User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

I am lost

I am lost because I thought requesting access into the Account Creation team was not a user right. I know account creator is a user right but I thought ACC access ws not, is it? Jessy _(talk) ^(contribs) • 16:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It's an access level above that which any editor has, so while it's not a user right, it is what I had in mind when we discussed hat seeking. From what Delirious said on your talk page, it sounds like you were declined access to ACC very recently and you don't meet the criteria anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I was declined an I was in a blunder because I certain and without a doubt that ACC access was not a user right and completely within the scope of our agreement. Jessy _(talk) ^(contribs) • 16:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well let's put all thoughts of permissions/rights/access to things not related to articles aside for a minute. Why don't you go write an article? What interests you? What do you know a lot about? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Law enforcement and espionage. Jessy _(talk) ^(contribs) • 16:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Good choices. I know there are plenty of law enforcement articles in need of a bit of TLC. Why don't you try and improve an article in that area? You might find some inspiration here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert. =) I guess I'm back on the target list. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. You get used to it after while! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Buckles/A-Class

I asked Brad101 what was wrong with the references, he said they were "a mess" on the A-Class review page. That was on Thursday, but I haven't gotten a response and he has been editing. Could you take a look at the references on the Frank Buckles article and let me know if there is something to fix. Otherwise, I really think we (Anythingyouwant and I) have fixed everything that needs to be fixed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a gander when I get a minute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Timothy Ball – again

Timothy Ball is back in the news again. This is one of the more prominent global warming skeptics and one of the main Canadian skeptics. I have no idea why this bio was banned. He has always met all the requirements for notability. At one time, he was prominently mentioned on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. It was always my opinion that the only reason his article was deleted was to remove his entry from that list, a list that requires a BLP entry for inclusion. At any rate, it is my opinion that his notability is proven yet again. Q Science (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

AfD conduct

Hi HJ Mitchell, I'm posting this here because I trust your judgment rather than your paticular expertise, so I apologise if this isn't really your thing (stalkers welcome to take the question)

I'm not mentioning names, because I don't wish to make any sort of complaint but I'm sure anyone whos interested could do the legwork and find out who I mean.

I've recently become aware of an editor who participates in swathes of deletion debates (all at AfD), I'm estimating around 200-400 debates this year. He's !voted 'Keep' in all but 3 or 4 of these debates, and usually for spurious reasons (saying X just is notable, that he has heard of Y so it's notable or that Z(an author) is notable because they're published). He frequently recieves replies criticising his lack of understanding of policy, his poor or non-existant rationales and his MO of swathing through sometimes ten or more debates in as many minutes. He has recieved a number of messages on his talk page which ask him to stop WP:CANVASSING for support and at one point a closing admin has noted that his comments added nothing of value to the discussion.

I would like your take on what can, or should be done about this. I thought it may be worth advising him that he is likely to be taken more seriously in AfDs if he is more selective about his voting and/or takes the time to write arguments in favour of his views. I also thought that it may be worth asking him to perhaps make a point of voting 'delete' once a week or so (I appreciate this could equally be a bad idea, but I'm sure one or more things go through AfD every week that should be deleted).

I don't feel that I would be the right person to act on this, since we have had one or two minor scuffles regarding his conduct.

Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

AfD is not the only place this person makes pretty much useless comments. As an admin very active in another area they frequent, I tend to pretty much discount their !votes in weighing consensus and any closing admin at AfD would do similar. Certainly no admin worth their bit would decide a contentious AfD based on their comments, which appear to be classic examples of an argument to avoid. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, thats reassuring. Bob House 884 (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Stalker statement: Thanks for leading me to an argument to avoid which links to Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions. Good stuff I've never seen before. I'm suddenly feeling all Christmassy. Not sure why. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

1. Can't we boldface both Anna Hazare and his movement?
2. Why not replace the picture of Ai Weiwei with a picture of a protest
3. Could you please change five-day to 97-hour.

Just suggestions. Since it has only been less than 10 days joining Wikipedia, I am not completly familiar with the rules.

