User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 36

The {val} template no longer works correctly
Please see the Template talk:Val. There have been one or more recent edits that totally fouled up the function of the template. Greg L (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you've contacted me, I don't even know what that template is and it's only semi-protected, so I don't know what you want me to do. The only thing I can suggest is to contact User:MSGJ or User:WOSlinker. They're good with templates. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

 Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 18:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

 Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 19:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Minnie Pwerle
I've undone some of your changes to Today's featured article/November 26, 2010. With Australian Aboriginal names, the last name isn't a surname in the European/American sense, but a skin name; referring to her as "Minnie", rather than "Pwerle", is correct. – iridescent  20:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'll take your word for it. It came up at WP:ERRORS. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Help Deleting
Can you please help me delete the redirect page Princess of Achaea so I can move Princess consort of Achaea there? Thanks!--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Courcelles 01:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Paul Begley
Hi HJ. I'm really sorry but I'm not very au fait with all the terminology used in Wikipedia. Basically, you deleted an article I created called Paul Begley referencing criteria for notability which apply to professional sports players. Paul Begley is an amateur gaelic football player and AFAIK different criteria are applied here. Can you advise please? Heshs Umpire (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, it was deleted via our proposed deletion system, whereby an editor tags it and it's deleted after 7 days if nobody objects. This also means that I can restore it for you if you want me to, however, because he's only an amateur, the article would more than likely be nominated for deletion through the more binding articles for deletion system unless you can provide evidence that he meets at least of the three criteria at WP:ATH. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

HJ, thanks a million for that reply. I am confident that the article will meet one of the least of the three criteria at WP:ATH so if you could restore the article, I will try to improve it to the appropriate standard. Heshs Umpire (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Back where it was. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Nice to deal with somebody so reasonable and understanding. Heshs Umpire (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Election Withdraw
It's too bad you decided to withdraw. I'm sure you have your reasons and all, but I was impressed by what I read in the extended grilling section. :) Keep the faith, Sven Manguard  Talk 02:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I left my reasons on my statement page. It's pretty simple. I stood because there weren't enough candidates, now there are, so I can get back to being an admin! Thanks for the note, anyway! :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Discretion is the better part of valour. I was still undecided when you decided for me. Perhaps next election? Thanks for offering to serve. ++Lar: t/c 03:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I second what Lar said. I thought you'd have been a good (yet reluctant) arb. DC   T • C   04:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. I can't see myself standing by choice next year, but if we're short of candidates again, then maybe I will. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Too bad. On the plus side, proves you're no masochist! --RegentsPark (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been through two RfAs of my own and nominated several other stressful RfAs. That's all the masochism I need, though, of course, it always helps to be told that I've abused my adminship by blocking some vandal or deleting some spam page or something! ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just want to add that I'm sorry you withdrew. I think you'd make an excellent Arb. SlimVirgin  talk contribs 03:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer being an admin. I've never really had my eye on the dizzying heights of power and I only stood because of the candidate drought. Once that problem was solved, I decided I'd rather stick to doing what I currently do. On another note, I've just closed that RfC of yours. :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I echo the regret. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  10:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I as well. Jusdafax  22:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ronda2001
Would appear to be back editing as an IP on Lebanese Civil War. O Fenian (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There goes any assumption of goo faith I had left. Thanks for the note. IP blocked, I'm off to extend Ronda's block. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See? I told you that you have a better nose than me for a troublemaker. Ah well. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ping.
here, if you're not busy. Thanks muchly. sonia ♫ 08:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

