User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 65

Archive 60

←

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

→

Archive 70

Just as an FYI

Just as an FYI (you may not recall, but you granted autoreviewer status, I just removed it) Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#W.C3.B6lffReik_and_his_.22personal_library.22_of_articles.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 03:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete

Please delete and protect this page, Spandex on the Distant Horizon. The user will not stop creating it. The cover is fan made, everything about the page is an WP:OR'ed test edit and I'm not going to get into everything else that's wrong with it. Can you please full-protect it? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that, another admin took care of it. Thanks anyways. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back

And happy new year! --John (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And to you, thank you! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

For your input at my OTRS application. Now I have another userbox added to the collection ;-) Still, it's already proving useful.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Email

Hello, HJ Mitchell. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Many thanks, —  Cargoking  talk  14:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Brad Pitt

This is a note to let the main editors of Brad Pitt know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 10, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 10, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Brad Pitt (born 1963) is an American actor and film producer. Pitt has received two Academy Award nominations and five Golden Globe Award nominations, winning one. Described as one of the world's most attractive men, Pitt's first leading roles in big-budget productions came with A River Runs Through It (1992) and Interview with the Vampire (1994). He was cast opposite Anthony Hopkins in the 1994 drama Legends of the Fall, which earned him his first Golden Globe nomination. In 1995 he gave critically acclaimed performances in the crime thriller Seven and the science fiction film 12 Monkeys, the latter securing him a Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor and an Academy Award nomination. Four years later, in 1999, Pitt starred in the cult hit Fight Club. He then starred in the major international hit as Rusty Ryan in Ocean's Eleven (2001) and its sequels, Ocean's Twelve (2004) and Ocean's Thirteen (2007). His greatest commercial successes have been Troy (2004) and Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005). Following a high-profile relationship with actress Gwyneth Paltrow, Pitt was married to actress Jennifer Aniston for five years. Pitt lives with actress Angelina Jolie in a relationship that has generated wide publicity. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Unsalting

Do you mind if I unsalt RD Reynolds? R.D. Reynolds is a working redirect, and it seems reasonable to me to have the unpunctuated form do the same. If you'd like, I'll be happy to protect the redirect. Nyttend (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As long as notability is no longer an issue, I have no objection, but I would ask that you add R. D. Reynolds to your watchlist because it attracted all manner of crap when there was an article at the old title. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism only account

Could you take a look at Special:Contributions/216.51.183.241 and see if another block is warranted? Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I can, and yes it is. Thanks for poinitng it out to me, I've blocked the IP for three months. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You maybe interested in

You might be interested in joining the Imposter Verification Team because of your contributions here

Whenaxis talk Join the Imposter Verification Team! 02:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you believe it?

Hello HJM. I hope that 2012 is treating you well. After several months of peace it looks like the "fave football team" stuff has picked up on the Colm Meaney article. Ah well some people never learn. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 20:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Not this again! I've protected the article. Again. Oh, and 2012 is going well so far, thanks; happy new year to you! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this and for the good wishes. Both are appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 22:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, the same IP-hopper has also started adding this "fave football team" stuff to Conor Lenihan again. Its been going on since Dec 2010, and was quiet for a few months but they have now returned. Can you help? Tx, Snappy (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That looks a little more complicated as they're actually providing a source. If the source didn't back up the information stated, then that would b grounds for admin intervention, but the suitability of the material for the article is, I'm afraid, an editorial issue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you consider sprotecting gamma ray?

The article gamma ray is drawing about as much attention from the darling IP students who deface it, as most element articles do. SBHarris 21:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the range from which most of the disruption was coming today, so that should allow things to quieten down. Once you exclude that range, there has only been one vandal recently, and that was on the 9th, so I don't think semi is necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks. SBHarris 01:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Protection requests

I noticed that you protected many pages time ago (Charlie's Angels and et al). Can you consider to protect the pages edited by Special:Contributions/76.64.23.73, and Mexico (disambiguation), due the same bored stuff. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Is that really necessary considering the IP has been blocked? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is, you can see the history of the pages, for example Mexico (disambiguation) or Axel Gear and every week or two weeks s/he returns with a new IP. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

OK,I've been through that IP's contribs and applied semi-protection where it looks lie it might be useful. Some pages are more high-traffic than others and some have less of a history of problems, hence what might seem like inconsistency in protection durations etc. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Date of Coventry meetup