JustinSpringer (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome! We always need more help. I guess it seems odd, but ITN generally bolds the article that was nominated at WP:ITN/C and which was updated and not necessarily the most relevant article. However, having a non-bold link to the protests article will give the reader the context they need and even non-bold links on the Main Page get plenty of hits. I imagine the picture of Ai Weiwei is the one being used because we don't have a suitable image of the protests. Finally, we don't usually go into that kind of detail on the Main Page. It's just a blurb (like a headline) and readers who are interested can click through to the article for the specifics. Hopefully that answers your questions! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! You've really been helpful. JustinSpringer (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Note

Hi, just wanted to draw your attention to this edit. Regards, -- Ashot  ^(talk) 17:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it. He's allowed to do that. It doesn't have any effect on the topic ban, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Good Friday

Hi, I saw that you had to do a revert on Good Friday. Every year this game starts about now and this year has started early. My suggestion would be to semi-protect it for 6 days before and 3 days after April 22nd, so 10 days altogether, to save us all the headaches. And 10 days is not too long, given that it often gets 100,000 hits on Good Friday every year and errors will show to many users before they are reverted. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I've semi'd it til the day after Easter Monday. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

My file mover tag

Ok, so I can understand the block and my rollback privileges being removed, but why did you remove my file mover tag? I've only had it for a short time and in that short time, I haven't used it in any way that could be called abusive. The edit war didn't involve any files being moved maliciously. Could you please restore it? --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 03:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As shown in your log, the reason that the file mover right was revoked was because of the misunderstand of core image policies like WP:IUP and WP:NFCC, which are necessary for the file mover flag. Once you show HJ that you know these policies really well, he might give it back to you. —GFOLEY FOUR— 03:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You know, I've got half a mind to just remove all of my images and start my own website somewhere else. It sure would be a lot easier. Whatever, I'll fix this problem and get things back to normal, despite the setbacks thanks to the copyright tyrants. I've got a solution in mind that should assuage everyone's concerns without removing any of my work. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 05:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Gippsland Grammar School

I don't mind PC on this article, but seeing as it is about to be removed, we might as well leave it semi-protected. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I've re-semi'd it, since you beat em to the RfUP request. I can't imagine much good coming from unprotection, anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to say I thought Dabomb87's argument was persuasive. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:PCRFC#Close as no-consensus

Replied. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  17:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Advice

What can I do with a new editor who misunderstands policy and refuses to listen to anyone? I think he needs a mentor. Are there any guidelines on dealing with such situations? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Any suggestions? I'm going to have to report him if there isn't a simpler solution. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Without knowing any specifics, all I can suggest is taking it to a noticeboard, probably ANI. Try to keep your comments purely factual and explain that you're looking for an amicable solution rather than blocks and bans. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Request

HJ, if you go into my contributions you will find that I have requested speedy deletion under the G7 criteria. Could you please delete them for me. mauchoeagle 21:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Virginia Tech uniforms

I would appreciate your input at User talk:Δ#My plan for the uniform images. Thanks. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 04:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Holy carp

Do you know if a checkuser is looking into our 'end of the world via alien' friend? or are we just knocking them out/protecting as they pop up? Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No idea. I'm trying to remember where I've seen this before. Definitely one of the long-term abuse crowd. I'm looking for someone to bug to get an edit filter created. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think a CU may have been pinged, hopefully they can plug the hole. Oh, here we go Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TERRY PAULI PREDICTED THIS --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for blocking a particularly annoying user. Userpage vandalism is especially annoying!! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsharpminor (talk • contribs)

I've seen worse, but there's an easy solution to that problem! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Online?

Hey HJ Mitchell, are you online? If so, please reply. I need to email you. Fly by Night on Tour (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I will be for another few minutes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

One sec... Fly by Night on Tour (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

RevDel request

Hi there, would you mind revdeleting the latest revisions from Dave Benson Phillips please? Thanks. AD 11:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Done, along with a few others. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

So...

A while ago I asked for your help to intervene in a content dispute, unfortunately an RFC failed (no one else responded). Do you think this is reasonable? I'm dropping the content dispute but feel it would be more conducive to future co-editing of the article by pointing out some relevant policies which the other user apparently doesn't know of/doesn't care about. If it's unreasonable in your view, then I'll remove any bits which you think might be so. Thanks, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate, and frustrating, but sometimes you just have to grin and bear it in a content dispute. All par for the course with "anyone [even people who wind you up] can edit". I don;t think it was unreasonable to mention CIV/AGF in passing. Of course, they're hardly the most abided-by policies, but it can't hurt to ask someone to AGF. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

With his (unfortuately not unexpected) response I think his has exceeded content and is now a conduct issue. I take exception to his further comments insinuating I don't understand the meanings of two words in English. I've tried to be nice, but do you think you could add some authority to the issue and tell him to play nice? StrPby (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note. I'm not sure there's anything more useful I can do, but maybe a note from a third party will inspire them to take a deep breath. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

User talk:194.80.246.1 ‎

Hi HJ. You might not remember this block [1] from a couple of weeks ago. Basically, the anon 194.80.246.1 ‎ is screwing around with his talk page User talk:194.80.246.1 and making it unreadable for all intents and purposes. I'd report this to ANI, except that this IP address is also making reasonable edits. These are probably two different people (or that person has a multiple personalities disorder) so the best course of action is not entirely clear. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not that again. I've blocked the IP for 3 months without TP access. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

