User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 76

DYK RfC

 * As a listed DYK participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat&#124;Contributions 00:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It appears you weren't notified
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

A ban is truly an undead zombie. I apologize that you have to deal with this. I have tried to keep my head down and I will moving forward, but it never ceases to amaze how quickly these things can be dug up and used as a bludgeon. Instaurare (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Charming; not even a courtesy notification. Anyway, manners aside, I apologise for my ambiguity—I should have remembered that there were community sanctions in force as well and reminded you of them, and I'm sorry you had to take some of the chastisement I deserved for that. If I may offer you one piece of advice, though, it would be to make your edits so indisputably constructive that nobody could question you. It'll take a long time to rehabilitate your reputation, but if you're serious about it, it will happen eventually. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, it was an honest mistake on your end and mine too. Thanks for your advice; I doubt that's possible, given how quickly the mob has assembled, but I will take your advice and continue to edit as though I have a chance to rehabilitate my reputation. I appreciate your continued level-headedness. Instaurare (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Apr to Jun 2013 Milhist content reviewing

 * Thanks, Rupert. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Move request
Hey, are you still around? Could you please move User:JuneGloom07/Mason to Mason Turner for me? - JuneGloom    Talk  15:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey! Of course I'm still around. Not quite as much as I'd like to be, but I'm around. Of course I can. :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! - JuneGloom    Talk  15:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: July 2013
Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 01:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for You!

 * Thanks! If I'm honest, my interest was less African history and more British political/military history, but the two certainly overlap there. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikimania
It would have been good if you  had been able to  make it, but  I  managed to get  through it  all in  spite of your absence ;) Catch  up  with  you  again  for sure in  LDN next  year. All the best, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Rollback abuse
Just letting you know that a user you gave rollback to constantly abuses it and edit wars with clearly sourced content


 * Also here he is again removing a talk page thread I made.

This IP is likelyUser:Gunmetal Angel and block evading. An SPI was recently filed where IPs in the same range, same geolocation, editing the same articles, etc. were blocked. A new SPI has been opened. Edits have been reverted per SOCK and DENY. See recent SPI here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gunmetal_Angel. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

again I don't know what "gunmetal angel" is lol. You're just doing this to try and get me off the site so you can revert sourced edits. That's all you're doing.

WP:FOUR RFC
There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of "Iranian Embassy siege" edit
Greetings and felicitations. I am wondering why you reverted my edit of the Iranian Embassy siege article. While most of my edit consisted of minor things—such as alphabetizing lists and minor changes to (IMHO) make future editing easier—both Template:Use dmy dates and Template:Use British English are maintenance templates, which the Manual of Style/Layout specifies belong after disambiguation links (dablinks) and before infoboxes. Indeed, per "Use dmy dates" own instructions, it is to be placed "near the top of articles that use the dd mmm yyyy date format", not at the bottom of the article, as was and is again the case.

In the future, would you please be so kind as to contact me before reverting any of my edits?—DocWatson42 (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Would you please be so kind as to respond?—DocWatson42 (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello?—DocWatson42 (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello. Your original message didn't seem to indicate that you wanted a response; I apologise for not getting back to you sooner. I don't much care about thins like "use dmy dates"; it's a stable, well-established article with clear national ties and a featured article to which I've been the only significant editor for years. I don't begrudge templates like that, but I can't see their use in this case; people come along and move them every now and then. In fact, I have no strong feelings about any of the changes you made, except that you re-ordered the references and notes. There was nothing wrong with the existing format, so there was no need to replace it with somebody else's arbitrary preference, especially as your chosen format introduced more problems than it solved. By all means alphabetise lists etc, but please don't arbitrarily change things that are matters for editorial judgement. If you really feel strongly about the references, start a discussion on the talk page. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What problems do you feel my changes to the references and notes created?—DocWatson42 (talk) 04:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Mail
Nev1 (talk) 10:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

