This is an archive of past discussions with User:HJ Mitchell. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Tofutwitch11(TALK) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 21:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Harry. I notice you haven't signed up for this. I know you're very busy and it may take up more of your time, but your input would be most welcome. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I know this is a crappy response given how long you've been waiting, but it's late and I've been on the single malt so I'm afraid I'm not in a position to look into it atm. I trust your judgement, so unblock if you think that's the best thing to do. Sorry I couldn;t get to this earlier. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
An editor you have been involved with at Nicole Kidman is the subject of a discussion at the Admin Notice Board here. As you have been an editor on the page in question, your comments may prove helpful. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Please remove this DYK record
Hello Mitchell, I certainly think its a biggest mistake that would happen on Wikipedia specially by its DYKadminbot. On 14 June 2009, a DYK was posted "Did you know ... that the Ice Hockey Association of India is hoping to prepare a team for the 2010 Commonwealth Games, despite the lack of any indoor hockey rinks in the entire country?", I'm completely shocked that how this DYK was posted on Wikipedia's main page; as you're also from the Commonwealth country, you can understand better that Commonwealth Games are summer games and Ice Hockey was never been a part of any revision of these games. Well lets just assume that ice hockey was a part of 2010 Commonwealth Games, but even in this case this fact is completely baseless as these games were organised in Delhi and if India didn't have even a single rink than how they were going to organise this event in games?. I mailed DYKadminbot but he didn't reply at all, so I request you to remove any record of such DYK, Thanks in advance. Bill william comptonTalk13:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Erm DYKAdminBot won't be responding for quite some time, because, as the name suggests, it's a bot (ie an automated computer programme, not a person!). As for the entry, I don;t know the exact rules surrounding that sort of thing, but it's worth noting that it might well have been accurate in June last year when it was posted, even if it's no longer so. I would suggest you go to WT:DYK. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
What is it with you guys and babies?
Oh, seriously... now my own User:Baby Stupid has been blocked! Curiously, by User:Erwin, who hasn't edited since August 2010; he thought the username was "abusive". Not at all; the baby's simply named after his progenitor Bishapod, affectionately known as Little Stupid (a name nobody ever blocked). He looks just like Bishapod, too, see MONGO's photo. But I digress... could you unblock this baby, please? I guess I'm not supposed to. I've e-mailed Erwin with a request, but August 2010 doesn't sound any too promising... maybe he's left or something. I can't find any date for when the block happened. All the best, Bishonen | talk16:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC).
HJ, I tried to help with this, but it appears to be a global block. I left Bishonen some advice on her talk page, but it consists 95% of "I don't know how to fix it", so if you know more about global blocks than I, you should fix it, and then tell me how you did it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I think RexxS knows. (But he's not an admin.) Check out his input on my page. But please don't feel you have to fix this if it's a bother, HJ. I've got an aussie friend who can probably handle this whitelist stuff easily. (Currently asleep.) Bishonen | talk18:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC).
Revision delete request
Hi there Harry. Do you think you could delete the revision [1]? It's pretty libellous and offensive and does no use whatsoever for the article in terms of editing history. (I saw your name at CAT:RFRD so thought I'd ask you!) Cheers. JayΣεβαστόςdiscuss17:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I stumbled upon a new user whose first edits were tagging accounts as socks. source I have no clue where to post this but something about it seems wrong. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk00:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
HJ's page is on my watchlist, I've blocked the troll/sock/whatever. I used to have a batch delete script, but I removed it while debugging javascript problems. Guess I need to go back and re-add it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi HJ Mitchel. May I ask you to take a fresh and unbiased look at this nomination, as there appears to be an impasse in the discussion. Many thanks for your work on DYK. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I noted your Oppose vote, as did I further down. Currently, Oppose Vote #43 refers to a recent vandal attempt at Harvard University, exactly the type of page that should have this protection applied. The correction diff. made by the user is here. The vandal literally wiped out about 100 KB of content and left a 79 byte spambit in its place. It was caught and reversed one minute later; being such a high profile university, it would have been caught quickly NEway, but the tool helped keep the vandalism out of the public eye and no one ever noticed; only those in the voting discussion and looking at the history will ever see it. Exactly why I like PC, and I hate the fact there are so many "process hounds", as another voter terms them, who will eventually destroy the project.
NEway, thought you'd find that of interest. Also, are you going to hang around at midnite GMT to see what April Fool's fun occurs? =) CycloneGU (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Stopping the trial is one thing, but there are many people who are just trying to derail the whole thing, which is a real shame, because it's undeniably useful in some situations. It's unfortunate that the original rollout was so badly handled and Jimbo's effective veto to the end of the trial (while I agree with him in principle) simply handed the naysayers another stick with which to beat it.
