User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 59

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 55

←

Archive 57

→

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Adams (2nd nomination)

Help:Edit summary. --Dismas|^(talk) 23:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Eh? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

A descriptive summary would have helped. --Dismas|^(talk) 23:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It was a typo—I omitted the "n". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

A favour?

Hey HJ, myself and Rain were wondering if you could perform a history merge/move for us. We've been working on this and would like it moved to Miles Copeland (Home and Away). Rain didn't create a new sandbox when we started the article, so there's a fair bit of history from other articles there. We started the Miles article at 21:46 on 19 March 2011. - JuneGloom Talk 23:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Gimme a minute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

And done. Rather tedious having to select 150-something revisions one by one, but done! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, sorry about that. Thank you though! - JuneGloom Talk 15:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

A favor at DYK...

Could you please re-review my nomination here at DYK? Please? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

ITN item ready

Hi HJ. Could you take a look at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BReady.5D_Data_from_Japanese_space_probe_that_returned_dust_from_Itokawa_asteroid_reveals_origin_of_meteorites; the item is ready but mostly being ignored. Modest Genius ^talk 14:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem, done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Modest Genius ^talk 14:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

History merge?

Hello again, HJ. Can you help out a bit a a merge of article history? Earlier today, 2007 Bagram Air Base bombing – formerly the article title – was manually switched with 2007 Bagram Airfield bombing – formerly a redirect, although also the original article title. Obviously the (substantial) article history was not moved, so it is still attached to 2007 Bagram Air Base bombing, which is now the redirect. After a brief review, I would say that all the history on both pages should be attached to the actual article with the exception of my edit from 22:30, 28 August 2011. (Based on the latest move request at the parent article, Talk:Bagram Airfield#Moving this page, #3, the "Airfield" name would appear to be the appropriate one.) Can you try to get this straightened out? Thanks, as always. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Did that fix it? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have. (I needed to re-apply the one small set of changes I had made after the other editor's; stupidly was through 90% individually before it dawned on me I should have just done a full text replace based on the my earlier version. Duh.) Thanks. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent Optical Express revisions

Hello HJ Mitchell. The revisions, removals and additions I recently carried out reduced bias and added detail. If you review the edit history you will see that Optical Express individuals have been blocked for sockpuppetry by repeatedly removing data supported by valid references. The removals I just did were for sections of either unreferenced or poorly referenced (company website only) information. The recent ASA dismissal of the Optical Express appeal was widely reported in the national press. Why have you removed this? The Price Waterhouse Cooper spokeperson comment is of value as it balances the comment from the Optical Express spokesperson which seems to call in to question the due diligence process of PWC. This company have repeatedly tried to censor their Wikipedia entry. I would respectfully ask you to review the edit history for 2011 at least prior to looking at my recent edits again. Yours Rotsmasher

In responce to your comments on my page. Several of your admin colleagues have also been involved with cleanup of the Optical Express page. Can you confirm if they have also been consulted about the last weeks activity? I still feel that although the overall article is very much improved in both scope and depth, the repeated areas of controversy are an integral part of this companies history and should be documented. Can you give me an example of where I have used a negative or locally reported source? Yours Rotsmasher

By carefully referencing his comments with the dates that Optical Express aqquired both the clinics in question, it is clear that is editorialising—we include facts, not our opinions (and not regurgitation of tabloid journalism). This was reported to be a crushing blow to Optical Express and resulted in further positive publicity to one of their main rivals Ultralase—how on Earth is that neutral? "[C]rushing blow", for example, should almost never appear in an encyclopaedia (and never outside of a quote). Your big paragraph about the data dump in Brighton is source to The Argus, which is a local paper in Sussex, and is massively undue weight—it doesn't need a description longer than every other event in the company's history. Not to mention your most recent edit, which is a libel case waiting to happen, but taking the parts that can be repeated, In 2002 it was widely reported that David Moulsdale had failed in his attempts to gain a court injunction to silence Dr Allan George—which has what to do with Optical Express? It's also editorialising. I think you need to read WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

To take your points in turn Mr Harrington did not have laser eye surgery with Optical Express. Mr Harrington did not have an enhancement of his laser eye surgery with Optical Express. The way you and Optical Express have edited this section does not make this clear. The ASA agree with me. Many newspapers agree with me. Why have you removed the ASA dismissal of Optical Express's appeal about this? Surely this is not justified and removes facts that were reported nationally. The crushing blow comment was by a media lawyer who commented on the case. ASA judgements are very rarely reversed and so Optical Express's appeal is of interest. I fully accept that this should have been in a quote. The Brighton Argus is a local paper. However the serious nature of the story involving patient files warrants its inclusion. The David Moulsdale and Dr Allan George article was reported in a national newspaper. In addition an Optical Express spokesperson confirmed that the friendship existed and that Mr Moulsdale would attend the funeral should his diary allow. As Mr Moulsdale is the CEO of Optical Express this inclusion is warranted and has been put back by other Wikipedia Admins on other occasions when it has been removed. Yours Rotsmasher.

