User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 47

DYKmake & DYKnom

 * Why thank you! Maybe we should create one for combined noms and creations, but this is a nice substitute. :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Second the barnstar. Great job!--Mbz1 (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Bribery Act
I think I've now fixed the issues you've raised (with one exception); regards, Ironholds (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:TROUT
I already trouted everyone on the talk page for the original announcement (including myself) :).  N419 BH  01:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Another username question
A new user account,, has the name of an organization. So far they have only edited articles related to the eponymous organization, and seem to have done so in a knowledgeable way. As seems normal, WP policy is ambiguous, saying "Unambiguous use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a username is generally not permitted." And, as is also becoming normal, I see the policy but don't see the need for strict enforcement if they can contribute knowledgeably in a NPOV way, but I ended up reverting their changes to a BLP as not properly sourced – something I would not have done if the username were indicated as being verified in some way. Can you take a look and follow up in the way you consider most appropriate. TIA. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If they edit again, it's probably worth a softerblock. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   10:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I'm in one of the "kinder" phases of my friend/demon cycle today, so to avoid their first talk page message being a block, I templated them with Uw-username and an additional message about the need for sources on their edits. We'll see. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

IRC invitation
Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards.  My 76 Strat  09:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

NYyankees51 Again
After you talked with User:NYyankees51 about keeping a low profile, I tried giving him some additional advice on his talk page, but it looks like none of it is getting through -- he's been blocked twice in the last few days. Seems like he just can't constrain himself. Perhaps you could try talking to him one more time if you think it will do any good. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi Harry! I'm not sending thankspam, but I would like to personally thank  you for having nominated me and for all your support. What I  learned on  this RfA will also go  towards mentoring others, and continuing to  participate in the campaign to  make RfA a more appealing  prospect for editors who  also  need the tools. I look forward to working together with you as a fellow admin. Again, my heartfelt  thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, my friend! There were a few hairy moments, but I'm glad you were successful and I'm certain you'll make a damn good admin. Feel free to raid my monobook.js and you know where I am if you need anything. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   11:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ernst Lindemann
Thanks for the review! I hope you enjoyed reading the article as well. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I did, yes, he was a very interesting man. Great work on getting it to GA and I hope you'll take it further. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   12:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your question at WP:RFARB
Hi HJ Mitchell, thanks for your reply and hope it's ok to reply on your talk page. In regard to your question aimed primarily at Risker, but also the other arbs, my answer would be that I (and most of the other arbs) voted on the motion to temp desyop before the email correspondence, but the emails created a sense of urgency. PhilKnight (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. Would you mind, if you haven't already, posting the same to the request page? It seems there's much being made of these emails so I think it's important for people to know how big-a-role they played. Thanks for stopping by to clear that up. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassador Program
Please take a look at this project page and see if you can be a mentor to one of the many Areas of Study. If you can, please put your name in the "Online Mentor" area of the Area of Study of your choice and then contact the students you will be working with. As the Coordinating Online Ambassador for this project, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care... Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 04:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Three questions. What is it, what do I have to do and did you forget I'm an Englishman? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ...huh. Since you're not one of the ambassadors listed at this page, I assume this was a misdelivery :P (Either way, you'd be an awesome ambassador.) sonia ♫  19:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @HJ: 1- It is just a program where you would help the students work on various articles in a class for a grade. This is done in conjuction with various US Universities and Colleges.  2- Just make sure their editing is on the right track, on subject, and per the rules.  3- Not a worry, you can be from Zimbabwe and still be an Online Ambassador.


 * @Sonia: Actually, it isn't a misdelivery. I knew HJ was perfect for this, hence my message. :)


 * @Both: The course above is full, but there are plenty other courses that are available with different schools that one can help with. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 22:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Re JJG
He had published it at a well known newspaper and several websites and signed it, it didn't seem as something he didn't want to be revealed. He never said he didn't want it revealed. Now I know. It was not any attempted "outing", I respect privacy. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This does not matter. JJG has never edited under their real name on wikipedia. SD, if you cannot understand this, the topic really would be better off with you taking a longer break. Sorry, HJ, to use your talk page to communicate with SD.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick fails
I thought you might be interested to know that I agree completely with your view on quick-fails (as expressed here).

