Jump to content

User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:HJ Mitchell

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Jonesey95 (talk | contribs) at 19:45, 3 October 2023 (Fix Linter errors. More needed. Leaving font tags for bots.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

The "time and date" user name fiasco

Just to let you know, we all really tried to be welcoming and polite and urge the user to pick a different name. The edits in response ranged from aloof to passive–aggressive. Though Beeblebrox feels that the user name is acceptable, a look at watchlists, diffs, and histories shows that editors will spend 10 seconds a pop trying to make heads or tails of the "date and time" in the wrong place. 10 seconds lost on each encounter will add up for the edits already made. Imagine 5,000 edits with this "time and date" showing up in the wrong place. You nipped it in the bud. I think the editor didn't give an inch or see the point of view of the community at all. Nobody wants to see a new, productive editor blocked, but it was made clear that it was not he about to be blocked, but the account name. And now we are meant to feel like we chased him away. Not fair play. I feel that you had no choice and made the right decision. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Anna here, HJ. What you did was absolutely correct. I found it rather surprising that said user was not willing to change his name. That signals trollish(?) and potentially disruptive behaviour. Here's more proof: Just when I wrote a reason justifying a block, that user blanked his talk page, instead of resolving the situation. Consensus was very clearly on your side (very, very clearly). What one admin (Beeblebrox) felt alone was not enough to justify continued use of that name. The name was disruptive, and you did what any admin with a bit of sense would do. Aditya Ex Machina 07:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:MLovesEminem

Hi

Just to let you know, your new-found admin powers might come in use on this users talk page. Everyone has tried to explain to him why his edits are being reverted but he's refusing to listen, he seems intent on thinking that no-one else's opinions matter and on turning some parts of Wikipedia into a forum. Several others have tried explaining things but no joy.

Oh and the comment about talk page stalkers is that aimed at me? I'm not a stalker, I'm not! :p --5 albert square (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on a successful RfA

No crappy t-shirt? Here, have this one. —  Cargoking  talk  21:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I knew that when I became an admin I didn't get a t-shirt, so after digging into my archives I found this for you. So now you don't just have a crappy t-shirt ;-) Peter 22:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec x1) I have closed your RfA as successful and twiddled your bit. Congratulations on passing through the gauntlet of the valley of death on your second attempt. :) If you have any questions regarding anything to do with adminship, your new tools, etc., please let me know. Once again, good job. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hooray, it's over! Aiken ♫ 16:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations, I am sure you will wield the mop well. If you ever need anything, feel free to ask. Good luck! --Taelus (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Awesome news! -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 16:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Well done. You deserved it! Alzarian16 (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations!! I knew you could do it! :) -FASTILYsock(TALK) 17:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Congrats from me as well. Now go get that shiny mop dirty and start doing some work! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (on my own damn talk page!) Thank you, Fastily. Your nomination meant a lot to me. And thank you to everyone queueing up to offer their congrats! It's very much appreciated. Thanks Brad, I'll go and do something administrative in a minute! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Well done!! --5 albert square (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations, HJ! Good luck with the mop! :) ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 17:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Nice job, I suppose I'll have to let that edit that I pointed out slide. :) Hi878 (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
for the third time. Good job :)--White Shadows you're breaking up 17:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Well done, my man! :) Orphan Wiki 18:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Congrats HJ Mitchell! Hamtechperson 18:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Way to go! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Congrats from me as well -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you! All of you, your congratulations are very much appreciated :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

John_Higgins_(snooker_player)

Thanks!

Leaky Caldron 13:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome :). No hard feelings on my RfA? If the BLP crap keeps up after a week, let me know and I'll protect it again. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
lol, none whatsoever. IIRC you were 61/2 when I left my oppose so you were a shoe-in really, and I just wanted to encourage a little bit more community examination. A great many supporters in many RfA just don’t do research. Very best of luck with it; your patience and civility will stand you in good stead. Best. Leaky Caldron 13:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Please unprotect? The protection blocks normal edits too. Jaroslav3 (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Only if your not autoconfirmed, btw Leaky, gotta say I like your color scheme ;)--SKATER Speak. 15:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The article has been Semi-protected, which prevents edits from anonymous users (IPs) and edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has ten or more edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. You can use the {{editsemiprotected}} template to gain the attention of a user and they can look at your request. I believe your account was only created today, which is why you're having trouble editing the article. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 15:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Or I can use my magical admin powers to confirm him ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: Hello!