RFA
Hello HJ. Some time back in January, you have voted on one of my two past RFAs, which mainly failed per WP:NOTNOW. Some of the type of work I do could be done much faster are efficiently if I have these administrative tools. As you are the person who explained why I wasn't ready back then (1, 2), I thought it would be best to ask you; do you think I am ready for another shot?  Reh  man 09:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, if you have to ask ... as opposed to a few trusted people asking you, then you're probably not ready/visible enough. Just my opinion however. (talk→   BWilkins  ←track ) 10:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In your last RFA you gained no supporters. You had already gotten 12 opposers, so it was closed per WP:NOTNOW. The biggest concern in that RFA was the fact that, despite the fact that you've been here for several years, you've only made a total of less than 500 edits to Wikipedia-related pages (the WP or Wikipedia or Project, and WT or Wikipedia_talk namespaces). At that time you apparently had made less than 300 edits to these namespaces. Try to spend some time working at WP:ANI, WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:RFPP, tagging articles for speedy deletion, etc., and then try a third RFA when you feel you have good amount of experience in the administrator-related areas. And don't stop with your article editing; becoming an administrator requires good amount of experience in all of these areas. Hey  Mid  (contributions) 11:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Heymid and BW make good points, especially Heymid's point about project space edits. When I got through RfA, I had just over 2,000 edits to the WP and WT namespaces, but it's not the the numbers themselves that matter. Basically, make yourself useful and get yourself noticed around the areas you want to work in. When you know you have the trust and respect of the regulars in those areas, you'll have a good chance at an RfA, but RfA is tough, and it gets tougher by the week. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to mention this gem probably wouldn't help at all. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 16:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We've all accidentally taken a newby's head off at one time or another. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * But are non-bureaucrats (in this case, HJ) allowed to close a clearly-failing RFA (per WP:NOTNOW or WP:SNOW)? Hey  Mid  (contributions) 16:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Any editor in good standing can close an RfA where there is no possibility of success (ie SNOW, NOTNOW, withdrawn), though the candidate can revert the closure if they're feeling masochistic, but nobody's allowed to revert a 'crat closure is my understanding of the rules. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverting an RfA closure (especially by a 'crat) has shown to be a bad idea for future RfAs, as it shows an inability to abide by the rules and policies at Wikipedia. But MZMcBride successfully reverted Nihonjoe's closure without being reverted himself. Hey  Mid  (contributions) 16:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The close itself was probably not the best idea, but MZM's reverting of it earned him a flood of opposers. I would say reverting a 'crat closure shows very poor judgement. We elect 'crats for a reason (and I don't envy them). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, everyone, for your time in responding. I will definitely look into all the helpful points mentioned above. Warm regards.  Reh  man 02:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Until  sunrise
Hi Harry, I would just like to thank you and Acroterionfor taking a firm stance with all the Until sunrise crap.--Kudpung (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I had to check the deleted history to see where I was involved. Then I remembered. That guy! People spamming us with crap about their non-notable company is one of my pet peeves, so you're welcome! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't be arsed - ha!
Hi HJ, I just noticed your user-page notice beginning, "An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page." What an absolute classic! Drive-by tagging is something I hate and this made me smile and agree at the same time. Would you mind if I stole borrowed it some time please? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to. I stole it from someone else, who stole it from someone else and so on, so it's only fair! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am truly appalled by your barefaced plagiarism, but now that I am participating myself in this sordid circle of guilt I will be unable to denounce you to the authorities. Yet. :) DBaK (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

T:ITN
The image right now is still of the Malagasy president who's no longer on the template. Needs changing, but not sure what to. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 17:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I re-added Madagascar for now. My computer's playing up. Any chance you can upload File:Coat of arms of Tonga.svg locally and I'll add that. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, my Mac laptop hates on svgs. Unless uploading it in .png is fine for our purposes. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't care what it gets uploaded as if it means I can get that horrible grainy image of some bloke grinning like a nutter off of ITN! ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Coat of arms of Tonga enwiki.svg.png. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 17:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That image is now located at File:Coat of arms of Tonga.svg. Hey  Mid  (contributions) 18:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, took care of the housekeeping.  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Katyn massacre
My understanding was that the reason the Russian State Duma's action is noteworthy is not just that they condemned the Katyn massacre, but that they named Stalin and his associates as having been personally responsible for it. Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I just posted a bare bones blurb. I'm not familiar with the subject, but you might want to start a discussion at WP:ERRORS. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the explanation / suggestion.  Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah
Sorry I did not know :( « CA »   Talk 20:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Khan
Thanks Harry, I was in two minds about AFD as I wasn't able to keep the attacking stuff out and although in some parts of the world she is of some note, cites are thin in my search results. I'll give it one more roll of the dice and see if it can be improved and verified. Off2riorob (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Well hopefully the pending changes will help keep the crap out in the meantime. You have to admire the persistence of the people trying to add those pathetic bits of trivia! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Michele Cadieux
Hi, I was really disappointed to see my article about actress / model Michele Cadieux deleted. Michele was an actress and a memeber of two actors unions in Canada. Just because she died last year, does not make the article a memorial. It was written in a frank academic style and without a lot of gushy talk one may find in a memorial. If you check my contributions, I have made edits to other articles that have nothing to do with Michele or the entertainment biz.