C/E help :(
Hello there, I looked you up on the peer review volunteer page; I dunno if you can help cos I'm in a bit of a pickle. I started this article from scratch and got too excited when it got GA status that i nominated it for FA without forgoing a peer review :s I'm a bit disadvantaged cos English is not my native language and god knows how hard I've tried to get better at writing here but apparently I'm always messing up as you can see here and as one reluctant reviewer said: "there are still areas that could be improved ... prose could be improved..." and I have no clue where to start because getting the article to where it is now was enough of a headache. If you can be kind enough to scan the article for obvious and deadly prose mistakes i'd be very greatful. I already asked for peer review but got no answer as you can see on the article's talk page. thanks - Eli +  13:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Serius, you made a great comment in the arb case. Mine is in the Signpost, did you come from there? (Just curious.) Did you know that one discussion is open for practising, The Ban on Love? You are welcome to participate. I consider it open, even though a protector of the status quo changed the wording of the project's MoS (you may have read that also.). I certainly didn't feel bold when I inserted the infobox instead of something duplicate in a strange position, but stand corrected (little edit war). I am open and without passion in that case, it's a rather obscure opera, but I like the title ;) (so much that I placed it on top of my user). One of the merry band, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox wars
Hi Harry,

Thanks for your thoughts on the PD. But..

What needs to end and what is totally unacceptable and unconducive to productive discussion is: You might as well write "Ban all addition of infoboxes to composer articles" because that is exactly what it is equivalent to.
 * Adding infoboxes to articles where previous contributors have opted to omit one (or removing long-standing infoboxes) without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page.

- how helpful is that? Nevertheless, I go to where I summarise three reasons for adding an infobox and invite a case to be made against having an infobox, or for having an infobox with fewer parameters. Just read the attempts to "establish a consensus on the article's talk page". Who was trying and who was stonewalling?

Here's a teaser: how many examples of "establishing a consensus on the article's talk page" can you find? You're more likely to find pieces of rocking-horse shit. You'll find plenty of examples of 6 people being canvassed to chorus "adds nothing; redundant" and that being called a "consensus".

Now tell me how your remedy does anything other than tear up WP:OWN. --RexxS (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Come on, Doug, you know that's not what I want to see. I want everybody to sot down and discuss things like adults. The moratorium on adding or removing controversial infoboxes just provides a more conducive environment for discussion—trying to have a rational discussion about a principle while you're in the middle of an edit war is impossible, and there have been examples of infoboxes being added or removed where the only likely outcome was another heated argument going round in circles. I'm hopeful that if we can eliminate some of the worse vices of both sides, all the parties can sit down and have an adult discussion. As I said there, you, Gerda, Nikki, Andy, Smerus, etc, etc, you're not ideological nutjobs (not to put too fine-a-point on it now we're on my talk page); you're all very intelligent people trying to do what you think is best for the encyclopaedia, but I think at least some of you have lost a sense of perspective, and if the parties focused on the issues rather than on each other, you might actually make some progress. It seems a better solution than suppressing discussion altogether through the series of bans and bollockings ArbCom are currently considering. I do tend to think that infoboxes, to steal your phrase, aren't worth going to the wall over, and that this is one of the silliest major disputes since the dash wars. But I also think there are some issues that could be resolved if everyone would stop bickering and start discussing, and that Wikipedia would be a poorer place if the main belligerents if the case were absent. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok Harry, I'll make you an offer. I'll accept the principle of not adding a controversial infobox without establishing a consensus on the talk page first, if you'll be the independent judge of what is controversial and you'll promise to be the independent judge of consensus on each talk page when the discussion occurs. I have no interest in talk page discussions where the opposition declares everything is controversial and counts heads, not reasons, to determine their version of consensus. Oh - and perhaps you'll also agree to block any contributor to those discussions who is not looking for a compromise? Deal? --RexxS (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Some revealing logical twists there Rexxx! Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd agree to that, but it wouldn't be just the anti-box advocates I'd expect to improve their behaviour. I know you come down very much on the pro-box side, but it takes two parties to have a dispute. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Syrian National Symphony Orchestra
Hi! I was about to create a tiny stub for this orchestra, but noticed that you had deleted a page with the same name in the past. So I thought I'd just check with you before going ahead. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, the previous version was just a copy & paste from the official website. I'm sure yours will be fine. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

