User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 110
 | 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. |
| Archive 105 | ← | Archive 108 | Archive 109 | Archive 110 | Archive 111 | Archive 112 | → | Archive 115 |
This Month in GLAM: October 2016
| ||||||
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi HJ Mitchell.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Writer's Barnstar |
| Thanks for sharing your knowledge by creating 110 articles on Wikipedia!! JustAGuyOnWikipedia (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC) |
The Challenge Series
The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.
The Challenge series – Current drives | ||
|---|---|---|
| Africa |  | |
| Asia | ||
| Europe | ||
| Latin America/Caribbean | ||
| North America | ||
| UK and Ireland | ||
| 1000 Challenges by topic | ||
- Use {{subst:The Challenge series invitation}} to invite others using this template.
- Sent to users at Northamerica1000/Mailing list using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC).
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, HJ Mitchell. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, HJ Mitchell. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Question about soliciting your impartial advice
Am I permitted to ask an administrator to voice his/her opinion over an edit where I believe it may have infringed upon Wikipedia's stated policy, without such a request being construed as canvassing?Davidbena (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Final warning on deletion warring
Hoi! Watch it, Mitchell! This is your last warning. First I try to delete a page and get the message Cannot delete page "Magnus merrild kirstensen", and then two minutes later I try to delete another page and get Cannot delete page "Steven Williams (YouTube personality)". The next time you jump in ahead of me and beat me to the deletion button by seconds, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hey, I left you the spam and the copyvios and all the bands that were founded in parents' garages last week. ;) I just go for the attack pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, looking at your block log I noticed you specialise in attack pages. I wonder about someone with such an interest in attacks... The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 4 November 2016
- News and notes: Arbitration Committee elections commence
- Featured content: Featured mix
- Special report: Taking stock of the Good Article backlog
- Traffic report: President-elect Trump
Editor with a possible agenda
I see you blocked (Special:Block/Instaurare) User:Instaurare a while back for "...persistent problematic edits moving from abortion to LGBT issues when banned from the former..." Just to save me a bit of digging, do you recall if those issues indicated a POV against same-sex marriage, against abortion, and showing a dislike for LGBT? Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The reason I'm asking concerns Misty K. Snow and Misty Plowright. Both AfDed, both easily kept. Now both re-AfDed by User:Johnpacklambert. That user tried to redirect Misty K. Snow to an election article without discussion knowing full well that the community voted "keep" based on her being an LGBT historic first, not whether or not she got into office. I moved it back. He AfDed. I dug. It seems that Lambert is an anti-gay marriage Mormon with a possible agenda in his editing pattern. I asked. No reply.
Then User:Instaurare votes "delete" on both, and as will Lambert, he conveniently ignores the consensus that failing WP:POLITICIAN doesn't matter, that it is the LGBT historic first. So I dug into User:Instaurare and find the same Christian leanings and issues with the LGBT community. I'm wondering if you think he has an agenda and is pushing his POV. I also wonder if that LGBT topic ban of his is still in effect.
Sorry for the long post.