Hi - can you check the date of the proposed Coventry meet-up please. In Wikipedia:Meetup/UK you've put it as 18th Feb, but the Meta page says 19th (a Sunday). If it's the 18th, I should be able to make it, but Sundays are too busy for me.  An optimist on the run! 22:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Woops. I'm afraid it's the Sunday. We might consider holding it on a Saturday if there's a demand, but I'm busy doing something else for WMUK on the 18th (which is where the confusion on the date came from!). There are also meetups in Liverpool and Manchester coming up (both on Saturdays) if they're of interest to you. Whereabouts are you from (it's okay if you don't want to answer that)? If there isn't anything going on near you, we might be able to organise something. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm in Birmingham.  An optimist on the run! 23:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic! We seem to have quite a healthy editing community in the West Midlands and I'm really keen to organise more events and get more people turning up to them. I'll let you know the next time something's going on (and it would be good to revive the Birmingham meetups, but my knowledge of where to get a good pint in Brum and then get back to New Street Station is limited!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for unprotection of 2010–2011 Algerian protests

Hi, could you please un-move protect 2010–2011 Algerian protests? It needs to be moved given that it's continued into this year, and the move should be uncontroversial, however doesn't count as a technical move if the page has been protected, and I'm not happy that as a long-time user in good standing I can't do it myself. I don't believe that any of the rationales for move protection apply, and certainly not your original reason for protection. It's no longer a high traffic page, and while it's unlikely to need to be moved again after this, there are indeed possible reasons that it might be moved such as if the protests continue for another year, if they escalate into a civil war or revolution, or if Wikipedians decide to generally change punctuation policy and use say a hyphen instead of a long dash on all such articles. As such, I would really appreciate if the page were open to moves by autoconfirmed users. If page move vandalism proves to be a problem, it can always be protected again. Thanks and regards, --Quintucket (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that that protection has outlived any use it might have had, so I've removed it. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I take it you don't sleep either. :•) --Quintucket (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe remove?

Harry, if you've got a moment, would you have a look at Talk:Hyperbaric medicine#Hyperbaric Treatment for Alzheimer Sufferers? A guy has posted his name, phone and email. I'm not sure under the circumstances whether that info needs to be purged, so your opinion (and action if needed) would be valuable. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey Rexx! Happy new year! I removed it and deleted the revisions. His name's not a big deal, but posting an email address and a phone number is not usually a good idea. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Sep-Dec 2011

		The Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period September–December 2011, I am delighted to award you the Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Buggie111 (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I should probably get back into reviewing actually! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

AE

I responded. If you wish to have me scan and email you the sources untilized, I will be happy to comply.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Rather than waiting for you to ask, I've taken the liberty of forwarding the scanned documents to you by email. You may share with any admin you like, Best--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really make much difference (unless the source says something wildly different from what is claimed at AE), but I don't seem to have received it. Do you have my current email address? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Crap! Then who did I send the email to? Someone must be scratching their heads. I sent it to Gmail rather than Ymail but I didn't get a mailerdeamon which would be the case if the email didn't exist. Regardless, I think your idea of a voluntary break is a decent idea. I'll stay low for a couple of weeks. Thanks,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I might own that. I do have a gmail account that I've never used and can't remember the password to! Staying low for a couple of weeks (and in particular making nice, uncontroversial edits about something else that interests you) might do you a lot of good, and it certainly reflects well on you if you do it voluntarily. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll follow your advice and stay low for a few weeks. Thank you,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've resent the email to your updated address.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look at it when I get chance, but it's 02:30 here and I'm trying to get some content work done and the I'm doing outreach work tomorrow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