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at Jonny's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jonny (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

University of Health Sciences Antigua

Thanks for your swift intervention, and congratulations on your recent promotion. You are certainly off to good start ;) Favonian (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks. I've blocked all of those sock now and I'll open an SPI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hbsdfsd656fs

Just a pro-tip on blocking IPs, if they're that dynamic, then long blocks are pretty much pointless and can result in collateral damage down the road (especially these IPs that come from mobile phone networks like AT&T or Crackberry). For future reference, –MuZemike 18:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks for the tip! I've shortened all the blocks to 24 hours, is that reasonable? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi HJ, and thanks for your work. I note that all the IPs are blocked for 24 hours, as you mentioned above. Are you done with the case then? Just checking if I can archive it; in the future if you slap a {{SPIclose}} at the bottom (with no arguments) this is an indicator to us that it can be archived. Thanks! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the fun and exciting world of being an admin

I hate being the first one, but you might as well get used to it. An incident which you were involved in is now under discussion at WP:ANI. The relevant section is titled "Block Review." Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just coming here to leave a comment about that! I would ask you to reconsider your block of 21:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC) - FWIW I think it's a stupid name, but WP:UNCONF says Some usernames appear problematic without fitting clearly into one of the four categories. This is often the case with confusing or extremely lengthy usernames, which are highly discouraged but which are not so inappropriate on their own that they require an immediate block. (red text my emphasis). I'm not going to risk a Wheel War over it, but I would like you to reconsider your decision. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I saw your post on their talk page. So much for my first few days as an admin going without controversy! I think now it's at ANI, it would be better to let the consensus emerge there- I think unblocking now would cause more drama than it would solve. I won't consider it wheel warring if you were to unblock (hence the note in red at the top of the page) but I'm not sure it would be a good idea. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
HJ, it wouldn't be wheelwarring anyway. Wheelwarring needs a third action, not just a second. Aiken ♫ 19:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the policy, but nobody wants to start a chain of reverts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)HJ, Aiken is quite right - if I reversed it, and then you reversed that, it would be wheel warring! Welcome to the wonderful world of the admin! I've yet too do something really controversial - well, done my friend on achieving that so soon! I understand why you did it (it is a damn silly name!) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any objection to you reversing the block if you feel it's best, but as I said above (lost in the sea of words!) it would probably cause more drama than it would solve. I can't quite believe I've managed to cause this much controversy on my second day on the bloody job! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, are you beginning to regret it yet? ;) Just kidding. Aiken ♫ 19:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
See, this is why I opposed (*cough cough*). I knew someone with an edit like this couldn't be trusted with the mop. :) Hi878 (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
A few quick points: Since I had already declined the block and then that decision was overturned, I think it would be wheel warring if I or another admin had gone back and undid the block, hence the need for a discussion. I'm also not so sure it's a good idea to close a conversation that was a discussion of one of your own admin actions, but I'm not such a policy wonk that I see a need to pursue that any further. There does seem to be support for the block, so I guess I'll just have to accept that. I doubt this exact issue will even come up again, even I can freely admit that it was a very odd choice for a username. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Page protections

I really think the page protections you made on the articles I requested to be protected is nowhere near long enough. When there's vandalism that violates WP:BLP constantly, normally, long-term protections are put in (see Tim Tebow, Peyton Manning, & JaMarcus Russell for examples). The Walter Payton article was shortly protected before, but the second it was unprotected it suffered heavy vandalism. The Charles Rogers article has suffered from slanderous IP edits that sometimes go undetected to other editors, and I find it really hassling that just about every time I log on (which is just about every day) I see vandalism on the Peyton, Couch, or Rogers articles- especially considering that that can all be avoided with a simple page protection. Most vandals are probably too lazy to create an account and make enough good edits to be able to edit protected pages. RF23 (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that your reports aren't coming after a flood of vandalism- it's clear from the history that there has been vandalism, but I'm not going to apply long-term protection for vandalism that was three or four days ago. Protection isn't "simple", it's supposed to be the last resort- if you get a vandal, revert warn and report to AIV. Only when you get multiple vandals in quick succession should protection be applied. I dare say I'm more liberal with it than many admins, especially on BLPs, but I'm bound by the protection policy. If your troubles resume when the protection expires, let me know directly and I'll seriously consider a longer protection. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi HJ, thanks for dealing with that anonymous vandal for me. Unfortunately, it appears that the same user has migrated to a slightly different IP address and is continuing to make the same disruptive edits to the same articles. If you could also block User:213.107.100.86, or even semi-protect 2005–06 Manchester United F.C. season as a last resort, that'd be awesome. Cheers. – PeeJay 21:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, give me a minute to look into it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Blocked. I'm sure he'll be back, but I'd rather play whack-a-mole for half an hour than protect it if not absolutely necessary! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, you were right; User:213.107.100.31 is back and making the same erroneous edits. Time for a few days block this time, you reckon? – PeeJay 13:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent Vandal Block