My own view is that "quick-failing" confuses two unrelated processes:
 * 1) Removing inappropriate nominations (e.g. drive-by nominations of articles that do not come close to meeting the criteria);
 * 2) Failing a good-faith nomination without placing the article on hold.

There is no requirement at GAN to place an article on hold, as long as the reviewer leaves a decent review; furthermore "decent" is not the same as "comprehensive". Yet many reviewers seem to believe that if they do not want to provide a comprehensive review and place the article on hold, then they have to "quick-fail" it; as a result, articles deserving a decent review do not receive one. Geometry guy 21:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I always thought the problem with quick-fails is that they focus too much on the negative. Obviously, as reviewers, we have to provide constructive criticism, but I prefer to think of a GA review as an effort to improve the article rather than just an exercise in ticking off items on a checklist, so I'd be all for banning quick-fails of anything that could realistically become a GA with a reasonable effort. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Charles Blackader
Many apologies for not dealing with this sooner - I've unavoidably been offline for most of a week! I've clarified and footnoted the two points we discussed; if there's anything else you'd like looked into, please do let me know. Shimgray | talk | 22:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Real life has a way of making its presence felt at inconvenient moments! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Shimgray | talk | 23:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

User:DeucePrez
Hi, HJ... Beyond the fact that the taqiyya article has been a POV battleground for quite a while, User: has gotten out of hand recently with repeated addition of unsourced opinion, as well as a couple  of (mild) personal attacks on the article's talk page. He has now also branched out to a BLP article with the same type of opinion instead of fact. The thing is, I would say his opinions are generally correct (about the articles, not the poor abused editor :) ), but he doesn't seem to get the concept of sourcing and NPOV. Any way you can help out? Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A block might just about hold up or Bryan Fischer might be in the scope of the new abortion-related general sanctions, but I'm inclined to watch and wait. Perhaps try leaving them a non-template message and then report them to ANI if they keep it up. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha. You're obviously confusing me with someone whose concern for the article exceeds their aversion to administrative procedures...
 * Curious though. Abortion has been added to the topics with special sanctions? When are they going to bite the bullet and say "all political or religious topics"? But seriously, I didn't see any warnings in Army of God or anti-abortion violence, or is that just because the sanctions are new?
 * And Bryan Fischer seems to be one of those guys opposed to everything. Assuming his "everything" includes abortion, does that mean edits to any part of his article, like opposition to mosques, would still be subject to the special sanction rules? Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't ask me, I just work here! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Mark Kelly
Thanks!--Utahredrock (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Likewise. Tvoz / talk 04:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Wow, I just saw the three Grammy article promotions (after already thanking you on my talk page for your kind words)! Thanks so much! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 06:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Tag addition solution
Hi

You added a tag to the article 2010 Formula One season. It came on my list of recommended pages to edit from SuggestBot. I was just wondering if that was really necessary to convert into prose?

MoS recommends children lists for this type of section. As such I have removed the tag for now.

I am unsure of your reasons for requesting the section be turned into prose, if you could tell me please I would be more than happy to consider it.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Admin burnout?
Are you suffering from admin burnout? You were very busy for a while! I took the approach that becoming an admin was not going to seriously impinge on my editing and creation, although the ability to step in for the good of the project when necessary is useful.

