User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 44

Autopatrolled
I didn't want you to see my post as a permission. I know I have no authority to give permissions etc. I just agreed the template should be removed, considering the fact I was the one who made it. Please, don't take it as a "licensed permission". I thought I would work faster on the articles related to Gordana Kuić, but, obviously, I was wrong. Anyway, thank you for your advices and for making some thing clearer. MarizzaRojas (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC+1)

Don't you want to take a break from Autopatrol lists?
Me on a bicycle can't keep up with you in a motor car. I was hoping to get ahead but you're too fast. Don't you want to take a break? Seriously though, I really appreciate all your help. I'll keep plugging away at the lists. Thanks again. -  Hydroxonium  ( H3O+ ) 06:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Youndbuckerz autopatrolled
Hi HJ - please check out how many non-notable articles has created (probably well into the hundreds) and how much work it has been for the community to remove them. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The last article they created that was deleted was back in November and they seem to be fairly actively creating new ones. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't think his pre-November record means NPPers should be reviewing his articles -- including BLPs on completely non-notable people -- when they hit the mainpsace? He also has the propensity to fly off the handle and do very inappropriate things on the mainspace, such as BLP vandalism -- see the circumstances that led to his last block. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and the copyvio that is his most recent article creation. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

HJ what are you looking at when you're assigning these permissions? According to your contribs log you're taking about three-four minutes on each. In the last five you've assigned, you've given autopatrolled to a guy who recently created an article on a product sourced only to its manufacturer's website; an editor who recently created an unreferenced BLP and whose other recent creations are very thinly sourced; and an editor whose recent creations have needed to be tagged by NPPers for cleanup, or cleaned up by others. Sorry to be a pain, but giving autopatrolled where it's not warranted means that problems -- such as badly sourced BLPs or copyright violations -- are less likely to get picked up and create more work later. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've identified some more here. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: discretionary sanctions
what is the outcome of that which you originally said on the admin pages was not in violation that went again after a personal talk page complaint that is not open to general public. (note - im not editing that page.)(Lihaas (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)).

Moot cases
You previously told me a case is moot when some 3-4 months old, yet for some reason editors seem to think them ripe for a pound of flesh Requests_for_comment/Lihaas
 * you previously said of the "good faith editors" : Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents = WP:BOOMERANG? Come on, those 2 are not attempts to "harass"?
 * RepublicanJacobite even signed the comment as having attempted to discuss. Where i dont know considering ive never had a conversation with him. How is this valid and acceptable with BOOMERANG when the same RFC page already mentions the criteria to start a comment.
 * Also note please: "Also note his vengeance mongering stems from the conflict that started over the 2011 page with 2 other complaints and now he resorts to an ancient 2010 page that shows no dispute resolution" How can he not get at least some sanction for false reporting in order to "solely to harass or subdue an adversary" per already explicit rules that had to see to submit an RFC Requests_for_commentLihaas (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks, merci, תודה
CTV (a canadian television) have a good report on this event. As the first Reconstructionist synagogue in Canada, Dorshei Emet has always treated women as equals. Shabat Shalom.I hope you have a week-end with happiness, peace and serenity. אני אוהב אותך --Geneviève (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
While catching up on the WP:SCV backlog I saw you granted this right to who has a history of creating copyright violations. While searching through some of their other created articles I located more problems than just those I was previously aware of and have now submitted a CCI request for them. Just thought you should know. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, there was no indication of that in their recent talk page history or block log, but I've removed it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there was the recent CorenSearchBot message (obviously not always reliable) but before that it was a copyvio warning last July and cut/paste move warnings in August/September. Not really recent and spread out enough that they haven't been blocked for it, so nothing in the logs. Just another case where I happened to stumble on them more than once and so recognized the username. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

About the rollback
Hi I just made a new request for rollback rights could you review it please, thanks SilverSoul91911 (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If you don't mind
If you don't mind, could you restore User:Perseus, Son of Zeus/u? Thanks! -- Perseus, Son  of Zeus  ✉ sign here 18:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Genre issue
It's because he wasn't just doing genre wars, it was also vandalism as well (see his first few edits). -- GunMetal Angel  19:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Nagy
If the user wants to be unblocked, I think he should have to change his username to a less personal one.

