User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 41

And you have a reply!
--5 albert square (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And another!--5 albert square (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you say that you'd sent me another email? Just not received anything yet from you but received other emails ok since you posted on my talk! :S--5 albert square (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Got it and pinged back a reply now.--5 albert square (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And again :)--5 albert square (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And pinged again lol.--5 albert square (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Unblock
Ta! Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Rollback Rights Awarded
Hey HJ Mitchell you just granted rollback rights to User:Just Feel It I totally disagree with your decision. He is already misusing his reviewer rights as he did to United States presidential election, 2012. He is registered on 2010-07-31T16:29:29Z with only 803 edits. He is continuosuly having proposed deletions and speedy deletions on articles and images he is creating or uploading. I would suggest that you give it a through checkout again and then take a proper decision; otherwise I would have to take this matter at the Admins noticeboard. Your sincerely Burhan Ahmed  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  04:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see where he's abused the reviewer permission. In the article you cite, he accepted an edit that looked like good faith, but was just misguided. It took me a minute to work out what the problem with it was. The bar for reviewer is deliberately set quite low to avoid long waits between edits being saved and being accepted. I'm comfortable with my decision to grant him two relatively trivial permissions. I would suggest giving him time to get used to the new buttons. They're easily revoked, but only with evidence of abuse or consistent misuse and I see no evidence of the former and he's only had them a few hours so it's a little early for the latter. I must say, I like your sig. Where have I seen that before...? ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   10:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * lolx may be in ur preferences :p Burhan Ahmed  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding revision deletion
Hi there, I noticed your name in the category of admins who help with revision deletion, so I came here to query about an edit I found on the E-8 Joint STARS page. Specifically, this revision (and, to a lesser degree, this one). This seems to me to be a, rather unusual perhaps, violation of the BLP policy with regards to adding unsourced negative/derogatory information about living persons. Ordinarily I'd just revert and move on, but here (and, for the other one, here) the IP who made those edits reverted himself! Clearly his sole intention is to have his declaration of "Worst Ever Crew Chiefs" in the public record, as it were, for his amusement/satisfaction in knowing that his declaration will remain there in the page history. Thus my wondering if a revision deletion of those four edits might be appropriate in this case? Also a block might be in order, seeing as this shared (military) IP seems to have a long history of vandalism, but I'm holding off on proposing that on the vandalism notice board until hearing back here to see what you think. Thanks for your time, and keep up the good work! - The Bushranger One ping only 08:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC) (talkback requested)
 * ...and even as I was posting this another admin went ahead and zapped the first diff I linked to. So, er, never mind then, I guess! - The Bushranger One ping only 08:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Courcelles has deleted the first one you linked to. If any of them qualify for RevDel, that one would, but I don't think any others do. Personally, I would have just left it to avoid the Streisand effect (and per the principle of DNFTT), but there's little harm in zapping it when named individuals are concerned. He also blocked the IP vandal. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   10:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Again, I again thank you for this help in granting me Rollback rights on English Wikipedia. I am very Thankful to you for this kind. I hope you will also help me in future.--—just feel it (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to stop by any time you need anything. As long as you;re careful with your new buttons, you'll be fine. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   11:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sheikh Omar Hayat
I am first thank you of giving me time for giving references on Sheikh Omar Hayat, know you can see the article that I have gave 4 references of this article. Know I request you to remove Deletion tag from it. I 'll thankful to you. Yours sincerely....--—just feel it (talk) 11:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * These references aren't really suitable. Some of them are blogs, which are not reliable sources, Flickr is just a photo sharing site, and the website of the Palace that the Sheikh built is not quite independent. So you do need to find additional sources as well as these.