Was your blocking here not a tad lenient? User talk:76.17.193.211 is obviously unable to edit sensibly. He/she had inflated chart positions in at least six articles as well as changed source release dates to unsourced ones.Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If it was a registered editor, I would have indef'd them, but for a first block, I think it's reasonable. If they continue after the block expires, you can just take them straight back to AIV and they'll get a longer block :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
(Uninvolved party wondering by to see what all the fuss is about on this page - re:above ANI discussion) For what it's worth, I agree with the block length. It's also worth noting that it could easily be a dynamic IP address, and even if the vandal 'deserves' a longer block, he/she might be on a new IP address by the time this block expires. I help deal with the collateral from blocked IP addresses on a daily basis, so have an idea of 'the other side'. Peter 22:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you- I now have a bucket for my mop! Thanks for the help above, too :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the extra information and explaination. It is quite useful.Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Helllllooooo! Are you aware that bots are reporting vandalism at WP:AIV and then going on to report it at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB2? Just I've never seen them report it on both pages before so thought I would check that this should be happening? --5 albert square (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing about bots, but I know that TB2 is transcluded onto AIV. I have AIV on my watchlist and I haven't seen bots editing it directly. Take another look at the histories! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Well I never, I have honestly never noticed that before, lol you learn something new every day --5 albert square (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


On the topic of AIV...

Hiya, on the topic of AIV, I just wanted to give a little advice. Your response here: [1], is that there is no vandalism, however if you check the deleted contributions there was some vandalism/disruptive editing hidden underneath an innocent edit summary. I have deleted the vandalism and blocked for 31 hours, so all is well, and I feel bad to pounce upon you so soon into your adminship, however do be careful and take lots of time to look into situations. Sure, another admin may have long since blocked the user by the time your done analysing, but its better to be safe than sorry. Regards, best of luck, --Taelus (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Having examined the diffs in more detail, I was about to block for incivility but you beat me to it. Thanks for the advice though :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Your welcome, glad to see your getting lots done with your mop so quickly after you begin, keep up the good work! --Taelus (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit Filter

Additionally, since I am a tad confused, can you explain User talk:85.75.143.79 too as I don't get the context. I checked the edit filter, and it seems it was just a coincidental flagging since the IP only tried to tag them as dead links. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to figure out that myself when I got distracted by a vandal. That IP was reported by a bot as having tripped an abuse filter that detects socks of a banned editor, but now I'm not sure... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm indeed. The abuse filter is a blunt instrument really, it is not a precision tool. I'll drop a note by one of the abuse filter managers, since this is probably a problematic false positive if this is the case. --Taelus (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Unblocked since the links they were tagging are infact dead, thus it seems good faith to me. If they are innocent, no more will occur. If they are the banned user, they will trip the filter in less ambiguous ways, then we can handle it. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (talk page stalker) I have to agree this does not seem to fit the pattern of the banned user in question, but I also note this is one of the filters that I am not familiar with. The filter seems to be primarily maintained by User:FPaS so you may wish to inquire there as to exactly what's going on. My knee-jerk reaction is that one of the conditions in the filter is way too generic, but I don't want to discuss exactly what that is here as this is a private filter and posting those details in a public venue is a bad idea. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for your help. Shirik, don't worry- even if you gave me the details, it'd go right over my head! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I flagged up the report with the user who requested the filter, and who last enabled it, for them to review. They can see all the details they need from the link without us needing to really say anything here. :) --Taelus (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yeah, just to throw in an opinion, I have to say that I run into AIV reports from these kinds of specific filters every now and then - generally, I find that if (a) I don't personally understand what the filter's doing, and (b) the edits taken on their own are not self-evidently bad, then I just leave it. Best to not block them unless you can stand behind it and say what you actually blocked them for! In this case it seems pretty ambiguous to me, maybe FPaS can indeed shed some light. ~ mazca talk 23:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
From having taken a look at the filters details, and the other edits it flagged up in the past, I think its safe to assume these were false positives. I won't say any more, but they weren't the style of edits that the filter was set up to prevent. --Taelus (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, sorry for not getting back to you earlier. Yes, this was probably a false positive (although the reaction of the IP afterwards reminds me of another, likewise banned user, who is known to have been on the same ISP as the one who was targeted here. The filter conditions unfortunately had to be set so wide because at the height of the vandal's activity there was absolutely no other way of stopping them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You have been accused of abusing your adminship