HJ- It is not my job to tell you what kind of action should be taken against JJG (even if there is any sort of action to take). But considering his history of using sources (or not using for that matter) is the main issue at hand. But adding the flag of the Nazis to represent less, or at least same amount, of British/Americans just doesn't seem like a matter that can be resolved by taken a break from the topic area. With an editor like JJG, I am 95% certain that there will be another request made in the next few weeks/months for a POV-pushing source issue regarding JJG. -asad (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Well all we have is that JJG made a controversial edit, and it may have given greater weight to the participation of "ex-Nazis". What hasn't been proven is that it was his intention to mislead the reader in the way you suggest. Until evidence of malice is presented, I'm obliged to assume good faith. I won't close the AE thread in case another admin feels further action is necessary, and you also have the option to file an RfC/U or an arbitration case against JJG if you feel that the AE process isn't delivering the right result. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you HJ. I'd just like to add one additional point in response to Asad. Asad is once again deliberately misstating the record. In an attempt to formulate a compromise, I specifically offered to remove the flag as well as other modifications. Please note my compromise offer; "Would you object to something like "foreign volunteers" (without the flag stuff) similar to that which appears on the Israeli column? Could that be a possible compromise?" The response I received was a positive one and one which looked as though the issue was about to be resolved; "I would not object to the phrase "foreign volunteers" - particularly since there were volunteers from Arab countries not mentioned. I would object to the use of flags or to listing countries of origin in the info box." My response to that was, "Excellent. Progress is always a good thing. It is refreshing to deal with editors who are open-minded I'll work on something over the weekend and present you with a modified text." This exchange represents the best of collaborative editing and is removed from Asad's convoluted narrative. In fact, Asad didn’t even participate in the discussion. It seems as though his sole role was to wait on the sidelines for the opportunity to strike. Sigh.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I respect that you are trying hard to assume good faith, but that does not mean you have to let yourself get taken in by an editor who knows just what to say. Editors who act in bad faith, bless their hearts, will do everything they can to present themselves as acting in good faith. Were this the first time JJG has been brought up on a matter like this, some consideration could be given. However, the reality is that JJG has a history of making these kinds of blatantly tendentious edits while misrepresenting and cherry-picking sources. One of the instances I, and asad, mention is a pretty good indicator as to his motivations. The Golan case saw him using a tour guide to insist a mountain on the eastern edge of the Golan was Israeli territory, not Syrian. He gave a very passionate defense of his actions there too and seemingly made overtures to other editors in an effort to make himself look like he is open to engaging in a collaborative editing process. You should recognize these overtures then and now as merely attempts to blow smoke in an admin's face so he can get away with doing something he should know flies in the face of policy. After dodging a bullet on that Golan case it took him all of two months to go back to the same kind of blatant tendentious editing. If he gets off with just a few weeks of voluntary leave he will be back soon enough to do the same thing on another article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here that I'd like to point out separately. The first is that AE admins are (contrary to popular opinion) fairly limited in their powers, and can generally only act when arbitration remedies have clearly been violated. AE is not a quick fix, and ongoing issues with (alleged) source manipulation and other edits that fall in that grey area between conduct and content problems may be better-suited to an RfC/U, even if that forum is merely a prelude to an arbitration case (and the Arbitration Committee of course have infinitely more flexibility than AE admins). The second is that it's all well and good coming here to moan at me and citing al sorts of previous issues, but the best way to get action at AE is to present lots of recent diffs, followed by a concise, neutral explanation of each. Oh, and the third (I know I said two, but this is important!), is that the assumption of good faith benefits all parties—I assume that you are here because you have Wikipdia's best interests at heart, just like I assume that Asad filed the AE report because he believed he was witnessing genuine misconduct and I assume that neither of you would bring any baggage you have with JJG to AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no real baggage with JJG and try to assume good faith with all editors. My philosophy is that you should also assume the other side is sufficiently intelligent to understand the problem with certain actions, especially after being told the problem with it repeatedly. Some things, with certain editors, should not really require that they be reasonably informed of the problem because it should be obvious to anyone. I strongly doubt that JJG was unaware that pointedly listing Nazis as being on the side of the Arabs would somehow not be strongly biased towards Israel. Honestly, I cannot imagine how anyone could think he was acting in good faith by plopping the Nazi German flag at the top of the article right there with Jordan and Egypt just because a handful of volunteers were ex-Nazis. Mama didn't raise no fool.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Yeah?

Then open up ARBIA3 already. My money is on requests for enforcement droping over the next couple of months but please feel free to show some conviction and follow through with it now if you think it is needed.Cptnono (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User:OSUHEY check

Just got another request to make changes at the Ohio Senators page from User:180.183.11.6. Checking to see if this is a problem or not before making any changes. Cheers, — Bility (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

That's OSUHEY evading his ban again. The IP was blocked y another admin, but thanks for letting me know. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerks.
Message added 16:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TNXMan 16:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

OE again.