March 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive award

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For reviewing 10 or more Good article nominations during this past March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive, I hereby award you The Tireless Contributor Barnstar. Nice work! –MuZemike 17:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

And apologies for accidentally posting it your actual user page. My fault. –MuZemike 17:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

ITN

Can you please update Trials and judicial hearings following the 2011 Egyptian revolution? I would it myself but I am at work at the moment and cant do it; otherwise I would have. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Ian Tomlinson

Hi HJ, question for you on the talk page about the City of London police. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

RevDel

Hi. Would you be willing to delete this? I think it's eligible. Thanks. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Frank Buckles/A-Class Review

Hey HJ, hope all is well. Would you mind giving the A-Class review a look-see. Anythingyouwant (aka: AYW), Joefromrandb (aka: Joe), Wehwalt and myself (plus a couple others who wander by) have worked on things people have brought up. Joe has come up with some good ideas that we have put into place, AYW has worked on getting the article as concise as possible and I have been looking for information we might have missed (nothing so far). So, could we get a re-review on the article and see if we are close to A-Class? Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked IP is "busy" again

Hi. I see that you temporarily blocked this IP: User talk:95.180.18.56 However, this IP is continuing with vandalism, including removal of population data for Subotica and Kragujevac from city infobox without any discussion or explanation. Since temporary blocking does not help, perhaps you can semi-protect these articles, so that anonymous IP cannot edit them for some time? PANONIAN 19:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

HJ's computer is on the blink, so it might be a few until he can respond. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter column on FAC reviewing

We'd like to put a column in the Bugle encouraging people review at FAC, or at least to assist the frequent FAC reviewers. Is there anything that new reviewers could do at FAC that you would find particularly helpful? (Watching) – Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The basic checks like dabs, dead links, image licenses (NFCC compliance if they know their way around the filespace), typos etc. That saves time for other reviewers. Prose isn't difficult to check, either and the simpler parts of the MoS can be got to grips with easily. I'll post more if I have a brainwave and a working computer at the same time! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put all the responses together here; feel free to add or subtract. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Hi HJ, in January you gave User:Rcsprinter123 the reviewer right, with the rationale that "editor can be trusted with reviewer". This is a courtesy message to tell you it was revoked earlier today after a fairly lengthy ANI. Best, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

HJ's computer is on the blink, so it might be a few until he can respond. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I've given hundreds of people reviewer rights. The log summary is generated by the script I use to make it less tedious. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hands of blue two by two

Hi HJ. I'm not "thankspamming" you or anything, but I wanted to leave a note thanking you for your support of my RfA. At this point, I feel like it could go either way, but I'm very proud of the results, whether I am given the tools or not. The amount of support I've received from highly qualified and skilled editors is actually really surprising to me, and even the opposes had mostly good things to say. Whichever way it goes, the process was extremely encouraging. I must confess, though, that this isn't the only reason I'm posting to your talk page! I noticed your userbox of Summer Glau, and I am also a fan of hers (most of the time). I love Firefly, and as far as I'm concerned, it was the best science fiction program on television in this century so far. I also really enjoyed Terminator, and the 4400 to a lesser extent. Have you seen her latest show, The Cape? I like her as an actress, but I think that show is total, unabridged, USDA A-grade crap. I also noticed that it says on your userpage that you live in England, so it may very well be possible that this steaming pile of televised fecal matter won't float across the Atlantic. If so, good for you, because it can come very close to changing your opinion on Summer Glau, since she is so horribly cast in this. Anyway, my apologies for the diatribe! Have a good night, or probably morning where you are.-RHM22 (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

HJ's computer is on the blink, so it might be a few until he can respond. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, hopefully he's not watching The Cape in the downtime. Have you ever seen that show?-RHM22 (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Didn't it get cancelled by NBC? I only watch Hawaii Five-0 (the new one), House, NCIS, NCIS: LA, Detroit 187 and L&O: SVU. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, because I only watched two of them. It probably did though. To summarize, a guy gets framed for some kind of crime, then decides to go into hiding and become a vigilante to clean up the city and exact revenge on the evil British people (always with the British criminals) who framed him. In order to become better and ridding the city of crime, he decides to join a group of sideshow performers known as the Carnival of Crime. Naturally, if my goal is to rid the city of crime, the first place I go for new friends is the Carnival of Crime. Soon, he is given a magical cape by the ringleader, which he used to fight the evil British people. Oh yeah, there's a computer hacker woman too. You know, since so many lovely women are computer hackers. That just about sums it up for you, at least as far as the two crap-filled episodes I saw. Overall, I thought the show was great.-RHM22 (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup, that was the one on NBC. I never bothered checking it out cause it didn't spark my interest in the commercials. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it hasn't made its way across the pond yet. If it's as bad as you say it is, maybe it won't. Though I'd watch it just because it's got her in it—rather like Your Highness, which really was a steaming pile, saved only by Natalie Portman! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It makes you wonder why good actors and actresses make such poor choices. Good luck with your computer by the way.-RHM22 (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Frank Buckles A-Class Review