--Thebirdlover (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrol -- h'mm, are ya sure?
Greetings, HJM. I see you have given autopatrol to Bull-Doser. This may cause some issues; the editor has something of a problematic history of repeatedly and persistently replacing good images in an apparent effort to have his images rather than someone else's used in articles. There have also been issues with misapplied and misidentified images, and near-total lack of engagement when concerns regarding his contribs are brought up in article talk pages or on his own talk page. I wouldn't say he's a bad editor, nor that he routinely violates WP:FAITH; he has contributed a great deal of good quality imagery and some good text, and most of his questionable actions don't rise (sink) to the level of requiring heavy intervention or AN/I discussion. Nevertheless, given his tendency to lean in the direction of tendentious editing and non-engagement with other editors, I'm a little uneasy about pages he's edited being automagically marked as having been patrolled. NAR, FYI. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 20:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you've mistaken what autopatrolled actually does. It just means that new article he creates don't have to be patrolled from Special:NewPages. It has no effect whatsoever on any edits he makes to existing pages. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes HJ, but an editor who has demonstrated content problems should be presumed to lack the trust necessary to have their article creations be autopatrolled. I'm very concerned at some of the permissions you've granted -- this one, the example VernoWhitney gave, and the dozen or so examples I've given above. I need to know if you're going to do anything about it. Much of my work on this project is fixing problems that I can only wish NPPers had found earlier. In many cases, the problems have slipped by undetected for months and years because an admin has given the contributor autopatrolled rights. I no longer have the capacity to revert your granting of permissions, but if you don't I need to find someone who does. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that autopatrolled should be given to people who create large numbers of valid articles. WP:AUTOREV suggest 50 valid articles and all the editors I've flagged have created in excess of 100 (I take valid to mean articles that don't meet any speedy criteria). By your logic, I shouldn't be giving it to people with blocks for edit warring. I don't think you understand what this permission is or are putting your own view of it above the process page. I'm granting it (and will continue to grant it when I have time) to people who meet the standard as currently written. If you think it's too low, then you need to establish a consensus to change it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The standard is "trusted user" ("the user can be trusted not to submit inappropriate material"). The purpose of NPP is to avoid problematic articles - like unreferenced articles and copyvios - slipping onto the mainpage. If you think that any, let alone all of the permissions I identified above benefit the project in any way, you're profoundly mistaken. You've given it to copyright violators, amongst others. So where to from here? --Mkativerata (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As we don't seem to be able to resolve this between ourselves, I've asked for input from other admins here. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Now of all the people I thought likely to start a frivolous noticeboard thread, you were not on the list. I honestly would have thought you have better things to do, as I do. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh for God's sake, please at least do something about the copyvios. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For fuck's sake yourself. How about you get down from that high horse of yours and actually give me a copyvio and the source from which it's copied so I can zap the bloody thing instead of moaning about it like a toddler? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Easy tiger, I've dealt with Youndbuckerz's, linked above. You need to take the permission off him so the likelihood of him doing it again without notice is minimised. Did you see what he was blocked for? --Mkativerata (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and Sticks66 and Hervegirod (close paraphrasing)? I'll tell the three of them what the problems are, if you like (won't get to it for 18 hours though). All I'm asking is to please take it slower and more carefully. I don't know why you ignored then dismissed the Youndbuckerz problems when I raised it with you a few hours ago. Maybe because I raised it. I don't care. Just take it slower and more carefully and there's no need for AN. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be appreciated, even if it takes you 18 hours. I'll think about the other two. There's not much damage they can do in a few hours. Sorry I lost my temper. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, the reason this matters to me is shit like this that could have been prevented. I'll hat the AN discussion. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Archiving
Just letting you know that I have archived my talk page, including the unblock appeals. If you're not comfortable with that let me know and I will restore them. I'm just archiving it because the block is being used against me in unrelated content disputes (I suspect the editor came to my talk page and saw the block stuff and decided to hit me on it). Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not blocked, so you don't have to keep them on there. As long as you keep your nose clean, they'll just sit in your archives gathering dust. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey
Hey, HJ. Would you like some help with the potential candidates for Autopatrolled list? I think I could any editors who have not created any articles in, lets say, 6 months or so? (or whatever you feel a good number) -- that does not require any admin action, and, would take some of the workload off you. Thanks, T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 22:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're offering, you could help Hydroxonium out by going through them and marking each request with the date they created their last article and anything else you think is relevant. That would save me a lot of time when I pick it up again. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright -- I don't think the AN thread will get anywhere. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 23:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