Hi, somebody told me that 1RR rule for I/P related articles does not apply to the changes made by IP, in other words those could be reverted without violating the rule. Could you please tell me, if this is the case? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
As much as it doesn't seem fair to me, that is my interpretation of the restrictions. If it's a technical violation, I wouldn't bother, but if they're actually edit warring, it might be worth reporting them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Paulo Francis
Dear HJ Mitchell, regarding the block you just made on an editor due to the violation of 3RR in Paulo Francis, first of all I thank you for acting so promptly. Secondly, since I usually edit in ptwiki and we don't have 3RR there, I did not know what was the recommended procedure after such an event; should the editor's reversion be, in turn, reverted? I was about to examine the article's history in order to figure out what to do best when I accidentally clicked on the Twinkle option to revert, something which I not intended to do (not at least without providing an adequate explanation on the edit summary). How should I proceed now? Should I revert mine own action to the previous edit and wait for a third-party opinion? Thanks, RafaAzevedomsg18:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
If you feel it necessary, you can make an insignificant edit (like add a space in the infobox or something) and use the edit summary to explain your previous revert. As for your first question, don't revert for the sake of reverting (that's what we call edit warring). It's always better to try to sort the matter out on the talk page, though by the time someone's on their fourth or fifth revert, it's a bit late for that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, fair enough, I must have skimmed into the wrong section when I was reading up on disruption. Thanks for the clarification. --McGeddon (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Ian.thomson
The User:Ian.thomson is pushing POV on the article Qur'an. He has reverted 4 edits on the same page in less than 2 hours. Details of his four reverts is as follows;
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
15:28, 1 April 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 421829305 by Zubair71 - New Advent is Christian, but there's no evidence Ibn Rawandi is. "Not Muslim" does not mean "Christian." Added in "potential." I'll look for more secular sources, though.")
16:02, 1 April 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Rv censorship (this isn't attacking but literary criticism, there is a difference), adding in sources.")
16:25, 1 April 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "rv pov-pushing, Muslims believe it, but not everyone else does")
It looks like you locked this redirect for Terry Jones (pastor). I would like to remove the redirect and create an article. Terry Jones is no longer notable for one event after the actual Quran burning last month. He should have his own page now. Pass a Methodtalk08:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
There are two points to be addressed left in the review and I am going to leave those up to User:Anythingyouwant. Reason being, he is a far better writer than I am (I am a chronological writer) and he can make those two areas look far better than I could ever. Personally, I think they look great as-is, but again, I am a chronological writer, not the greatest kind of writer. So, I figure he will be around sometime later on this morning and will take a look and then we can mark this complete. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 11:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Assawoman Bay
Revert my edit if you must, but I disagree with your assessment that it was "vandalism". I have several maps at home that list Assawoman Bay as "Big Assawoman Bay" (one in front of me now). I know plenty of people who refer to it as such (myself not included). There are a few businesses with "Big Assawoman" in their title. It was a good-faith edit. I've never vandalized an article in my life. Bmf 51 (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Being from near that area, the locals do refer to it as "Big Assawoman Bay". A Google search finds many examples of that reference. I have to say, the above editor wasn't vandalizing, but was adding. Don't worry, if I wasn't from the area, I would have marked it as vandalism as well. No harm done. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 18:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Opinion?
Based upon recent discussions in several places, I have begun work on an essay that seeks to clarify just how and when discussuion of a film-before-its-filming would per policy merit inclusion in some manner, or per GNG even merit a seperate article. Please look over User:MichaelQSchmidt/Future Films and offer your insights. Thanks, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.00:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, randomly stumbled over your GA review of C. W. A. Scott. Looks good, except I thought you may like to note that WP:ALTTEXT is not a requirement for GA (although it is nice for the article to have). Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Question
Hi, HJ, I'd like to ask you a question please. IP user comes to an article talk page with this post. As you could see there are no RS, actually no any sources at all to support most claims. The info from the only 2 sources that are RS is either in the article already (BBC), or has nothing to do with this particular article (Time magazine). At once after posting that rant post, IP user tags the article that was at Main Page for NPOV. Is this tagging could be called "vandalism", and if "no" why no? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, this IP edited the article and the talk page before the article got to the Main Page. No info mentioned by IP was removed from the article after IP edited it. IMO, if IP waited to tag the article after it got to the Main page, it might be considered "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia".--Mbz1 (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The same user, but with a different IP reinstalled the tag again. I added Arbitration enforcement warning to that new IP's talk page. Could you please log the warning, and tell me what to do, if the user's IP are changing. Should I add the warning to all known IP the user is using? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm hung over, in the middle of writing an article and probably too involved to be acting as an admin in this instance anyway, so I'm afraid I'll have to respectfully decline. If they keep at it and reasonable attempts at discussion get nowhere, it might be worth an RfPP request for a brief semi prot (and mentioning that you can live with full prot if the admin thinks it more appropriate). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Please give me rollback. I know the policies I was just lost in rage at the time. You cannot tell me you have not done something in your life out of feelings for that person or user. I will not do that stupid action again. Jessy(talk)(contribs) • 14:47, April 3, 2011 (UTC) 14:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Not a chance. I'm sorry, but you've made 16 requests for various permissions (including adminship and EFM—which isn't even given to admins by default) and you clearly don't understand what they're for. They're not trophies to put on your mantlepiece and there are good reasons we have rules about their proper use. I'm struggling to count the number of policies and guidelines you violated in just this click, so it doesn't seem prudent to give you a tool that allows you to violate policy with less effort. Now the bollocking is out of the way, why don't you go and spend some more time in the mainspace getting to know policy the old-fashioned way? Wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopaedia, not a social networking site. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
You've Got Mail!