 * However, I have removed the BLP PROD template because Sheikh Omar Hayat is not a living person - or at least, the person your article about is very definitely dead. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, from the version I tagged, I couldn't work out if he was living or not. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC
My comments only have to do with the fract that they're claiming that the RFC is not aimed at a single user, when it obviously is. Corvus cornix talk  22:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

LHS
Hello HJ! I understand I'm not involved, but with in my mind, what did you mean with "LHS"? Also, HJ, have a happy tenth anniversary of Wikipedia! :) I'm going to sleep now. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 00:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Left Hand Side of the Main Page (TFA and DYK) as opposed to the RHS (ITN and OTD). Main Page admin shorthand. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance category
Could you explain to me why you in this edit remove Category:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over? __meco (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it's not a violation of the username policy. That category shouldn't linger indefinitely—the name is either determined (by an admin) to be a violation and the editor is blocked (unless they file for a name change) or it's not deemed to be a violation and the category is removed. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And how did you come to the conclusion that it is not a violation of username policy? __meco (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bacause it's not offensive or misleading (ie, doesn't imply he's an admin or a bot etc) and it doesn't represent (as far as I can see from his contributions) a company, organisation, group or website. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You really should inform yourself before making a judgment call on another editor's assessment. I suggest you look up what the word kommune means. __meco (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy tenth anniversary of Wikipedia!


The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Shall we drink to the occasion? The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 01:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)



T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) has bought two pints! Sharing a pint or two (or three) is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint or more, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * You get two pints from me HJ, happy WP Birthday. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 01:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And ironically, 15 January (last year) was the date I started on Wikipedia! :) So today I've been on Wikipedia for exactly one year! Hey  Mid  (contribs) 10:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy wiki-birthday, Heymid! Mine is the slightly random date of 29 March. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll also be happy to celebrate your 1st anniversary as an admin! And do you like (and drink) whisky? Hey  Mid  (contribs) 14:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be 1 May. Yes, I like whisky, preferably a decent single malt, though the last time I had it in a pub, the idiot behind the bar put it a bloody shot glass after trying to persuade me to put coke in it! I was not impressed! Oh, I'll find the answer to the question you emailed me in a minute. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Close this discussion soon
This article is always a site of vandalism and it is also nominated please finish the consensus as soon as poosible Articles_for_deletion/Instant_Virus_Killer Burhan Ahmed  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  07:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, that's a no consensus. We have the nom (you), and two other delete !votes, one of which is a blatant WP:JNN, and one keep !vote. It seems to have had some coverage in reliable sources, so it's a tough call. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th to Wikipedia


Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

Reaper Eternal (talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 12:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!
 Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia! Hey Bzuk  (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

And what's good, comes around! Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What is it with everyone using other people signature...boy...:) T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 17:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, right... D ylan620  (T ALK ) 18:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha ha T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 18:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy tenth anniversary of Wikipedia!


Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

Hey Mid  (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 17:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Even though you're probably drunk by now


Dylan620 (t • c • r) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 18:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC) To Wikipedia's 10th birthday. Cheers! --Dylan620 (t • c • r) 18:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's tenth anniversary


Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

 WAYNE  SLAM  has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 18:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)  WAYNE  SLAM  18:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's a lot of booze! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th (even though I'm underage...)


Perseus, Son  of Zeus  has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 18:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC) -- Perseus, Son   of Zeus  18:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you're going to regret the morning after :)


Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

-- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 18:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC) -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy Decade :)


Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

 Baseball Watcher  Lets Chat  has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 19:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Be glad!
HJ, I think you should be glad for the fact that your whisky WikiLove template has been substituted so many times today! :) Maybe it's a record for any template today? Best regards, Hey  Mid  (contribs) 20:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to add my congrats to Heymid's. From the looks of the above you've had a good deal more whisky than beer so just be careful on the way home :-> You might want to get a bite to eat. When I was in Scotland many moons ago I enjoyed stopping at the stuffed baked potato places that I found. They were a delish food to take back to my B&B. Cheers to the 10th anniversary. MarnetteD | Talk 20:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the template has seen as much use on this page today as it has anywhere since I made it! It's nice to see my creation getting some use! I just need to get a decent picture of a glass of single malt to replace the current one, which is pretty crappy. Happy tenth anniversary to both of you, and to all the people trying to get me drunk! Good job I can handle a drink! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Many moons??? Hey  Mid  (contribs) 21:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It means a long time ago possibly in a galaxy far, far away. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

More!


Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 22:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC) I hope your not drunk yet. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 22:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No! I'm drunk soon, though I'm not gonna steal your signature. What about giving HJ a pint? Hey  Mid  (contribs) 22:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I gave him two already. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 22:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Spam on Cooper City High School
Hi, you recently blocked an IP for edit warring to restore spam to this article, but the spam is still there. I would remove it myself, but I've already reverted the IP three times and would prefer to avoid even the appearance of going over 3RR. Can you take a look? Cheers, Reyk  YO! 00:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it, but, for future reference, spam is effectively vandalism, which is an exemption from the 3RR. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2011 January 6
How dare you! I have half a mind to bring you before ArbCom to face charges of...

Just kidding. Nice closure :)  NW  ( Talk ) 02:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I aim to please. I have to say, I wouldn't have wanted to close the original AfD. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I too found the close to be eminently reasonable and came to say as much. Thanks for that. Also (as always) happy to take any additional feedback on either the close or the xfD talk. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Notice of request for deletion of editor HJ Mitchell :)
HJ Mitchell, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the nomination (unless you wish not to participate); such removal will not end the deletion discussion (actually it will). Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :). --Dylan620 (t • c • r) 02:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I commeneted. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 02:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy HJ Mitchell's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day... Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 05:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Woo! Another one! Thanks, Homer. Always a pleasure to hear from you. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   05:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Rlevse beat me to giving you one (he did his at 0 UTC and I did mine at Midnight EST) one day, so I waited til today. :) Congrats!  You earned it. :)  Keep up the great work! :) -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 01:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Timothy Ball
"However, BLP concerns take precedent over just about everything in the interests of not causing any "real life" harm to the encyclopaedia's subjects."

I'm curious as to how an article of Ball could cause real life harm to him. . . or to anyone else, for that matter. As I see it, should the article be biased for him, it wouldn't hurt him. Should it be biased against him, it couldn't be worse than other critics. Any hurt they are doing wouldn't likely to be made worse by an unfair WP article. Assuming, though, that we would carefully write an accurate, reliably sourced BLP, how could it hurt him?

Was that the only ground for deletion? Yopienso (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As was shown in the original AfD, deletion of marginally notable BLPs is within closing admin discretion. The risk here is for the article to act as a WP:COATRACK to which all sorts of climate-change-denial bashing can be attached. I will repeat the offer I made at DRV, however, that, if you want to draft a neutral and well-sourced version in your userspace, I'll be happy to review it and if you need the original source code, I'll userfy it or email it to you. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Might it be proper, then, for you to say you were afraid of coatracking rather than saying it might bring harm to Ball? Or by "the encyclopaedia's subjects" did you mean not Ball, but WP's climate articles? I really think there are plenty of editors who would make it their business to prevent coatracking on a Ball BLP. See my user page for my take on truth and frankness. The issue about not being notable and there being no sources is unsupportable, right? There was already a neutral and well-sourced version; NW and you deleted it. In any case, thank you for taking the time to respond, and happy editing! Yopienso (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th
 Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia! Hey Bzuk  (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