AN discussion...
here. Apologies if you'd already been notified, I didn't see one before adding this. Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No apology necessary. MK notified me when he started it, but I appreciate you making sure. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see the AN thread. I have expressed my view there. Thanks again for all your help. -  Hydroxonium  ( H3O+ ) 01:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
And sorry I exploded at you before. I _do_ believe those closes were quite wrong, but could have, and certainly should have, said it without being confrontational. You have my apologies and my thanks for being so gracious. Hobit (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ancient history! We all lose our tempers from time to time. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

WCW page protect.
Please unprotect World Can't Wait. A new editor removing references and referenced material he doesn't like and then being reverted is not a content dispute. I've already asked that another experienced editor come in and help explain out core policies to the problem editor, protecting the page isn't appropriate here. TomPointTwo (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For the most part it is, unfortunately, TPT. —Jeremy  (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 06:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What's me? TomPointTwo (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for RFPP work
Just a quick note to thank you for your work at RFPP, generally, and for your recent move to semi-protect the Medical cannabis article for two weeks in response to all the IP vandalism it's been subjected to recently. I appreciate that. Best, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 06:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it's nice to be recognised, thanks! :) RfPP is one of those areas that gets chronically backlogged, so I try to keep an eye on it when I have time. Medical cannabis looks like one of those articles that gets a lot of crap at some points and next to none at others, so hopefully two week will do the trick. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward
Hi HJ, I have a plan to move forward with this autopatrolled business. I think there are some you've done (not since the AN thread) that are not good calls -- not just the copyvios, but the unreferenced BLPs, etc. But at the same time I can accept that you'll disagree about some and defend your decision. If I work back through the list and send you the editors of concern that I identify, with reasons, would you reconsider them, with no expectation from that you'll just agree to all of them? I'm happy to send it to you, and discuss, offline. And for ones that we can agree on, if you aren't keen on reverting the permissions yourself, which I can understand, I'm happy to take the tools back temporarily and do it myself and explain why to the editors concerned. Sorry, it struck me this morning from your lack of response to me that you might think this is a "bash HJ" thing. It's really not. It's because I've seen first hand how autopatrolled permissions can be much more dangerous than many editors think. I'm about to file a CCI about an editor who has created over 1,000 suspected copyvios under the cover of the autopatrolled permission. Wikipedia is more important to me than wikifriends, so I'll tell a wikifriend if I think they're making bad calls, and I'll hope for a constructive response. So when I saw that you'd given the permission to Youndbuckerz, an editor I keep a close eye on, it very much raised my eyebrows, and your response appeared to me to overly dismissive/defensive, which triggered the AN. So I'm sorry I should have worked harder to persuade you than take it to AN, but I do think there is still work do be done here. I should tell you I think you make great calls as well -- proving most of your RfA opposers wrong vis-a-vis Diego Grez springs immediately to mind. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. I think you should take the tools back anyway, even if you just use them to nuke the odd copyvio, but I don't mind reverting myself when there are clearly issues that I've missed. If you want to give me a list of candidates you think have serious enough issues to warrant removal of the permission, then I will at the very least carefully consider them and reverse myself if I agree there are serious issues, but I can't promise we'll agree on all of them. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Actually, nuking copyvios is under control by other admins, it's CCI where hands are needed and the tools are unecessary there. I've set up my list here. The third column's for you. I'll gradually add more over time if I find them. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll take a look at that once I've sorted DYK out. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Uíge Province in Angola