Read [2]. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Good close, there was no way in hell that article was going to be deleted. I did have to fix the formatting though. For future reference, the "{{subst:at}} '''RESULT''' ~~~~" goes on top of everything, including the "===[[Article name]]===" line. Leaving that header on top seems to be a common error in AFD now of days commited even by experienced admins. I fix 2 or 3 of these every time I do relists.
If you plan on closing a lot of AFDs, I recommend this script. it let's you close at the touch of a button. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, Just wanted to thank you that after about one day of adminship you've already done so much. Hopefully you have more years ahead of you!Just don't abuse OK? :) Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello HJ Mitchell, Narutolovehinata5 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

AfD closes

Please note these corrections to the formatting of your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Times Square car bomb attempt. Remember that the {{subst:afd top}} and {{subst:afd bottom}} templates should be substituted. The {{subst:afd top}} template should go above the header, and the result is usually bolded. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 07:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Question

Replied on my talk. Peter 09:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

User page deletion request

Hello, could I please request that you delete my user page?, I don't use it anymore and would really like it if you could do this.

Thanks.

jack4740 (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:RfPP

{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{Wikipedia:Whacking with a Wet Trout}}{{-}}}} For telling a vandal to place an {{editsemiprotected}} tag on Vandalism in order to vandalize the article over on WP:RfPP. Your mop is quite shiny though, so this won't happen again (I hope). Cheers! Hamtechperson 01:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Potential vandal- their one and only edit was to RPP and I wasn't about to unprotect it on the say so of one IP. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Erm... hope I don't come across as rude, but I think HTP is trying to say that you shouldn't have necessarily taken the request so seriously. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
More read the reasoning. you told a would be vandal to have an established editor vandalize for them. Hamtechperson 03:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, lol. Slow down a bit and smell the roses, HJ. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
That's five people who have told you to slow down, and you have yet to acknowledge any of it. You didn't understand the RfUP incident even after you were trouted for it. If you keep up your frenetic pace of admin button smashing, with little regard for your newness or cautionary warnings from other admins, I'm going to fire up an RfC. Tan | 39 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
When Tan (of all people) is considering initiating an RFC I sit up and take notice. Slow down, HJ. It is not a race. –xenotalk 14:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) w/Xeno. I haven't replied, but I've noted it. While you're here, why don't you take a look at my RPP decisions and check them- I'd appreciate a more experienced admin reviewing them. Please do overrule anything you think was mistaken and let me know- it's an area I'm interested in since it seems to back up frequently, so I'd like to be making the best decisions possible. Also, although I don;t think the feeling's mutual, I'd like you to know that I hold you in very high esteem. Thank you for your time, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi HJ! I see that you are running into just a tad of difficulty. Would you mind if I directed you to the Wikipedia:New admin school? It might help a little bit. Enjoy the bank holiday! —  Cargoking  talk  14:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, for the semi-protection of Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. -- Cirt (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

AN/I comment

Hi, and congratulations on your recent promotion. I noticed this comment. As even a cursory investigation would have revealed, not only is the matter now seemingly resolved, but I did take part in a discussion on the article's talk page, so your comment about "drive-by" tagging seems somewhat inaccurate. Perhaps you could consider striking it? In future, please take a moment to investigate before commenting like this at AN/I. Thanks for your consideration. --John (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of "drive-by" tagging and I have the article on my watchlist and I've seen the talk page discussion, but my point was more that GAR would be a better forum for such grievances than ANI. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Well indeed. Per my comment at article talk, this is only worth doing though if there is a skill base frequenting GAR which is capable of telling the difference between "brilliant prose" and fancruft. Based on the comments I have seen I am not convinced that this is currently the case. Very worrying if true. --John (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Service award