Anyways, re your notice at the top of the page, I've got a person in mind if you want a challenge. Hugh Kennard, WWII wing commander and director of a number of airlines post-war. Would make a good article but I'm engaged elsewhere atm. Mjroots (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2011
 * I prefer to think of it as rediscovering the reason I started editing here in the first place and writing and GA reviewing are much more enjoyable than working backlogs. Your Wing Commander looks like an interesting chap. I'll look at him later on. Have you got any more material on him? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Plenty on the net about him, also covered in books on Invicta Airlines, Lympne Airport and no doubt plenty of others. Do you have access to The Times archives online (via library card??) as that source may also be useful. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Cheddar
Thanks for your GA review comments on Cheddar they certainly helped to improve the article.&mdash; Rod talk 19:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of assistance. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I must thank you too as I apologise for not being able to get to the review quicker as I have been ill and busy with exams! Thanks again for reviewing Cheddar. Jaguar (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Real life has a way of interfering with our best-laid plans! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knaggs
Please take time to scrutinize this discussion, as I believe your wisdom will certainly draw attention to the discussion in question. Link: Knaggs TYelliot  &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs  20:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Your input is welcome
Hello, HJ Mitchell. Since your were involved in the relevant discussions your input would be welcome here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Sonja Barend's URL
Hey HJ, I saw you tried to tackle that URL. There's square brackets in there, which mess up our code. I've had it before, years ago, in a German article. I've asked one of the blacklist-active administrators if I could use a tinyURL, here, but haven't received an answer yet. I'm waiting on supergeek to come by, but I don't know if we still have any around... Thanks for your quick attention, by the way, I really appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you explain to me why you need a tiny URL (in small words, please!) and give me the specific URL, I can whitelist it for you (even when I'm not mashing buttons I can find a use for the mop!), but not now. It'll be later on this afternoon UTC. Always happy to do you a favour, 'specially when you were nice enough to approve my hook. :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   05:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, now I see what was happening--I'd left a set of ref tags around one of the items in the bibliography. I need the tinyURL (or something, anything) for the very first link/reference, the one that looks so funny. I can't even reproduce it here--neither the link nor the tinyURL, haha. It's the first hit in this Google search. Thanks for your help! Drmies (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem was kindly solved by one of our resident geeks. Hey, what offline source were you talking about? They're all online--but the links for the book source (I think that's what you're referring to) are in the notes, so I could link each incidence separately. Oh, Ucucha took care of the image licensing. Thanks again! Drmies (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

T:TDYK
Something odd happened here. I hope I restored most edits after, but not sure about yours. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is very odd. Must be that damn edit conflict bug. I've seen similar things on ANI. Sorry for the headache that must have given you! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Such things do happen on frequently edited modular pages (I guess the database sometimes doesn't catch up in the process of saving), we just need to keep an eye (I was away when this happened and luckily someone notified me). About a year ago there was a period of high percentage of "non-deletes" at T:TDYK (someone promotes a nom, deletes it, but it is not deleted). Materialscientist (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

White Horse
Hey, can you please comment on Good article reassessment/White Horse (song)/1? -- ipodnano05  * leave@message 06:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

About RfA
Thanks for your concerns, I fully understand what happened there and I'll keep in touch with wiki community, writings good articles and contributing in discussions, thanks.  E d u e m o n i ↑ talk ↓ 20:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

user:Passionless
Hi HJ, user:Passionless inserted lots of POV in the article about adoption of paralyzed Iraqi boy. Please see here: "American-led invasion and occupation of Iraq in which hundreds of thousands of Afghans have been killed." and so on. She also added section criticism using an advocacy, POV pushing site, and somehow connected the adoption of a disabled child to "sexual exploitation and servitude." Although other editor and me agreed that the section should be removed, she restored it right back. She also is keeping adding that see also that has nothing to do with the article. Please see her edit summary "Propaganda aimed at American, which is what this is all about". I would not like to edit war, but could you please revert her, and protect the article. i really believe the topic will benefit, if user:Passionless will take a break. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking care of this, but could you please also revert the latest changes. I would not like edit war. The thing is that the article is about to appear at the Main page on dyk (the hook was approved), and it cannot go there like this, Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't, because I don't want to give even the appearance of being WP:INVOLVED, but that doesn't mean you can't (assuming you haven't already made three reverts). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly Passionless could probably do with some better sources, but you know, what they say isn't that controversial. I think you should work with them on it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think passionless has neglected the difference between NPOV and being factually correct. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hugh Kennard
I've managed to find a method of contacting Kennard's son. Hopefully he will be in contact with me by e-mail and the article can be further improved. Mjroots (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Bailey Van Hout
...Just A7? While you're at it would you mind dropping the banhammer on "hahahahahahahahahaha67Z" or whatever his username is? See my report on him at WP:UAA. Methinks he isn't here to build an encyclopedia.  N419 BH  01:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind he's been indeffed by someone else.  N419 BH  01:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I only read far enough to establish that it was about some kid who plays some video game in his bedroom when his parents aren't around and went for A7. On further examination, G3 or G10 would have done nicely, but the result is the same. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Shoulda tagged it as a COI while I was at it. That one met so many SD criteria it was hilarious. Made for an amusing moment while at NPP.  N419 BH  02:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Mail
--5 albert square (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And you've got more!--5 albert square (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