 * I had/have no doubt that this information is exact. However, my reaction was/is that it did not belong in an article that tries (should try) to feature the basic characteristics of that province. And these were in fact not affected by this epidemic. Aflis (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK nom of Solsidan (season 1)
Hi, if you have a minute, could you take a look at T:TDYK. Another editor has raised some concerns. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now done the edits needed. You can check it up:). Thanks for raising the concern.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A user is raising a concern with the DYK nomination which I dont really get. Perhaps some copy edit is needed I dont know, but that has to be some minor work if so.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

ARBPIA
Could you please officially notify user:Becritical and user:Crotalus horridus of the case? They have both made changes to the lead of Jerusalem while there's an RfC discussing it going on. Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've notified both and logged them. Obviously, that shouldn't be seen as taking a position on the dispute. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously. That's why I didn't even mention what the dispute is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Hey, I was just wondering, do you think it possible for me to have autopatrolled rights? Thanks a lot! Aidoflight (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid not. It's only function is to mark articles you create as patrolled in Special:NewPages, thus taking the load off new page patrollers. You've only created 4 articles; the suggested threshold is about 50. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Tereshkin
Hi there; would you care to review the block of this user, which you implemented a few days ago? He has appealed, and his request may have some merit. -- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 21:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not sure on this, but I've unblocked them, though if they keep it up, they'll be looking at a spam block. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection Request
Hey HJ, could you semi-protect the following page: User:Wehwalt/Barnstars‎. I just made it for Wehwalt and since it is for an admin, I would like to head off any vandalism at the pass. Thanks! :) -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 22:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I could, but Wehwalt is an admin. If he wanted it protected, I'm sure he'd do it himself. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

serial sock
You took action against steveg79 but I am afraid it looks like he is a serial sock Just returned as Sambob204, same articles, same approach. -- Snowded TALK  22:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Stéphane Sessègnon
I lifted your protection on this article since this player's transfer has been confirmed, and it seems that was your only reason for protection. Feel free to undo this if there was more to it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi HJ Mitchell, thanks a bunch for reviewing my request for rollback. I was unsure if I should post a response here on your talk page, or on the permissions page (previously linked), so I decided on here. In addition, is there a possibility I could re-request permission once I have started posting warning (templates) to the user's talk page? Thanks again. Cheers.  Angelo  ♫ 01:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. Give it a week, maybe two, and then either re-request ti there or come back to my talk page and I'll probably grant it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I was unsure whether it would be wise to warn anonymous user's on their talk pages, but now I realize the importance of doing it.  Angelo  ♫ 01:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, using Twinkle makes warning vandals really easy, so I'd recommend using it if you haven't already been. demize  (t · c) 01:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Demize. I've just started using Twinkle today, and it's very useful thus far.  Angelo  ♫ 01:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Madonna and Child
Hello! Forgive me if my conduct appears too nosy, I just really try to make ITN going on better. Don't you think that Madonna and Child nomination is ready to post? It would be nice to use the image, as well. Grey Hood  Talk  02:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, you beat me to that on the ITNC... Grey Hood   Talk  02:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I just commented there, as it happens. I don't mind being poked, though I do keep a close eye on items that have a good chance of getting up. It would be nice to put it up there (nice image and under-represented subject), but the update is currently a line and a half long in an article that's not the focus of the blurb. The latter doesn't bother me so much (though its own article would be nice), but I need at least a decent-sized paragraph of prose with a few references. The image is another matter—it's not officially part of the rules like it id for DYK, but the image on ITN/C isn't in Titian and it would seem odd to stick an image on the Main Page that isn't used. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've created the article, A Sacra Conversazione: The Madonna and Child with Saints Luke and Catherine of Alexandria. Hope it will be expanded soon to meet necessary requirements. Grey Hood   Talk  02:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi HJM, just wanna say thank you for the autopatrolled right you just gave me. Have a nice day! =) ќמшמφטтгמ torque 02:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: AIV
Have I to elaborate it? Tb hotch *  ۩   ۞ 04:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