Out of curiosity, I saw your service award but was wondering why you are still a "Yeoman" when you have clearly reached "Veteran Editor II"? Anyhow, this below is clearly what you should be getting. Cheers and regards~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 16:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This editor is a
Veteran Editor II
and is entitled to display this
Bronze Editor Star.
This editor is a Veteran Editor II and is entitled to display this Bronze Editor Star.
Veteran Editor II
Veteran Editor II
Because they have a time requirement- I've only been editing for about 13 months, but thank you for your thought, it's appreciated :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It's back. —  Cargoking  talk  17:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear! Good job I haven't got any travel plans in the near future! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I had no idea there was a Volcanic Ash Advice Centre. (Yes, I was stalking your talk page, it keeps shooting to the top of my watchlist). - JuneGloom07 Talk? 17:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Crap. I really don't want to get stranded Friday. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Ooh, unlucky! I'm just glad I'm not planning to fly anywhere! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

ITN

Hi HJ could you give me credit for nominating the United/Continental merger story to ITN ? not to be greedy but for those of us still working to prove our worth to the project every little bit helps. Thanx--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification needed

HJ,

Please clarify what you do, and do not, want NSD to do with respect to DG here. NSD has something of a point; on your talk page, you thanked him for transferring Diego's vote in this AFD, now you think DG shouldn't be participating?

This is not what I, or others, agreed to at the ANI discussion. As a favor to you, I went against my better judgment, now I feel like boundaries are starting to be tested. DG evidently has a feud with the person who created (and is the subject of) the article across multiple wikipedias, he should not be bringing feuds to en.wiki as well. Regardless of whether you, or NSD, think NSD has been helping, going forward I think it's best if he stops now. For anything regarding DG. Blame it on me being a jerk, if you'd like. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at NerdyScienceDude's talk page.
Message added 22:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 22:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at Fat&Happy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...and congratulations 04:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Your protection of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

Thanks! Just wondering - how much vandalism or how many previous protections warrant an indef? If and when I become an admin in the far future, I'd like to have an idea. Thanks again, Airplaneman ✈ 00:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's actually in the header at RPP, but it's buried amongst all the filing instructions:
  • If you are requesting indefinite semi-protection, be aware that it is only applied to articles with endemic and endless vandalism problems which multiple increasing periods of temporary semi-protection have failed to stop.
In practice, there's no "X many protections = indef", but for a non-BLP, you'd expect a very long protection log with protection periods incremented (for example, 24h, 1 week, a month, 3 months but again, not hard and fast) and it would have to be clear that the vandalism just keeps coming back after each protection expires. Asian people is an example of this (take a look at the protection log). It's not the best, but it's the only non-BLP I can think of offhand. I can dig you up some more examples if you want. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I see. Thanks! Airplaneman ✈ 01:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
P.S. The log is about the same size as Asian people, although I understand that the latter is a more sensitive topic, I guess, and also not everything's quantitative. Airplaneman ✈ 01:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. It's a case-by-case thing. Obviously Asian people is a sensitive subject (and a bad example, but I'll dig you out a better one when I have time!) and Harry doesn't seem (going by the protection log only) to have had significant trouble since last December. Obviously, if the trouble resumes, let me know or take it back to RPP and it'll be protected for a longer period. The basic rule with protections is to keep them as short as possible- after all we're the encyclopaedia than anyone can vandalise edit! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Alright, will do. Thanks for the help! Airplaneman ✈ 00:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been fun

But could you protect my talk page for 3 days? Thanks. I've had my fun with the kids. Tommy2010 01:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoa I said 3 days :| Tommy2010 01:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Reduced to 31 hours per request, happy editing to you both. --Taelus (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that

thanks for having a word with Armbrust as he has been the main cause of argement on the snooker scene, reverting things just because he doesn't agree with it even though the prose is niecly balanced. KnowIG 08:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell an admin

Cheers.--yousaf465 02:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Diego Grez and AFD commentary

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at Diego Grez's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Benny the mascot (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

NEWs page thai elections

hey, just read the text "agree to a general election in November 2010" doesn't "agree to a general election for November 2010" sound better? Right now it almost sounds like they agreement is in November.