I very much doubt any admin in their right mind would restore blatant libel to an article, and if they did, I would respond in exactly the same way as I have here. And you are completely missing my point: my problem is much, much more with the tone of your edits than with the content of them. The ASA complaint may well be worth mentioning, but the way you wrote it is called editorialising, and it's not neutral (which is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia). As for "crushing blow", what some journalist who gets paid to have an opinion thought about it is wholly irrelevant, and prejudicial anyway. The story about the files again, might be worth including, but it should absolutely not be written about in more detail than the entire company history—in term's of the company's notability, the business' expansion to Europe is far more important, so this story should not have three times the coverage in the article. The David Moulsdale and Dr Allan George article was reported in a national newspaper. In addition an Optical Express spokesperson confirmed that the friendship existed and that Mr Moulsdale would attend the funeral should his diary allow.—so what? I know my diary wouldn't stop me attending the funeral for even a distant friend, so they can't have been very close. But more to the point, it has absolutely nothing to do with why Optical Express is notable, and we do not regurgitate everything the media (even reputable national newspapers) writes.

The whole thing is a question of notability, relevance and proportionality (not to mention making allegations against living people). Please actually read what I'm writing, and read the policies I'm linking. I'm not doing it to show how clever I am, but because they contain important guidance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding other Wikipedia admin. Read the edit history. You obviously have not done that or you would see that several admins have restored that exact part of the article. Your definition of libel is misguided. The files story was briefly mentioned. It is not my affair that the rest of the article was woefully inadequate. You have addressed that with a fuller article. I have not made an allegation about a living person. This article is widely available, has been reported for years, was confirmed by Optical Express but is obviously not worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia according to you. This has not been the case with other admins. The ASA dismissal of Optical Express's appeal should be included and you have said nothing to disuade me of that view. It is patronising to imply I havent read your points and whether you are clever or not is immaterial to this discussion. Yours Rotsmasher

This is the last time I'm going to say this: Read. What. I. Wrote. Carefully. I'm not disagreeing with the content you wish to add, but with the tone. If you add disputed material again, especially about living persons, I will block you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I have carefully read what you wrote. How would you suggest I procede as you do not disagree with the content, but the tone? I wish to add content specifically regarding the ASA appeal and PWC spokesperson comments. In addition please can you explain to me why the statements regarding the Michael Gambon advert have been accepted when the only citation is the company website? I wish to remove this until a suitable third party reliable reference is included. I also feel my comments regarding other admins are verifiable but you have not commented on these. Yours Rotsmasher

Just make sure it is proportional (ie, you're not putting more focus on one event over any other in the company's history), and that you stick to the facts (no embellishment, no editorialising, nothing that sounds like it came from a tabloid newspaper). Neutrality is more than just adding negative stuff to "balance" the positive, it's about imparting all the important facts (and only the facts) and letting the reader make their own mind up. So mention that the ASA upheld a complaint about the advert if that's what the source says, but you don't need verbiage like "by carefully referencing dates" or "it is clear that", just go with something like "the ASA upheld a complaint on the grounds that so-and-so was not an Optical Express patient".

Similarly, there's no need for phrases like "had failed in his attempts to gain a court injunction to silence" (but I wouldn't include any of that material because repeating an unsubstantiated allegation that somebody is involved with a drug lord is potential libel and because you're only using it to point out the company's financial problems, which are already mentioned, and can be expanded upon without the claim if necessary).

As to the other admins, they haven't had the conversation I've had through OTRS with a senior manager at Optical Express. I'm aware of the disruption that has been going on (the spamming, and the use of sockpuppets), and those admins were intervening to stop that, not to make editorial decisions on the article's content. But the result of the OTRS conversation is that they want to work with us to improve the article. Anybody editing it in an official capacity for the company has agreed to declare their conflict of interest (as User:PKdundee has) and to abide by our policies. They're happy (enough) for criticism to be included, they just don't want a return to the old version which contained little information about the company and just heaps of criticism. Does that sound reasonable? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Rotsmasher, the ASA appeal lodged by Optical Express did not appeal the TV advert (as we already changed any confusing content and the revised Padraig Harrington advert has been cleared to broadcast since May 2011), or indeed many of the other points. It appealed point 11, which although ruling was revised by ASA it was upheld. Notwithstanding that only one point was appealed, ASA republished the full ajudication. We feel your edit is sensationalism. Further there is no third party source of any TV ad unless it is reported by press/ASA - and is a matter of record that it has aired on TV with those statements given the space afforded by you towards our ASA history in the Optical Express page - given the confussion and mistrust your points and tone appear to be promoting, we only wish to point out what we have currently said. Why are you so angry?User talk:PKdundee