An important message concerning a deadly outbreak of cholera
I've expanded this if you want to post it if it has not been posted if you know what I mean. -- can  dle • wicke  05:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like BrogQueen got there first. :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

For a long list of great things you do

 * Ha! I love the description on that page as a "thank you on steroids"! Thank you. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Sologoal
That right may not be appropriate, given they recent made David "Tarzan" Ritchie - an unreferenced BLP, with YouTube links.  Chzz  ► 14:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You've Got Mail!
--5 albert square (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Took ya long enough! ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And I've replied to your email :)--5 albert square (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your reply to my email hasn't come through.--5 albert square (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

-- The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 21:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One more. The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 22:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Still not got your email.--5 albert square (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And again another reply from me. Might be an idea if you keep sending it from this second email address as I don't seem to be getting the emails from the other email address for some reason! --5 albert square (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Intro
This page is left unprotected so that new users can see the edit button, there has been a few discussions along the years and consensus was to leave it that way, even if it means having to make a few reversions a day. I added PC as a compromise so that users can see the intro intact. As this would go against long-standing consensus, I think that a discussion is needed for applying an indefinite semi-protection. (In any case, full protection is overkill, semi is largely enough.) Cenarium (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter if they can see the edit button? I'm all for helping newbies, but, as my log summary said, the page gets nothing but vandalism, spam and misplaced article submissions. If the only benefit of unprotection is the edit button, surely a CSS page could be modified to change that? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The intro refers to the edit button, this is so that new users familiarize with it. There's no css hack possible, or it would require developer intervention, which makes this near impossible. Vandalism, etc, is not in itself a concern, since readers do not see it thanks to PC. The only concern is that it makes that users have to revert periodically. Though now that I think about it, we could use a bot to clean the intro. Is this OK to you ? Cenarium (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you mean like the bot that clears the sandbox? That could work. I'd have no objection to unprotection if a bot can do that. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Greenbrier Mall
Just a heads-up, the mall is almost 1 million square feet in size — precedent is that the International Council of Shopping Center's "super regional" ranking (i.e., any mall 800,000 square feet or bigger) is at least an assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Userpage Protection
Could you semiprot my userpage? This is the second time this month it's been vandalized while I've been huggling. Thanks, Ronk01   talk  01:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ronk01   talk  01:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Puerto Rican people
I originally requested full protection, but can I know request semi-protection. If you look at the history of the article, this has been an ogoing problem.--XLR8TION (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Another DYK tip
After you composed a set, unless it has to go live shortly, leave it in preps for a while. We've got a few non-admins who regularly scan preps for errors, but their active daytime might be shifted from yours. It is also not bad if another admin had a fresh look and promoted your set, though off course this is not guaranteed. Cheers and thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I normally would, but the queue was looking pretty empty when I got to it a few hours ago, so I just put a couple of sets together and moved them up. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   06:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for renewal
Hello, I would like to request for renewal Clione antarctica article. Original text has been added by administrator JoJan at May 2004. Copy of Wikipedia texts at is dated December 2004. (By the way, that website is a mirror site of Wikipedia content.) I need an article for further expansion. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Voyageur
If the title that you moved it to is available (Voyageur) then that is preferable. But I believe that that title was a pretty substantial disambiguation page which now appears to be gone. (?) North8000 (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the WP:ARBPIA notification
I am aware of this case. I believe that my editing on Jerusalem has all been well within the "purpose of Wikipedia, expected standards of behavior, and normal editorial process." I have attempted to discuss this on the talk page to reach consensus, but the editor who requested you to serve me with this notification has refused to cooperate. Instead, he continually harps on procedural objections, claiming that the article must remain static because of an active RFC, and claiming that it has been discussed before and therefore cannot be discussed again. There seems to be an overall consensus for the changes I have proposed, with 2 objectors (plus a third new account that is a probable sockpuppet.) I know you are acting in good faith and a normal expected matter in serving this notice, but I believe that the notice itself was being used as a tool in furthering User:No More Mr Nice Guy's opposition to current consensus on the talk page. *** Crotalus *** 13:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just a notice. If you adhere to "purpose of Wikipedia, expected standards of behavior, and normal editorial process", you don;t have anything to worry about. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Amadou Samb
Amadou Samb is a notable player, i will restart the article but would you likely to restore the page history? Matthew_hk  t  c  16:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing useful in the history. It's almost completely unsourced and only a few lines long. I can restore it if you really want, but you;d be better off starting from scratch if you ask me. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Block of User:Ron 1987
Cross posting this from User talk:Ron 1987. I disagree with your block of Ron 1987. He was reverting vandalism by User:178.148.32.160. The IP was disruptively removing references for material in the template which was otherwise unsourced, and Ron was merely reinserting these references (ie here: ). Reverting vandalism doesn't count as edit warring does it? TDL (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you disagree, because you take his side in the content dispute, which I'm guessing is why you didn't report him to WP:ANEW, but the edits weren't vandalism. That's why you reported the IP to ANEW and not AIV (where your report would have been declined), but you can't seriously have expected that one party in an edit war would be blocked and the other not. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair, at the time I filed the report Ron only had 3 reverts and thus hadn't actually violated the 3RR (hence why he wasn't reported).
 * Also, the IP is back as Special:Contributions/178.148.36.56. How should such situations be dealt with?  With a dynamic IP is it possible to actually block a user?  TDL (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is indeed. I can block an IP range. Since the range he's on is small enough not to cause massive collateral damage, I've blocked it for a week. My point is that the IP might have been disruptive, but if he's being disruptive, let him disrupt and then bring it to the attention of an admin, but don't keep reverting him because then the focus shifts from obvious disruption to a content dispute. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. That's the approach I tried to take (hence why I didn't find myself blocked as well).  Thanks for doing the range block.  TDL (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding my report for 62.228.76.199
Hello there, i've reported User_Talk:62.228.76.199 to [] regarding vandalism among Anorthosis Famagusta FC and it has been removed without getting an answer of being blocked or rejected. Thanks in advance and sorry for the inconvenience.( (Argento1985) 20:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC))