I am currently working in Afghanistan as a cultural advisor and researcher for NATO. You deleted the article while I was out on a mission deep in Taliban country and where I can't be checking Wikipedia everyday. By the way, a much scaled down version of Michele's page is on the French language Wikipedia. Please don't delete that.

I will be very grateful if you put Michele's article back.

Thanks 13:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillGormley (talk • contribs)
 * I've just looked through the article as it was, and she clearly fails 110% to meet the requirements for inclusion. The article itself was written as a virtually unsourced bio.  There's nothing to save here, unfortunately. (talk→   BWilkins  ←track ) 13:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Please cut the crap. The article was written using materials I found in her files after she died and from inverviews with people knew her. It in primary source research. 03:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillGormley (talk • contribs)
 * Read the sourcing guidelines, primary research is generally no good because other editors cannot verify it, or because it requires synthesis (and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original materials). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Protection of Michael (album)
Please see Talk:Michael_(album). I think page protection might no longer be necessary, as I blocked the editor who seems to be half of the edit-warring (I had warned him yesterday that I would block him if he reverted again, and he did). With him blocked, I don't foresee there being further edit-warring. Thanks, rʨ anaɢ (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (just a ping, not sure if you saw this message) rʨ anaɢ (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. This talk page is very busy at the minute for some reason. If you think the problem's solved, I'll unprotect. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar


User:Heatseekeronline
From yesterday, the above user was blocked for edit warring on Namman Muay, and has now come out as having a COI here. As I was involved in reverting the users edits, I thought I'd bring it to your attention if I've handled it incorrectly.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 03:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice move!
I thought the editors involved with the edit war at the "Hell in a Cell" article needed some time to cool down and think about their edits. Thanks again! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 08:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback
Hi I have requested permissions/Rollback rights I wanted to know what know if a new {registered} editor like me might get them this would show trust on the part of wikipedia. I messaging you because I see your active tonight assigning this privilege. I know it's never to be used carelessly and that its a trust.
 * To get rollback, you need a high number of time that you have reverted vandalism properly without having rollback, and a history of making appropriate warnings when you do. As well, it's probably good to learn that you need to use ~ to sign your posts on any talkpage. (talk→   BWilkins  <font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track ) 10:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This dude's going kinda berserk... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Advice
Could you please help this discussion at the bottom of my talk page about a person who is being completely unfair and unjust about a revert I made which was a mistake that I made like all humans. They are saying that my talk page should be un protected so their IP could reply. They had no intention at looking at the page history to see the abuse I have previously received. I would just like you to contribute to the discussion. Thanks  Puffin  Lets talk! 14:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The irony...
...was almost too delicious to contemplate. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I couldn't resist! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case
How do you want to proceed?-Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll email you. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Replied on my page
Ng.j (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. With great power comes great responsibility...and a lot more work. Ng.j (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've always thought that he should have said that in the movie. :P  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 02:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ferahgo's block
I think you forgot to update the [|Arbitration block log] when you shortened Ferahgo's block. Also is the autoblock on the IP changed to 24 hrs instead of 72?·Maunus· ƛ · 21:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've put a note on the ArbCom case page about the reduction. PhilKnight (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your reduction was not proper at all. Please see my comment here and read this if you haven't already. Thank you.  NW  ( Talk ) 23:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read it and I'm amazed that, after at least two uninvolved and experienced editors commented that the block was longer than it needed to be or that it should be substituted for a warning and the blocking admin voice his lack of objection, you still feel you have nothing better to do than police your fellow admins. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The policy for appealing AE blocks says that a block can be overturned following a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" - the keyword being "uninvolved." The only two editors in opposition of reducing or overturning the block were Professor Marginalia and Mathsci, both of whom have been involved in numerous disputes over these articles, including with me before my topic ban. Mathsci was even the person the posted the original AE thread which led to my block.