ITN ready for posting
The Japanese foreign minister article looks ready for posting. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You've Got Mail
'''Hello,. Check your email – you've got mail!''' You can [ remove this notice] at any time by removing the You've got mail or YGM template. Acather96 (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Fuld
Hi. I believe it is ready for GA, subject to your review and approval. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Flashback
Yes, I have. *** in fact ***   ( contact )  06:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Pauline Bebe
Bonjour dear HJ Mitchell, thank you for this honor DYK. I am very happy of this encouragement but I must be honest. It was a work Team between 4 persons . I notice that Jayjg and me Genevieve had the decoration DYK for the page Pauline Bebe. But regrettably 7&amp;6=thirteen and Jayen466 did not receive the decoration. It would be kind (but especially just) that 7&amp;6=thirteen and Jayen466 also receive the decoration for the page Pauline Bebe. Can you look to them today. Because they deserve as much as me to be encouraged. Thank you so much for your good work on Wikipedia. Merci beaucoup, il faut encourager toutes ses personnes. Ces personnes ont travaillées très fort sur l'article. Elles méritent plus que moi le DYK --Geneviève (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you feel they're deserving of credit, by all means copy and paste the template from your talk page to theirs. I know it's my signature on your talk page, but that's only because I was the person who told the bot what to do. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Great!!! Thanks for your kindness. Merci de votre gentillesse. Best regards --Geneviève (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Frisco (MC)
There is a recently-created article Frisco (MC) which apparently refers to the same person as Frisco (rapper). You deleted the latter article on October 5, 2010, and it has also been deleted by other admins on three occasions. The (MC) article should probably either be deleted or moved to (rapper). For what it's worth regarding notability, (MC) and (rapper) are each linked to in five other articles. Nick Number (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The guy is obviously no more notable now than he was in December so I've deleted and salted the article. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Your RFArb comment
Hi, thanks for your RFArb comment, but I do not quite understand what you mean by "there's no reason it couldn't be sorted out between the admins involved." In the instant case, Dreadstar undid my block after three hours because they believed it was "bad", and then declined to change their mind when another editor asked them to. How, if you had been the blocking admin whose AE action had been reverted, would you have sorted this out?

I am also puzzled by your comment that "Running to ArbCom every time someone reverses one of your actions is hardly the way to behave in a collaborative editing environment." That is certainly true for editing actions, but AE actions? You propose that the explicit rule at WP:AEBLOCK be abolished, then, and all AE actions should be as freely revertable as any other admin action? That is a position one can take, but your statement is, I believe, at odds with current policy as described at WP:AEBLOCK. Regards,  Sandstein   17:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I just don't see the need to open an ArbCom case every time someone reverses an action. I will say that it probably wasn't the best idea Dreadstar has ever had, but they clearly believed that the point of the block was moot and Ludwigs' unblock request seemed sincere and accepting of the reason for the block. You'll get no argument from me that it was discourteous to undo the block without talking to you first, but arbitration over bad manners seems like overkill.
 * The rest of my comment was more a general comment on discretionary sanctions and the AE rules rather than on the merits of the particular case. I'm well aware that my personal opinion is at odds with the policy and I fully understand the reasons for the policy being as restrictive as it is, but I feel it places too much faith in the judgement of the original admin and too little in that of dissenting admins. Obviously, I endeavour to uphold the policy as it's currently written, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it and I can hope that maybe a couple of arbs might sympathise with my position and consider altering the way they do things at a later date. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Pym hook
HJ, could I ask you to take the wikilinks out of the quotation included in the Pym (novel) hook in Queue 1? Agreement at T:TDYK was that the verbatim quote in the hook should not have the Wikilinks; partly because of MOS compliance, and partly because some of them are misleading (the novel is not about Yetis, for example). The version without the links was the one approved. The wikilinks were reinserted by an IP after the hook was transferred to the prep area:. When 4meter4 added the hook to Prep, it was correct:. Thanks, -- JN 466  19:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. I hadn't realised it had been changed, I just checked the blurb against the article. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- JN 466  19:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again
Hi HJ, just to let you know user:Passionless just came from the block and the first edit was tagging the article that is in DYK section at the main page now. This is the very same article she edited just before her block, and her second edit was hounding my contributions Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh. Looks like she's just trying to make a wp:point. Probably best to leave them alone. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "To live them alone" means to let them to add stupid tags to the article that is displayed at the main page right now? Isn't this what is called a battleground behavior?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is merely a coincidence the page is on the main page, and calling my edits vandalism is disruptive behaviour, I ask you never to attack me again. Passionless   -Talk  21:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove the tags that I added???? They are there for a purpose and are suppose to stay until the problem is solved. Please stop making disruptive edits. Passionless   -Talk  21:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Random acts of kindness barnstar