Ping!
--5 albert square (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * and again!--5 albert square (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ready items on ITN
Hello again! Please look out for the Kosovan election and the Southern Sudan referendum (Modest Genius has found that 100% of votes were processed). Grey Hood  Talk  21:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the poke. I've put Sudan up, I'll do Kosovo in a bit. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Man vs. Wild PP
I asked for unprotecting at WP:RFUP, and missed the note about contacting the admin first. Why did you semi-protect Man vs. Wild so easily? Page protection is supposed to be to prevent further vandalism, stop the current vandalism when it's going on. There is no current vandalism at the Man vs. Wild article, in fact, there hasn't been an edit in now four days. The three day protection currently in place serve no purpose. Taking a look at WP:RFPP, you refuse protection all the time for "not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection."  X  eworlebi (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick action.  X  eworlebi (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

redirect
do you mind creating a redirect for Shia death squads to mahdi army pls, im not sure how to do it.? thanks Someone65 (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that IP block on bismuth
Some vandal students at Clovis East High School in Clovis, California near Fesno, have been making WP miserable, as you saw by the number of warnings on this page in just the last month. This is probably the library computer there. The sooner somebody soft-blocks this IP permanently, or calls the Clovis East High librarian, the happier WP will be. Tell the librarian that Robert Dickson and Connor O'Keefe need suspensions. A week is good, but 6 months would be better. The school needs better control of their equipment. S B Harris 19:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you give me the school's official email address, I'll send an email and bring the edits to the attention of the school staff, but that's as much as I can do and the school can choose to ignore it if they want. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for the heck of it, I just talked to the school librarian at East High. Told her I was a volunteer for Wikipedia, which I am. She tells me the class wasn't supposed to be using Wikipedia AT ALL and she'll have a word with the two students involved (they turn out to be JUNIOR HIGH students, as the entire district uses the same IP address). She says that for all she cares, you can lock wikipedia EDITING (and even reading) for this IP address permanently. She can't do it from her site, because the 80 computers in even the East High library all go through the unified school district IT access point someplace else, and that would involve talking to programmers at another site, yada, yada. But anyway, block the thing and let them call Wikipedia if they are unhappy. I don't think they care, and would not as soon not have to supervise anything. I have the impression of one librarian trying to supervise roomsful of unattended computers. And this is at EVERY school in this central California district. BTW, I thought the idea of a library getting a call from Wikipedia complaining about student vandalism to be intrinsically hilarious, so I just had to do it once in my life, since it's a pet peeve. I was VERY polite and didn't ask for anything, just gave information. S  B Harris 20:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