Hi there,

Can we have a quick chat about Rotsmasher? I wasn't paying much attention when the block was given out so I'm not sure of the specifics, but I've been encouraging him to try editing other articles for a while - Is it possible to talk about, say, reducing the block to just UK business articles, while he does a bit of exploration? (btw, this is the first time I've been near a block so I'm very much feeling my way here) Failedwizard (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi The problem with Rotsmasher is not so much where he edits, though that has been problematic, but the attitude he takes to editing. He has repeatedly accused administrators, experienced editors acting in good faith, and editors with a disclosed conflict of interest of all sorts of things, like censorship and whitewashing. I am honestly forced to conclude that he has some sot of grudge against Optical Express, because he has not made a single edit that wan't related to Optical Express. He disrupts talk-page discussions by making unfounded allegations and speculating as to editors' motives, and then when the outcome of the discussion doesn't go his way, he makes personal attacks. He disappears when the dispute dies down, but as soon as somebody makes an edit to the article that he doesn't like, he re-emerges to revert it (often with more accusations or attacks). I'm unsure as to what we might gain from something even as narrow as a topic ban from Optical Express, because he seems to have no other interest (and his interests there don't seem to be the improvement of the encyclopaedia).

That said, the blocking admin doesn't get the final say in appeals (and rightly so), so you might get a different response from another administrator if Rotsmasher wanted to appeal his block—I left instructions on how to do that on his talk page, and he'll see them in a system message that comes up when he tries to edit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for St Mary's Priory Church, Monmouth

I'm really pleased, although more for the article than the DYK. From nothing, to a respectable little article in a week. The joys of Wikipedia. That'll be a penny. KJP1 (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what I like about DYK—writing respectable articles like that one is a genuine accomplishment, and it's good that we do something to recognise it. DYK itself is far from perfect, but it's a nice little "thank you" for somebody who has probably spent a fair part of their day researching and writing an article that adds knowledge to the encyclopaedia. Thanks for stopping by—the administrative side of DYK is quite monotonous, so it's nice that somebody appreciates it! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Eleventh hour AE comment

Thanks for your recent participation at the Arbitration Enforcement requests board. I see you commented there in your administrative capacity recently, concerning a request that I just discovered yesterday. I finally had time to complete a very careful analysis of the matter earlier today, and was wondering whether you'd please take a look at that (link/permalink) before you post any final opinion there? I'd be grateful for the favor. This same message is being posted to the talk page of every admin who expressed an opinion there, btw.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer review

Harry, would you mind taking a look at this -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

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 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Liverpool Wikimeet

Hi Harry, the attendance list for next Saturday's Liverpool Wikimeet is rather sparse - see [1]. (No reason to cancel though.) I haven't seen a banner advertising the meetup. Do you know if/how we can get one set up? Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If? Yes. How? Just ask your friendly neighbourhood admin! [2] ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! See you on Saturday, Bazonka (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Revision deletion request

Could you please delete this revision (diff)? Thanks, —Andrew_stalk 23:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) -  Done. :) The Helpful One 00:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I was actually going to decline that, and I'l paste my rationale here: It's undoubtedly vandalism and undoubtedly unpleasant, but it doesn't meet any of the RevDel criteria I'm afraid. RD2 is the most likely to be applicable, but I don't think it's grossly offensive, insulting, or degrading. It's just vandalism with some rude words, not an insult or a slur directed at anybody. Since RevDel hides the revision so that almost nobody can see it, it should only be used where it's absolutely necessary to remove the revision (such as for libel or copyright violations), because it harms our principles of "openness" to use it in cases where no damage is likely to result from a revision being publicly visible. To give one scenario where deleting that revision might actually be harmful, it is entirely possible that the user who made that edit requests to be unblocked, and a non-admin might wish to comment on or investigate the circumstances of the block, and wouldn't be able to do so because they can't see one of the edits that led to the block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Your rationale is a valid one. I've been used to RevDeleting mainly for insults that are more grossly offensive, and in hind sight, this edit is just bog standard vandalism so actually wouldn't be rev deleted as per the criteria - it could be deemed to be "ordinary" incivility (albeit not against a user). The vandalism has been reverted so the damage has been undone and I've accordingly undone my rev delete. Thank you for your clear rationale HJ, I didn't think about the non-admins in this instance. The Helpful One 00:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. I think it's a little too common that we make the leap from "words you wouldn't use in front of your grandmother" to "grossly offensive, insulting, or degrading" without realising that putting things off limits to non-admins can actually be damaging, which is why I try to save RevDel for the really nasty stuff. I think the criteria could probably do with tightening up, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Another RevDel