 * Thank you for the barnstar! It's nice to know I'm doing something right! I have some experience of failing an RfA. It's hard to believe that was so long ago—it still feels like just the other day! It's easy to come away from an RfA feeling that your peers and the people whose opinions matter to you think you're a useless editor and not much better than the average vandal, so I think it's important to remind people that they are welcome and they are valued, even if they're not ready for adminship. On another note, I find it quite amusing that people want to be admins so much—the vast majority of what I do with my mop is either really boring or only attracts any sort of "recognition" when it doesn't get done (or both!). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. And you tell me why someone would want to be an admin, you're the one who went through two RfAs! Go through a brutal, scathing review process in which your editing history will be picked apart with every mistake held against you...wow, where do I sign up? To your credit, you didn't self-nominate, the people who do that are clearly insane.  Swarm   X 22:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Evidently because I'm a masochist! ;) RfA is pretty brutal, but I thought I could be more use to the project with the extra buttons. I would never have had the bollocks to self nom—that's just taking away the tiny bit of protection a good statement from a respected nominator gives you and there are people who will oppose you just because you self-nommed! RfA is a strange place. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK Mary Hynes
Thank you for all that you do for Wikipedia and the DYK program in particular. I am a relative novice at DYK, and have submtted a DYK for Mary Hynes (politician) I was expecting someone to review my submission, leaving an icon in front of their message and a note on my talk page. Instead, a user has left a cryptic message saying that he thought the article was notable, but that others may not. I happened across his note by chance, and left a message explaining three reasons why the article met the notability test. Days have gone by and I left a message on his talk page to follow up. He responded, "Is she from Illinois? Was she born in 1955? Don't you need some background, but maybe you couldn't find it," which does not relate to the hook at all. I don't know if he is reviewing the submission or if he understands what the DYK criteria are. I am worried that his comments might cause reviewers to skip over my submission thinking that it has already been reviewed. Could you please take a look, because I am running out of time. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * USer:Orlady appears to have got to it and pointed out a different problem. Once that's resolved, I expect the article will be approved. You probably won't get a note on your talk page unless there's a problem. If it's OK, you'll just get a template delivered by about when it appears on the Main Page, which will probably take 3-6 days, depending on how busy things are. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Your ANI
For your unfair treatment of me and lack of discussion, WP:ANI. Passionless  -Talk  05:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Great work
... on the GA review. Thanks for pushing me and the others to make it an even better article.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Kudos for putting the work in. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This may interest you ... a just-printed new news article on Fuld, that reflects in large part what is in the wp article.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

3rd Civil Affairs Group
Need some advice here. 2 editors have asked a third editor to refrain from adding unsourced information to this page until consensus has been reached on the talk page. The information added does not appear to meet NPOV. This editor has ignored the request & has used three IP addresses during the discussion in addition to the user name.