Hello, HJ Mitchell. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Thanks for the quick block of the second vandalizing editor. You might want to backtrack through the edit history a couple more edits and note the first editor (Chicken 12310) making comparable edits a few minutes earlier. I just put a Level 3 warning on his talk page; it's very likely the same person and an SPA. Drmargi (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
It probably is the same person, but I can't be certain enough to block on those grounds. I've semi'd the article for a week and watchlisted it so I'll act swiftly if there's any repeat of that kind of nonsense. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a notification, not a a warning. If your editing is within the accepted norms of conduct, you have nothing to worry about. If it's not, the notification is an opportunity for you to rectify that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I see that you are the administrator responsible for salting RayWilliamJohnson, the YouTube user name of Ray William Johnson. This article has now been created, and has stood for over a week without a deletion attempt. Could you please create RayWilliamJohnson as a redirect to Ray William Johnson, as well as any other related pages which were repeated created, that I am unaware of? Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Apparently so, and wow, that page has been deleted a lot of times. I'm not going to create the redirect, because I don't want to be seen as endorsing the article (I have no opinion on whether it should exist or not), but I've unprotected it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for bumping this page into the DYK queue. After Nyttend's criticisms, I didn't think it stood much of a chance. (Most of those criticisms, I have to confess, baffled me, though the first, that the page was insufficiently referenced, was useful. I had assumed that blue-linking the article to Pierrot, which is heavily referenced, would spare me the necessity of a lot of footnotes on the new page. A false assumption.)
I'm surprised that the DYK fact got such few hits. A DYK hook on a piece I wrote earlier on Paul Legrand, a 19th-century mime that I thought nobody had ever heard of (or would give two hoots about), got over 3000 hits; Pierrot lunaire (book) got just under 400. Maybe instead of Arnold Schoenberg I should have baited the hook with the Japanese boy-band Pierrot? Thoughts of an old curmudgeon. Beebuk07:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a funny thing. I think much of it is luck of the draw, but it's also affected by when and where the hook is. The top hook is always going to get more hits, because it's above "the fold" on most screens, but if it's featured at lunchtime or early evening in the relevant timezone, it probably has a better chance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Lucky Penny
A Lucky Penny
In the spirit of "See a penny, pick it up. All the day you'll have good luck", this penny is offered to Editor:HJ Mitchell for his incredible WikiWorld endeavors. Since I am the editor that created this "barnstar' please feel free to alter it in any way necessary so that you can actually now give a Penny for your thoughts. Buster Seven Talk20:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
On behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, we would like to take the time and thank you for your contributions made as part of the March 2011 Good articles backlog elimination drive. Awards and barnstars will go out shortly for those who have reviewed a certain number of articles.
During the backlog drive, in the month of March 2011,
522 GA nominations were undertaken.
423 GA nominations passed.
72 GA nominations failed.
27 GA nominations were on hold.
We started the GA backlog elimination drive with 378 GA nominations remaining, with 291 that were not reviewed at all. By 2:00, April 1, 2011, the backlog was at 171 GA nominations, with 100 that were left unreviewed.
At the start of the drive, the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 101 days (Andrei Kirilenko (politician), at 20 November 2010, reviewed and passed 1 March 2011); at the end of the drive the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 39 days (Gery Chico, at 24 February 2011, still yet to be reviewed as of this posting).
While we did not achieve the objective of getting the backlog of outstanding GA nominations down to below 50, we reduced the GA backlog by over half. The GA reviews also seemed to be of a higher quality and have consistently led, to say the least, to marginal improvements to those articles (although there were significant improvements to many, even on the some of the nominations that were failed).