 * I find it troubling how both of these editors tried to pass themselves off as uninvolved for the purpose of determining whether there was a consensus to reduce my block. The section of the AE thread where they were commenting was originally titled "Discussion among uninvolved editors." But because these two were commenting in this section despite being involved, Maunus changed the section's title to say "involved and uninvolved editors." -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ferahgo, if I were you, I would let this go and not come within a mile of either of those editors or anything that could be remotely construed to be related to race and intelligence. Find another topic that interests you and devote your energies to that. This was the first time you've been blocked and, if you keep your head down, it can easily be the last. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood. As you can see from my contributions, my primary sphere of interest is paleontology and evolution, but as you've seen it is possible for that sphere to overlap unpredictably with R&I. Anyway, thank you for your good advice and the shortening of my block. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that PM and Mathsci were involved. But at most, that leaves VsevolodKrolikov and Jayen466 as the other people even who commented. That certainly isn't enough to overturn a block.  NW  ( Talk ) 02:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again it is unclear what "uninvolved" means. Another grey area, as MastCell put it. In my case it seems that it might have concerned only where statements are placed, something which even now is unclear. On wikipedia it would be nice to think that "community feedback" goes a little further than the views of two users: in this case one was presumably commenting as one of the handful of critics of WeijiBaikeBianji in the current RfC/U; and the other was an editor under an indefinite WP:ARBSCI topic ban.


 * My request at WP:AE was for a "warning or other sanction". That seemed best left to the discretion of experienced administrators. The subsequent statements of Ferahgo the Assassin, following the edit that was reported, fully justified a block rather than a warning. The length is another matter and is a grey area.  Wikilawyering about the word "involved" is not the way forward—it's another way of casting aspersions, opening up loopholes.   Professor Marginalia is no more involved than anybody else commenting. His conduct on WP has never been criticized at any point.  Mathsci (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Counter-revolutionary

 * What does a rebuttal look like? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  02:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on CU's talk page. Please state what is needed to remove the block. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  02:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Slow down. I'm not familiar with this and it's not as simple as me taking his word for something. First of all, he needs to log in and speak for himself. I can't consider doing anything until I've heard from him, but bear in mind that this block was made before I even registered my account so some catching up will be required. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You have new messages HJ

 * Waiting for you on my talk page :-)   Wifione    <sub style="font-size: 60%">....... <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> Leave a message  13:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the semi-protection at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)...
...even if it is only for a short period.