Should I request to have this page semi-protected with the unsourced info removed until consensus can be achieved? Thanks & Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for protecting the page. Would you be willing to set it back version before the unsourced info was added until this can be resolved in the talk page?  Thanks!  FieldMarine (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you and are both way over the 3RR. I've fully protected the article for a few days, but I'll be honest—I seriously considered blocking you both. Don't let that happen again and use the time it's protected to sort things out on the talk page. And no, I'm not going to revert it, because policy explicitly prohibits me from doing so.  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you protected the article. I will say that article has been subject to a lot of vandalism through the years, which I have been vigilant about protecting…take a look at my history on the article.  FieldMarine (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Protected pages
When I requested protection of the Frank Buckles article, I saw that you handled a couple of requests by protecting the pages in question for a fortnight. I'm not trying to question your judgement here, but that really seems severe to me. It seems that 2 weeks would have been sufficient in each case. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm, a fortnight is two weeks. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That was an attempt at a bit of humor. Obviously a poor one. Sorry. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. Humour doesn't come across so well in text. ;) That's actually quite funny now I get it! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
File:Kesha - Blow (Official Single Cover).jpg Thank you so much for the protection. Can you do me a favor and delete the other uploads as well? Thanks in advance. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 22:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and done. I'm not sure it's entirely necessary, but I'll err on the side of caution when it comes to NFC issues. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about a move
As a question why did you move this A7able userpage to the main space? diff I was going through Cat:UAA and I can across this. cheers --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   00:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it couldn't stay there, per WP:FAKEARTICLE, but didn't meet any of the speedy criteria as a userpage. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you HJ --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   00:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Block of Passionless
I would like to know on what evidentiary basis you made your apparently unilateral block of User:Passionless. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * On the basis I stated on their talk page and in the block log. Namely, that, since returning from a 48-hour block, they have done nothing but continue the same behaviour that got them blocked in the first place, with the exception that they've attempted to pick a fight with anybody who had the nerve to try to explain that they're being disruptive. It may be an indefinite block, but indefinite (to use the cliché) does not have to be infinite. If they can convince the community or ArbCom that they'll desist with the disruption, I'll be quite happy to see them unblocked, because, believe me, it's not something I take any pleasure from. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Gatoclass, please see my talk page for alot of Passionless's posts to me. I had re-closed his re-opening of an ANI thread about HJ (originally closed by Fastily) and the user just didn't seem to "get it" and was in the mood to war with me.  MuZemike, Fastily, Daywalker, and myself all told Passionless to "let it go", but the user just BATTLEd on.  While I think the second block should have come from another admin, I think this was a good block as Passionless was using Wikipedia as a BATTLEground and just didn't seem to "get it". -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 22:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Battleground? Passionless made a handful of edits in relation to his appeal. That is hardly evidence of a "battleground" mentality. I happen to think that HJ's original block of Passionless was indeed unsound - if I'm not mistaken, Passionless made exactly one revert to the article in question before being blocked for "edit warring". I would also like to know why he wasn't entitled to even so much as a warning before such an aggressive block was imposed. I didn't comment on the AN/I thread at the time because I prefer to avoid criticizing the actions of other admins, but now that HJ has added insult to injury by imposing an indef, without any apparent additional evidence of wrongdoing on P.'s part, I feel obliged to voice my concerns. Gatoclass (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well several editors and admins disagreed with you. Certainly this is not an attempt to "add insult to injury" and I resent the implication that there's something underhanded about either block, especially since I just explained to you the "additional evidence of wrongdoing", as did Homer. If they want to return to editing and edit in accordance with policy, I'd be happy for you to unblock them iff you agree (and Passionless agrees and cooperates) to mentor them and re-apply the block if the battleground mentality continues. As I said in my first reply, indefinite ≠ infinite. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies for not responding to your post above, somehow I missed it before responding to nh. I'm not sure where you get the notion that I have accused you of being "underhanded" however. I simply said I thought the original block was questionable. I understand your position better now, perhaps I will have a word to Passionless myself to see if this can't be resolved amicably. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would welcome anything that could resolve this amicably. I don't think an unconditional unblock would be appropriate, but if Passionless were to be allowed back and were to edit constructively, that would be to the benefit of all. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'll have a word to him. Gatoclass (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I doubt Gatoclass would be a good mentor for Passionless, if he calls that first example "American-led invasion and occupation of Iraq in which hundreds of thousands of Afghans have been killed"; second example "During the occupation of Iraq, approximately 150 Iraqi children illegally are sold to foreigners each year for the purpose of adoption, sexual exploitation and servitude. " "the content ", and does not understand that initial block was well warranted after those "content" was added to the article. It rather looks like admin:Gatoclass could use a mentor himself :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've never defended the edit and I agree it was quite inappropriate. However, not all editors have a good grasp of WP:SYNTH and Passionless only has a couple of thousand edits to his name. But you are hardly in a position to criticize others for inappropriate editing when you are the author of a slew of deleted articles amongst other things. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Gatoclass, I do not care about wp:synt, and/or about edit warring for that matter. If the problem were only with wp:synt and/or edit warring I assure you I would have never raised this matter in the first place. It is the content itself that was added to the article that was absolutely inappropriate and POV pushing on its worse. It is strange (or maybe not so strange) that you do not understand, or do not want to understand it. If you still do not understand, may I please refer you to this for a better understanding.
 * And, yes, Gatoclass, I have all the rights to criticize users as you are and as Passionless is.I uploaded hundreds of high quality images. I wrote more than 70 articles with only small handful connected to I/P conflict, I wrote such articles as Arab_rescue_efforts_during_the_Holocaust;The_Mountain_of_Israeli-Palestinian_Friendship;Liar_paradox_in_early_Islamic_tradition and others. Have you ever written anything like those about Jews and Judaism, Gatoclass?
 * HJ, I am really sorry for using your talk page like this. --Mbz1 (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not entitled for a warning?