County Road 419 (Osceola County, Florida)
Back around the end 2010, you deleted an article for County Road 419 (Osceola County, Florida) on the grounds of lack of notability. While I don't dispute your reasons for the deletion, I have revived the article as a redirect to List of county roads in Osceola County, Florida, and will do the same with other deleted county road articles. -User:DanTD (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Ping
You have a message from  me on  your  tp  at  Commons. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: August 2013
Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 08:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

MILHIST coordinator nominations closes shortly
Gday HJ Mitchell. Have you considered putting your name forward for this? I certainly think you have a lot of experience in the project and would be more than capable of doing the job. We currently only have 10 nominations and they close today so if you are interested pls have a look here: WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2013. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You're a coord already, aren't you HJ? I can't remember whether the terms are one year or two. Nev1 (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - an embarrassing error on my part. Was going through the 1000+ mbrs on the active list trying to remember who I thought would make a good coord to send out some msgs encouraging worthy candidates to nom (due to the fact that at the time we only had 10)... of course HJ would make a good coord, he already is one... Self administering uppercut! Anotherclown (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for the poke—I was debating whether or not to stand for re-election, but the combination of the lack of nominations and your confidence in me made my mind up. Best,  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  08:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Newcastle Meetup
I am planning on seeing you at 10am outside the Mining Institute today. Robertforsythe (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Oxford Meetup 9
Hi HJ; regarding Oxford 9, would October 13 or October 20 be most convenient for you? You can reply here, or at m:Talk:Meetup/Oxford/9. I've emailed RexxS. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Redrose. I have a marginal preference for the 13th because I'm committed to Manchester on the 19th (and hence won't fancy travelling a similar distance on the opposite direction the day after), but I can't guarantee I'd be there on the 13th, so don't plan it round me. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment at Xiaxue's ongoing peer review!
You have listed yourself as a peer review volunteer interested in copyediting articles. Would you like to support the quest to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia? Would you like to read an interesting article about something different? If so, you are invited to give a thorough review of the article Xiaxue, which is about a Singaporean celebrity blogger. The article is very short and should not take long to review. Hope you enjoy reviewing it as much as I enjoyed writing it. ''Thanks! 谢谢！Terima kasih! நன்றி!'' --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Military service people at the Natural History Museum
Hi Harry How's things? I saw this military service plaque here and that two of the people were awarded the military cross, does this make them notable in of it's self? I found the big list of recipients but they aren't on it.

I found someone else on a forum who was looking into them here and something on the NHM website about Totton here

I've got good access to the archives here if it helps.

--Mrjohncummings (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Computeach-logo.gif)
Thanks for uploading File:Computeach-logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Operation Nimrod
Hi HJ!

Noted an edit, where a pic of a revolver was removed with the assertion that it "looked nothing like PC Lockes" revolver. Wot U think?