You participated in the Frank Buckles A-Class review. If you have any further comments on the article or are satisfied with the article as it is, please post on the A-Class review page. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This is just a courtesy note, if you are able to respond. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Block vs stop

Hi. I have a message in Yobot's page. If the bot does something unexpected you can just stop it and message me. I don't understand why you blocked it. Why part of blocking works better than stop for an AWB bot? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Block is a technical way to stop editing but block has advantages like allowing the bot to perform other tasks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: Magioladitis began peforming the same inconsequential edits about a minute after posting the above message. It appears that he/she simply operated the bot via his/her main account. —David Levy 14:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This is just called: I ran AWB. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That's arguably worse. Why did you manually (with the assistance of a tool) perform inconsequential edits (the same type for which your bot had just been blocked)? —David Levy 15:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth I looked through about a page and a half of his recent edits and it appears that he is only doing these "inconsequential edits" when other things are being done at the same time so its really a non-issue as long as he isn't doing them as stand alone edits. --Kumioko (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I viewed the first five edits of the batch (performed immediately after Yobot was blocked), four of which had no effect on the output. I linked to this one above. This, this and this are the others. Magioladitis either intentionally performed these edits (of exactly the same type for which the bot was blocked moments earlier) or used AWB in an unmonitored fashion. —David Levy 20:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

HJ's computer is on the blink, so he may not answer to this thread in a timely fashion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I hope some sensible admin will look the case and unblock the bot. Normalising the names is first step in order to fix their parameters. there is an effort to standardise some fields for all infoboxes, like birth_date etc., and I participate in this effort for a long time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If anything, your primary account should be blocked until you agree to stop performing inconsequential edits. Assuming that your claim is sincere, you did so manually immediately after your bot was blocked for exactly the same reason. Such behavior is disruptive and must cease. —David Levy 20:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is disruptive exactly? There are thousands of infoboxes with wrong or invalid parameters. How can I fix them if there are hundreds of variants in names? Moreover, I tried to do more in my edits by only bypassing the redirect. The example above isn't the best sample of my work. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

1. HJ Mitchell explained how such behavior is disruptive. It floods people's watchlists with edits of no consequence.

2. A script capable of recognizing redirects for the purpose of replacing them should be equally capable of recognizing them for the purpose of correcting parameters.

But if there is a valid reason behind standalone template redirect bypassing, feel free to propose it to the community and seek consensus.

3. What an odd coincidence that you happened to begin performing standalone inconsequential edits (those unaccompanied by changes affecting the output) immediately after your bot was blocked for doing exactly the same thing. —David Levy 21:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You should consider this series of edits as part 1 of a large scale infobox update which will correct all parameters caught by tracking categories. But I need this step to go further without having a non-readable code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

As I stated above, if you believe that such edits are justified, please propose them to the community and seek consensus. —David Levy 21:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean coincidence? I continued editing on purpose using my normal account trying to avoid edit that solely bypass the redirect. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, I checked your first five edits of the batch, four of which contained only template redirect bypasses and other changes not affecting the output (such as the removal of non-rendering spaces and underscores). This is exactly the same type of edit for which your bot was blocked (and one that you claim to normally avoid), so it's an odd coincidence that you began editing in this manner immediately after the aforementioned bot block occurred. —David Levy 21:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I am OK if someone gives me a code with all redirect to run it. I don't have enough time to do it so I use AWB's normal code. I could use some help. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, no matter what the ideal course of action is, you're editing in a manner lacking consensus within the community. Please either obtain said consensus or cease this behavior. —David Levy 21:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a consensus to fix the infoboxes. What exactly of consensus do you need more? -- Magioladitis (talk)

There is consensus against performing edits not affecting the output (unless they accompany other edits that do affect the output).