btw- how do you put the above personalized note for talk page comments?Lihaas (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed it a little bit, but if you think it need more, you'll have to go to WP:ERRORS because I'll be offline for an hour. As for the note, for your talk page, just go to special:mytalk/Editnotice and type what you like. The code for mine is at User talk:HJ Mitchell/Editnotice. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
ThanksLihaas (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Untitled section

Hello HJ Mitchell, I've been updating Christina Aguilera's page for Not Myself Tonight and the information I have added continues to be deleted with a user who disagrees with me. I'd be happy to speak with you and walk you through my analysis of the video as well as welcome you to inspect the information I have contributed. I attended the University of Iowa's Film School and I made a large focus on studying music videos. I'm very familiar with the subject. I continue to attempt to add the following.

The video by Hype Williams pays direct homage to three music video directors who have worked with Madonna: Mary Lambert, David Fincher, and Jean-Baptiste Mondino. Direct shot and image references are used from primarily 4 videos by these artist (two videos by David Fincher,) Madonna (entertainer)’s Human Nature, Like a Prayer, Express Yourself, and George Michael’s Freedom! '90. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettstout (talk • contribs) 20:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Faisal Shahzad

May I draw your attention back to Wikipedia talk:In the news#A man is charged..... -- tariqabjotu 21:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Santa Cruz High School, Chile

I think that article is ready to be moved to the mainspace, it has a little history section and I couldn't find more refs to do something more expansive. :-) --Diego Grez let's talk 21:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And I think I'm a bit involved on May 2010 Pichilemu earthquake, and I think it should be kept and merged to 2010 Pichilemu earthquake. I know I shouldn't be involved in such controversial topics, but well, it's about Pichilemu :-D --Diego Grez let's talk 21:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't find any other references. But the school exists, for sure. The only reference is a page on their official site :-P --Diego Grez let's talk 00:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

GAN backlog elimination drive award

The Good Article Reviewer's Medal of Merit
For reviewing 20 good article nominations during the April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive, I hereby present you The Good Article Reviewer's Medal of Merit. Congratulations! –MuZemike 23:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking User talk:Helpfuldan. He has made some good edits and I think that the fan sites that he is trying to restore are discussing this since there have been several other reverts of my removal of the fan sites section. It's been tagged since June 2009 (not by me) and another editor removed the section a few days ago. I have simply been trying to maintain WP:ELNO. I'm certain that I broke WP:3RR. Any suggestions? Feel free to add comments to the article's talk page if it's easier. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about 3RR- repeated insertion of spam links is vandalism and an exception to the 3RR. If you have problems with sock/meat puppets, then just let me know and I can block them or protect the article. Hope that helps :). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Your first

The Admin's Barnstar
You've made some mistakes and came into some scrutiny since you got your mop, but it seems you've learned from your mistakes and are doing a great job, keep it up! SKATER Speak. 13:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on becoming an Administrator!

Okay, first of all, I know you probably have no idea who I am, which is why I would like to let you know that the reason I voted "Strong Support" on your RfA was because I have seen some of your edits, and they are constructive edits. Anyways, congratulations on becoming an administrator! Good luck with the tools! :) --Hadger 16:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I know who you are- I've seen you around :)! Thanks for the support and the congrats. And for stopping by. If you need any admin help, you know where I am! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Where? =O Aditya Ex Machina 17:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
.*points vaguely into the distance* oh, and congrats HJM, I failed to say that earlier.~ mazca talk 17:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, great job. You won't make any more mistakes like that one I pointed out, I hope? :) Hi878 (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations look forward to working with you on ITN--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, adding my congratulations for the adminship! I see you do well with it! Have fun. (sorry for my recent revert on the ITN box, I found that somehow unusual and would like some more discussion if that side notice on the election is to be there). --Tone 16:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#First Secretary General of Unasur

Would it be considered inadecuate if I post an advice re/this ITN proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Argentina, Wikipedia:WikiProject South America and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mercosur? Thanks for your advice, --IANVS (talk | cont) 16:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

As long as the message is neutral, it shouldn't be a problem. "You might be interested in..." is fine, but "Quick! Comae and support..." would be considered canvassing. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Done. If you feel they may be -involuntarily- WP:CANVASS, please do tell me. Salut, and thanks again. --IANVS (talk | cont) 16:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Help!