Hello what are your thoughts after reading the latest optical express talk page discussion? Yours RotsmasherRotsmasher (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that the AfD is closed

You probably want to preemptively courtesy blank it to lessen future OTRS work. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

And new question: should we protect List of Playboy Playmates of 1992 as well to minimize the chances of OTRS-inducing edits on Steph's entry? I'm thinking semi-protect could easily be justified due to the contentiousness of the old article; that plus maybe a note advising not to make any edits to that entry with a ref to AFD?? Tabercil (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes! Please protect it. Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have OTRS access (if not, you should apply, OTRS agents with admisnhip on Commons and enwiki would certainly be useful!)? There has been a development in the OTRS tickets that means it's probably best to just walk away for a bit and let the dust settle, but I'm not saying any more in public, because OTRS emails are confidential. I would advise leaving it alone unless protection becomes necessary later on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I've thought quite a few times about standing for OTRS (especially after this pile of shite occurred) but I honestly feel I don't have the free time these days to be able to properly tackle it, as Commons takes a good chunk of my time as well as my photography work (see my Flickr feed for the results of that). I'll trust your judgment on the article protection - I've also added that List of 1992 Playmates article to my watch list so hopefully I can catch any edits that are made... Tabercil (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll just have to remain frustrated by how long it takes to get a blatant copyvio deleted from Commons when I can just nuke it myself here! Hopefully things will just die down now we have a redirect, but I'll keep an eye on it too. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me echo HJ Mitchell here. OTRS has no time commitment obligation whatsoever, and even in those months where I don't answer any tickets, I have occasionally found it useful to take a look at the history behind certain disputes. NW (Talk) 19:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You've been mentioned in a discussion

Thought I should let you know that your name had come up in this discussion [1] on Jimbo Wales' talk page. Cloveapple (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As you wish

	A Pear Tree
	Here you go, HJ... a partridge in A Pear Tree. Thanks! Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh, thanks! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

User:McCullagh1994 and User:Redman125

Hi,

When using Huggle this afternoon, I came across this edit, since you have blocked the user (User:McCullagh1994) and taged him as a sock puppeteer thought you should know in case the editor User:Redman125 is related. I did ask them to explain the edit but got this response. Over to you. Mt king^(edits) 04:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the looks pretty likely on the behaviour, and even more so based on the removal of the sock tag, so I've blocked him. Thanks for letting me know. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for Thanks

Hi HJ Mitchell,

Thanks for showing your appreciation for the article. If your not to busy would you mind taking a look at This DYK nomination of mine Template:Did you know nominations/The Longford Trust, its close to getting promoted. Not to worry if you can't. Thanks again.

Kind regards, --Ratio:Scripta · ^{[ Talk ]} 11:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I seemed to have placed this message (above) on the wrong user talk page. But anyway thank you for notifying me about the promotion of the Edward Fitzgerald (barrister) DYK promotion.

--Ratio:Scripta · ^{[ Talk ]} 11:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I didn't do much. I hate to disappoint, but it was a bot that left that notice on your talk page, but it cleverly copies my signature. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy note: username-change unblock of Rose State College

I saw that you soft-blocked Rose State College (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because of their username. They've since acknowledged the username issue and requested to change their username. I've unblocked them, so they can make this request.

As it was a soft block and username only, I didn't think I needed to consult with you before unblocking. If there's something I've overlooked in granting the request, please let me know. —C.Fred (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm perfectly happy for other admins to do what's obviously the right thing without deferring back to me. Thanks for letting me know. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	1001 days Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for that OTRS text approval template on Talk:Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica. Frankly, I didn't even know there was such a thingy! Asav (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

SomebodyCameSuddenly

Please remove talk page access.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather give them a chance to make a meaningful appeal if that's what they want to do. Talk page revocation should only be for gross misuse of the page imo, and even then I'm probably more reluctant to revoke it than most admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't you say this qualifies?Jasper Deng (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I said nobody likes JERKS!! I didn't say nobody likes you!? It's a fairly innocuous statement (and not technically untrue). It's not a personal attack in and of itself. Besides, my gut tells me that might be the last edit they ever make, and if I'm right, revoking TP access would be pointless. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it's time now (given the further abuse that has occured).Jasper Deng (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

User:PKdundee

I agree with removing the COI template; God knows he knows we are rough on COI already. But why did you remove the NPA template after he accused me and MikeW of being "corporate saboteurs"? I really thought it was over the top, but of course I'm one of the oxen being gored. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Because there really is no need to keep templating him. Aside from me, you're the first person to try to engage with him—every other message on his talk page has been a template. If you really think some value will come of restoring a(nother) template (and a 4im "if you ever even think about doing that you'll be blocked" was OTT), then do, but he's just trying to follow the rules and the template bombing must be driving him mad. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