What goes around, comes around, hope you haven't partaken in too much drinking. Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Worst DrV closes ever.
In all seriousness, your desire to enforce your own opinions over the clear consensus in three cases running is a real problem. I don't think 95% of the admin core would have closed any of those in the same way. Oh well, the joy of our system I suppose. If anything drives people away from Wikipedia it's the sense that their input doesn't matter. You've moved a solid step in reinforcing that ideal. Hobit (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * With regards to iPad 2, the XfD request was quite reasonably closed as redirect to iPad, while there were more arguments made at deletion review the purpose of deletion review should be to confirm that the deletion was correct (which in the iPad case it was), unless significant further time has passed.
 * If further iPad 2 related content is wanted that can be discussed on Talk:iPad and if there is enough content I'm more than happy to ask for it to be spun out into a new article. As of this post there has been no such discussion. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've started a special section here on the iPad talk page so that hopefully this can be discussed. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly closing Phillip Greaves as a redirect looks correct too, per WP:BLP1E he's only notable for one event, so thus it doesn't seem suitable for him to have a whole article, maybe a whole article could be created for The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure if there's enough content for that outside of the Amazon article. Now the other side has some merit to it (as it seems like quite a big deal), but its hardly "one of the worst closes ever" - that's hyperbolic. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection
Now he's bringing out sleepers. I wish I could remember this MO.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 21:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good thing. It means he has to use the sleepers and he'll run out of them quickly. Might be worth emailing a CU and asking them if they can find a range to block or something. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * MO? Hey  Mid  (contribs) 21:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * modus operandi. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI
I just wanted to let you know that a user you blocked, Kesha495 did this.  Baseball Watcher  Lets Chat  21:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh. Leave 'em to it. It's not as if changing a template actually means they're unblocked. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure thing.  Baseball Watcher  Lets Chat  21:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Just posting here in case you'd like to explain. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, maybe that wasn't the best choice of word on my part. What I meant to say was that I don't believe there's anything wrong with the userbox, because I believe people should be able to express their views, no matter how objectionable or offensive others may find them. I didn't mean to imply that I condone the belittling of religious beliefs as "superstitions" nor that I think religious beliefs are the equivalent of believing black cats bring one "bad luck". Such a comparison is unnecessarily divisive and, more to the point, is irrelevant to building and maintaining an encyclopaedia, which is why you would never see it on my userpage (aside from it having nothing to do with what I do on Wikipedia) but I still support Ctfj83's or anybody else's right to say it. I certainly meant no offence to you or anybody else and hope my poor choice of words hasn't done lasting damage to our working relationship as I've always held you in the highest esteem, even if we disagree occasionally. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did want to assume that's what you meant, believe me, but I couldn't take "I agree with the sentiment" to mean "I agree with his right to say it". But I accept your explanation and am happy to move forward. My despondency has mostly been caused by the reactions of some to those of us who have tried, civilly, to point out why we think the userbox is unacceptable and why it is a matter relevant to the candidacy. Obviously that despondency is decreasing at a rate equivalent to the chances that the community will pass this candidate.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we sorted that one out. There are things in life and in Wikipedia worth losing friend over as a matter of principle, but there's no sense in losing them over a misunderstanding. I still don't think the userbox is unacceptable, because he's entitled to his opinion and I think Keepscapes was trying to capitalise on precisely this imaginary divide between people lucky enough to have faith and cynics like me in order to fan the flames on what was always going to be a heated RfA. Regardless of the userbox, it looks like enough issues have come out in the RfA to cast serious doubt over whether Ctfj83 is ready to be an admin. I just think it's a shame that RfA candidates are treated more like defendants in a show trial than people who are making genuine offers of help, even if they're not qualified to give that help. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

User: Ryulong
No user deserves the abuse that is experiencing on his talk page. I have never really seen eye to eye with him but even I feel bad for the amount of abuse he is receiving from trolls. Is there something that can be done about the apparent troll who is attempting to wound a giant with a pea shooter? -- Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1   [talk]  22:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * With this kind of trolling, I think the user's talk page could be protected for a short time. The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 22:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

IP Failing to Understand Sourcing Policies
I would appreciate it if you could review Talk:S-Video and provide feedback, or point me in a proper direction to bring attention to this (the article doesn't seem to fall under the auspices of any projects at this time). I don't believe the IP (who also reported me at 3RR) understands Wiki policy regarding sourcing of material, but no other editors are getting involved either thus far. In my opinion the editor's coming perilously close to violating NPA as well, but I feel a third party opinion would be vastly preferable to taking action myself when I'm the target. Thank you very much for your time. Doniago (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that I declined the ANEW report, I'm probably not the best person. My best suggestion would be to request a third opinion—maybe an explanation from a completely random person with no prior involvement might help. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, 3O isn't an option as more than one editor has chimed in on the discussion; however, the additional editors are also IPs, and I have similar concerns regarding their understanding of policy. Thanks, though. Doniago (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Might still be worth a try, or you could ask for input from experienced editors at Content noticeboard. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Doniago (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