Hello, HJ Mitchell. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

NYyankees51 (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Copy of Page Request

Count0overdrive : could you send me a copy of deleted page (whatever format is fine): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISO/IEEE_11073_Personal_Health_Data_%28PHD%29_Standards Ironically this page has been deleted due to no notability but reflects a sub-standard actually in use in consumer industry while the IEEE 11073 page is up on wikipedia, whereby the that main standard never took off. I'd be happy to have a copy of that article since it was written very well, explaining hard to catch details from the standards document. Thanks !

Emailed to you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

tidy up thanks

Thanks a bunch for tidying those old user pages up for me Harry. - Best regards - Youreallycan 17:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Excuse - I missed another one - User:Off2riorob/sandbox - some useful links there - need it un-deleting and moving to User:Youreallycan/sandbox please - Youreallycan 22:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem,  Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Relook request

Hello!

A while ago, you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio n/Hero%27s_10&diff=462146354&oldid=461872408 changed] your close of a discussion based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell&diff=462 149169&oldid=462137958 this discussion]. Please see here. Strong evidence suggests that several of the deletes there as well as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat (3rd nomination) were posted by sock accounts. Notice at the SuperKombat one that the nominator specifically notified Papaursa, AStudent0, etc. which are specifically listed and clerk endorsed as likely sock accounts. Thus, if sockpuppetry on the keep side caused you to change from no consensus, surely the sockpuppetry on the delete side no cancels that out and reverts it back to no consensus? The unfortunate thing as the clerk notes is that the delete all MMA article sock accounts' edit histories show is that they have vote-stacked HUNDREDS of MMA related discussions giving a false sense of consensus and precedent concerning such articles across hundreds of discussions. Thank you for your time and reconsideration! --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Kat Von D

This is a neutral notice of an RfC for a page on which you have been an editor. If you wish to participate, the discussion is taking place here. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I made one edit there with a semi-automated script to revert vandalism three months ago. It might be wise to be a little more selective in who you're notifying of things like this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. M D Potter. Any comments? 20:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Ahem. I've been doing this for a while; I know what warnings are and how to use them, thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

MD, you might want to also read WP:DTTR. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The WikiChevrons
		Congratulations for being nominated as one of the military historians of the year for 2011 in recognition of your quality articles on modern British military history, particularly the Iranian Embassy Siege and senior army officers. I am pleased to award you the WikiChevrons in recognition of this achievement. For the Coordinators, Nick-D (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, and congratulations yourself! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Counteracting DTTR

This delicious Falafel is to help counteract the effects of being a Templated Regular! Dreadstar ☥ 22:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Dan, you made me hungry now! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have one for the regulated templars as well? --Eisfbnore ^talk 10:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

• News and notes: Update on Global Development, Wikipedia Day NYC is a success, JFK audio on Commons

• In the news: Zambian wiki-assassins, Foundation über alles, editor engagement and the innovation plateau

• Recent research: Language analyses examine power structure and political slant; Wikipedia compared to commercial databases

• WikiProject report: Digging Up WikiProject Palaeontology

• Featured content: Featured content soaring this week

• Arbitration report: Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases

• Technology report: Why "Lua" is on everybody's lips, and when to expect MediaWiki 1.19

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The lost day

Hi H, you've just blocked User:24.235.70.242 for 72 hours but your note on their talk page says 48. They'll probably spawn as another IP in the interval anyway but if they do not then they could be confused. See you in Manky next month? - Sitush (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Woops, thanks for pointing that out! If they do come back under another IP, give me a shout—it's easy enough to protect the page or place rangeblock. Yes, I'll be there I should think. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Rangeblock won't work but semi-pp would, although it seems likely that they've also used several registered accounts over the last year or two.