If fixing the infoboxes requires that such edits first be performed, feel free to argue this to the community and seek consensus for an exception. —David Levy 21:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#Infoboxes fixes. I left a message as you suggested. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This is all just one more example of policy getting in the way of cleaning up and fixing the countless problems on Wikipedia. Its a shame that these edits are precisely the types of edits that should be done via a bot but because we have hobbled ourselves with this doesn't render a change to the page rule were stuck leaving problems for years rather than just fix it and get it done. --Kumioko (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I see no evidence that reasonable cleanup/repair efforts are being hindered (and if they were, the community surely would consent to an exception). According to Bot Approvals Group member Kingpin13, checking for redirects in the same step (instead of bypassing them in advance) should be "really straightforward." —David Levy 02:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why nobody does this way then. I volunteered to do as Kingpin13 pleases. I till got no answer why my bot wasn't just stopped and was blocked instead. Probably some people think that their watchlist is more important than my free time. Moreover, I find it a bit weird for a an encyclopedia that anyone can edit to worry more on pages being edited than for pages not being edited. Perhaps, I would also ask HJ Mitchell to add all categories to a single page at once and not use 1 edit per category? Check this article's history. It should be fairly straightforward to do it. Right? Just edit the page and put them altogether. I don't see the point of using HotCat for adding multiple categories in a single page. Unless ofcourse someone comes with an improves version of HotCat which adds multiple categories at once. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm, you can add as many categories in one edit as you want with HotCat (with no comment on the rest of the discussion, as I know next to nothing about bots). Jenks24 (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Magioladitis, if you need a hand getting the bot to pick up template redirects in it's work, just ask. Also, what exactly are you doing now? If you can confirm the bot will stop making cosmetic changes (and you do too, for that matter), I will be happy to unblock it. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The bot won't do only cosmetic changes when trying to fix infoboxes. I'll work with the deprecated football biography parameters in one round (redirect+parameters fixes) and I'll continue this way. I am not adjusting it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that edit didn't even bypass a redirect.

Magioladitis: Please explain why you did that. —David Levy 17:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

David Levy, which edit? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to this edit (linked in the message to which I replied). —David Levy 00:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

bots are meant to perform obnoxious small tasks repeatedly that would be annoying and time consuming for a human editor to perform. Stop hounding people for making cosmetic changes with a bot, that's why we have them. The point of the encyclopedia is not to edit it as little as possible, so whoever has settled upon this backwards frame of reference, stop. Thank you. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like someone to point me towards whichever clowns decided there was consensus for this: "such behavior is disruptive. It floods people's watchlists with edits of no consequence."

That is laughable. Stop using wikipedia if you don't want your watchlist to update. We are here to improve the encyclopedia, not to make it simple for editors to go through their watchlist. It takes one single click to remove bot edits from your watchlist. Stop being absolutely rediculous: Put up or shut up. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Edits that have no effect on the articles don't improve the encyclopedia. They merely consume resources and waste the time of those who monitor such activities. Hiding bot edits interferes with this task (which is important, as bots sometimes malfunction). —David Levy 17:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, "bots are meant to perform obnoxious small tasks repeatedly that would be annoying and time consuming for a human editor to perform." They are not, however, meant to perform tasks that accomplish nothing of value. Whether performed manually or via a bot, edits with no effect on the output are disruptive and inappropriate. —David Levy 17:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, please provide something other than heresay on this. Edits that accomplish nothing are performed routinely, site wide. Several years worth of effort went into wikiproject banner standardization; please provide something in writing that says all of that was acting against consensus. You can also hide minor edits from your watchlist.

Perhaps this is a reason to make a new flag (like the m and b for minor and bot edits) that is automatically applied by AWB runs, so that you can hide those edits. However, trying to inhibit edits on the basis that they fill up watchlists is ludicrous; watchlists are meant to be filled up. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to search archives for past discussions. You can choose to believe or disbelieve claims regarding consensus for this principle, which is plainly stated in the AWB rules of use.

But on what basis do you defend "edits that accomplish nothing"? How do such edits improve the encyclopedia? How does checking them not exhaust time that otherwise could be spent improving the encyclopedia?

You've again noted that these edits can be hidden. As explained above, this doesn't solve the problem. Users want to see the edits and check them to verify their appropriateness. The problem isn't that watchlists are being filled; it's that watchlists are being filled with "edits that accomplish nothing." Every second spent checking these edits is a second that otherwise could have been spent checking edits that actually accomplished something constructive (or at least were intended as such).

No one is arguing that bots should stop making actual improvements (including minor ones). —David Levy 20:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I Personally see two main problems with the logic being displayed here:

1. It has been stated repeatedly including by Jimbo himself that we need not worry about wasting server resources or making too many edits.
2. We also need not worry about filling up watchlists, personally I feel if people are getting irritated about their watchlists filling up then thats just tough (and I am sure some will think me rude to say that). If the watchlist is getting filled that means the articles I care abuot are getting edited, every edit (even the little ones) improve the articles. As my dad once said if you mind the pennies the dollars will mind themselves. Its the same thing here, small edits over time will increase the quality of the article.