E-mail
--Captain Occam (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
for the autopatrolled thing. Not sure what it does, but it seems to show some confidence in me. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

John Barry
Hi again, I've made the requested update. Grey Hood  Talk  23:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted, thanks. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Carl Truscott
Carl Truscott


 * - BLPN report from 11 days ago

Hi, HJ, if you have time, please have a look and consider pending protecting this BLP please you will see from the edit history, these additions have been in and out repeatedly for some time now.. There has been attempts to move to discussion but the editor has simply replaced again, issue is attacking content only sourced to a primary report and its undue and some is also not even supported in the primary. Off2riorob (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've fully protected it for 24 hours. Let's see if that brings them to the talk page. If not, we can try other things. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Harry, I doubt it though, the user has been stuffing it in for quite some time now and has been told repeatedly under multiple identities, yes, lets see how best to move forward, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You might want to check the IPs' other contribs—looks like he might be adding similar stuff to the ATF article. The range he's on is tiny and it looks like he's the only person editing from it as an anon. I can block it if he keeps it up, though may I suggest you try talking to him while it's fully protected? You never know, he might listen to reason. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

reviewer
Thank you for the approval Jeremy (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC: United States cities
Thanks for taking the time to review and close this rather tedious RFC. I have only one minor quibble. You said in your closing remarks that the consensus was to retain the existing guideline. My reading was that it would be more correct to say that there was a lack of consensus to change. Not quite the same thing. No biggie, however. - Nick Thorne   talk  02:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer
Thanks for your approval. :) --Aleen f 1 06:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help during the recent edit war at the karate article
It had been a while since I have seen so hot a war. Thanks! jmcw (talk) 09:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There is now an IP making the same edit war. Could you take a look? Thanks jmcw (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've hard blocked the IP for 48 hours, so whoever's logged out won't be able to edit even if they log in. It'll be interesting to see who doesn't come back when their own block expires. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * <G> jmcw (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Correction?
Yes? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Woops! Yes, that's what I meant, thanks! 19:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Template issue
I added a new line which wont show up on the article here. Could u fix that please? Someone65 (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for kindly letting me know about the DYK. Much appreciated.--Storye book (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