Depending on your pov, you may or may not want to thank me for encouraging Malleus to turn up in Feb. Modern hearing aids have a filtering system built in: intended to work something like a simple graphic equaliser, I am considering putting in a request for them to be programmed with a "bleep" setting as still happens on TV from time to time ;) Sitush (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN3 post

Hi HJ... Just in case you did not see, I posted a question for you at the AN3 section on user:Gregory Goble (you notified him of discretionary sanctions). Apologies if I should have asked my question here rather than there. I would appreciate if you would have a look and respond when you have the chance. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Brian Menell

Hi HJ,

I am writing to you regarding Brian Menell's Wikipedia entry, which I noticed in the history that you changed on the 9th of December 2011.

I am Brian's executive assistant and would like to flag that the information on Brian is incorrect and out of date.

Would it be possible for you to make the following corrections to Brian's entry?

It currently states: "He is Executive Chairman of Energem Resources Inc, a pan-African resource Group active in 11 African countries." This is incorect as Brian is no longer the chairman. It would be more accurate to state: "Menell was previously Executive Chairman of Energem Resources Inc".

Brian is actually now Chief Executive Officer of Kemet Group and Chief Executive of Tinco Investments Limited and serves as a Director of Shore Gold Inc.(ref: http://www.miningweekly.com/article/brian-menell-2011-11-04)

Here are the links to the company websites: http://tincogroup.com and http://kemetgroup.net.

If you would like to contact me, please email me: paula@menell.net.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards, Paula Wright

Brian Menell - follow up

Dear HJ,

Following up on my request of the 26th January, I would like to make the corrections to Brian Menell’s biography. If you have an objection to this, please let me know before 4pm tomorrow. Thank you.

Kind regards, Paula

ICT Group

Hi Harry,

I work at the ICT Group and we would like to know if you could advise us on expanding the current entry to provide more information about the company. It has recently been subjected to a review following the BP COI investigations and it would be good to get a good understanding of what was right or wrong on the “ICT Group (Russia)” Wikipedia before the page was reduced.

We would be grateful for your help in getting the page into an acceptable shape.

Many thanks

<real name redacted> Head of Corporate Communications

I can confirm that this post is coming from ICT Group in Russia. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sock of blocked user

Quack! Thought I'd let you know since you blocked the first one and they're not exactly on a major spree. Rivertorch (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. Thank you! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Richard Barre

Hey HJ--you protected the article. So how did this happen? Drmies (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) HJ only move protected it. I don't think TFAs are semi protected unless the disruption becomes severe. - JuneGloom Talk 01:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What she said! ;) Thanks June! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Read it wrong. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise you were around HJ. I would have left it for you to answer otherwise. :) - JuneGloom Talk 01:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't; I was going to check my watchlist and then go to bed, but that orange bar is hard to ignore, no matter how many times I've seen it! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Motion to create the function to dismiss the orange bar without visiting your talk page needs to be created. =D CycloneGU (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice work

With the close of the reviewer user right RFC :-) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 00:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It was nothing compared to the WP:V RfC, but I can see why there weren't may willing volunteers. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I had my eye on it, but another non-admin beat me to the punch...so I was kinda out of it. Will have to keep an eye on RFCs and find one... Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 01:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw. The new subpage of the admins' noticeboard seems like a good place to loiter (though bear in mind that some people will object to a non-admin closure on a contentious issue for no other reason than the closer wasn't an admin). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm used to that. And it's not like new admins are endowed with the wisdom of Solomon or anything :-) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 02:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Far from it; what admins have (or at least had at the time of their RfA in some cases) is the confidence of the community, but that's not as tangible as an editor's presence in a particular group, such as administrators. That, I think, is why controversial discussions are generally expected to be closed by administrators and why non-admins often have to make do with the more simple closes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Rewinding back out of the above chit-chat, I also want to note your thoughtful close of the RfC in question. Being one of the many users with the bit, and being one of the many users who heavily supported Pending Changes (albeit acknowledging some flaws in the trial of it, and the huge mess of closure following), that it worked, and did a great job on BLP articles in helping prevent potentially libelous information from making it out into the article for everyone to see. All it takes is for someone to click into the article in the twenty-three seconds that it's there and suddenly it's big news in the media, possibly with some lawyer for the subject saying they will sue. If in that twenty-three seconds another editor can review it and say no, not something to put in here, then that user would only see the prior version before the piece to be reviewed, meaning that it can be reversed quickly (even if it does become part of the permanent editing history). I think combining this with oversight abilities would be extremely beneficial...though, of course, since oversight is part of the admin. package, it might not be possible without a related board for such oversights to be requested from.