Convenience links:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misty K. Snow (2nd nomination)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misty Plowright (2nd nomination)
Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Got a notification that I was mentioned here. Simple explanation - I was bored and went through the List of politician-related deletion discussions - [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. I took a cursory (2-3 minute) look at each discussion, added my !vote, and moved on. Perhaps if I had spent more time looking at the discussion, I would have come to a different conclusion. I'll do that in the future. No need to assume bad faith. Instaurare (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Instaurare. Please do not be upset. I did not assume bad faith or good faith. That is why I am asking here and used "possible". I was, and remain, undecided. This is because of your past blocks, at least one of which was about "...LGBT issues...", and Christian leaning, a faith that is often at odds with LGBT issues. Usually editors focus on certain areas because they have strong feelings one way or another. I figure that there is a chance that you voted delete because of some agenda. I guess there is one way to find out. You do not have to answer, but I would like to ask: Do you have a distaste for LGBT people? Are you editing with a POV or agenda? Are you completely neutral when it comes to, say, edits about same-sex marriage, abortion, LGBT issues, etc.? Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- No, no, yes (as much as any human with a brain can be). Instaurare (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough, my friend. Thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- No, no, yes (as much as any human with a brain can be). Instaurare (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Instaurare. Please do not be upset. I did not assume bad faith or good faith. That is why I am asking here and used "possible". I was, and remain, undecided. This is because of your past blocks, at least one of which was about "...LGBT issues...", and Christian leaning, a faith that is often at odds with LGBT issues. Usually editors focus on certain areas because they have strong feelings one way or another. I figure that there is a chance that you voted delete because of some agenda. I guess there is one way to find out. You do not have to answer, but I would like to ask: Do you have a distaste for LGBT people? Are you editing with a POV or agenda? Are you completely neutral when it comes to, say, edits about same-sex marriage, abortion, LGBT issues, etc.? Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Harry, if you can take your mouse away from hovering over the block button to swat vandals for a moment, you may see that I've been emailing you. I've been asked to help on something that does not directly concern this particular en.Wiki, and I need your input off-Wiki. Cheers, Chris. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
RDs
Sachs could stay, we're allowing four RDs at once these days, and Sachs was only posted 1 December. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I've put him back. By the way, this was apparently just the right number of exclamation marks to get my attention! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Awesome, thanks for your help. It's mildly frustrating seeing ITN and ERRORS clogging up day after day, but hey ho. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- I know the feeling. I'll try and look in more often. I'm often about in the mornings (~8am to lunchtime) so you're welcome to ping me if it looks like I might be about. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- I know the feeling. I'll try and look in more often. I'm often about in the mornings (~8am to lunchtime) so you're welcome to ping me if it looks like I might be about. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Awesome, thanks for your help. It's mildly frustrating seeing ITN and ERRORS clogging up day after day, but hey ho. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
User:Jamie Tubers objected to my protection of Western Nigeria and suggested that it be recreated as a redirect to Western State (Nigeria). I've left Jamie a note saying that I deleted the page in question but that you did the protection, an action with which I mildly disagree, but of course I'm not going to make a stink about it. Would you read the discussion (original message, response) and then either protect it or explain at Jamie's talk why you think it shouldn't be unprotected? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
PS, Jamie's deleted my response and put it onto my talk page, so the entire conversation's there, and your response would best be directed there. Nyttend (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Gilabrand
Hello, is Gilabrand still topic banned from ARBPIA articles? When you removed her block you said: "(conditional unblock: ARBPIA topic ban remains in effect)" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AGilabrand --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- It was indefinite and it hasn't been appealed to my knowledge (I was the admin who imposed it so i would have been notified), so yes. I'd suggest you go directly to AE if you have a complaint about a violation as I'm taking a break from the project space, but by all means notify me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Harry, you iz serius admnim for sure. Do you remember how/where your unblock of Gilabrand was 'conditional'? There's nothing on the user's talkpage around that time. Bishonen | talk 09:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC).
- Hey Bish, The topic ban and the block were concurrent, so I think I just meant that the topic ban remained in place. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Why are her edits a violation of the topic ban? The edits in question, and the pages in question have/had nothing to do with the IP conflict. I suggest you look at the diffs and the pages in question before just banning. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 15:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- And I suggest you read what I've said before leaping to conclusions, Sir Joseph. I actually said at AE that I won't be adjudicating the request, I certainly haven't "just banned" anyone, and I haven't expressed an opinion as to whether the edits are a violation or not. That's for another admin to decide, and Gila will be given a chance to defend herself. If you feel strongly that the edits are not within the scope of the topic ban, I suggest you make a statement at AE; the admin(s) who decide(s) the case will take it into account. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Good. AE has become a cespool of tit for tat actions and nothing good comes from it. Her edits were to pages not marked with the ARBPIA template and her edits had nothing to do with the IP/ARBPIA area. This is similar to a request where someone wanted to add Jews to ARBPIA simply for it being about Jews. We don't need more articles subject to this. We need to judge things based on edits and Gila's edits were a net positive to Wikipedia, making corrections and adding content. The AE actions should never have been brought. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 16:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- And I suggest you read what I've said before leaping to conclusions, Sir Joseph. I actually said at AE that I won't be adjudicating the request, I certainly haven't "just banned" anyone, and I haven't expressed an opinion as to whether the edits are a violation or not. That's for another admin to decide, and Gila will be given a chance to defend herself. If you feel strongly that the edits are not within the scope of the topic ban, I suggest you make a statement at AE; the admin(s) who decide(s) the case will take it into account. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Why are her edits a violation of the topic ban? The edits in question, and the pages in question have/had nothing to do with the IP conflict. I suggest you look at the diffs and the pages in question before just banning. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 15:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hey Bish, The topic ban and the block were concurrent, so I think I just meant that the topic ban remained in place. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Harry, you iz serius admnim for sure. Do you remember how/where your unblock of Gilabrand was 'conditional'? There's nothing on the user's talkpage around that time. Bishonen | talk 09:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC).