 * 1)  Warning by
 * 2)  Warning by
 * 3)  Warning by
 * And after first two warnings she filed AN/I thread.
 * Would you like to see any more "warnings"?--Mbz1 (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Only one of those diffs could be construed as a warning and they were all made after the original block. Gatoclass (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Those are the 5 seperate reverts to the Adoption of Ala'a Eddeen.  Clearly edit warring and actually a violation of 3RR in the process.  A block in and of itself. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 23:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Given Passionless only made 1 revert after HJ Mitchell's first block in that article, I don't think that counts as reasonable evidence of edit-warring. And a significant number of other editors - including myself - made a single revert of those tags. I however don't want to make any significant comment on the block itself. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but those 5 are before HJ's first block. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 23:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken. Your first two diffs are actually the same diff, the third was a consecutive edit with the second, and the last two were made two days after the original block. Gatoclass (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Break
Is #4 even a revert? To me it looks like there are only two reverts, one before (#1/#2 immediately followed by #3), and one after the block (#5). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 00:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Gato -- you picked an especially bad horse to bet on here. Clearly an appropriate block, per the above references and diffs. Not a close call.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @Eraserhead1: If the edit war was over the tags then re-adding them via any means would be considered a revert in my book. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   00:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @Gato: I am counting that first edit twice as it shows up twice on the page history. As for 4, it is the readdition (without the undo button being used), which, at present, is being called a revert by some consensus I saw on AN or ANI or something (yeah, that's convincing). -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 00:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you mean when you say the diff "shows up twice in the page history". It's the diff for 20:11, 7 March 2011, how can it show up twice? And I can't see that #4 is a readdition, where is the diff where the tags were originally added? Gatoclass (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see the two edits in the red rectangle. Those are the ones I am talking about. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 02:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well that is very puzzling, because those diffs don't appear in the page history that is available to me. Gatoclass (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait, I see the problem, your diffs have a different timestamp. I didn't know that could happen, but regardless, I still see only one net revert before the original block. Gatoclass (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I set the timestamps to my timezone. You can do that in "My Preferences" under the "Date and Time" tab, look for the "Time offset" box and then put in your time zone in the drop down box.  Don't forget to set for Daylight Savings....unless you are in Arizona. :)