174.28.41.201 and Jeopardy! think music
Something should be done though. This IP has constantly added OR to the Jeopardy! theme music article and no one seems fit to stop him. He got up to a level 4 warning rather recently and shows no signs of changing. Surely this is an edit war that needs stopping, and not another set of blind eyes turned towards it? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, as you know, the only useful things in this case I can do that you can't are block the IP or protect the page. A block would be punitive and probably pointless because they haven't edited in about 5 hours (even assuming it's a static IP, the human behind it appears to be elsewhere) and protection is a very blunt instrument. If they return tomorrow and keep at it, drop me a line or go to ANI if I'm around. Oh, and maybe assume a little good faith? I know it's annoying, but I have a feeling they're not trying to destroy the wiki. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If this doesn't get solved, would it be better to go to RFC/U instead of AIV? I've been leaning on the side that the IP's edits aren't vandalism; however, they are disruptive and contrary to policy.  RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 03:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * RfC/U is a very long, drawn out process and for an issue like this, is unlikely to get anywhere. It's designed more for experienced editors with a lot of good edits but some issue or other that needs to be resolved. I'm not averse to blocking for OR, but blocking an editor who is editing in goo d faith (and where even the edits leading to the block were in good faith) is quite a drastic measure and so one I would be keen to avoid if there are other options, like trying to explain what the problem is (in non-template fashion). If that doesn't work, then we have a bigger issue of either competence or refusal to listen to what he's being told. 03:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Good faith" is an initial presumption, not a permanent state. This user has been notified about the inappropriateness of the edits in question in every way possible.  The presumption of good faith can no longer said to be operative in this case. Robert K S (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK prep area
Was your omission of the third article from the McCormick-Hickory Hill hook deliberate? (It's a long discussion, so it's easy to overlook things. However, William Grigsby McCormick was also supposed to be included -- unless you found a problem with that article.) --Orlady (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I just copied the hook from T:TDYK into the prep, but WGM didn't seem to be included. It might just be me being an imbecile (it is half 3 in the morning), so feel free to fix it if I've cocked up. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem -- I inserted the latest alt hook into the prep area. There was too much discussion there for a drowsy person (or even an awake person) to parse reliably. --Orlady (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Those proxy edits
Thanks HJ, but tomorrow you may see the same request. This user has been a pain in the arse since John L. Helm' maindate, and apparenlty won't stop. For example, yesterday started to expand his attacks, you can click in almost all the blue links of this blurb and you'll see the padlock in the;, and you protected all links of today's blurb, except for the TFA, which may be protected per BLP. The probability of have all tomorrow links protected is high. Tb hotch ۩  ۞ 05:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Again
I notified the IP, and he has once again violated the restriction: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. I hope you understand my discomfort at blocking them without any hint that they're doing anything wrong. Experienced editors (and this could easily be a block evader, but AGF for now per WP:ROPE) should know about it without being notified, but, assuming the IP is a newbie, they would have no way of knowing about the restriction. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please reconsider your deletion of File:Yucca flowering.jpg
Hi, I see you recently deleted File:Yucca flowering.jpg. The original uploader has now confirmed that they released the photo to the public domain when they uploaded it. Would you please restore it accordingly? Thanks, Avenue (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Range block
Hello! Because of your range block, the block of 24.106.59.228 is now unnecessary, since the range block covers that IP. Hey Mid  (contribs) 16:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Rollback and Reviewer rights
Hello, thank you for adding the reviewer and rollback rights to my account. Hugahoody (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank You
Hi there. Just wanted to shoot you a quick message to say thank you for approving my reviewer and rollback rights. Take care. peteg913  message 22:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't think I ever thanked you... So I'll thank you here, now! :p Thanks, HJ. demize  (t · c) 22:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're both quite welcome. Use wisely. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy Blanking of RfA
Hi HJ. I didn't participate in Giftiger's RfA, nor did I see the page whilst it was active - I've just taken at look at recent RfA's and saw it had been courtesy blanked - by you. I know its within admin clout but is it really fair and neutral for the nominator (who - fair enough - is feeling a bit guilty over the effect the experience had upon their protegee, what with the consequent "I'm leaving!" meltdown) to so swiftly and unilaterally do this? You blanked the page within minutes of GW withdrawing and so far as I can tell, you were not asked to. Having looked through the history, I cannot see anything objectively objectionable to warrant blanking: GW knew he had some issues, knew that RfA can be rough on such and that's what happened - indeed, that's all that happened. Injured feelings v. access to content is one thing but should such action be taken by someone directly involved; indeed by someone who clearly regrets their own involvement there? Even if blanking is a bit of a sop - after all, anyone can access the content through the history. Anyway. I'd be interested to hear your justification. Ta - Plutonium27 (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know it's the first recent RfA to be courtesy blanked (previous RfAs have been if memory serves), but I don't see much to be gained from the content remaining there like the remnants of a car crash for all to see nor in it appearing in Google, where it could have an impact if he uses the same username elsewhere on the internet. If he were to return, I would certainly have no objection to un-courtesy blanking and, certainly, if he were ever to stand at RfA again, I would unblank it myself. For now, though, I would prefer it left as it is if only because there's nothing to be gained from restoring the content and because the content would appear very prominently in Google (especially since he had his userpage deleted). For the record, I don't consider myself to have been acting in an admin capacity when I blanked it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   05:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you "courtesy blank" every failed RfA? What's different about this one? Malleus Fatuorum 05:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See MediaWiki:Robots.txt. All RFA's are hidden from Google. Courcelles 06:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your courtesy blanking was reverted by Malleus, who then was reverted by Wifione. I don't know, but as far as I know, courtesy blankings should only be done per the candidate's request (if we talk about RFAs). Courtesy blanking Giftiger wunsch's RFA doesn't seem to serve a purpose, mainly because no RFAs are indexed by any search engines other than Wikipedia' own one. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 18:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Such a disingenuously vague response raises more concerns than it answers. Let's take a wider look at what was going down with this.