Richard Dannatt for TFA
- Hi Harry. This is just a friendly note to let you know that the Richard Dannatt article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 23, 2016. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 23, 2016. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: November 2016
| ||||||
Discussion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jadunath Singh/archive1
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jadunath Singh/archive1. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Drew Brees pending changes removal
Could you remove the pending changes protection on Drew Brees? There are a few IPs (maybe the same user) who frequently make constructive edits to the page, and the vandalism is relatively low. Thanks, Lizard (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
AIV Mistake
The edit history of 174.255.130.37 doesn't seem to show any vandalism post-block. Somehow, I was convinced it did. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Birthday Wishes
|
Happy Birthday! |
| Hi, Mr. Harry Mitchell Happy Birthday & Many Many Happy Returns of The Day. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
Season's Greetings
.jpg)
.jpg)
Hello HJ Mitchell: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
,_cropped.jpg)
- Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
The Signpost: 22 December 2016
- Year in review: Looking back on 2016
- News and notes: Strategic planning update; English ArbCom election results
- Special report: German ArbCom implodes
- Featured content: The Christmas edition
- Technology report: Labs improvements impact 2016 Tool Labs survey results
- Traffic report: Post-election traffic blues
- Recent research: One study and several abstracts
Extended confirmed protection policy RfC
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk 16:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
TFA
Precious again, your Richard Dannatt, Baron Dannatt!
It's a beautiful time of the year!
 Christmas tree worms live under the sea...they hide in their shells when they see me, |
Best wishes for the holidays...
 |
Season's Greetings | |
| Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Kings (Gerard David, London) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas
.jpg)
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."
Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)
CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.
Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Merry Christmas Aayush Pageni (talk) 01:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Holiday card
|
| Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas, HJ Mitchell! |
| "Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end And sickness nor sorrow don't find you." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926. Montanabw(talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC) |
Yo Ho Ho
Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.
-- 16:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Mag
Why do you say "Magioladitis does not take this issue seriously"? It is clear that he does, he has expended thousands of words and much time addressing it. Perhaps you could take over some of the tasks he does, and get a feel for how they work, and the flak that you draw for doing them. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC).
- Because, much as I like Marios and much as I like you, we've been having this conversation for six years. Many, many editors have raised concerns and yet the problem is the same as it was in 2010, nobody has started an RfC to change the policy (likely because it would be heavily opposed). I'm not talking about edits that do something at least ostensibly useful, but about edits that change absolutely nothing, like moving whitespace around or capitalising the first letter of a template call (Yobot has made thousands of such edits on many occasions), but frankly if a task is getting that much pushback, shouldn't you be asking yourself "do these edits need to be made?" rather than "how can I get people to stop complaining so I can carry on making these edits?"? However well-intentioned the latter is, it leaves people feeling fobbed off when nothing changes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- In which case start an RFC to leave things broken. Such RFcs have been tried in the past. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 9:34 pm, Today (UTC+0).
- If an edit is actually an improvement, it shouldn't be difficult to get consensus for it. But people tend to resent being told that something that's not an obvious improvement needs to be done, and needs to be done en masse, and needs to be done immediately. They tend to see that as bludgeoning the system. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- In which case start an RFC to leave things broken. Such RFcs have been tried in the past. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 9:34 pm, Today (UTC+0).
Hi Harry and a happy new year. Just a quick few notes on the AWB's recent developments that you may have missed:
- Last week or so Fram removed most of bypass redirects logic from AWB's page and I never restored it back.
- AWB won't anymore remove/add whitespace between subsections
- Ref reordering, another long-standing dispute between editors, has been removed from bot mode.
I know I've said before but now I expect less complains. This is because these 3 changes were the ones that got between fire in the last 6 years. Ofcourse, this does not change my bot's crappy code but at least the crap won't be that annoying(!)