As you know, I had requested semi-protection some days back, but it was denied by another admin. I appreciate you taking action! I'd like to ask you to consider a longer protection period, as the current mania will last several more weeks, at least. Thanks again. Jusdafax  17:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye on it, but I'm reluctant to shut people out, which is why I only went for 36 hours. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said to the other admin (not being coy, just don't want to get into it) it's my view that regular editors are repelled by the edit conflicts and fuss. Add to the usual IP vandals (that any new hit movie has) two real issues: the constant 'plot expansion creep' from new editors offended that their favorite detail was not included, and perhaps most seriously, the need some IP editors have to split the article into Part 1 and Part 2. Just like the constant low-grade controversy over the title of the first film, this will be an ongoing, grinding issue for the forseeable future for this article. And in any case, no one is shut out... all they have to do is register an account.  Regardless, many thanks yet again. Jusdafax   17:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is that unregistered editing should be disabled, so I agree with you. However, as an administrator, I uphold policy and consensus as it currently is which is that IPs have as much right to edit as the rest of us. Apparently 80% of IP edits are good faith, but the remaining 20% make up 80% of all vandalism. It's a dilemma to which there's no easy solution. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. Do you know of any current, or even past, areas where changing that policy is being discussed as WP policy? I'd like to participate and encourage mandatory registration, and free editors from much of this (to me) insane, endless busy-work. Jusdafax   17:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's Wikimedia-wide policy, not local policy, see m:Founding principles. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the most obvious impediment but it's also been discussed (see Perennial proposals) quite a few times here with consensus to disable anonymous editing never coming close to being found. I often wonder myself if the stage of Wikipedia's growth where anonymous editing is a net positive has passed - but I don't think it's changing for the foreseeable. ~ mazca  talk 18:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Ugh. That's gonna be like changing the US Constitution. Still, I'll consider an appeal to Jimbo. Thanks for giving me a clue. Jusdafax  18:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, to change the US constitution, you just need to load the Supreme Court up with people sympathetic to your politics or, in the case of big business, bribe some senator who sits on some powerful committee. To change the founding principles, you'd need to convince hundreds, if not thousands, of Wikipedians and even then the Foundation would veto it and no developer would do it without the WMF's say-so. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Interracial marriage in the United States
HJ, could you add the article to your watchlist? The initial block of the IP was indef, but then reduced to 55 hours only. It seems likely they'll start again once the block has expired. Thanks, -- JN 466  18:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's because we're not allowed to indef IPs because they're often shared or reassigned. I'll keep an eye on it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Doing so far
How do you think I'm doing with my edits so far, HJ?  WAYNE  OLAJUWON  19:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well you're certainly doing a great job with your vandal whacking. A little more care and you'll be even better. As I said earlier, you can sometimes be a bit trigger happy and you leave baffled IPs and admins in your wake, but I do action a good majority of your AIV reports. Your edit count is almost the same as mine, which is bloody impressive to say that I've been an admin (slightly) longer than you've had your account! Is there anything specific you want advice on or does that answer your question? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You also semi-protected my user page which means you influenced my WikiCareer in that category as well. I'm trying to become an administrator and I want to run for adminship in January. Do I still need more months than that in order to run for adminship? Also, about the question I asked, I need to limit the reverting mistakes on Huggle. I'm trying to be very careful to make little or no reverting mistakes. I do care about what I do on this Wikipedia. The more longer you edit each day, the higher your edit count is. I do not edit Wikipedia to get my edit count up. I want to try to be the best user in the history of Wikipedia. This is not the first year I've edited Wikipedia. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2008 but with an IP address. I haven't been editing Wikipedia as much as I've done now. As an IP address, I would still edit Wikipedia but not as much as now. I'm not going make an edit with an IP address ever again. I have 35,641 edits including this one according to my preferences and you have 41,655 edits according to X!'s edit counter.  WAYNE  OLAJUWON  20:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would advise you to wait a bit longer than that. Firstly because I'm not the only admin who monitors AIV so I'm not the only one who has declined some of your reports, but also because admins need to have considerable depth and breadth of experience on Wikipedia, because they're tasked with cleaning up all manner of messes and because people often turn to them for help. If I were in your position, I'd give it until at least the middle of next year, when you have a full year's experience and spend that time broadening your horizons by writing articles, contributing to policy discussions and generally making yourself useful. Remember that adminship isn't a reward (trust me, it's not really that much fun), but a responsibility. Oh, and X!'s edit counter uses a different measure to some other counters (I think it counts moves and protections as edits while others don't). I actually have 36,425 edits. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a very difficult responsibility unless if you're a Huggling administrator. You have to block users, delete and/or protect pages, and give users their rights, such as rollback, reviewer, etc. I made a few mistakes today which I need to limit even though nobody's perfect. I only need a couple hundred more edits in order to pass you in edits. I assume good faith even though the warnings I give to users doesn't mean that I assume good faith. Remember that day when you told me on my talk page that I gave that user a 4im warning for one removal of a speedy deletion tag? That's what Huggle did. I don't like to bite the newcomers or anybody else. Somebody else may bite but not me.  WAYNE  OLAJUWON  20:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that once you press a button, you can't stop it from warning the editor, but taking an extra second or two to scrutinise the diff and decide if it really is vandalism or whether it could be legitimate or just a mistake. We all make mistakes–I've cocked up more than once with Igloo–it's part of being human. We're not infallible. Many editors who use Huggle or Igloo put notes at the top of their talk pages about bad reverts. Something to consider. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Even the bots have made some mistakes that end up being false positives because they are run by humans too. I even reverted other peoples reverts by accident too especially when I tried Igloo, I reverted reverts by other Igloo users. Many ex-Huggle users now use Igloo now and sometimes Huggle users use Huggle and Igloo for different reasons. Also, why can't your alternate account be called HJ MitchellAlt instead of Whiskey drinker which Alt stands for alternate? I put it Alt so you wouldn't confused with your alternate talk page's name. Huggle doesn't recognize talk page vandalism by its owner but Igloo can unless you type the name of the talk page in the Page section of Huggle. Huggle's stuff is similar to Twinkle as well as rollback. Igloo needs to start to have Huggle's features as well as their own warning templates even though it's under the name of a user.  WAYNE  OLAJUWON  21:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well bots just go by predefined rules, so they don't know if they're reverting good edits or bad (which is why they're quite strictly regulated). Igloo is better these days than it was, but it's still in development, so it's inevitably going to have a few flaws, but they can be ironed out as they're spotted. I'm sure it'll end up with all the features Huggle has sooner or later. As for the name of my alternate account, well, it's because I like whisky! Simple as that. ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I see why that's your username. :) Igloo was founded by an ex-Huggle user. What do you know about the tenth anniversary about Wikipedia besides that Wikipedia was founded in 2001?  WAYNE  OLAJUWON  21:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm, not an awful lot. I believe the WMF are planning various things, but I don't know what. We haven't done badly for a mere ten years, though, have we? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It depends on what we did. I wonder if Wikipedia is going to have special logo for its tenth anniversary which could a cake with ten candles on top of the Wikipedia logo. Users come and go every year on Wikipedia, right?  WAYNE  OLAJUWON  22:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * People come and go all the time, it's part of life. I think there is (or was) a page somewhere that you could propose things for the anniversary. I like that idea, though. You should bring it up in Jimbo's talk page and either see what he thinks or see if the rest of his stalkers know where that page is. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I will let him know but how many users who are active now, do you think will not be editing next year?  WAYNE  OLAJUWON  22:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've no idea. People leave for a whole variety of reasons, but the wiki is constantly being replenished by new blood. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