PKDundee is on his last warning. See the thread at WP:COIN. If you have any influence over this person, please try to get through to him, because he's going off the rails with his attacks, misstatements, and repeated insertions of promotional minutia to the article through edit-warring. I told him if he continues I will block him. Right now he's making absolutely no attempt to follow our guidelines and policies. -- Atama頭 22:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Fixed the link to the user. —mc10 (t/c) 03:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I've sent him an email, and very strongly advised him to take note of your post at COIN. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying hard to be patient with the guy, but he's got a bad case of PR professional's WP:IDONTHEARYOU. I just got cranky about the ad hominem. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request from user you blocked

User:Ehsonsaeed is requesting an unblock. You blocked xyr for adding spam links, quite legitimately. Looking over the contributions, one promising thing is that they all appear to be links to a blog site, not to a corporate/advertising site, so it is possible that the user misunderstood. The user has done constructive work in the past prior to the spate of blog links. My inclination is to allow an unblock based on the user's comments, but I'm interested to hear if you trust the user's unblock request. If unblocked, I'll try to watch their contributions for any resumption of poor behavior. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, to be honest. They started out spamming, wrote an article, then when they were finished went back to spamming. However, if you want to unblock, I won't object—it's easy enough to re-block them if they start spamming again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Feedback requested

Will you look at an essay I started and critique its viability. It's not long, and the purpose is clear (I believe). Thanks. My76Strat (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I like the thrust of it—I've always intended to write something similar myself—but it would probably be better without the term that looks like you just made it up (or with an explanation that it's a made-up term, and not a commonly used one). I wouldn't bother with the first two sections (admin and "admon") either, and instead just point the reader to the official explanation of "admin". Other than that, with a little elaboration, it could be an excellent essay. I think Wikipedia has been lacking a document that explains that some people are kind of de facto admins, even if they don;t have the bit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll soon incorporate some of your suggestions. Of course you, and any other who can improve it are welcome to append. My76Strat (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

RfP

Two editors have repeatedly told me that my "attitude" ain't correct, and I so, so, so badly want to know how/why. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Three (Ironholds, Reaper and now me). You were far too combative with Ironholds, and your refusal to "get" that you're not getting rollback back at this time is getting disruptive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Move request

Could you possibly move Dakota War (1862–1865) back to Dakota War of 1862 per the discussion on the talk page and User Talk:Edison#Sioux_Uprising? It looks like Edison is offline and I have a little time to work on it, but I couldn't do the move — apparently because the current redirect has two lines in the page history. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Sorry for preempting you on AN/I there. Anyway, I think you made the right call. Good mentors are in short supply, and there are some cases even the best mentors can't do much with, I'm afraid. 28bytes (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I still wonder what mentoring would've done for him. I was about to step up and volunteer to be his mentor, until I noticed he was blocked. But I suppose you were justified in blocking him, HJ, as he was disruptive and immature. *sigh* I suppose it's all for the best... The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 20:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) No worries. It's a shame, but I really don't think mentoring would do any good. They need a few years to mature.

@Utah, mentoring can appear to work miracles (cf. User:Diego Grez), but there has to be something there to work with. It's a bit like polishing graphite—if the conditions aren't right, you're not going to get a diamond. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

ITN

The problem with being asked to not write what I wrote is that what I wrote is true. I really do want to understand. The word "some" was important too. I would dearly love to have a more mature conversation about the obvious US-centrism that started the discussion we are now discussing, but the sensitivities and preciousness of SOME editors really does get in the way.

The USA is the world's most powerful nation, with Wikipedia's largest English speaking group, so it can dominate Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean it should. More mature American editors do not feel the need to do so. However, less mature editors become very aggressive whenever a foreigner suggests that there might be a better way to behave. I believe that aggression is the real problem here.

My primary goal is to make Wikipedia a better place. 17:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Please look at this proposal and provide input or boldly improve where you see fit. We want to get this right, and your help will be greatly appreciated. Same applies to many of your page watchers as well. Thanks - My76Strat (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent block list activity

Hi HJ,

I just saw on the block log a spate of indefs for new accounts with user names like "pol pot is nicer than admins". I've noticed this has been happening every few days and weeks for months if not years.

