinine for the following reasons:

1. The St. Paul Principles were an historic set of principles agreed on by activists prior to the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota. They were never copyrighted, any more than the Declaration of Independence was copyrighted. They were supposed to be shared freely. They were a PUBLIC STATEMENT. They have been the basis for two subsequent declarations, including the Pittsburgh Principles prior to the 2009 G-20, and were a well known and important public statement in the activist community.

2. The page you gave as the "source" of the content was an OBVIOUS BLOG PAGE that had CLEARLY COPIED the principles with no source from where they were originally posted or perhaps from the MANY E-MAILS SENT OUT telling people what the principles were and ASKING THEM TO SHARE THEM. That page did not OWN THE COPYRIGHT TO THEM.

3. The original source of the text of the principles was GIVEN IN ONE OF THE REFERENCES. The archive project at http://rnc08report.org/archive/224.shtml which I maintain, clearly states the source of this historical declaration text. I know the people who constructed the declaration. Ad I also know that all historical declarations are understood to be part of the public trust/copyleft/Creative Commons/free to quote.

4. You made no attempt to engage in the Talk page on the entry, which was just tweaked by two people yesterday. You even deleted that page! Had you attempted to communicate, you would have had the above explained to you. There was no "unambiguous copyright infringement". You were WRONG.

5. I don't know how to restore this page. Please take action to correct your error so as not to frustrate legitimate Wikipedia activity. Flyingmonkeyairlines (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2010
 * When an article is deleted, the talk page is eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G8. The article was deleted because Wikipedia cannot, for legal reasons, accept material that was copied from a copyrighted webpage, as this was. If you own the copyright or can persuade the owner to release it under a free license, then please follow the instructions here. Otherwise, you will have to re-write it in entirely your own words and format and with the permission of, who deleted the article in the first instance, to avoid it being deleted under criterion G4. Finally, you may appeal the deletion at deletion review, however you will be unlikely to succeed unless you can prove that the material is freely licensed. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * All of that would be fine but in your answer you primarily seem to be intentionally avoiding the fact that this text, from a plain reading of the text, is a public statement specifically intended for quotation. Why would you do that? You're the person who offered a blog's cut and paste of the text as "evidence" of copyright infringement. Where is the evidence that the blog you quoted owns the copyright? By that same bar, people could delete half the content on Wikipedia because it's been reposted on blogs everywhere. Your knowledge of copyright is also lacking. It is acceptable under American copyright law to quote up to 500 words of a text for the purpose of public information, even in a commercial publication. This text was less than 500 words by a long shot.


 * The text was clearly given in quotation marks on the page. What is the problem? What you have done is set up a number of procedural hoops to jump through to prove the obvious, "that the material is freely licensed". Where is your evidence that the text is not freely licensed, that it was not a public declaration, like the Declaration of Independence.


 * Looking at your deletion record on Wikipedia and the comments from others above, you seem to regularly delete screeds of pages daily, at a rate that it seems unlikely that you are bothering to verify. In this case, it is abundantly clear that you made no effort to read the text, never mind verify it. What really drives this point home is you saying "you will have to re-write it in entirely your own words and format". It's a DECLARATION, it can't be REWRITTEN. It's a historical statement that was intended for distribution. It is not a copyrighted work.


 * Once again, here is the history and content of the St. Paul Principles: http://rnc08report.org/archive/224.shtml - as you can see, the "copyright source" that you gave is not one of the many organizational signatories. Next you'll be deleting or asking someone to rewrite the United States Declaration of Independence off Wikipedia because joesblog.blogspot.com posted a copy of it. Why are you saying that user Kirykh deleted it? The log says you did:
 * # (Deletion log); 00:59 . . HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:St. Paul Principles" (G8: Talk page of a deleted page)
 * # (Deletion log); 00:58 . . HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) deleted "St. Paul Principles" (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: http://midatlanticua.wordpress.com/st-paul-principals/)


 * Kirykh scheduled an earlier version of the page for deletion in 2008 or thereabouts. They did not delete.


