User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 83

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80 Archive 81 Archive 82 Archive 83 Archive 84 Archive 85 → Archive 90

I undid your granting of a permission

Letting you know that per discussion at WP:AN/I#I would like to report user:daniellagreen for doing paid editing with nondisclosure to wikipedia as is the current policy., I have undone your granting of the reviewer right to Carriearchdale on 9 Feb 2014. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who that is, but thanks for the courtesy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
It's a while back, but here's the log. For background on my action, see the AN/I thread - it's boomeranged. The user has recently claimed more edits system-wide than the record shows, so I've been wondering whether they used a different account name previously - I don't suppose you recall anything along those lines? Yngvadottir (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Everything I know is here. I would have checked that they seemed sane and weren't likely to break anything when I granted the permission, but I can't remember what precisely I checked at the time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Your edits to Israel location map templates

I noticed that you restored the edits of Sepsis II on a number of Israel location map templates, and then locked those templates from being edited. His edits were in direct violation of the RfC discussion at Template talk:Location map Israel where the recommended course of action was to revert the maps back to how they were before he made his edits. Please restore the maps to how they were. Thank you. --PiMaster3 talk 20:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@PiMaster3: (talk page stalker) I already asked this at User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 82#Template:Location map Israel. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) What I can't understand is why you folks want our readers to think East Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied territories are part of Israel? --RexxS (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I stated my reasoning in the RfC discussion on the template (and I object to the politically loaded term "occupied"). What matters is that there were 15 different templates which each had zoomed in maps of specific regions, and in an attempt to push a certain POV Sepsis II replaced all 15 of those templates which one generic map of Israel without being zoomed in for each region. --PiMaster3 talk 00:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
You can object all you like to the term "Occupied Territories", but when you deny a term that is so non-political and universally accepted, you simply betray an extreme POV that indicates you're unsuitable to be editing Wikipedia. To cut out all the bullshit, what actually matters is that you've been fighting hammer-and-tongs to keep a series of maps that are coloured in such a way that many readers will be unable to distinguish the occupied territories from Israel proper. You should be ashamed of yourself. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
If you look at the original maps, you'll see that the disputed territories are colored in a different shade of beige and are clearly distinguishable from the rest of Israel. The term "occupied territories" to refer to that region is by no means universally accepted. Considering your extreme emotional reaction just because someone who holds by a different view from you, maybe you are the one who should reevaluate your editing practices on Wikipedia. --PiMaster3 talk 23:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't talk bollocks. I've looked at the maps and I can't tell the hues apart without considerable effort. A "different shade of beige" indeed - what a crock! Anybody can see that they are anything but "clearly distinguishable" and the only reason for your desperation to keep them is to create the illusion that the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are part of the state of Israel. We don't need your POV-pushing on this encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
You must be new to the world of Israel-Palestine on wikipedia, you're not allowed to call them on bollocks, you must AGF or they will take you to WP:ARE to get you blocked like they just did to me. Sepsis II (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, I have never edited in the topic, and frankly don't care. But I do a lot of work on accessibility and I know when somebody is trying to yank my chain about colours - the reason is blatantly obvious to any uninvolved observer like me. --RexxS (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The crucial piece of information you omitted, PiMaster3, was that I reverted the edits of sockpuppet, who was quite clearly making the edits to stir up trouble. If I were in a more cynical mood, I might consider sanctions against you for misrepresenting facts, but I'll assume that you weren't just trying to twist things so it looked like I'd acted improperly. Now, a finding "no consensus" is not a reason to revert anything. What I suggested to Jackmcbarn was that he wait a reasonable amount of time for everyone to recover and then a start a new discussion. I make the same suggestion to you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I didn't realize that you had reverted a sock puppet edit until Jackmcbarn responded to this and linked to the the previous discussion on your talk page. I was not trying to misrepresent facts and I apologize if I came off that way. --PiMaster3 talk 11:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Please check these sorts of things, or at least ask questions in a less accusatory tone, in future—I'm not an unreasonable person, so if I've done something that confuses you, I'm usually happy to discuss it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

angie goff

Hello HJ I am returning to wiki after some time away. I want to again attempt to edit Angie Goff. How do I get the deleted edits restored so I may work on the informaion I added ? Thanks. 65.205.13.26 (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

Unnova

Hello. I recently watched an episode of Through the Wormhole and they described an "Unnova". I searched for the article on Wikipedia to read more, but I found that there was no such article. I had a look for some references and I found this one. There is also a page on the German Wikipedia with a few references.