From (User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 40), 11/01: GW asks about EFM, is told to go for RfA instead and that he will be "pestered" into doing so. Although unfamiliar with the day-to-day RfA scene, GW knows it can be rough and is reluctant due to 'issues' he expects will be raised. Despite these profound misgivings (expanded upon by User: Soap, driving by) HJ instead goes with breezy platitudes: ("We need you! You won't get Speedied! User:X did it! My fanboys like you!) and so he agreed/gave in, persuaded by superior experience and knowledge.

Given his limitations, it wouldn't have occurred to GW that the Nomination statement was little more than a few too-meagre qualities dressed up in gush, doing him no favours by claiming "he is effectively already an administrator" based upon his comments at UAA, RfPP etc - whilst ignoring (or ignorant of) GW's apparent endeavour to helm the good ship ANI as Captain Ubiquitous Obvious.

GW had somewhat of a hard time but no more than many (I'd say my comment above was harsher than anything he got at RfA) and a lot less than some, nearly all of whose RfA Calvary remains for all to read and learn from. So if you don't want rubberneckers at the "remnants of [this] car crash", I am not surprised but whereas GW only got his fender torn off (even if it did cause his radiator to overheat), you were upside down in a culvert with a totalled rear end and a speedo stuck well over the ton mark.

You weren't to know GW's reaction would be so extreme but is it so surprising? Not because of the treatment he receieved so much as he cannot be assumed to have the maturity, capacity and experience to roll with it. It doesn't happen in RL that a random adult bunch of middle-aged hard bastards would sit the lad down and proceed to tell him exactly how he fucks up and squabble amongst themselves over how badly). But here that happens and peers and cohorts persuade one another to undergo it for a mark of status if they "win." WP.MMORPG - with HJ and his mates all (wannabe) admins together prima. Possession of necessary qualities secunda.

My opinion on all that would be entirely irrelevant except that GW's nomination was dictated by friendship rather than objective evaluation, and so was to some extent self-serving; that he was subjected to an unseemly expectation to comply; and was served up with a Nom even less adequate than his credentials. Which is why, when it went tits up, you hurriedly blanked the RfA. GW's flouncing out may have seemed a good cover reason but it doesn't hold up. You may have done it in the same spirit as you nominated him - out of friendship - and it may not have been an "admin action" but you are an admin and admins are held to high standards of integrity, neutrality and openness. The 'I did it to save the honour of GW on Google' is frankly as pathetic as excuse as I've come across whereas "I'd prefer it left as it is as I think there is nothing to be gained from restoring the content..." is just desperate.

Malleus has restored the page. Everyone, please, leave it be. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Was there a point to that or are you just venting your spleen? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your frank and revealing response. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Kesha495
Hi HJ Mitchell.