 * The page was updated yesterday to be more extensive and in line with Wikipedia standards, well over a year after he had made that determination. Myself and someone else worked on it. Then YOU deleted it. Don't dig your heels in an indefensible position. Do the right thing and fix what you broke. It shouldn't require this much effort or a committee to fix what was deleted in error. Flyingmonkeyairlines (talk)
 * I'm not avoiding anything, intentionally or otherwise. It seems it is your lack of copyright knowledge that is lacking. The burden of proof is on you to prove that the material is appropriately licensed to be used on Wikipedia. An editor established that it had been copied from another webpage and marked it for deletion. As the reviewing administrator, I checked this and confirmed the text matched and that the source page was not available under a license compatible with Wikipedia's and thus deleted it.  All  text on Wikipedia must be available under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, as detailed here. You can't copy material from stricter-licensed websites because you don't have the right to release under such a license. Immediately under the edit box is the following text:

"Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. See the Terms of Use for details."
 * The content you submitted was not in compliance with that and was deleted. You can appeal it at WP:DRV, but you'll have little success because the content could potentially cause legal problems for the Wikimedia Foundation, which is why such a hard line is taken on copyright violation. Kirykh did indeed delete it back in 2008, but that was a result of a deletion discussion, where consensus was obtained to delete it. That means you need to discuss it with that administrator before you re-create it or it qualifies under another criterion for speedy deletion. As for my deletion record, over the last 6 months, I've deleted about 4,000 pages. Every such action was in accordance with the deletion policy, so please don't try to imply I'm acting on some kind of whim. If you disagree with my interpretation of policy, then appeal the deletion, but you'll be told the same thing I'm trying to explain to you now. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * HJ, I wasn't implying you deleted pages on some kind of whim. I was contending that you were deleting pages without really paying that much attention. If you're deleting an average of 22 pages a day, and God knows you probably aren't doing deletions every day so the deletions per day rate is probably way higher, you can't be doing any researching. In this case you're offering evidence from a web crawler bot that made a mistake, and procedural reasons from a deletion 2 long years ago. That's weak.


 * Your procedural reason for deletion is that, 2 years ago, someone deleted a page with the same title. This was not for a copyright infringement. The discussion says that it was because it read like a manifesto (cf. it was probably posted as is without context), and its historical worth was in question. Apparently this took place because ONLY the text of the declaration was posted, without any context, and just a month after the original statement was released.


 * You explain that once something is deleted, you have to ask the deleter for permission to remake a page. Fair enough. But this is two years later and the person that created the page did not know that. Yet you didn't delete it for that reason, nor, given the passage of time, did you attempt to communicate with the people working on the new page. You simply---and incorrectly---deleted it for copyright infringement. Once again, the problem with that was that the page you cited as the copyright holder (which we should note that a bot found and determined to be the case) was not the source page of the original text. It was a blog page that had copied the text from the original source page. The original source page, from the same anarchist/anti-authoritarian and--oh so ironically—-anti-copyright-—group website, is now no longer live but archived on the web archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20080723032041/www.nornc.org/st-paul-principles/ - This website was the same group listed as the first signatory to the declaration, the people that drafted the statement. The RNC Welcoming Committee no longer exists as an entity.


 * The historical import of the St. Paul Principles declaration became clear one year later, when the public statement again became the basis for The Pittsburgh Principles during the 2009 G-20 the following year, and the Toronto G-20 too, earlier this summer in 2010. That declaration, which codified a way that activist groups with different outlooks on what were acceptable protest tactics can relate to each other, heralded a significant change in activist policy in both the United States and Canada, that has been seen over 2 years.


 * The new version of the page included context and was only one day into being built by a few people. And, 2 years on, the historical importance of the declaration is clear. In a few weeks, on October 25th, 4 of the activists involved in drafting the St. Paul Principles go on trial in federal court for conspiracy, something that hasn't happened since the Vietnam days, since the Chicago 8.


 * The St. Paul Principles were a statement that was very knowingly released into the public domain by several activist groups and was intended to be disseminated and cited widely. The activist groups that signed it were the RNC Welcoming Committee, The Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War, The Anti-war Committee, SDS-U of MN, Communities United Against Police Brutality, The Welfare Rights Committee, and Unconventional Action – Chicago. Yet you say that reprinting its 83 words would be a "copyright violation". That remains a ridiculous position, especially when you refer to Wikipedia's copyright policy, because Wikipedia's copyright policy SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT THE USE OF WORKS RELEASED INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN IS LEGITIMATE. And regardless of CC and GNU, any political statement of principles, released for dissemination and citation, is as unambiguously "in the public domain" as anything could be.