Secondly I noted this page uses Template:Infobox military conflict. I came there from Westgate shopping mall shooting (One Aussie & his pregnant fiance killed apparently ), where an editor changed Template:Infobox civilian attack to 'Infobox military conflict'. This has proven a little controversial. I was going to Disagree and was going to use the Embassy siege as an example, but found that I couldn't! Was there a particular rationale for this infobox to be used there?-ʍ-220  of  Borg 05:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was leading the news here until the political party conference season began in earnest (because obviously politicians' latest fantasies about how they'd waste taxpayers' money are infinitely more important). I don't think there was a particular rationale, though obviously the Iranian Embassy siege is much better known for its ending (which was brought about by a military force); I think it was there before I re-wrote the article and I just left it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  10:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected Barney articles
Numerous of them in Category:Wikipedia indefinitely semi-protected pages. Edits have become less frequent recently. Is "pending changes" appropriate enough? Shall unregistered editors be allowed to edit them? --George Ho (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There have been serious problems on many of those articles going back years. I'd have to look into this more closely when I have time before I can say whether PC would be appropriate. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  10:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean ones related to Barney & Friends, right? --George Ho (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II
Hi HJ Mitchell, the article McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II is currently undergoing an A-class review at WikiProject Miliary history. Because you have participated in its last ACR in 2011, you are invited to comment on the article and assess whether it is worthy of the A-class status. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Phil, thanks for the note. I'll see if I can take a look at the article later in the week. I remember the 2011 ACRs, and it seemed like the article wasn't a million miles away, so I'd be interested to revisit it. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  10:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone recreated a deleted article elsewhere
Hi, H.J. Three veteran editors have noted the fancrufting of the page Archenemy by one zealous editor. Doing some research, I've found that this editor, dissatisfied with your closing a [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_fictional_archenemies|deletion discussion of "List of fictional archenemies"]], simply took that deleted article's content and later that same day and unilaterally added it] to the Archenemy.

It seems to me that violated the intent of the deletion discussion. And now he has turned that article, which at one point was a short piece describing the term "archenemy" in general and giving a few examples, into the same article that was deleted. I wish I could assume good will, but I can't find any in someone doing this kind of end-run around an admin and a group consensus.

There's a discussion at Talk:Archenemy, but it's the same points raised by the discussion that resulted in deletion. The criteria for who's an "archenemy" remains problematically vague, and many of the cites appear to be individual bloggers' personal opinions that are of undue weight and in some cases may be fringe theory. Would it be possible to have you or another admin address what this editor has done? With thanks, Tenebrae (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I replied to your concerns at Talk:Archenemy. Although above is almost borderline personal attack, I see no merit in making long speeches in my defense, because the above sounds this personal and you made no effort to contact me. The edit history clearly shows I restored only the notable entries, started multiple discussions including an RfC, replied to many users, added almost no entries myself, reverted over a hundred unsourced additions over 3 years, and have always advocated keeping the list small. I take the blame for good faith making the initial list, but I won't be taking the blame for hundreds of editors' additions since. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's disingenuous for user user:Hellknowz to say I made no effort to contact him when I've been posting on the article's talk page, where he is a frequent visitor.


 * As I mention on that page I'm don't see any RfC discussion as he claims. And I reiterate it's hard to have good faith when someone takes "Delete the article" to mean "People who disagree with this deletion can take the information and place it in another article."


 * Whether items are footnoted is not a free pass: Some of these footnotes, perhaps most, are not those of comics historians citing established consensus &mdash; they're of bloggers and columnists giving their opinion, not their scholarly research. That means some, perhaps most, of these footnotes may be of undue weight or even be fringe theory. But that's all been discussed at the deletion discussion. The overall point admin HJ Miller made in closing the discussion with decision to delete is that there's little objective criteria to support such a list / article. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations
G'day, in recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History project for the next year, please accept these co-ord stars. I look forward to working with you over the next year. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Optical Express
Hi HJ,