Hey HJ, when you get a free couple moments, give a look-see at the Frank Buckles article. AYW and I have done a good job, I believe, of taking care of the things that needed to be addressed and have them updated from your last post on the A-Class review. Give a look-see and let us know if there is anything else that needed corrected, updated and such. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, duh on me. Sometimes I forget we are all in different parts of the globe. :) We all get working in tune so well, ya kinda forget. :) Sure, if you can't get to it tonight, tomorrow is fine. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Only 5,000 miles, eh? Meh, that's nothin'. :) I have Facebook friends in Aussieland (my name for Australia). But oddly, I know no one west of Colorado. Must change that. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
But unless I remember incorrectly, there used to be buttons on certain articles that you could press to get the noise of the thing in the article. Could you answer a couple questions for me about them? Like, where did they go and could I see the code for it?Abce2 (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Blocked. You lose track after a while. One of the long-term nutters or other. It's similar to the MO of at least three of them that I know and some of them have started impersonating each other, so RBI applies more than ever! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
What is the tag that would be place on an article that has bare URLs for references. Cant find it in Twinkle. Jessy(talk)(contribs) • 22:18, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
Oh I have the time I will do it. Thanks. Jessy(talk)(contribs) • 22:25, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
Oh no I just realized fixing it is a little to complicated for my experience so {{bare URLs}} it is. Jessy(talk)(contribs) • 22:27, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
Hi HJ. Your protection of WP:TITLE looks eminently reasonable – but I would say that, wouldn't I? ☺ PMAnderson seems to have corrupted the link to WP:MOS (see this edit). Please consider adding "]" that to make "[[WP:MOS]]", for the convenience of users. That shouldn't be controversial.
Of course I'm glad you're not taking sides. Myself, I stand against edit-warring. Those are the first edits I've done ANYWHERE since January 2010, apart from at talkpages in the last few weeks. You don't have to comment on this: but I point out that from my point of view I was just removing an undiscussed change that served a hidden political purpose, made a couple of months back. Others hadn't paid attention to it.
Other views are possible. Never mind! Carry on. Thanks for fixing that technicality. –⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 22:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you please notify user Nmate that he should not use word "warning" in relation to your notification on my talk page
Sandstein, the admin Nmate is talking to, is highly experienced in AE and knows exactly what the notification is. One can call it whatever one wants, but it doesn't change what it is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, but since I know very well history of behavior of user Nmate in the past, I am afraid that he will now use word "warning" in every discussion about me. He have a long history of attempts of undermining reputation of various Slovak, Romanian and Serbian users (in another word, of all users that do not agree that Hungarian nationalistic viewpoint is used for some subjects). I had problems with this user in the past when I was more active in Wikipedia and now he just trying to push me away from editing and to undermine my reputation. Here you have some history of behavior of this user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN/Evidences How can I protect myself from his personal harassment and Wiki stalking? PANONIAN17:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, I was in error. It was a notification and not a warning. But as for the "evidences" and "wikistalking" that PANONIAN tries to broach here on your talk page that I have to reject. Nonetheless, I do not want to argue with someone else at your talk page and am awfully sorry for the inconveniences that I may have caused you , HJ Mitchell in this case and do not want to incommode you related to this matter any more.--Nmate (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I am satisfied with this answer of user Nmate about notification and I agree that this page should not be used for arguing. PANONIAN
... so there you go. I'm not quite sure who Psydoll was, but s/he seemed to be telling the truth. If you choose to remove the protection, I won't argue with you. DS (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Edit: To clarify, posting private conversations or conversations with no public logging it's an issue. Still though, just because the meat is kosher dosen't mean it's worth eating. I'd advise against any public transcripts of IRC conversations unless all parties agree to it. Sven ManguardWha?03:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
A few of these seem useful, & I intend to re-add some like WP:NOT DICTIONARY--if there's any objection, pls let me know. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
The edits you reverted are factual information about Maria Schneider, quotes, referenced, material, referenced.
The filmography was expanded as over a dozen works were not cited.
The photograph was deleted because it is NOT Maria Schneider, actress. It is Maria Schneider, musician, please check.
Now there is a Wikipedia commons licensed copywritten photograph of Maria Schneider, actress.
Nothing has been deleted from other contributors. Schneiders's medal at Ordre des Arts et Lettres was moved to Career, from Personal Life.
Two quotes have been added by her, translated with permission by authors.
References.
Please be constructive about why these edits are not contructive, which is unfathomable.
I have interviewed Maria Schneider and just gave a public dedication to her in Paris at the request of Créteil Films de Femmes, where she was the guest of honor in 2001 and a regular guest and jury member.
Her legacy must be cited correctly.
A sentence about the incident at the mental hospital was cited TWICE, I combined it, using the references for both.
Most edits were "minor edits" regarding HTML for references. All other changes were explained.
Thankyou for your attention.
Filmartiste 12:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)mjsullus
It sounds like this was just a mistake. I use a program which shows me the two most recent edits side by side in order to look for unconstructive edits and sometimes good edits look like bad ones. Feel free to re-do your edit. It's probably a good idea to use an informative edit summary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