Aside from those and from seeing the attitude from several editors in the past and here with the attitude of "a minor edit is defined as I say it is and I don't have to prove it" I see no reason to keep the bot in a blocked state. Lets let it run and finish what its doing aso it can move on to the next task. Wether changing Infobox actor to Infobox person changes how the page is rendered is less important than the confused editor who edits the article thinking that there is a template called Infobox actor and starts to replicate that in other articles expanding the problem. Its one thing to redirect a link to an article but redirecting templates can and has had some bizarre and undesirable consequences in the past both to things within Wikipedia and to sites external to wiki that use the data. --Kumioko (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Indeed, we needn't worry about wasting server resources or making too many edits. That doesn't mean that we should knowingly do so.

Similarly, new users are encouraged to begin editing articles without worrying about whether they're familiar with every style guideline. They might make some mistakes, but others will correct them (and the encyclopedia will be better off than if the edits had never been performed at all). This, however, isn't an invitation for editors familiar with our style guidelines to intentionally deviate from them without justification.

The same principle applies here. We don't want to discourage users from improving the encyclopedia for fear of wasting server resources or making too many edits, but that doesn't mean that we want them to knowingly perform edits of no value.

Quoth the AWB rules of use:

Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from piped links, bypassing a redirect, or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists. With some exceptions (such as changes to the emitted metadata or categorization of the page), an edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit. If in doubt, or if other editors object to edits on the basis of this rule, seek consensus at an appropriate venue before making further edits.

If there is valid reason to perform an edit that appears insignificant under the above criteria, consensus can be sought and obtained.

2. The problem isn't that watchlists are being filled; it's that watchlists are being filled with edits that serve no useful purpose. It simply isn't true that "every edit improves the articles." No one is complaining about edits that actually do.

3. You refer above to editors seeing the template redirects and using them in other articles, but you haven't explained why this is a "problem." If it is, I'm sure that consensus to replace them can be reached. —David Levy 20:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said you should see these last bunch of edits as the first part of some more serious edits. The same way HJ Mitchell did 3 edits to add categories I asked for something similar. Anyway. I am busy in real life and I can't be bothered to argue further. I see some good points in your approach but I don't have unlimited time to give to this project. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Your efforts to improve the project are sincerely appreciated. But if you're unable to abide by the AWB rules of use, you'll have to find some other way to contribute. To be clear, I mean no disrespect. —David Levy 21:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• The main part of the rules of AWB that is at issue here concerns the bypassing redirects part of #4. Examining the history of WP:AWB, that part was added on September 22, by User:Xeno,[2] with no discussion on the talk page.Special:PermanentLink/386312376. The guideline it is citing, WP:R2D, is being misapplied here. The main point of R2D is to avoid removing redirects with possibilities, not to prevent bypassing of redirecting altogether (again, a routine task performed by many editors every day). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floydian (talk • contribs) 00:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

  No one asserts that it's always inappropriate to bypass redirects (which I personally do in certain circumstances), but there is longstanding consensus that redirects shouldn't be bypassed simply because they exist.
  I disagree with your statement that "the main point of R2D is to avoid removing redirects with possibilities." That certainly is a major element, but another is that most redirects are harmless and don't warrant dedicated efforts to "fix" them. Bypassing a template redirect certainly is a valid example of "an edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page," a subject addressed by the rule in question long before Xeno performed that edit. —David Levy 06:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

  You may want to go tell this to the developers of this popular little tool. The fact that one of the programs along the lines of Twinkle and Huggle has, as a regular feature, an option to bypass redirects and repair links and other various tasks that do not affect the rendered page, makes me question how one group can be laxidaze about this tiny facet of a guideline (not a policy), and another can consider it a blockable offence. This needs to have a wider central discussion, beyond a user talk page, before it is asserted as practise. – ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 10:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

  It's widely considered okay to make such changes when a page is being edited anyway. Only editing a page solely for this reason is frowned upon.
  I'm quite certain that there have been community discussions regarding this matter. Perhaps someone who directly participated (or has time to search archives) can post links. —David Levy 11:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(←) Floydian, it is not okay for bots to make purely cosmetic changes to pages. Full stop. If you want more than "heresay" on this, why don't you review our bot policy which has a whole section dedicated to the subject? If you want to know the community's stance on this I suggest you review the Smackbot/Rich Farmbrough discussions, which resulted in Rich being banned from making such changes. Anyone who works with bots for a little while will probably have come across similar cases with bots making cosmetic changes, and the result is always the same. Bots and AWB should not be used for purely cosmetic changes, per the AWB rules and the bot policy. The reasons for this are more than simply watchlist flooding. This is something which most people familiar with bots (and BAG) understand. Magioladitis has agreed to stop making these changes, so the bot has been unblocked, and he can now make the changes to the infobox in a more efficiently less disruptive manner (in one edit, rather than two). I think that should be the end of this story. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Bot != AWB, just to clarify from the start

I don't understand the tone of your first two sentences. You are no more important than any of the other editors that have stated the same thing; its policy that matters, not what-I-say-is-so. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to the Rich discussion. So I reiterate, please show me a policy that forbids making minor cosmetic edits (which on every page, EXCEPT WP:AWB following Xeno's edits, only states moving the position of a tag, changing Unicode characters to HTML codes / vice versa, and removing whitespace), and please show me a policy forbidding redirect bypassing, which as I pointed out is a major feature in two of our other editing tools. Why does the AWB team get to decide, amongst its little cliche of members, that it is held to a different standard than the rest of the site.