True. IPs are no longer able to create pages, either. Maybe because they couldn't handle it getting the account rights.  WAYNE  OLAJUWON  22:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that was back in 2005(?) after a major controversy over a BLP, but I can't remember the details. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's before I ever edited Wikipedia. I started editing Wikipedia in 2008. Should I change my username to Slam because some people are going to think I'm related to Hakeem Olajuwon and Lil Wayne?  WAYNE  OLAJUWON  22:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Long before I edited as well. I've only been around since March 2009. If your username is the name of somebody famous, then you could just make it clear on your userpage that you're not that person. If you want to change your username, then, by all means, go ahead, but you don't need to change it. It's not really a big deal. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to change it but I may have to just to avoid any conflicts in any relation (related) to these guys. Once I was asked if I was related to Hakeem Olajuwon and another time, an IP asked me if I was related Lil Wayne. What would you do if this happened to you for example: somebody asks you if you're related to Twista whose last name is Mitchell? My username is notable but if I change it, they won't call me Wayne anymore which is my current user name. They would call me Slam instead. Would you still recognize me if I change my user name?  WAYNE  OLAJUWON  22:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if you like your current username, why not just put a note on your userpage stating that you're not related to those people. That's what I'd do if I felt it was a problem. Changing your username is a bit drastic for a minor issue. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. I should have never chosen this username. I chose this username because of Lil Wayne and Hakeem Olajuwon. That's why I chose this username. I'm going to change it to Wayne Slam. I do not want the last name of another person as my user name. I requested a username change with this edit. I rather change it than to put a notice on my user page.  WAYNE  OLAJUWON  23:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm sure a 'crat will sort you out soon enough. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Renaming appears to be possible according to SoxBot. Do you like the new name of my signature?  WAYNE  SLAM  00:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. You just have to wait for a 'crat now, then. That might take a few hours or even a day or two, depending on who's around. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll check it out after I come home from school tomorrow to see if it's successful even though I checked a few times tonight. I added it to my watchlist. When my username is changed, I'll never change my username again.  WAYNE  SLAM  00:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Cousin marriage
Hey. I am trying to resolve the dispute at this page but there is only one other person involved and nobody else has expressed an opinion. I did list it at Third Opinion, so hopefully help will be forthcoming. —贾宝玉 (user • talk • contribs) 19:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are some great editors at WP:3O, so hopefully you'll get a response soon. I'm deliberately not getting involved, but only because I've made admin actions, so I have to remain impartial. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:129.116.15.5
I can remove the crap this IP put on their talk, right? Clearly, people like Jimbo and Jeff G didn't put those messages there. Allmightyduck <font color="#FFFF00">  What did I do wrong? 21:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidently someone has too much time on their hands. Blocked without talk page access. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Harry. I've requested a CSD G10 for this because the crap is still accessible through the page history. Perhaps you could do it. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well there's no benefit in keeping that crap knocking around, so I've zapped it and restored it with just my edit. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Kudpung (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