User:SharkEmpress01 back as User:Whitetiger01?
Hello HJ Mitchell, you recently blocked User:SharkEmpress01 for being a vandalism-only account, but it seems that editor is back under a different name, User:Whitetiger01, adding back the same vandalism of Alli Live to the same articles. I added a suspected sockpuppet to Whitetiger's talk page but looking at their contributions I guess SharkEmpress01 was the actual sockpuppet made up to try a keep an article from being deleted at Articles for deletion/Nonnie (Singer) under the name User:SharkEmpress13. If you too feel this is a sockpuppet (of sorts) trying to evade a block, I would appreciate it if you would block this account too. Thank you for time in reading this. BTW, I love your LOLcat picture. Aspects (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Thanks for the heads up! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello
I'd like to complain about an editor on this page Talk:History of Hollyoaks who has been accusing me of ownership of the article, implying I am not capable of grammar because I didn't attend Cambridge like he did, telling me he is fed up with me when I didn't do anything wrong, taking the moral high ground on everything and labeling himself as supreme in knowledge, personal attacks then follow. RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 02:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the DYK notification
Many thanks for the DYK Our Lady of Victory Church (Manhattan).---James R (talk)
 * You're welcome. Chances are I didn't do much, but my sig lands on your talk page because I was the last human to touch the hook! ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed autopatroller flag
Hi HJ. I have removed User:Racepacket's autopatroller flag (as well as reviewer) that you granted. I think this warning will make the reason why self-evident. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Total Club Hits
Re your removal of the prod's on Total Club Hits and Total Club Hits 2, that's the first time I've ever seen a prod procedurally declined because its been deleted by prod before, are you sure that's correct?-- Jac 16888 Talk 10:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Proposed deletion says "If the article has already been deleted, please go to Requests for undeletion". If we take the line that an article which has been deleted via PROD can, if recreated, never be deleted again except via AfD, then this is redundant: the advice becomes "If the article has already been deleted, just go ahead and recreate it". I can't find anything in either Proposed deletion or Deletion policy that seems to me to mean that the prohibition on restoring a removed PROD extends also to placing a PROD on a newly created article where a previous one was PRODDED. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if the article has been re-created, then surely the deletion is controversial? If I'd deleted the article, it could have just been re-created next week and PRODded again and we'd be going round in circles. Someone obviously objects to the deletion or they wouldn't have re-created it, so it should go to AfD. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:PROD says "An article may be PRODed only once". That prohibition doesn't draw any distinction between prods that have been removed, and those that have resulted in deletion then recreation. Any previous prod prohibits a subsequent prod, as it did here. WP:REFUND is certainly not made redundant -- it is when the previous version is sought by the creator. The creator also has the opportunity just to recreate without the previous history. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. HJ Mitchell and Mkativerata have persuaded me. However, if a completely different article on a different topic is written under the same title would that be a different matter? If so, there is the "where do we draw the line?" question. (However, that is not really relevant in this case, as it is an essentially similar article on the same subject.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly wouldn't decline a PROD if it was a totally different subject. I've seen more than one article written on a politician at a title where there was once an article on a footballer or something. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Question
It appears to me that those two edits ( 1 2 ) might be in a violation of the topic ban, according to the article talk page header. I'm not sure I'm correct in my assessment. What would be an appropriate procedure here? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say no. This was a query SD raised at the start and I explicitly said that I didn't have a problem with him editing articles that aren't predominantly about the Arab-Israeli conflict providing he didn't edit the material that was specifically to do with said conflict. As far as I can see, the material is disputed, but for reasons other than Israel. When I made the topic ban, I intentionally phrased it so as not to prohibit SD from editing anything in the Middle East, just that which pertains to the conflict in question. you are, of course, free to disagree with me, in which case you should take it to WP:AE for a second opinion. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see what you say, I was not aware of it. Those edits do appear to be done in good faith and unrelated to conflict. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Email
-- The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Arb Com
Dear MR Mitchell

I have asked the Arc COm to reconsider your blanket ban of yours with regard to mine making any reversions in Ancient Macedonians article. As I indicated earlier, whilst you were enforcing fairly the 3RR rule by blocking me for 72 hrs, I think it is harsh to entirely block me from reverting. Not that it is my intention to make any further edit wars, however, I think this is a basic right i do not deserve to be stripped, given that it was the sole violatin with regard to that particular article. Please see

Regards

Hxseek (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nu Alpha Kappa
Hi. I was a bit puzzled by this page. Would it be better to sort out the copyright problem and then protect it, rather than leaving it like this? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar enough with the issues and don't really have the time to deal with it properly. I just protected it to prevent the removal of the copyvio template so that, if it is a copyvio, our exposure is hopefully limited. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Friendly notice
Hi HJ. I just wanted to drop you a line to let you know that User:KevinIrwin has been formatting his talk page, and he may have accidentally deleted your unblock request decline. It could have been intentional, but for now I'll assume it wasn't. He still left his response to you though, so perhaps he could be trying to make it appear as if it hasn't been declined yet. You might want to re-iterate that he's a confirmed sockpuppet and that his actions had clear intentions of gaming the system. Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I've restored it, fixed their latest request and left them a note. I'll AGF for now. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail
--Perseus8235 (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't get the reply. -- Perseus  8235  19:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've replied. -- Perseus  8235  19:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've replied again. -- Perseus  8235  19:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Might reply once I'm back home. -- Perseus  8235  20:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sent you a separate email. -- Perseus  8235  20:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)