Is this a particular blocked/banned user? I wasn't able to tell from the past abuse cases which it was if so. Cheers, Northumbrian (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I've lost track. There are so many of these nutters around, along with other nutters impersonating nutters, I just block them without a second thought. Nutters! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hahah, I can undestand how it can all blur together after awhile. This pattern is so egregious, the disparagement toward admins in every attempt, and so repetitive, I thought it might have been one well-known culprit, just my idle curiosity. Cheers then, Northumbrian (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

W.E. Film

Hi, we have users close to the article who will not let any reviews of the film be published I'm assuming because it has been panned and they are fans? Any way you could have a look please? Thanks. W.E (film)

Harry, a case of WP:PLAGIARISM, not WP:NPOV. Blatant copying of reviews word-to-word is the issue. The section is hidden while I'm working on a transcript and rephrasing. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Culprit Returns

If you check the Kaufman pages, "Zionism is Racism" is back with a new moniker. Bytwerk (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. Do let me know if they resurface. Nothing like a good old fashioned game of whack-a-mole! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Truth - Justice - Peace

Hey, HJ. I'm letting you know that this user didn't know what CHU was and seems to be just misguided. I hope you don't mind if I unblock and nudge him towards changing his username (while keeping an eye on him, of course). — Joseph Fox 22:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I have my suspicions, but I don't have any hard evidence, so we'll see what happens. Thanks for the note. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you always assume the worst intentions among people you do not know? You happen to be far off base.

I am writing a book on the subject of Mr. Kaufman and was the person who started the initial page. I find it shocking that there is a presumption on your part that there is anything nefarious. I don't care if Wikipedia's pages are accurate or misleading, but I thought the intent was to allow crowd-sourcing for improvements. I changed my user name because I agree that my political believes violate Wikipedia's naming policy. But I am not anti-Semitic. I am Jewish myself and find this particular person to have been significant from a historical perspective. Wait for my book to be released, and you might learn just how little has been written about him in the West. He caused more harm in Germany than anyone has ever revealed.

So, continue to overreact if you wish when people make contributions. You can choose to be open-minded or continue with a narrow world view of others. But I suggest that you "power" at Wikipedia has affected your senses. Just an honest observation. I will be sure to write a foreward that discusses the inane actions from many "moderators" at Wikipedia and how the mere corrections I made caused people to go out of kilter.

I will not, however, edit further pages in order that you may let your Mum know that you won a battle.

Truth - Justice - Peace (talk) 03:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Truth - Justice - Peace

Hmm, do you mean foreword?

It's great that you're going to include mention of Wikipedia in your forthcoming book. Although, you should be careful how you say so around here, since such a thing caused problems for at least one other Wikipedia contributor. It's always fascinating to learn what writers are saying about Wikipedia; the Signpost provides some coverage of this, with the latest example here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I apologise. It appears I jumped to conclusions about you based on the mess I'd just dealt with caused by disruptive usernames. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:RRN

Would you consider this potential candidate for RfA, and perhaps offer a nomination? Please consider commenting User talk:Jeff G./2011 RfA here. Thanks - My76Strat (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it fair to presume this is a thing you are not considering? My76Strat (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It's fair to say it's not something I'm going to consider at the minute. I like Jeff, and his chance of succeeding at RfA have increased dramatically in recent months, but I'm afraid my answer would still be "not just yet". But others may disagree. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 21:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that response. I'd like to clarify that I asked this of you of my own initiative out of my respect for you. If you and Jeff have any prior history, I am completely unaware. My76Strat (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yo =)

Since AN3 looks like too much trouble and on the count of you being a really cool guy, I would like to inform that this guy has made three reverts in one day on the history for Opeth. I tried and others tried reasoning with him several times but he just continued to edit war. • GunMetal Angel 05:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Update: I decided to do the AN3 report anyway, which can be found right here. He also made a personal attack in the edit summary of his 4th edit warring revert. • GunMetal Angel 10:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Optical Express

I think enough is enough with PKdundee's antics. You should put a stop to this blatant conflict of interest and wikipedia censorship. Today's contributions prove his intentions beyond all doubt. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 14:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You have reverted my deletion of promotional content with a rather rude and aggressive "HOW THE HELL IS A SIMPLE STATEMENT "overly promotional"? You could at least look at the edit before summarily reverting" I removed the statement because it appears to be merely a means to get the youtube link to the advert onto the page?Teapotgeorge^Talk 14:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Was WP:AGF deleted while I was asleep last night? Neither of you have extended the slightest assumption of good faith to PKdundee—you're both far too ready to assume that he's a spammer than that he might actually have an interest in improving the article. You both need to take a step back and start judging edits on their merit instead of reverting them just because of who made them. Now unless I'm very much mistaken, WP:NPA is a policy, and WP:AGF is a guideline. I think you could both benefit from re-reading them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have made no personal attacks and I make no assumptions about PKdundee being a spammer, but of the 14,000 articles on my watch list I haven't come across one more controlled by an employee than this one. I will step back from the article for now. All good wishesTeapotgeorge^Talk 14:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to Simple Bob at least as much as to you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't made personal attacks, I am always careful not to. However, like Teapotgeorge I haven't seen such blatant COI in a long time. I am puzzled by your ongoing support for this editor. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 16:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