Thanks for all the comments you write. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Number of names on memorials
Forgive me for bringing up that point at the review. It had been bugging me why the IWM register for that memorial didn't include McLaren, and it was only when looking around for a suitable list of names that I realised that the lists varied and the IWM list and its total appears to be the least reliable. I've seen that in several other IWM lists as well, but published sources often quote the IWM figures without checking them. Classic conundrum there. Carcharoth (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
  
|
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.
Happy New Year, HJ Mitchell!
HJ Mitchell,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Lutyens memorials overview article
I think J3Mrs was right here about having an overview to refer to. It would help when writing about Lutyens and his memorials to have an article giving the context and timeline of his work. Both the dates (he started work for the War Graves Commission at an early stage, I think 1917, and was formally employed by them from 1918) and the type of work. He was always able to do private work on the side, and the Spalding memorial would be an example of that. I think all his UK memorials would be examples of private work, but having the list would help see the context there. Some of the memorials were regimental commissions, others were commissions from local councils/committees. I've been looking through Lutyens and The Great War again, and there is more than just the ones in the UK and the listed ones. What form were you thinking such an article might take? Something like Grade I listed war memorials in England and Grade II* listed war memorials in England? Carcharoth (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, doh! List of works by Edwin Lutyens#Memorials. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC) I tried to get a link to that section to work in a 'see also' section, but links to sections don't work well any more - maybe just link to the whole article? Carcharoth (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- I made a list of "the 44" he designed 44 freestanding memorials in England, which form Historic England's "national collection" plus the one in Wales when I started the writing project—it's at User:HJ Mitchell/L and contains some annotations. It's messy and bits of it might not make sense because I put it together for my own use, but if it's useful to you have at it. There's also one at the back pf Lutyens and the Great War (Appendix 1) if you haven't seen it.
I was planning on creating something like Edwin Lutyens and war memorials, which could potentially have sister articles like Edwin Lutyens and the Imperial War Graves Commission. I envisaged a prose article explaining the effect the war had on Lutyens and how each of the dozens of war memorials came to be—including the ones abroad, the non-freestanding ones (Wellington College for example), and possibly the memorials to individuals (like Francis McLaren and Edward Horner)—containing a list or maybe several lists but not a stand-alone list in its own right.
My thinking was that I'd be more familiar with the sources and the subject matter if I went through the articles on the individual memorials first and then tied it all together with an overview article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, sure. I was looking at that appendix (I got distracted by a brief mention of a burial ground on Muntham's Clump near Findon, nothing to do with WWI but intriguing). It is difficult to know quite the best way to present this sort of information. The list you have in your userspace is good. It can get messy if the overall structure isn't set up right at the start. And I'm a bit wary of duplicating the lists done by others (such as Skelton). Maybe best to think about it for a bit. The overall list should still be List of works by Edwin Lutyens, but the cemeteries alone will overwhelm that. Carcharoth (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- There's plenty to write about Lutyens and his WWI-related projects; more than enough to justify turning that link blue without turning it into a list. I agree the list of works should be the central list that other articles link back to, though it still needs a lot of work to be complete—I bought a copy of the catalogue from the Art Council exhibition of his work (Lutyens: The Work of the English Architect Sir Edwin Lutyens (1869-1944)), which includes a list of known Lutyens works in date order but deliberately omits many of his private memorials and the IWGC cemeteries. The list is in very small type and covers over six pages divided into two columns. To say the man was prolific is an understatement!