I need some help now with a block that must be administered as I'm fighting off IP vandals myself and it's getting unbearable. Can you please give semi block to the page List of heads of state and government by net worth, please? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind it has been protected now. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

I was browsing Wikipedia and saw that fully protected pages have a different warning at the top when administrators edit it, such as the main page. Is this really what it looks like? Tommy2010 19:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - yeah, the normal editnotice is targeted towards users who may not know what full protection is, but the admin one is just there to remind the admin that they probably should think twice before editing it. It also colors the textbox red to further point out that it's protected and should be edited with caution. ~ mazca talk 19:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I just thought it'd look a little fancier than that, considering semi-protected pages even have a red notice for autoconfirmed users. Tommy2010 19:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, for semi protection, you just get the red box at the top, fir full protection, the whole edit box is red and if it's on the Main Page you get yet another warning and if it is the Main Page, you get a big notice that says you'll be desysopped if you make any spelling mistakes and if you vandalise it, you'll be taken out and shot (well, words to that effect ;) ). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, get rid of the darned cat- they make me sneeze and scare my dog! It's good to know there is a better system for full protection- I've gotten where I don't really pay attention to the semi-protect notices; if I have an edit button, I already know I can edit the page. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
You get a warning that you'll be desysopped for any errors? :| oh my god. Tommy2010 20:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 2010

If possible, can we try and keep this page open? I think it's important to have such an important article available to edit. I've watchlisted it so I'll help out with the maintenance as well. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. As I said on RPP earlier, I don't mind playing whack-a-mole with a few vandals if it keeps it open. Glad to see I'm not alone in that school of thought! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw what you were saying earlier - that's why I popped by to see if we could team up on the page so it doesn't need protecting. I've just declined another request for protection. Congratulations on the adminship by the way - hope there's no hard feelings. You seem to be doing a fantastic job. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Please explain why it is important to have this article left open for fly-by IPs to damage? Your suggestion is completely agaist assurances given earlier and also against WP:PROT and WP:ROUGH. Leaky Caldron 20:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
There's plenty of people watching now - edits are being reverted on the spot. It's important to have high profile pages (for a similar reason we don't protect the featured article) left unprotected. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I asked you WHY? Leaky Caldron 20:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
If the vandalism gets so bad that it can't be dealt with by the block button, I'll protect it, but, as far as possible, I'd like to keep it open.
(edit conflict)Ryan, is it worth creating an editnotice warning that vandalism will result in a block so we can just block the most troublesome vandals until things calm down? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Meh, no point - Ged_UK protected it and to be fair he's right - I was just hoping we could see it through without the need to d protect. I'm not going to question it. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
and you two are so wrong about this it really makes me wonder whether you know wtf you were thinking about. Leaky Caldron 21:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We try wherever possible to keep high profile pages (e.g. articles on top news stories, featured articles) open to encourage the editing environment. If people start clicking on our most viewed pages and not being able to edit, they will see the project as being one which is closed and therefore decide not to contribute at all. That's the reason why we keep pages open. With the greatest respect Leaky caldron, I do know "wtf [i was] thinking about" and I would ask you not to question my motives moving forward - I suggested no protection because overall I believe it would be better for the encyclopedia and to at least encourage more editors to contribute, I certainly didn't suggest it in bad faith. You may find it is in your benefit to discuss matters with other editors in a more collegial way - Shouting you don't know "wtf" someone is thinking about doesn't generally get a very good response and it certainly meant my respect for your comments in this thread went down considerably. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
and maybe if you had answered my first question above instead of blanking me I would not have needed to get your attention by wondering wtf you are thinking about by not semi-protecting it. You are wrong by policy and essay guideline. Since the article mentions Brown, Cameron and Clegg, there are also BLP issues to consider which requires a lower threshold. BTW, your big warning banner might be working but it has not met with universal approval. Leaky Caldron 22:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems to be working though- better to irritate a few people with a warning banner than to shut out every new and unregistered editor as punishment for the crimes of a minority. We seem to be getting a fair few constructive edits from people who'd be shut out by semi protection, so I'd call that a success, personally. Perhaps we've recruited some new editors this evening. Who knows. Try to look on the bright side, mate. :) I can easily protect it again if we get more trouble. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

well that is where will have to disagree, HJ. I don't agree with unregistered editors - full stop. Actually I thought I saw a comment from you along similar lines but I might be mistaken. ;). I think the 4000 second server lag might be having an impact too. Leaky Caldron 22:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that lag is really pissing me off! I agree with you on unregistered editors, but I can't protect the article just because I disagree with their ability to edit- that would be like full protecting it because I have a fundamental belief that only admins should be able to edit it. Unregistered editors aside, what about those with an account they've created just to update some statistic or the guy who created his account back in 2008 but only made 8 edits...? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
If they ask you nicely you can confirm them. :) Leaky Caldron 22:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