It saddens me that once again I have to highlight that editors who have previously agreed not to edit the Optical Express page directly are doing so once again without any consensus on the talk page. Not withstanding accuracy issues, including some of which I raised previously with you but they remain on the page, I am at a loss to explain why I am the only person who actually respects the agreement yet little action is taken against those who continue to dis-regard it. I would appreciate your thoughts and those of independent editors on the page. --Hardlygone (talk) 11:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, it's been a while since I've revisited the article (things seemed to have been under control since the last time I intervened). Could you point me to where RingARoses has agreed not to edit the article? If there's a problem with the content (including but not limited to RingARoses' most recent addition), the best thing to do is to explain it concisely on the article's talk page, and then bring it to the attention of neutral editors. I'm liable to miss things unless you ping me directly (which you can do by dropping a link to the discussion here, or the software will now alert me if you link to my userpage in your post, eg User:Hardlygone). I'll try to get back to you as soon as I can, but if you want more eyes or a quicker response, it might be worth asking at the conflicts of interest noticeboard. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: September 2013
Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 07:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Manchester meetup
Newsflash! The location of this weekend's Manchester meetup has been moved back to Wetherspoons on Princess Street - the Ducie Arms isn't open on Sundays! Can you believe that?! Bazonka (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I think that means the first round is on the fool who picked a picked a pub that doesn't open on Sundays! ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That'll be Mike, but he's not coming! Bazonka (talk) 06:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 October 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Precious again
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 60em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 ); border-radius: 1em; border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix"> <div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 0.5em;"> historic events and people

Thank you for quality articles on historic events and people, such as Iranian Embassy siege, and for for an "overwhelmingly constructive contributor ... quietly making improvements to articles", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (27 July 2010 and 16 January 2011)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 280th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

usernames related to Duchamp (clothing)
Morning Harry, I am looking into an AfD case which has been around since 2007. It is some kind of boutique clothing-store in London. Back in Aug'11, you blocked a username associated with the page, for adding some advert-style material to it, which is part of the reason I'm here... the other reason, is that I don't know anybody who's heard of this brand before. Maybe you'll have better luck with that, as your userpage says you live in the UK.

From what I can tell, the page was added by a legit wikipedia author, prolly somebody trying to add all the famous clothing stores they could find. That original editor never returned. Later, some anons that looked like they had WP:COI problems (as well as fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between wikipedia and their corporate homepage) fleshed out the page with a few useful details, and a lot of marketing fluff. Somebody named Racconish cleaned up the WP:PEACOCK language in 2010, but eventually about a year later Jedge619 was registered and immediately began adding new&improved marketing fluff. Racconish noticed, slashed the page down to a single sentence as a warning, but from what I can tell never made contact via talkpage. They registered a new username, and they tried another advert-edit, and were then promptly blocked by yourself (above). Since then, the article has languished at the single sentence, which is not really WP:The Truth anymore, from what I can gather (they now sell a full line of evening wear... cufflinks were just how they got started back in the early 1990s).