By the way, do you know of anything that goes into more detail about the influence Spalding had on Ned's cemeteries? Neither Historic England nor Skelton's chapter on Spalding go into any detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oh dear, you called him Ned. You really are far gone... :-) There is a bit more on Spalding and Lutyens in Cemeteries of the Great War by Sir Edwin Lutyens by Jeroen Geurst. (three pages). See here for the articles that already use this as a source. It is well worth getting hold of. I remember looking at it in a bookshop a few years ago and thinking I really must buy it, and then blanching at the asking price and sadly putting it back. Might have to get it again, unless someone has a copy. The bits on Spalding are visible on Google Books. The resemblance is with the entrance shelter at Anneux British Cemetery apparently. See this picture. Sadly not a good angle, but the resemblance is indeed striking. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think I was lost just over a year ago when I wrote Gerrards Cross Memorial Building, and certainly by the time I finished creating articles for all the other war memorials in England (though I got distracted along the way)! That's been on my Amazon wishlist for a while but it hasn't been directly relevant to anything I've been working on until now so I haven't ordered it. The cheapest copy is £34.26 + £2.80 P&P; I'm not sure I can justify that sort of money for a book that isn't critical to something I'm working on. I could get a nice bottle of single malt for that! Thanks for adding it to the article. I had a look at the Google Books excerpt and the resemblance is indeed striking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oh dear, you called him Ned. You really are far gone... :-) There is a bit more on Spalding and Lutyens in Cemeteries of the Great War by Sir Edwin Lutyens by Jeroen Geurst. (three pages). See here for the articles that already use this as a source. It is well worth getting hold of. I remember looking at it in a bookshop a few years ago and thinking I really must buy it, and then blanching at the asking price and sadly putting it back. Might have to get it again, unless someone has a copy. The bits on Spalding are visible on Google Books. The resemblance is with the entrance shelter at Anneux British Cemetery apparently. See this picture. Sadly not a good angle, but the resemblance is indeed striking. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- There's plenty to write about Lutyens and his WWI-related projects; more than enough to justify turning that link blue without turning it into a list. I agree the list of works should be the central list that other articles link back to, though it still needs a lot of work to be complete—I bought a copy of the catalogue from the Art Council exhibition of his work (Lutyens: The Work of the English Architect Sir Edwin Lutyens (1869-1944)), which includes a list of known Lutyens works in date order but deliberately omits many of his private memorials and the IWGC cemeteries. The list is in very small type and covers over six pages divided into two columns. To say the man was prolific is an understatement!
- Oh, sure. I was looking at that appendix (I got distracted by a brief mention of a burial ground on Muntham's Clump near Findon, nothing to do with WWI but intriguing). It is difficult to know quite the best way to present this sort of information. The list you have in your userspace is good. It can get messy if the overall structure isn't set up right at the start. And I'm a bit wary of duplicating the lists done by others (such as Skelton). Maybe best to think about it for a bit. The overall list should still be List of works by Edwin Lutyens, but the cemeteries alone will overwhelm that. Carcharoth (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- I made a list of "the 44" he designed 44 freestanding memorials in England, which form Historic England's "national collection" plus the one in Wales when I started the writing project—it's at User:HJ Mitchell/L and contains some annotations. It's messy and bits of it might not make sense because I put it together for my own use, but if it's useful to you have at it. There's also one at the back pf Lutyens and the Great War (Appendix 1) if you haven't seen it.
2016 Year in Review
|
The World War Barnstar | |
| For you work on the Featured Article Northampton War Memorial, which honors the dead from both World Wars, I hereby present you with the World War Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 08:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC) |
- Thanks Tom. This was a pleasant surprise. Well done for your hard work distributing all of these. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis.
Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 17, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes.
You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis/Workshop.
For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
If you no longer wish to receive case notifications for this case you can remove yourself from the notifications list here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 22:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, HJ Mitchell, and Happy New Year to you. I plan to take this to FA. Do let me know if you wish to leave comments at the PR page by pinging me. Thanks. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
|
We wish you a prosperous New Year 2017! |
| Wishing you and yours a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless! — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC) |
Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award: Oct to Dec 16
|
Military history reviewers' award | |
| On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 3 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2016. Your ongoing efforts to support Wikipedia's quality content processes are greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of York City War Memorial
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article York City War Memorial you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The article York City War Memorial you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:York City War Memorial for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I pass maybe 1 in 20 GA nominations on the first pass. Good job. Jclemens (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, JC. I very much appreciate the review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: December 2016
| ||||||
The Signpost: 17 January 2017
- From the editor: Next steps for the Signpost
- News and notes: Surge in RFA promotions—a sign of lasting change?
- In the media: Year-end roundups, Wikipedia's 16th birthday, and more
- Featured content: One year ends, and another begins
- Arbitration report: Concluding 2016 and covering 2017's first two cases
- Traffic report: Out with the old, in with the new
- Technology report: Tech present, past, and future
Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Underwood
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Underwood. Based on the discussion back in December, thought you might be interested in this one... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)