~~Bob,~~ I've found George pretty easy to work with, for years; give him another shot. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Bob is agreeing with George, and it's PKdundee they both have COI concerns about. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, could you check if users Gagg me with ah spoon and DonCalo are sockpuppets. I think after seeing two separate AfDs that the two accounts are used by a single person to influence the results in an AfD. Just having a gut feeling.here and here are the comments that making me think that, almost similar in time and style. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I won't deny the two sets of comments are remarkably similar, but you'll need more than that to justify an SPI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Closing RfC

Please reopen the RfC. The hijacking of the topic by one user is no reason to close it. I (the guy who opened it) didn't make it about user issues, and specifically said so in the RfC. Please reconsider the unprecedented behavior of closing an RfC simply because you do not like it.--Cerejota (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with RfC, but it has nothing to do with ITN. User conduct issues go to noticeboards, and questions on the scope of general sanctions go to WT:AE or to ArbCom. WT:ITN is for discussing ITN. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It has everything to do with ITN - because it is focused on the application of WP:ARBPIA sanctions to WP:ITN - something that could have a significant impact to the ITN regulars and admins. In fact, Jim's answers on the WQA show that there is ignorance of these issues among ITN regulars, the RfC regardless of outcome also serves this purpose. If you do not reopen, I am inclined to repost a modified version that doesn't reference the WQA, unless you provide a compelling reason why it doesnt belong on the ITN talk page.--Cerejota (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Because arbitration enforcement and ITN are totally separate areas. ARBPIA applies to users who have been notified of it, and my understanding is that violations of it can lead to sanctions regardless of where they occur (whether at ITN or elsewhere). We have a specific noticeboard for violations of it, and another for requesting clarification. If you want to "raise awareness" of ARBPIA among ITN regulars, a post to the talk page without an RfC that re-hashes ARBPIA would do that, but I question the need.

This boils down to Wikifan getting upset at Jim for comments the former thinks fall under ARBPIA. He's welcome to determine whether uninvolved admins share his view, but that's what AE is for. Other than that, the further AE can be kept from ITN, the better in my view. The last thing ITN needs is the wikilawyering and toxicity that thrives at AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a fair point. Thank you for taking the time.--Cerejota (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

ITN

Could you please look at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#September_2 for the Turkey-Israel item? We seem to have consensus and the Israel–Turkey relations article has been updated. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm on my way. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Aviation articles

Best of luck in the coord elections. I see you're expressing a particular interest in aviation articles. There's been an uptick in aviation articles showing up in review processes, which is great, but a problem for me because they need more copyediting than some of the other articles. (This isn't a criticism of the editors involved ... both because trying to make sense of things written by government engineers is a proven source of brain decay, and because copyediting is a technical skill that has little to do with intelligence, at least on my part.) I'm going to have to start putting the brakes on some of these articles unless someone keeps up with the comments at the ACRs and FACs and gives the articles a good once-over before I look at them. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Northrop YF-23/archive1 is a current FAC that I'm almost done with, and I'll give you a list of other interesting reviews if you're interested. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

My time is pretty stretched at the minute, and I'm behind on my aim to review every Milhist biography. I'm hoping to catch up on some of those this evening, but then I might look at some of the aircraft. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyone come to mind who would be good at going over these articles before ACR and FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 19:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I was very impressed by User:Fnlayson during the Harrier ACRs. I don't know if he'd be up to a more regular role, but it might be worth asking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Ask Diannaa (talk · contribs). She's been very helpful with copyediting at both GA's I've worked on: American Airlines Flight 191 and United Airlines Flight 232. N419 BH 19:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks y'all, I'll ask both. - Dank (push to talk) 20:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Update ... with the offers of help below, looks like I don't have to ask around (and I generally prefer not to ask for favors, what goes around tends to come around!) - Dank (push to talk) 18:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I was about to ask Dank for help on this same topic - or nearly the same.

I offered to copyedit AV-8B and have been chipping away at it. This also included reading over and watching previous and current aircraft FACs in or related to the same masterplan, to get ideas on what the likely problems were. (I've copy-edited an article to FA status before, but I'm aware it never becomes simple, and that aircraft articles might have different issues to soccer articles.) It's left me with rather diminished enthusiasm, since I've come to the point where I know that prose can be got to GA standards reliably with just an investment of a certain amount of time, but, by contrast, FA can (for me) involve working away at the prose for anything up to several weeks, while liaising with the article developers about points of detail, and then a month or three later the article fails to get through FA anyway, whether because of the prose or because the nominator takes the wrong approach or there's some other deficiency that can't be resolved.

Partly that's just something one has to live with and an aspect of how the review process for FAs differs and will continue to differ from that for GAs. But it may also be an indication of wider problems, that the system is mature enough, or working well enough, that there is a growing stream of articles being improved to GA standards, but the editorial resources to deal with the next step beyond that, do not grow at the same rate. If in my slightly jaded state I focus on improving GA candidates in preference to FA candidates, and even sometimes encourage others to do the same, that doesn't really fix the problem, but only delays it until all of these GA articles get nominated for FA (which might happen gradually, but often happens all in one go).