Kesha495 is requesting unblock. I think you should grant their request. The final warnings s/he received was for an edit which I do not believe was vandalism, as s/he was editing a page which was created by him/her. I feel that s/he was treated unfairly, as there is a long-standing guideline that blanking a page which you created (and which has no other substantial editors) is equivalent to placing db-g7 on the page, and the warning given was for an edit made on that page. Granted, the user later voted "keep" in the AfD, but I still don't think that edit was vandalism. Regards. J.delanoy gabs adds 00:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, O_O at all the drinks up above. Is there enough for me to have some? ;-) J.delanoy gabs adds  00:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note If memory serves, the last time you were here could have been nearly two years ago when you gave me rollback! I had a look at their request and their contributions and I'm still concerned. I knew the final warning was improper when I blocked them, but their edits to The Heroes of Olympus and User:Baseball Watcher/Status are questionable at best. I'm not ruling out unblocking them, but an explanation would be nice. Out of interest, I don't suppose you ran a checkuser on them, did you? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and help yourself, I think I've got enough booze to open a bar! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't run a CU, but it appears pretty obvious now that they created another account, possibly before you blocked. Meh... J.delanoy gabs adds  03:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I have unblocked - I didn't think the other account was them (unless I'm looking at the wrong account - the one whose autoblock caught them doesn't appear to be them). Anyway, feel free to reblock at the drop of a hat if they appear troublesome. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with unblocking without any sort of explanation for the edits, but the worst case scenario is they end up reblocked. I guess it's a case of WP:ROPE. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit to User:Baseball Watcher/Status was trying to change it from "Away" to "online" because Baseball Watcher was online - and subsequently changed the status page him/herself to online (Baseball Watcher posted on Kesha's talkpage prior to Kesha making the change. I haven't had an explanation for the other edits.  I'll keep an eye out though - if this turns out to be a misjudgement on my part I am standing by to receive the smack with a wet fish. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with being willing to assume good faith (or take a leap of faith). Granted, it makes you bitter and cynical when it blows up in your faith face, but every now and then, it pays off. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I do very much like "blows up in your faith" - pure genius! :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. In fact, I believe Diego would've been able to edit Wikipedia constructively earlier than from April last year – I think that it would've been a good idea to unblock him already in February. I think I and Diego both have shown that users shouldn't give up too early – I was nearly indefblocked only a few months ago, but I changed my behavior and now there are no longer any major issues. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 16:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I definitely think Diego is one of the successes. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Mail!
--5 albert square (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And more!--5 albert square (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled candidates - Thanks very much
WOW! Thank you, thank you, thank you. I was getting another batch of users from that old list and found that you have already checked a whole bunch from the list I put up. Thank you very much. So I'm wondering if I should add users to Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled candidates 1 or should I make a new page at Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled candidates 2. Or maybe do something else. Please let me know as you are the master and I am the student. Thanks again. -   Hydroxonium (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd create a second page, because I will be very unhappy with you if you give me an edit conflict while I'm working my way through the last two dozen! I've been hoping for a list like this for some time. I don;t suppose you have anything more recent? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   05:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll create a second page. I don't currently have anything more recent — but — a few days ago I asked for a new list at WP:DBR. Unfortunately it requires somebody with access to the database to write a query and run it, but somebody has been working on it. When it's done I'll put it up on a similar page. Thanks again. -   Hydroxonium (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Just in case you are not watching
Tb hotch * ۩ ۞ 06:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's sorted now. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

DRV closures
I thought your closes of the three long-outstanding DRV discussions the other day were thoughtful and balanced, BTW. It was obviously a lot of work to read them all and write that, but those were solid closes. Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. They weren't the easiest closes, which I guess is why they had been lingering for days. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

many thanks
Many thanks for your granting me the "autopatrolled" permission! --Pengyanan (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, now I'm confused! You talk page is a redirect and I flagged the account it redirects to. Which one do you use to edit? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, for some personal reason, I don't use my main account Neo-Jay right now. The account Pengyanan usually do minor edits and only occasionally create new pages, and all of them are disambiguation pages. Probably I will re-activate my main account Neo-Jay later this year. Sorry for the confusion I caused. Thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll flag both then. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! --Pengyanan (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)