The bot policy you pointed to is very brief and not at all convincing towards the arguments being presented here. Wikipedia:Bot policy#Cosmetic changes mentions not using specific scripts (which seem to centre on whitespace removal, spacing around the = in headers, standardizing categories and inserting non-breaking spaces (the last of which is not a purely cosmetic change as it is required by the WP:Manual of Style)), it does not make any mention towards redirect bypassing or changing redundant templates.

You assert "The reasons for this are more than simply watchlist flooding"... and those other reasons would be?

So I ask again. Are there any policies forbidding this, or have a select few editors and administrators taken it upon themselves to create phantom policies using far far less specific / generalized guidelines, forcing the rest of the community to follow in suit or face blocking? Please start a centralized discussion if you wish to continue this dictatorship practise. Otherwise, stop blocking people on this basis. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It still seems like one more example of AWB Hating to me and applying a double standard to those who would use the AWB tool rather than those who use other tools or program the bots and scripts from scratch. It also seems strange to me that so many bots and applications do edits that could be considered by someone to be inconsequential but they are left alone either because they do so few edits that knowone notices or knowone cares. The problem I see is that Yobot is doing so many edits it shows up on the radar a lot more often and it seems like the real problem is that this is a way to slow down an editor or bot who is spending a lot of time doing a lot of edits which aside from a handful here and there on occassion is doing a lot of good and meaningful improvements. Its not the menace that is being portrayed here. --Kumioko (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Wlater Bedell Smith

Hi HJ, could you check back on this ACR and see if your comments have been actioned? Time to close it so be good to finalise things o=from your perspective. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Good news, everyone!

The A-Class Review for the Frank Buckles article was closed and promoted just moments ago. I want personally thank you for your help on the article and hope to work again with you on the FAC in the near future. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tesco bomb campaign

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hello HJ. You imposed a total revert ban on me for a particular article 3 months ago. WOuld you kindly review your decision ? Happy Easter Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Since the revert ban was based on an Arbitration Committee decision, this is not the appropriate venue to ask for an appeal. You can request a review of the decision at WP:AE. Make sure you read the information on how to appeal in the page editnotice. Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 14:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think it was. HJ Mitchell did it solely Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

My mistake Slovenski. You are correct. MacMed^talk_stalk 02:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to go to AE. My computer keeps crashing, so I can't really review the sanction right now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It's Not urgent. I am happy to wait until u sort it out; rather than going to AE for something imposed by a single admin in absence of an initial AE decision Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Unblock

Hi HJ_Mitchell,

I'm writing to let you know that I'm (in my personal capacity and not as a representative of WMF) overturning one of your blocks. I've reviewed it with an independent administrator to verify my judgment. I'm unblocking User:Bbcesq, who has provided an explanation for the username (his initials, plus "esq", as he's an attorney). I don't see that as promotional in any way. Sure, he shouldn't create articles about which he has a COI without disclosing that COI, but a username block is inappropriate in this case, I believe. Thanks. - Philippe 01:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. It looks like a cock-up on my part. When I can find a computer that works, I'll explain myself in more detail, but I don't want this to be archived without a response from me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, I'm on a computer that works atm, so I can explain. I couldn't recall the name, so I did some checking to find out how the two of us could have come to different conclusions. I looks like my block was because of this edit that was caught by one of the filters which detects the addition of URLs which contain the username of the person adding the link. In this case, unfortunately, it looks like I may have been more than a little too quick to reach for the block button as the username is contained in the URL, but the link appears to be to his page on a third party website rather than an attempt at spamming. I never would have known had it not been brought up, so thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that makes perfect sense then. Thanks for the response! - Philippe 07:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I knew there had to be an explanation sopmewhere, it just took me a while to work out what I was thinking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Empire of Brazil