The AV-8B copyedit is due to be reviewed by a GOCE co-ordinator (one of the changes HJ has helped encourage), but, since it's in Am-Eng, I was thinking of also asking Dank to look over it before it goes to FAC. (It's already had the benefit of some corrections from Fnlayson from my occasional lapses back into Brit-Eng). From my point of view, there's no hurry on this, as I need to attempt another complete read-through of it now that I've taken a break from it for a while, and I also need to check current state of play on my concerns over the reference formatting. Not everyone may have as relaxed a timescale as me, though :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ack, I'm so far behind on my A-class reviews, I'll get to this before it closes. Demiurge, what I need is one or a few people who will skim all the copyediting comments (including mine) at all the current A-class and FAC reviews for Aviation articles, so they can step up their game as copyeditors. If you wanna do this, great. - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Dan, two biographies down, two to go. Once I'm caught up, I might venture into aircraft. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 01:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, since you know the Hawker Siddeley Harrier article well, just dealing with Jappalang's comments from the failed FAC so we the noms can put it back up in a week if they want to would be great. Btw, our trip to England won't be in September, but we won't put it off forever. (Not relevant, other than we just decided.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  - To be honest, I put a hell of a lot of effort into those two ACRs and FAC and it was a bit of a blow to see the FAC crash and burn. I need a break from it for a while.
    - Well, you probably weren't happy with my last comment in that FAC, then. What I was trying to say was that I understand the "state of play"; delegates are going to be a little quicker to archive aviation articles than we'd like, and I was acknowledging that that's going to continue until we show greater sensitivity to various issues, in their eyes. Aviation articles completely wear me out, but I'm putting more effort into the lingo and the project expectations, and if we can just get a couple of people who are dedicated enough to keep up with comments in aviation articles and FACs and apply what they learn to successive articles, I think we'll be fine. - Dank (push to talk) 16:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
      - I don't have a problem with any of the comments, or the reviewers who made them—reviewers do their best, and at the end of the day, it's not their job to make nominators happy but to make sure only articles that meet the criteria get through. It's just a little demoralising to put months of work into something and have it fall at the last hurdle—and if I feel like that after four months of copy-editing, reviewing and FAC babysitting, I can only imagine hoe Kyeto feels after re-writing the whole thing from the ground up. FA is a big step up from anything below (even A-class, which is as close as it gets), and I don't think we provide enough support for articles that are within reach of FA but not quite there yet (which relates to Demiurge's point above, and MONGO's comments on WT:FAC).
        Do you think you and I are duplicating our efforts, since we both predominantly focus on prose? Would nominators still get enough feedback if took the aviation and biography articles (planes and people!) at Milhist and you took the rest? I want to get my teeth into Captain Cook but it'll take me most of a day to be as through as I'd like. I'm also thinking of taking on another mammoth task—Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein. Getting him to FA would make the Iranian Embassy siege look like child's play, and that took me ages! He's a fascinating (albeit enigmatic) man, though, and there's easily enough written about him to get the article to FA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
        
        Your call ... if anyone can cover copyediting for an article and would prefer that I not jump in, I'm happy not to jump in ... but if you don't mind me going behind you, it's a big help to me to read everything, so that I know who's doing what. - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
        I don't know. You do a hell of a lot—more than it would be reasonable to ask of you, imo. I'm more than happy to have you cast your eye over articles I've reviewed (I often do the same to you, but only because you normally beat me to the review!), and if you're happy to continue reviewing at the rate you do, that's fantastic. But I'd be happy to take on all the biographies and aircraft at Milhist if it would mean you had more time to devote to other areas. I honestly don't know if more thorough attention from one reviewer is better than the fragmented attentions of two—what do you think? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
        I'm sold. Do you want to take on AmEng as well? Is it okay if I point the relevant writers to this thread? I've recently done a few aviation articles, so feel free to pull me in if you want feedback. - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
        I don't mind American English (at least not as much as you mind British English!). And go ahead and point folks here. Don;t be surprised if I take you up on that, but we'll see how it goes! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  - Well, whenever you do make it across the pond, let me know and we'll go for a beer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
    - Will do. (See! I'm even learning the language.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
      - We'll have you talking like an English gentleman soon enough! ;) Do you have firm plans for a visit, or is it a "one day... maybe" kind of plan? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
        We'll make firms plans no later than the first week of October, you'll be kept in the loop. - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

totally copied editnotice

Just letting you know I totally copied your edit notice for mine :P--Cerejota (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what I kept trying to tell the police when they arrested me for counterfeiting money... ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 19:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello!