ITN/C

No criticism of your promotion of the MV Moscow University article, but I've raised the issue at wP:AN. MMN does have a point, we admins need to be seen to be playing fair and not abusing our tools at all times. If in doubt, ask a more experienced admin for advice. There's nothing wrong with being WP:BOLD, but that needs to be balanced against the perception of an action by other editors. Mjroots (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave the discussion where it is now that it has got started. It may benefit from input by admins who aren't "involved" in ITN, an outside view as it were. BTW, I've apologised for my error in my original post at AN. Am turning in now, will check back tomoz. Mjroots (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

RE:Main page balance

I think it looks ok at the moment. I went down a resolution and it is fine in my opinion. We tend to get a few complaints if it is wildly off, as it is, it looks fine. Regards, Woody (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you're online...

I need to turn in, it's getting on for 03:30 here, but I'd really appreciate it if you could keep an eye on United Kingdom general election, 2010- I've desperately tried to avoid semi-protection, so if you could keep an eye on things for a few hours, you;d be doing me and the encyclopaedia a great service. There's an editntice up warning of instant block for vandals so you could just block them until the results are all in. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry; I had signed off not long after those last edits. It was 3:30am where I was too! -- tariqabjotu 09:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocking

I saw your comment at AN/I about bringing accounts to you for blocking. Would you mind blocking Forbespeople (talk · contribs), a blatant promotion-only account? It has created and recreated the same spam article multiple times, received 2 warnings to stop, continued, yet was then rejected at AIV because it had "stopped after it was properly warned by an administrator". My report to UAA was also rejected because even though the username appears to be a promotional violation, it's not spamming directly about Forbes Magazine. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem seems to have solved itself- the article they were creating has been protected so thy can't create it again and they haven;t edited since, but let me know if the trouble resumes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok that works too, thanks! Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. A question.

Hello, You just processed my vandalism request and answered that those edits are not vandalism. Can you help me please? i thought that edits that continuously violate wiki rules after the informational message to the user are considered vandalism. I don`t understand , can you please explain it to me where am i wrong and where can i address this problem. Thank you.iadrian (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to discuss the edits with them on a talk page. Vandalism is defined as any edit "made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.". Try leaving a polite note on their talk page either asking them to explain their edits or engage in a discussion on a talk page elsewhere. It might help to inform them that I told you to get in touch with them. If they continue without responding, let me know and I'll have a word but blocking is usually the absolute alst resort. Hope that helps, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I don`t want the user Rokarudi blocked either since he has constructive edits, just want to respect wiki rules (WP:PLACE) as we all do. I already talked to the user and i think that he realizes the problem but refuses to acknowledge it. This user is already familiar with this rule when we had to explain it to him this here. I will try to warn him again and after that if he continues i will file another report. Thank you for your answer.iadrian (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. Can you please help me with this user? Since it doesn`t qualify as vandalism (my second report was rejected as not vandalism) and i don`t want to start a dispute resolution on such a clear matter, if i am not forced to do so. As i said before here , this user was explained the naming policy and more recently here. The user clearly can`t realize the difference between Hungarian and English wikipedia and the fact that this is wikipedia and all that matters are wiki rules. He is trying to take compact zones to try to represent as a high percentage of the Hungarian minority but fails to acknowledge the fact that Romanians make 80.4% of the population in the geographical region of Transylvania, Romania. Also before him, everything was fine, normal templates with official names only. Now he is trying to create chaos on Romania and Slovakia related articles. I am explaining that since that is very important for him, the population part, even if it has nothing to do with wikipedia and it`s rules with the use of the official names. Can you please help to clarify this, again? iadrian (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I hate to have to turn you away, but I don't feel in a position to be getting involved in this. I suggest you take the matter back to WP:ANI, where people who are more familiar with the history here might be better able to help you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Np, i just thought because it is a clear matter. I hate to do the same thing again, just because one user refuses to respect some wiki policy. Thank you. iadrian (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Archive_4&oldid=1178454881"