Here is the deletion-discussion. Articles_for_deletion/Duchamp_%28clothing%29 Do you know any folks that are interested in men's boutique fashion clothing, or in London boutique retailers, or both? The also export to Barney's in the states/colonies. Some folks have been finding decently reliable sources that the place is Notable... but from my look through the edit-history, it looks like nobody has ever sat down with the anons editing the article, and talked them through WP:COI and WP:N and all the rest. I'm willing to do that, but in doing so, should I instruct them to get a username that clearly identifies their COI problems if my suspicion turns out to be correct, something like mike_at_duchamps for instance? Also, it looks like they've changed the name and URL homepage of the store from Duchamps to DuchampsLondon, a few years ago... that means the article should be moved, and a redirect left behind, right? Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I think I've heard of the company in passing, but I don't know anything about it. The AfD looks like it's heading for a keep, and coverage in The Daily Telegraph and The Scotsman would indicate notability to me. There's probably more offline for anybody who knew where to look. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  11:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I expect a keep... but my efforts at contacting the anons which were doing WP:COI on the page have failed. Which means, in a month or six, the page will be in WP:COI violation again; for over five years, nobody working there has ever read wikipedia's bazillion WP:PG, apparently, imagine that!  To busy selling thousand-dollar-luggage, prolly.  I guess that I could always email them directly, but I'd rather somebody local to the UK, and preferably local to London, who has some interest in high fashion, that will understand the conversation.  :-)     Pretty sure that's not me.  An editor who tried to help the article before, back in 2010, has temporarily adopted it again -- User:Racconish.  They're doing good work getting the article through AfD, but it would be nice if they had a buddy in the UK who wanted to help them keep an eye on the page via watchlist.  Anybody you know that might fit the bill?  Thanks.  p.s.  If you *do* notice some WP:COI stuff on the page going forward, please leave the account in question a pointer to the duchamp talkpage.  (I realize you were just waxing the jedgeisPerceivedattackword account on first principles... but the same IP had created the Jedge account shortly before, but had revert-without-speaking trouble with WP:NINJA folks, and methinks they were probably referring to themselves, rather than attacking somebody else.  Anyhoo, see you around, thanks for improving wikipedia.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My friend June has written some fashion-related articles in the past if memory serves. June: Is this something you can help with? It's a long way from my areas of expertise! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  11:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Admin
Hi, I was wondering about running for adminship in a few months; likely after Christmas when I have 1000/2000 more edits. I say you listed on the list here, and wondered if you had time to give me your opinion on whether I would pass or not, and why? Thanks, Mat  ty. 007 19:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Imo, you have a pretty nice resume of article work, I'd like to see a bit more work in administrative areas but if I saw you at RFA right now, I'd probably support you, I'm not sure if the larger community would.-- SKATER  T a l k 22:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. So I need to edit for a few more months, and edit a little more in admin areas? Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  13:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether I'd support you I don't know, but I don't think you'd pass an RfA at the moment. You seem fairly sensible and you've kept out of trouble, but (at a quick glance) I'm not seeing anything that you've done that requires careful consideration, weighing up of opposing arguments, or tact and diplomacy, and those are sorts of things we have admins for. Anyone can mash the buttons—we even have bots to do it when there's no intelligent judgement required—but admins operate in the shades of grey. If you came to me somewhere in the middle of next year, perhaps a bit later, having established yourself as someone who can weigh up all the options and make a rational decision and explain their reasoning, I might even nominate you. But, adminship is not a career move or a status symbol—admins are very much the servants, not the masters, and people at RfA take a very dim view of people who look like they're only focused on becoming an admin. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the advice. What sort of grey areas do you think I should work on? gave me a useful link on my talk page, which seems to have lots of things needed for a successful RfA, which I am having a look at. Thanks for the advice,  Mat  ty  .  007  13:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's the wrong question. It's not a status symbol. I know it's easy for somebody who has been an admin for a few years to say that, but it really isn't a status symbol. It has its perks, but most if it is either really boring or really complicated. Nor is it part of a natural wiki-career progression to become an admin. If you keep doing what you enjoy doing and what you think you're good at, rather than trying to build a CV, you'll enjoy your time on Wikipedia a lot more, and if there comes a time when you'd be better at what you do by becoming an admin, you'll be a much better admin for it than if you'd just just gone through the motions to become an admin as quickly as possible. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the advice. Mat  ty  .  007  12:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll probably leave adminship alone for a bit then, thanks again for all the help. Mat  ty  .  007  20:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Since I'm not an admin, I can freely give Matty.007 some unvarnished completely-awful advice. If you want to become an admin that wikipedia needs, there is one kind we're especially short-handed of. We have admins that are good at vandal-fighting. We have admins that are good at spam-fighting. As mentioned by our kind host, many of the best spam-n-vandal fighters are bots. What we do *not* have enough of is admins who are able to keep their cool under dire circumstances, and get broken warzone articles turned into nice collaborations. We need more diplomats, not more warriors. You've been getting advice from Harry and from Kudpung, which is a good start. I have real-world advice for you: trial by fire. It is also extremely bad advice, likely to get you in heaps of trouble, maybe banned.
 * There is nothing special about *being* an admin, really; they have special powers, which are rarely *actually* used, in practice. Anybody, even an anon-IP-only like myself, can revert vandals, track down spammer-accounts, and generally protect wikipedia from the Bad Guys.  90% of vandalism is handled by bots, and 90% of the remainder is easily handled by a non-admin.  Check out User:Besieged, for instance, they are a top-of-the-line WikiKnight, without needing the admin-bit.  Any time they need the bit, they just ask a nearby admin, whoosh, problem solved.
 * But my advice to you, is not to seek to become a warrior-WikiKnight, running from battle to battle, putting out fires. Instead, I think we need more diplomacy-WikiKnights, that find a warzone, and guide the participants to a ceasefire, then eliminate the grudges, and bring productive editing and friendly talkpages once again to the land.  You want to prove you are admin quality?  Fair enough.  You can smell warzones from a mile away.  Go edit the articles on the ArbCom list of indefinitely-protected and immediate-discretionary-sanctioned articles.  For other reasons, not related to the admin-bit, but to trying to figure out WP:RETENTION, I decided to do something similar, with the political elections in 2012 by luck, and with the pseudoscience articles in 2013 by poor luck.
 * Believe me, your ability to continually unwaveringly Assume Good Faith will be *sorely* tested. I'm having little luck with my efforts, to try and convert warzones into friendlyism-as-far-as-the-eye-can-see.  Which is pretty much proof positive that I don't have what it takes to be an admin.  Or at least, not the kind of admin that I think wikipedia badly needs.  I didn't lose my cool, I didn't get blocked or banned, I didn't cause more problems than already existed without me, and I might have even lessened the problems, or helped resolve the situation ever so slightly.  But I have a hunch that a *really* talented person, with a knack for diplomacy, and a sixth sense for making people like them, *could* convert a warzone into a DMZ, and then a DMZ into friendlyism.  Maybe that person is you.  But go in fore-warned:  not every place on wikipedia is fun.  I suggest you do a few practice-runs over at the DR/N with Sir Zhang the WikiKnight -- they will teach you to really really WP:AGF.  Then find the ArbCom List Of Warzones, pick the one you know the *least* about, and go make the article-talkpage productive, rather than tendentious.
 * I'll leave it to the actual admin, and to the talkpage stalkers, to tell you what a poorly-conceived idea this is... those articles have enough trouble without newcomers charging in "to clean up Dodge" (not what I'm recommending at all btw) or to fix the problems by "killing them with kindness" (that's closer but still very risky) and other phrases that immediately spring to mind. Since the kinds of articles I'm talking about are almost *always* hip-deep in the noticeboards, it is almost certainly the case that there are plenty of admins on the scene already, and if you go in as a civilian, and start bumbling around, you might mess up the careful balance, and accidentally ignite a conflaguration(spellcheck needed) of surprising vehemence.
 * So, at the end of the day, my message is this: listen to Harry.  Don't *try* to become an admin.  Do what you enjoy, and if what you enjoy leads you to love wikipedia, and want to serve wikipedians, sooner or later somebody will *force* the admin-bit onto you... if doing what you love doing anyways, will help you serve wikipedia more effectively, once you no longer have to pester admins for their powers from time to time.  (RfA is very poisonous these days... you won't do it by choice methinks.)  Because as the famous thousandaire once said:  adminship is no big deal.  If you need the bit, you'll get it.  But seeking the admin-bit is not just discouraged, it is Doing It Wrong.  Admins have the worst of it here:  vast power and special abilities in the minds of most editors and all readers... coupled with little *actual* power, and one or two pretty-mundane special technogical abilities... which thousands of others also have.

Adminship is a booby prize, for getting too addicted to wikipedia. Flee while you still can, and if you don't think you should flee, give my trial by fire a whirl, and spend one hour a night on the Israeli Settlement article, or the Creation Science article, or the Tea Party article, for a whole month straight. Either you'll decide adminship is never going to be what you enjoy... or you'll have the genetic knack of WikiLove, and the wikiverse will finally enjoy peace in the Talk:Middle_East. Good luck. Thanks for improving wikipedia. (p.s. My sincere apologies to User:HJ_Mitchell, for insulting their mop. ;-) &mdash; 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)