I was just about to create the article here on the English Wikipedia when I saw that you previously deleted it. (I am not able to view the deleted content.) Do you believe that the subject is not notable? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

That was an expired PROD from 2010. If you think it's notable, you're more than welcome to create an article. Or I'll happily undelete it or email you the content if you prefer. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that the topic is notable. Please un-delete the article and I'll see if I can salvage some of the old content. Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
All yours. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Self-request block

I would like to be request to be blocked for 1 month. I have been assuming bad faith and edit warring. Thanks! 68.119.73.36 (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The Wee Fellas

Hi Harry, I've been asked by Davyrobertson (you remember him from Barclays) if he could have the contents of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wee_Fellas&action=edit&redlink=1 refunded for him into User:Davyrobertson/The Wee Fellas. It was deleted as 'notability not asserted' but I can obviously help him when I've seen the article. Any chance you could oblige him, please? --RexxS (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I'll make that my last act before bed! Personally I'm not sure that meets CSD A7 (but I usually avoid CSD); whether it'd survive an AfD as it is is another matter. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for peer review

Hii HJ Mitchell. I am a new editor on Wikipedia and i request you to review the Lucknow article. Please note that i am not the admin or creator of the article but i have restructured the article according to the wikipedia guidelines. So keeping it short and simple, i am looking for your suggestions on making it a high quality (GA or FA worthy) article. link for PR:-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Lucknow/archive4 Thanks, Wikiboy2364 (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

The Banner

Hi, seeing your previous dealings with User:The Banner, I wonder if you might like to bring us the benefit of that experience at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Persistently_mass-nominating_templates_for_deletion_during_discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

So, you really have the idea that you can not win the discussion by arguments, Steelpillow? You are already trying to circumvent the running RfC? The Banner talk 20:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Just to emphasise: this is nothing to do with the RfC. It is about The Banner's disruptive behaviour and openly breaking restrictions on behaviour, imposed by HJ Mitchell, that were unconditionally accepted at the time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and the way you present it here is in an uncivil way to silence opposition while the discussion is running and not running your way. The Banner talk 20:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Been a long while

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

Airplaneman ✈ 10:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

Attack on Titan

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Christine Jones (police officer)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

Template:Lang-sr-Latn

You were the last person to change protection settings. As of now, there are less than 100 transclusions. Either lower to semi-protection or unprotect it? --George Ho (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: July 2014



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 21:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for RFA nomination and/ or assistance

Hello, I would like assistance in completing the RFA process. I recently attempted it, but was unable to properly execute the proper procedure due to confusion about how to go about the RFA process. I would appreciate assistance, and would b delighted if you were to nominate me. If you decide you don't feel that I am ready for adminship, I still appreciate your consideration and any assistance in explaining the process. SecretName101 (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Cat photos are cool and very relaxing after Wikimania, hope you're keeping well :)

NoPolyMath (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2014

Main Page Sections

I remember for the Free Culture hackathon you produced a page for me that had information on how the main page sections work. I'm trying to find this but I can't, do you remember where you made it? Thank you! EdSaperia (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ed, it's at User:HJ Mitchell/Main Page. The descriptions of the sections etc are at the bottom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Ping, in case you're not watching. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! EdSaperia (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

A cupcake for you!

Thank you so much for giving me reviewer!! You wont be disappointed Bobherry talk 19:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hi. I'm coming to you because you have kindly assisted me in the past. I just received a spam email from an alleged Wikipedia user, but when I look up the alleged user name, it doesn't come up. Not exactly sure how to proceed, but it's clear that sending spam or an email that isn't Wikipedia related under the guise of a Wikipedia email is against policy. Would you like me to provide the information on the email received here or in an email? Or is there another administrator I should go to? Thanks, -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If you forward the email to me (hmitchell at ymail dot com), I'll let you know if there's anything that can be done. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

DyK notices

Hi, I was wondering why the tool gives me credit for 19 different DYK articles, while according to my count, I have been credited with nine more articles see User:MisterBee1966#DYK articles. Thanks for checking MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi! The tool appears to be buggy—it doesn't credit me with any DYKs, but I have 33. I wouldn't worry about it and just go by your own count. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sharabha

Thanks for taking action on this article. I had reverted the edit originally with Stiki a bit too quickly so self-reverted my change. I was going to research it more carefully, but your protection on that article is a great thing. Thanks again. Vertium When all is said and done 23:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of HMS Richmond helicopter crash for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article HMS Richmond helicopter crash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Richmond helicopter crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Petebutt (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Richmond helicopter crash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dorchester. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thank you very much for creating and defending the HMS Richmond helicopter crash article at Afd.

I love to read about trailblazing women, and the first female Royal Navy pilot killed certainly is one.

Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Sydney. I agree that articles on female trailblazers are interesting, although this one is rather poignant. Hopefully I'll find a slightly happier subject to write about next. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Baking, perhaps? You have two cupcakes on your talk page at the same time! Not sure if this is unusual! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I feed them to the archiving bot, but it prefers them to be of a certain vintage! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Mark Carne

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up to your AE comment

Do you have any further opinion to offer at WP:AE#WarKosign? Your last comment was September 2. I am planning to close this as no action but would hesitate if there is a net majority for a topic ban. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ed, thanks for the note. I'd missed your most recent comment at AE or I would have followed up earlier. It's nigh 02:30 here; can you keep it on ice until I can look again at a more sensible hour? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I Need Some Admin Thoughts