More System of a Down
Hey, thanks for protecting the page. I was hoping to avoid it having to be in that light, but this should stem the vandalism. If they indeed make the announcement (should be at 1pm Central European Time for Download festival) tomorrow, then would you be ok with dropping it to semi-protection for the last day? If not I'll go the usual edit-protected route, but thought I'd ask anyways. - <font color="#5A5AC5">ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ <font color="#3AAA3A">¢ 00:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What's that, about 1200 UTC? I should be around, so I've no problem dropping to semi if they make the announcement. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Confirmed.[systemofadown.com] They have now indeed made the announcement themselves and confirmed locations and dates. - <font color="#5A5AC5">ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ <font color="#3AAA3A">¢ 15:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - BilCat (talk)
 * Seen it, it's on my watchlist, thanks, though. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Something that needs your attention
This user keeps removing a speedy deletion template on Gizmo (Chihuahua). They have been warned, and they continue to remove the template. Take any action you find necessary. The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 03:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Problem solved! ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * S/he's at it again, this time at Lyndsie Kirkland Racquet's. I think a block may be in order. What do you think? The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 03:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I was about to, but just as I brought the hammer down, 7 beat me to it! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You missed the first time? Here's your second chance. Check out my latest talk page vandal edit: Looks like a case of block evasion to me.  The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 03:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Never mind, Courcelles took care of it.  The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 03:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