Shouldn't the level of protection of Empire of Brazil be raised? Or else, the editors will spend 24h of their lives simply reverting vandalisms and readers will have a difficult time trying to understand a butched article. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well most TFAs just about make it through the day without needing semi-protection. If things are bad when it's on the Main Page, there are usually plenty of people watching who can either request protection or, if they're admins, protect it themselves. Obviously, there will be an increase in the level of vandalism, that's inevitable with it being one of the most visible pages on the site, but there also tend to be a lot of constructive (or at least not unconstructive) edits by IPs and newbies, so we have to balance the two. Put simply, we'll see how it goes on the day. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That's the way things work Lecen. We are reluctant to protect the TFA as for 24 hours, that is, so to speak, the face of the Encyclopedia anyone can edit.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. At least it's no longer prohibited, but even I think we should keep it open if the vandalism is manageable (and I'm largely responsible for removing WP:NOPRO's guideline status). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, but all I see are edits made by vandals. But that's ok. Thanks for answering. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well you only have a little under 9 hours of it left. The vandalism looked like it was manageable before I took the dogs for a walk and I've just blocked a couple of vandalism-only accounts (that were blatantly the same person, anyway). It looks like it's being kept on top of, but if the wind changes, protection is only a few clicks away. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, again

Hello HJ. You imposed a revert ban on me for a particular article 3 months ago. It appears that u now have access to a computer; can I trouble u to review Ur decision ? Regards Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm at a working computer, sure. While I refresh my memory of why I imposed the sanction, could you tell me how you would be more of an asset to Wikipedia by being able to revert edits on that article that aren't blatant vandalism and being able to make more than on revert per day on other articles in the topic area? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

SV has recently gotten into an editing dispute on Ancient Macedonians, the article he is under sanction. He already reverted twice recently [3] (removed the contentious "ancient Greek" label added by User:No. 108 [4]). He then made some major changes here [5], which were undone by No. 108 [6], which SV reverted under a misleading edit summary [7]. He was then reverted again by User:A Macedonian [8], and reverted again [9], though this time he remembered to self revert [10]. There are also instances of him violating his restriction in the more distant past [11], though I let that slide at the time. I believe the reason he is asking you to reconsider his revert restriction is so that he can revert to "his" version of the article, and I have a very bad feeling that if the restriction is lifted, SV will go back to edit-warring. I can understand his frustration, given that he put in a lot of work in his recent edits, but the appropriate path in this case is to post the changes in the talkpage and get a consensus. In the past, he proposed major changes in the talkpage first, got consensus, and then went ahead with them. This time, there has been zero discussion in the article page. I regret saying this, but it is my impression that lifting the revert restriction at this point in time would not be a good idea. Athenean (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Athenean's assessment. I have not got into any editing dispute. Yes, admittedly, I did revert A Macedonian's mass undo of my re-structuring of a certain section of the article; intially assessing his mass revert as vandalism, but on re-assessment, I realized that his actions might be justified. So I reverted myself, and subsequently addressed his concerns by opening a dialogue with him User talk:A Macedonian#"Article change". So how is this an editing dispute" ? And how exactly have my edit summaries been "misleading" ?

A similar case with Athenean's report of my other 'undo's'. I merely removed data which was already discussed, and therefore somewhat redundant (and the nature of the information removed was neither pro or con a particular "stance").

My "major" changes were mostly of a re-structuring nature. Given that new data had been added; certain chapters were now merely re-duplicating data; my primary aim was to streamline the changes, specifically the "Identity" chapter Ancient Macedonians#Identity. All the "ancient sources" part is included in the "sociopolitical dynamics section", as are the "modern discussion" aspects. Alas, other editors seem not to actualy read the changes in order to realize that the nothing of the overall 'message' of the article had been changed. Nevertheless, Athenean is again incorrect. No 108 did not undo any of my changes, nor I his. His issue was again the question of how the paragraphs were structured, and whether the old ones were to be kept in. With this regard, I also opened up a (rather fruitful) dialogue with the editor in question. User talk:No. 108#Thanks.

My intention is not to edit-war; given that whether one has full reverting privillages or not, I have learnt that such an approach is not fruitful and leads to endless edit-warring. I have acted with good faith in the article, improved its scholarly quality and neutrality (so it does not read like an internet forum site); and have been nothing but diplomatic and open to other editor's comments. I am not trying to "own" the article, however, my contributions have been substantial and for the betterment of the article. User talk:Slovenski Volk#Good job However, I wish to have the right to stop at least try and protect my hard work from potentially disruptive and uncalled for edits / reverts, whether simply due to misunderstanding or outright chauvanism

I have to say that, unfortunately, some of the editors main fixation with the article is to ensure that the label "Greek" appears as many times as possible, esp in the lede, despite the concensus of detailed scholarly analysis highlighting the "redundancy" of such categorization. To be honest, this is not my focus. As my edits testify, I have worked on upgrading all aspects of the article. Nevertheless, I am more than happy to continue my dialogue with all editorsSlovenski Volk (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)