Regardless of my views of PC, again, that was a very thoughtful close. CycloneGU (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Practically, I would love to see pending changes reinstated—we get complaints through OTRS every day that could easily have been prevented by that extra bit of scrutiny PC can provide. However, there are philosophical objections to it, some of them well grounded, others just bitter about the "trial" and the way the Foundation tried to impose it through the back door. Sadly, I think it backfired on the Foundation, and their (in)actions mean that it will be a log time before we can have a proper discussion about PC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, HJ

I've been asked to bring a request for mentorship from Ian Streeter (talk · contribs). I don't know your availability at the moment nor do I have any comment on Ian Streeter's suitability as an adoptee, I'm just following through on my commitment to this editor. Hope you're doing well, Tiderolls 17:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

thanks for letting me know. I'll email him when I get chance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Geonotices

• [3]

I think no one replied because WP:Geonotice is the place to discuss whether to put up a particular geonotice; MediaWiki talk:Geonotice.js is the place to discuss technical details of the geonotice script! Deryck C. 00:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw that, but it looked more like a central place for asking an admin to post a geonotice than for discussing a notice's suitability. But anyway, the notice is up and nobody has yelled at me yet, which I hope means it isn't controversial. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hey HJ. Earlier today I started adding some sources to Ben Richards (actor). Then just I have come across Ben Richards and it is the same subject. Both have been live for a good few years now. June suggested merging, if that is what needs to be done, please could you help?Rain the 1 20:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I can honestly say I've never seen two articles on the same subject sit side by side for over five years! The best thing to do is probably to decide which is the best developed, and cut and paste any content from the other one that isn't already in there. Then redirect the duplicate to the better article. Merging the histories isn't really a good idea because they're two separate articles (albeit on the same person), so it would make a real mess of the history. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I happened to see this and took a look, I guess to give the articles a fresh set of eyeballs. In my opinion, the article that Raintheone is working on (the one with the actor disambiguation) is the most cited, but the other does have the infobox and potentially some other unique information. I've posted merge tags on both and initiated a merger proposal on the actor page. Everything links over to the actor page, so hopefully all affected parties will be able to chime in. --McDoobAU93 20:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like I'll probably have to make a mess by swapping the two titles ad redirecting actor to the better article, but we'll see what happens. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That was my dilemma when I made the proposal. Is Ben Richards (actor) more well known than Ben Richards (writer)? I speculate the most well-known Ben Richards is the movie character, but he doesn't have an article, while one of the real Ben Richards' characters does, apparently. --McDoobAU93 20:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you trying to give me headache? ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou for your help HJ. It seems that I keep stumbling upon problem articles a lot these days. Maybe the Ben Richards should be a DAB page then. I'll go and comment now at the discussion McDoobAU93 has started. :)Rain the 1 20:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Let me know when you need me. I don't mind swapping titles and that sort of thing, but it makes a real mess of the log and makes it hard for people to see what's going on, so I'd rather only do it once. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

• News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors

• In the news: Leading scholar hails Wikipedia, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned

• Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts

• WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

• Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure

• Technology report: October's coding challenge: results now in; progress on 1.19 steady; and why for a while interwiki links were no more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Could yo take a look at........

Benjamin Hardin Helm and see what changes, if any, need to be done please. --Ceradon ^talk_contribs 01:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but it would be helpful to know if there was something specific you wanted me to look at. Do you just want another pair of eyes on the article, or are you hoping to take it GA/A-Class/FA? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to take it to GA-class and maybe FA in the future.--Ceradon ^talk_contribs 22:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

OTRS ticket on Isiah Thomas

In August 2011, you removed text from Isiah Thomas and explained it as "mostly unsourced, apparently inaccurate, possibly defamatory." based off of an OTRS ticket. Recently, an editor added sourced and seemingly neutral text on the same subject, but another editor removed it citing concern with the original OTRS. Would you mind looking at Talk:Isiah_Thomas#Lawsuit and commenting whether the subject is off limits for inclusion, or whether any special attention is needed beyond normal policies and guidelines. Thanks!—Bagumba (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've commented there; thanks for letting me know. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

clnatinfront UserName Block

Dear HJ

I have requested an unblock of my UserName on the talk page where you placed the block yesterday User_talk:Clnatinfront. I'd really appreciate your guidance in relation to this matter and look forward to hearing from you there. Many thanks. HablasESport!121 (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC) 8 February 2012