1990 Penrith Panthers season
How is an infobox sufficent when the article as it stands consists only of external links which is the criteria for deletion under CSD A3? Mo ainm ~Talk  15:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The infobox provides enough content and context to establish what the subject of the article is, so it can't be speedied, I'm afraid. The criteria are deliberately narrow. The same goes for the other infobox-only articles you've tagged, but I don't have time right now to go through and decline them all. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

interaction bans
are a poor solution to disputes. WP:Dispute resolution is about resolving a dispute, not paving-over the noise the belligerents make. Such bans end up tying editors together as they then *must* look out for the other party. I don't know BilCat or what he gets up to; Mick's another matter. Indef is the resolution. Such a resolution then puts the burden on the disruptive party to make a case for their return. The bar, correctly, is very high. We don't want most such users back. See s:User talk:Jack Merridew ;) returns require work. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between swearing a lot and bombarding those who disagree with you with walls of text and genuine disruption. In this case, an interaction ban is the way to go imo, unless you want to indef both of them (something I'm not necessarily averse to, but wouldn't be my first choice). In this case, the disruption is very much bilateral and keeping them apart would reduce the disruption. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see it as prolongation. I've not much looked at this specific incident. I expect it's just more of the same. I've no opinion about BilCat; only vaguely recall seeing that name around. It's not about this incident; it's about years-long-shite. Just look at MMN's block log again; every time has entailed major-shite. It's time to sort the root-problem and it seems Mjroots' going to do it. [ your ticket] Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm currently preparing a RFC about Mick. I'd like BilCat to be able to participate in that RFC should he wish to do so, interaction ban notwithstanding. What do you think? Mjroots (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not up to me. If he has useful input to the RfC (ie something other than just Mick-bashing), then, so far as I'm concerned, he's more than welcome to give it. On another note, if you need a second signature to endorse the RfC, I'm willing to do it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree re Mick-bashing. I did mean that BilCat should be allowed to add constructive comments via the "Outside view by ..." section of an RFC. Mjroots (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly have no problem with that. If we can actually have a discussion instead of the drama and axe-grinding we see at ANI, we might actually get somewhere and, like I say, if you do need a certifier, then I don't mind. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and trust. Please accept my sincerest thank you for using such kind words in your support. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. I'm sure you'll do a good job (once you've finished thanking all 100 and something supporters ;)!), but stop by if you need a hand with anything. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoa... that was a bit harsh!
I noticed you recently removed rollback rights from Alaney2k. I see this as a bit harsh because if you look at the history of the article that got them the thread in 3rr/edit warring noticeboard you will see that Dolovis has been using rollback more inappropriately than Alaney2k (Specifically; reverting clearly constrictive edits). Would you care to explain please? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 23:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Rollback is for vandalism. Period. Use of rollback in an edit war = no more rollback. Dolovis doesn't have rollback or I would have revoked that too. Since they abused Twinkle, they've lost that. It's not harsh at all. Either use scripts and advanced permissions properly or lose them. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Monster high protect
Hello,

You declined to semi-protect the Monster High page pending some examples, so I thought I'd bring a couple to your attention. There's nothing super crazy happening, just a lot of unregistered users popping in to add incorrect info, such as 174.55.33.118 or 79.158.135.215 (adds in a rumored, fan-favorite but unsubstantiated character) or 68.80.64.163 (adding in fan-created names). It's understandable that this alone might not warrant a semi-protect, but it does comprise a large portion of the relatively small page activity.

Usually, after a series of undoing-them replacing-undoing agains, these people go away, but they're just replaced by someone else. I'm fine with personally policing it and just undoing all the random added stuff, but I do feel that it would significantly increase the quality of the contributions to the page if only registered users were allowed to contribute. (For examples of quality, see this recent character addition by an unregistered user, vs. previous iterations of that character's entry.

Thanks for your time and consideration! -Lhall (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I don't remember this one offhand, but then I was the only admin at RfPP for most of yesterday so I wouldn't! I don't have time to look into it right now, but please feel free to take it back to RfPP and make your case there and another admin will take it into consideration. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
Hey there HJ, I noticed you're doing alot of the deciding on the requests for rollback page, so I figure you're a good person to ask this question. Since I don't want to flood the requests for rollback page with requests, what should be a good benchmark I should shoot for before applying again? You can see I have been attempting to use TW some more herehere, and I know I should continue this. However is there an edit count or something I should shoot for? Thanks!  I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message  03:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it seems you've got yourself some experience in dealing with vandalism and Nakon has granted you rollback. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)