 * Anywho, I looked and yes, he was at 3RR, but still editwarring and then went right back to it once it came back from the block. Still a good block. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 03:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutralhomer, Passionless made only two reverts on the 7th, and they were consecutive, which counts as a single revert. You haven't presented any additional diffs which demonstrate he was "at 3RR". Eraserhead and I have both pointed out the errors in your summary, you haven't responded to them, I can't imagine why you continue to insist he was edit warring, but if that's your opinion, we might as well end the discussion because I can only repeat what has already been said. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Gatoclass, as I said before I do not care about edit warring, but I was surprised that after such posts "Ya, seems like the cabal really enjoys harassing me these last two weeks, might have to take action if it continues." "Fuck, looks like you admins leave me no choice and are trying to force my hand." her block was allowed to expire in a first place. Besides,you misrepresenting what HJ said should be conditions of her unblock. It is not only about stopping complaining about her block.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Your gratuitous bad faith assumption aside, I think HJ and I are capable of resolving this matter without your assistance. Gatoclass (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's what HJ said:"iff you agree (and Passionless agrees and cooperates) to mentor them and re-apply the block if the battleground mentality continues."
 * Here's what you said: "Hi there Passionless. I've had a word with Hj about your block on his talk page, he has indicated he will agree to an unblock on the basis that you cease complaining about the original block, which some have seen as evidence of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Regards, "
 * you presented it this way that the battleground mentality applies only to her coming to AN/I, you said nothing about re- blocking, and not a word about mentor-ship.
 * Of course you misrepresented the conditions set for unblock!--Mbz1 (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Gato -- you should not try to stifle input from an editor on a talkpage open to him, as you are doing above. That is not at all in keeping with wp:admin.  You should be encouraging input from editors such as Mbz.  As to AGF, it is a presumption, one that can be rebutted -- you should not stifle fact-based evidence that tends to do precisely that.  Especially the somewhat outrageous stuff alluded to above.  IMHO, you are way out of line here, and especially as a sysop I would suggest that you approach this discussion in a more collegial manner, as you are obliged to do.  This sort of behavior suggests that your are involved in this matter to such an extent that perhaps it is best if you have a cup of tea.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I'm sorry you found my response so objectionable Epeef, but I'm afraid I don't appreciate being accused of misrepresentation. Nor do I appreciate the fact that you seem to have turned up to yet another discussion involving Mbz with a ready-to-hand endorsement. Maybe it's time for you to take your own advice and break your usual pattern of behaviour, because quite frankly it's getting just a little too predictable. Gatoclass (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) If you feel that an accusation to the effect that you have mispresented matters is itself a misrepresentation, address it. Civilly.  That's not cause for you to take the approach you took.  For the reasons indicated.  2)  I'm on this page because I was just discussing another matter with the editor whose tp this is, as you can plainly see.  But yes -- I do take note that this is yet another matter where you seem to be way too biased for anything in the IP area for you to live up to your wp:admin requirements.  You might wish to consider a self-imposed, overly involved topic ban, to avoid this becoming a greater issue in the future.  There are many areas of wp you can edit at that will not trigger possible violations of wp:admin.  3) Your statements as to to me are uncalled for, and unbecoming a sysop.  They are just the sort that editors -- when being considered for adminship in the first place, are routinely rejected for.  You are bound by wp:admin, and I would ask that you live up to wp:admin, and model the best, civil behavior.  This string reflects you doing the opposite.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bias, of course, is very much in the eye of the beholder, and I must therefore take your observations regarding mine with a commensurate grain of salt. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 07:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Many things are of course subjective. Bias, whether something constitutes vandalism, whether any editor is "involved", whether an editor is civil, whether an editor is complying with the strictures of wp:admin.  But the diffs on this issue are many.  I'm not going to fill HJ's page with them.  POV coupled with incivility in a normal editor is problematic; in a sysop it is a show-stopper.  I'm simply, politely, pointing out something that it may be helpful if you were to heed.  Many thanks, btw, for in your last message not resorting to the approach you had taken above, which I found objectionable.  I appreciate the veering in the direction of civility and substance-based discussion.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am a little confused. How does two completely seperate linked edits act as one edit?  Two does not equal one.  It is two, clear edit warring, good block, block is over, let's move on.  Onto this block, since Passionless has twice slammed this discussion (once the image I linked above and once to me directly) and still hasn't answered your question, it shows he/she is unwilling to stop using Wikipedia as a BATTLEground.  I see no reason for him/her to be unblocked until they chill out and agree to put the battle axes down. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 06:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Because they happened one after the other, not everyone knows how/has TW rollback or to easily combine their edits. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I gotcha now. Thanks for the answer. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 01:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment @ Everybody, If it were only about edit warring I would have voted with both hands for an unblock. It is not about edit warring. It is about the content user:Passionless added to the article, and her conduct was called "outrageous", and of course it is about battleground mentality that was demonstrated over, and over and over again.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll just note that the 3RR may be meaningless here. Passionless is on a strict one revert per week under the entire ARBPIA topic area as a discretionary sanction. (Imposed by mre, which is why I won't say anything more.) Courcelles 05:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, then there ya go. 1RR violation, definite edit warring.  Good block.  Still, it's over, let's move on. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 06:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, but this article isn't actually in the topic area in question. Gatoclass (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I'm totally puzzled as to why you guys need to make up reasons to block this user. I have no idea why you are claiming that 2 different reverts, 2 days apart, is actually 5 and somehow counts as edit warring (and its not an Israeli Palestine article which this doesn't appear to be). And as far as I know edit #4 was the edit to first add the tags in question, the "tag edit war" happened after that point. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)