 * Your position therefore---based as it is on a redefinition of what is "public domain", based on an old Wikipedia debate about oranges when we are now clearly talking about apples, and based on an inaccurate identification of a blog as the "copyright holder"---is nothing less than a suppression of popular political speech and popular political history.


 * The St. Paul Principles are undoubtedly going to be mentioned during the October 25th trial of the RNC 8, yet no one who visits Wikipedia will be any the wiser. Your suggested "solution" is a mockery of free speech and the free exchange of ideas on which Wikipedia is based. How would it be possible to get a copyright release from all of the groups who made this statement 2 years ago? Some don't even exist any more. And, anyway, tell me there is no point in appealing.


 * Right now, I'd be typing all of this context to this historic statement that is apparently important enough to be part of a $1+ million federal trial in a couple of weeks--but not for Wikipedia--into a Wikipedia page about it but I can't because you deleted it the very same day we began working on it, and are now telling me that in order to make an encyclopedia entry about this historic statement, I'll have to go through some committee process that you are simultaneously telling me won't listen to anything I have to say. This is why I am appealing to you, in the hopes that common sense will reign, because that's exactly what Wikipedia tells us to do. Apparently you are a brick wall and tell me that any attempt to further appeal will be met with further Wikiwalls.


 * What I have learned from this honest attempt to spend some time helping to provide a footnote to history for fellow Internet browsers———as the subject is likely through current events to get reintroduced wider into public knowledge———is that Wikipedia editors pay too much attention to some very dumb "copyright" web bots, that they don't bother to check the demented auto-ramblings of those badly coded bots, that they ignore the passage of time and the changing context of history, that they don't hold much value for topics being edited that relate to upcoming current events and, the most obvious part of this whole story——that they do not recogize that that disseminated political declarations are intended for the public domain BY THEIR VERY DEFINITION.


 * Forcing a copyright debate onto a political statement unambiguously issued into the free marketplace of ideas———A.K.A. "the public domain"———is nothing short of a suppression of free speech. If that's what Wikipedia is supposed to be about, my mistake, mea culpa, but the onus of proof isn't on me. Maybe if I or the other person who restarted the page was posting a poem or a photo. But not when we're posting a political declaration. That's all in your guys' court, which you repeatedly tell me there is absolutely no point in appealing to, regardless of how good our case is. Flyingmonkeyairlines (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has to be very sensitive to potential copyright problems given that it is freely licensed and doesn't have the resources to handle a lawsuit for copyright infringement. I haven't yet seen any evidence that the text of the article isn't copyright. The rationale you provided for the removal of the tag was simply that the bot was in error and an assertion that the text wasn't copyright. The web archive link appears to be dead, so do you have any evidence at all to assert that the text isn't copyright? If you do, that makes things a lot easier. Contrary to the impression you might be getting, I do want to help you, but I have to consider the wider implications as well. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks HJ for your response. I do understand copyright considerations. I have worked as an editor and a photographer. For political declarations though? That just makes no sense. Their implicit intention is dissemination. Not sure if you've used the Web archive before but it's super unreliable and often stuff comes in and out. The link does work, I just tried it now. But whether it works at the exact time you click on it, that's up to the Internet fairies: http://web.archive.org/web/20080723032041/www.nornc.org/st-paul-principles/ Flyingmonkeyairlines (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it seems the internet fairies don't like me very much. If I email you text of the article, can you rewrite or reorder it or do something with it to avoid concerns of it having been copied and pasted? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * totally, and we'll do a lot better. thanks for your patience. . Flyingmonkeyairlines (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll send it in a moment. I took your email address down as well, just in case. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Richard Beck
Hi HJ, Further to our conversations, please do restore the wiki page for Richard Beck. It's bonafide and stands up. Cheers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardbeck (talk • contribs) 21:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Restored. It's all yours, my friend. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Renegade Theatre Experiment
Hey HJ, I was in the process of correcting all the violating materials when you deleted the entry. It was up 5 minutes. Can you please restore? I hadn't copied all the markup, and it would be a pain in the butt to recreate. --Kevjkelly (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can't, because it's a copyright violation, which can land the Wikimedia Foundation in legal trouble. Any text you submit here must be entirely your own words, unless you persuade the owner of the website to release it under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Sorry. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Right -- I had removed all the copyrighted material in the new version, and it still got pulled. Can you userfy the old page to me? --Kevjkelly (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll also work on getting the copyleft agreement from them. Thanks. --Kevjkelly (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Go Saints!
Duh. Thanks for using common sense. --KMLP (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Request