Closure of Fae RfC/U

Hi HJ, I've raised the question of closing the Fae RfC/U at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC/U closer needed. As you proposed this, you may have a view on the issue. Prioryman (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

AE case on Shuki

I think an indefinite ban from the article is inappropriate. Shuki would reasonably have thought the notice was the typical 1RR notice and ignored it, as most regular editors in the topic area would since they are already aware of 1RR. On the other hand, asad did not even bother to do Shuki the courtesy of a warning about the unique restriction on that article before taking the case to AE. Looks to me like asad just wanted to get Shuki sanctioned given how the AE case originally focused on failure to explain the revert, but was modified to focus on the edit itself when the argument about not giving Shuki due warning became the main point of discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"...given how the AE case originally focused on failure to explain the revert" - What are you talking about? I think you should seriously reread the report. -asad (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ignorance of something in big, bold, capital letters that he had to scroll past to make the edit in question does not make one immune from it, and as I said at AE, Shuki has repeatedly been sanctioned for his conduct at that article. Taken together, the multiple previous sanctions against him (almost all of which emanate from the same article), the restriction he violated (even if he ignored the notice informing him of it), and that the edit was clearly going to be inflammatory, I think a page ban is justified. It seems clear to me that every time he goes near that article, there's trouble.

  As to Asad, I don't think it's helpful to make assumptions about editors' motives, and the reporter's motives do not excuse the reportee's actions. However, I see he hasn't been previously notified formally of the discretionary sanctions, so I have given him such a notification, which means you can bring any future conduct of his to AE if necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Every time he goes near that article"? The only edit I can find is nearly two years old and it seems to be edits in other parts of the topic area that have been at issue, not this article. As far as "making assumptions" I am just noticing that asad shifted the goalposts away from what was clearly meant to be the thrust of the report (originally the only listed remedy to be enforced was the specific restriction on the Golan). When someone does that generally it indicates their intention is more about the result of the report rather than the conduct in the report itself. My point is really that asad did not give Shuki any sort of warning or suggest a self-revert, but simply went to AE without even informing Shuki of the unique restriction on the article. Note that the other editor asad mentions was given some sort of warning, even if the warning was vague and inadequate. No such courtesy was afforded to Shuki and thus I think it would be inappropriate to indefinitely ban an editor from the article under these circumstances.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is helpful to officially notify an editor twice. I doubt Sean needs a spanking but think a message actually discussing why his behavior in that discussion was a concern would have been appropriate. I cuss towards other editors here and there so can't fault the guy too much for losing his cool. I don't need to weight in over there but thought you could use the constructive criticism.Cptnono (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think I'd notified anybody twice—Sean's name only appears on WP:ARBPIA once, and that's the notification I just logged. The rest is fair comment. I don't give a shit about the language itself, but such a lack of decorum in a venue where sanctions are being actively discussed is a bit like double parking while a traffic warden is writing a ticket for the car next to you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh snap. You are right. I did ctl+f and thought I saw him twice but was obviously wrong. It doesn't matter since he has discussed AE enough times and editors have received sanctions without formal notifications being logged (see my first sanction for example... Sean remembers it since he was there). But all of that deflecting aside, I think the proposed solution is a good one. Apologies for criticizing you for the wrong thing!Cptnono (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

One of the editors who commented on the AE case, User:MichaelNetzer, is under probation in the topic area. I asked him to modify his rather combative comment at AE, but he has refused.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you think some action should be taken against Netzer as well? He also has had a tendency to make combative comments at AE and made such comments in this case so a restriction like the ones suggested on Brew and Sean would seem appropriate I think.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a good idea to start discussing yet another editor in the result section of that thread, which is coming to a conclusion (and it looks unlikely that Brew and Sean are going to be subject to sanctions). You have a point that his comment was unnecessarily combative, though. Perhaps a new AE request might be the best place to discuss whether any of his comments rise to the level that a sanction might be necessary, and admins will be better placed to examine his history? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)