I take it The Bill didn't get on to the On This Day section on 31st August? I can't see anything indicating it did on the talk page. If not, I might nominate it for it's birthday again :)--5 albert square (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's been added by various people to quite a few different dates, and the general rule is one date per article. Which one, if any, it eventually runs on is something we can only watch and wait to find out. I think the first ever episode is nominated, so that might run (whenever it is, I've forgotten!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I may have found a sockpuppet

This guy just may be this guy whom you blocked just a few days ago, not only because their edits are fairly similar and genre troll on the same albums constantly with barely anything constructive done. But also because their usernames are similar - both are named after two different debut albums by popular metalcore bands, which both usernames inherit not only the name, but they're also displayed without spaces and with each word being capitalized. This duck game doesn't seem to be that difficult to play. • GunMetal Angel 05:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a duck to me; blocked accordingly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please unlock Jeri-Show

I have written up an article for JeriShow which is reliably sourced by secondary sources. Could you unlock Jeri-Show and move JeriShow there as Jeri-Show is the proper name. Thank you. Starship.paint (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

gonna bump this in case you missed it. Starship.paint (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for handling the OTRS end of things; I've tagged all the appropriate images here and on Commons. Best, Mackensen (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Main page

Can you consider posting the current blurb on Palmer Report. It is ready, language is neutral. No serious challenges yet. Thanks. Wikifan^{Be nice} 10:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

9/11

Just to let you know...I've been editing 9/11 related articles for over 6 years and yes, I am dismayed to report that the vast majority of editors that want to see conspiracy theories and generally anti-American propaganda on these pages are not Americans. John has a long history of promoting conspiracy theories in these articles...he tried in vain to do so on the 7 World Trade Center article..then he stepped aside, even helped me work on a FA and played nice so I'd support his Rfa...others weren't so forgiving of him and opposed...yet I was willing to give himk the benefit of the doubt...but after awhile, he sadly resumed his efforts to push for more peripheral issues and for conspiracy theories...so my disgust with him is reasonable and it angers me sgnificantly when he and others know the article still has MOS issues and whatnot, yet narry a helpful edit, only the continued critism and heckle, the kind of which has no use for making for a better article. Calling it "crap" as Malleus has done likewise is of little benefit...now their efforts appear to be not to make the article better but to instead probaby to send it to GA review...that's not helpful...its obstructionist.MONGO 20:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

How can sending an article for review by other eyes be considered "obstructionist"? On a bad day I might just have delisted the article given the IAR comment by the reviewer: I'm doing you a favour. Malleus Fatuorum 20:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow...there are no surprises here...well, I had nothing to do with the GA push...all I've worked on is the cites which I now see are still in need of standardization...nevertheless....you guys have no patience...MONGO 20:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on whether the "War on Terror" or the crackpot theories of a few nutjobs (most of whom seem to be American from what I've seen) which sadly overshadow the sheer horror of what happened that day should be included. However, from what I've seen, some of the editors who have asserted themselves there are hampering the article's development—there seems to be a general mistrust of 'outsiders' and a reluctance, especially from you, to consider that the article is not in a very good state. It needs to be drastically trimmed, split into sub-articles, and then rebuilt from the ground up, but nobody's going to be stupid enough to attempt that with the talk page climate what it is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
That sounds draconian...I think I have stated repeatedly that the article still has a ways to go...not sure how many times I must write that. The talkpage climate is hostile to those who continuously push for fringe, peripheral and even unrelated material yet make nary a substantive edit to the article page that might actually help the article improve. If all they want to do is whine that their pet ideas aren't included and yet provide NO edits to let others at least see what they want, then I can't help them.--MONGO 01:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Why would anyone want to get involved in helping improve this article when the current cohort who edit it are so defensive? In cases like this where the normal editorial process is disrupted by the behavior of a group of well-meaning people who merely want to defend the article's current state, the article quality tends to suffer. Painful though it can be, all of us who work here have to be prepared to accept changes they disagree with sometimes n the interest of article quality. In the absence of this, the article is stuck forever in a timewarp of 2006, and will remain stuck until the editors who control it relax and open it up to normal editorial processes. Here's a nice article which describes the problem. --John (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the article has changed greatly since 2006 and much more so over the last 6 months. It was a disaster 6 months ago, with excessive details only at best peripherally related to the scope and focus that the article title demands..it is about the September 11 attacks, not about why the airforce didn't muster (which they couldn't do as I explained...the timeline was too tight...al-Qaeda did too good a job since they were extremely motivated and coordinated)...nor is the article about waterboarding or kidnapping or other things...there is a place for those things but not in a treatise on the ATTACKS. I don't go to the waterboarding article, the conspiracy theory articles, architects and engineers for truth article or even the Donald Rumsfeld article and promote some POV...I work only on three 9/11 articles..this one, the 7 WTC article and Collapse of the World Trade Center. If the article is going to lose its focus by incorporating COATRACK issues, then it will never be an FA.--MONGO 02:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)