 * ''Sorry, I missed your edit summary. Feel free to re-do your edit. My apologies, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you do this, please, as I'm afraid I might find myself banned if I try to do it myself. 213.246.117.162 (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I've done it myself under another IP. 213.246.123.94 (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You deleted my article
My article was deleted after a tag was posted for quick deletion. I didn't post Hang on in time and now its gone. I spent a lot of time on the article so obviously I am upset. The article was about PPDM, an volunteer run and non profit organization that is not associated with any corporation in particular. So how can my article be advertising, if there is no profit to be had? PPDM has built a structure to organize Oil and Gas data, and yes it is Oil and Gas related. I realize not everyone loves oil and gas, but still the information should be available. There is no free, simple explanation for PPDM principles. I feel that it is an extreme dis-service to my community to delete this article. PPDM is spreading globally and the principles currently being instituted globally, especially in the United States and Canada.What can I do to appease you and can you help me have this article reinstated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IshtarDeity (talk • contribs) 20:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi IshtarDeity, I'm not sure how available HJ Mitchell is right now, so I'm taking the liberty of replying for him. Professional Petroleum Data Management was deleted, as you realised, under this criteria. Although the article was about a not-for-profit, Wikipedia still considers articles like this one to be advertising - the same applies for charities and free-software projects, for example. Articles don't need to be about commercial products, services or organisations in order to be considered to be advertising.
 * However... it's entirely possible that there could still be an article about PPDM. Take a look at Notability (organizations and companies) - it details the things articles about organisations need to show in order to be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If you have some connection with PPDM then you should also have a look at Conflict of interest - it doesn't necessarily prevent someone involved with PPDM from creating an article, but it does give good advice. TFOWR 19:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Cousin Sarah
My article about the new film just posted on IMDB was deleted: 19:54, 10 October 2010 HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) deleted "Cousin Sarah" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: Possible copyright violation of http://www.cousinsarahthemovie.com/about.html as well as having newly-released CRYSTALBALL movie details.) This is my first time creating a page so please be patient with me. While creating it I understand now that I can't include rumored material in the article and that I must cite the reference for the plot to the film's main webpage. This film has one of my favorite stars in it, Teri McMinn, and so I would really like to be able to put the page back up again, of course adhering to your stipulations. Let me know how I can get this page back up and running. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JenniferTK (talk • contribs) 11:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, JenniferTK, I'm not sure how available HJ Mitchell is right now, so I'm taking the liberty of answering on his behalf. Normally with an "expired PROD" I could simply restore this for you; however, as the concern mentioned was copyright violation I'd like to take a quick look first. You're quite right about rumoured material - it's an easy mistake to make (and I've made it myself) because it sounds like useful information, but information on Wikipedia has to be verifiable. Anyway, as I say I'll take a look at the deleted article and if it's "copyright safe" I'll restore it. Whatever I do I'll let you know. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 19:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi again! OK, I wouldn't be comfortable restoring the article - the first sentence says exactly the same thing as the film's website. However, that doesn't mean you can't recreate the article - just be very careful to write the article using your own words, not copied from the sources you use. Give me a shout if you need any help. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 19:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Blur Studio
I am requesting the un-deletion of the article Blur Studio. I feel they are an important studio in the video gaming industry. I would like to cite this two week old article to prove their relevance. http://kotaku.com/5649504/meet-the-pixar-of-video-games Muldoon X9 (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Edward K. Beale: undelete
I spent a goodly amount of time researching this person and would like to at least copy the code into a sandbox somewhere before it is gone for good. Could you please undelete or at least post the article text verbatim (meaning, with all the sub- code, reference tag information, etc)? That would save me and the other authors a whole lot of rework and send an encouraging message for future work. Thank you. Rezonate (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Pre-block sockpuppet of Dweeby123
HJM: While cleaning up some messy edits in the wake of Dweeby123 over on the Ruth Holmes page, I was back-checking some "facts" in the edit history diffs, and noticed you had 24-hour blocked Anon IP 213.137.24.8 back in June. Young Dweeby's characteristic "tweaks" and "do'h" [sic] Edit Comments are apparent in this (and at least one other already-ID'd) sockpuppet account. Although he hasn't resorted to using this particular IP since his current indefinite block, it is confirmed as a Static IP from an ADSL line (possibly a summer friend or relative's house on the Isle of Man), and he has been caught Anon editing from an admitted school Library IP. This ADSL IP pre-dates his User ID creation, and so was off-the-radar of other admins during his banishment discussion. Sadly, Beeblebrox &mdash;out of frustration&mdash; has finally washed his hands of the matter (he's "unwatched" Dweeby's Talkpage concluding a week of 'round & 'round), after enforcing the current block. (Dweeby is just oblivious to the harm his well-intentioned edits & reverts cause, and his Discussion page skills are non-existent.) Otherwise, I'd bring this other IP to Beeblebrox's attention. Hope this info will be helpful to any attention you wish to give to the matter, or pass along to other admins. &mdash; DennisDallas (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of article Sanctum_(FPS-TD)
Hello HJM. A while back you deleted the article Sanctum_(FPS-TD) for the following reason: "Upcoming game with no evidence of notability.".

Here are some third party sources:

http://udk.com/showcase-sanctum Source: Epic Games

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/06/01/the-eye-full-tower-defence-sanctum/ Source: Rock Paper Shotgun

http://jayisgames.com/archives/2010/10/weekend_download_156.php Source: Jay is Games

That should be enough notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KConny (talk • contribs) 19:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * . <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#A0070C">R</b> 09:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Somaly Mam article
Please stop reverting several edits on the Somaly Mam article. I was IP number 72.152.238.177 and I wrote additional info on the article on October 7, 2010. Can you give me a specific reason why you reverted my several edits? Do you remember the 3 revert edit rule? No reverting edits unless it's vandalism. Breaking this rule will bite you in the future. Please tell me what type of vandalism I did to the article. Did I write anything offensive or libelious? If you're going to keep on reverting, then I will keep reverting your edits on that specific article. I would rather that you write on my talk page than to engage in a edit war.

Now, I have re-added the infobox and added additional links as well as clearing up several sections of that article. Please don't write any stupid info on my talk page like I should sign up for a Wikipedia account or give me a warning template. --74.232.4.62 (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * undefined&ensp;I had some free time to review the various edits you referred to in the above note to HJM, and my initial reaction is to address your lack of civility in the tone of your post. Even though you insist on editing via "anonymous IP" addresses instead of a User ID account, you profess knowledge (by citing WP:3RR and WP:EW) of Wikiquette, but display little or none yourself.  You have actually threatened an edit war by your comments here.
 * You should already know that "anon" edits are automatically flagged for review (look at the page history of your edits, and note the "possible BLP issue or vandalism" flags) by the system. You will also note that HJM's reverts were made using an automated tool called Igloo (marked with GLOO in the edit summary). BLP articles undergo particular scrutiny, and since part of the "grandfather rape" material you added is contradicted by a previous editor using the same reference source, most editors and admins would err on the side of caution and delete the "new" claim of rape as "contentious", following an overriding BLP policy.
 * Please take into account that admins such as HJMitchell use time-saving tools like Igloo (GLOO) and Twinkle (TW) and their reverts are so-marked. As a result, there may not the same level of scrutiny from a manual review/revert process. HJM might not have noticed, as I did, that you meticulously annotated page numbers with your referenced statements.  If you'll re-read the edit war article, you'll see the "BRD" approach discussed in the first bullet-point: be Bold, Revert, Discuss.  Assume Good Faith and view HJM's reverts in that light.  We are now engaged in the Discuss part of that triad.
 * I'll move the rest of this discussion to the article's talkpage. &mdash; DennisDallas (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)