Hello HJ Mitchell. My school's Wikipedia page was put under Admin protection today because I was allegedly vandalizing the page. I am a student that attends that specific school (Archbishop Mitty High School) and I was trying to put up relevant, factual information about the school. John from Idegon, the person who asked for the page to be Admin protected, kept deleting the information I was putting up saying that it was irrelevant, not unique and should not be on Wikipedia. I, however, feel that the information is important and relevant to the school. If you would take a couple minutes of your time to look at the school page and see if it is following Wikipedia Criteria I would really appreciate it. Also, I a new editor. I am also not trying to vandalize, I am just trying to keep the information on my school up to date. Thanks! (Workerbe (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC))

@Workerbe, I protected the page because two editors going back and forth doesn't solve anything and only causes disruption. The protection is not a judgement of either party. You need to go to the talk page (Talk:Archbishop Mitty High School) and make the case for your edits there and engage in discussion with other editors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Ashby

Thanks for your courteous reply. It makes sense. I was actually going to write a whole article about him, one that has a lot more than just the Cavalese incident. Would that work? Maybe I will write the article and show it to you before publishing it? Or since Ashby's "claim to fame" was actually pretty much the Cavalese incident, it would be better to not to write an article about him, at all. What do you think? Thanks again for your help in this matter, --Mondschein English (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mondschein English, if he's known for something other than the one incident, it might be worth creating an article, but if he's only known for the one event, the coverage is usually best left to the article on the event—the guiding policy is at WP:BLP1E. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Inactioned AIV report

Out of interest, what does it mean when you remove an AIV report as "inactioned"? That there's some unspoken reason why it would never be processed, that anything that hangs around long enough to become stale is automatically regarded as an inappropriate report irrespective of content, or just "reply hazy, try again"? --McGeddon (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

AIV is intended as a very lightweight system for reporting active vandals. A valid report will normally be actioned within a few minutes and removed by a bot. Anything that takes more than a few seconds to evaluate belongs at a different board, so anything more than an hour or two old is routinely considered stale and removed when AIV is quiet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

Recent block

User:Celebs-updates1234 seems to have re-incarnated as User:Undefeated-tellitasitis. Can't remember what to do with suspected socks, but thought you might like to be aware. DuncanHill (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. For obvious vandals, just report them to AIV an I'll indef them. If they're not vandals, [WP:SPI]] is the place to go, or if it's obvious, you can ping me directly. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

PC time on pages expiring on or before 2014 September 15

Climate and Pervez Musharraf? --George Ho (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching those. They both seem to be doing quite well under PC, so I've made both indefinite. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation talk pages

Can you swap the Talk page contents/histories at Wikipedia talk:Unnecessary disambiguation and User talk:Born2cycle/Unnecessary disambiguation? They appear to be at mismatched pages. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Wow, that made a mess of the logs! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments about 1RR

Hi. Is the following a 1RR violation: one and two? He much likely did it some days ago too (see this and this) but at last said "I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm not going to feed the troll by engaging with you any further". --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The second is definitely. The first might be, but I can't see what it was reverting—if it was content that was actively being disputed or had been added very recently, it would definitely be a revert, but if it had been there for ages, it wouldn't be hard to argue that it was just routine editing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
They were added maybe six weeks ago. Your definition is surely right so it's probably nothing here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Request

Hi HJ, hope you're well! Could you possibly take care of the speedy delete tag I placed on Matt Turner (Neighbours) last night/early this morning, please? - JuneGloom Talk 16:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey June, always nice to hear from you! I took care of the move for you as well—it's only an extra couple of clicks. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! While I'm here, have you ever paid a visit to MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist? I put in a request on 17 August‎ and I was just trying to gauge how long the process would take (I have noticed there is a backlog too). - JuneGloom Talk 17:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid spam whitelisting is one of those things I leave to people who know what they're doing. You could try pinging the admin who responded at first, or another admin who's edited the page recently... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Insufficient response no consensus

I find the insufficient response no consensus rather than a normal no consensus at Talk:treats! odd. In a case where the survey is 3–2, but including discussants who didn't formalize their stance in the survey section (Masem, 0x0077BE and Martijn Hoekstra) the result was 4–4 in terms of count. In terms of well hashed out discussion there was plenty. Although the difference between insufficient response and no consensus is not important can you tell me how discussants who didn't formalize their stance counted in your insufficient responses? 8 respondents is about as many as I have ever seen on a debate about including an image. Do you often see more than 8 respondents in a debate about an image. I can't imagine it is normal to describe 8 respondents as insufficient response.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I close a lot of RfCs; granted, not usually on content issues, but I'd normally expect to see more than eight people participating, and more than five !votes for there to be sufficient participation for the RfC result to be considered legitimate, bearing in mind that people often use "we had an RfC about this" to shut down later discussion of the issue, and also bearing in mind that the questions should probably have been raised at NFCR rather than an RfC. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I have been in a lot of debates about images and I don't think I have ever seen 8 people participate in a single discussion about an image (that was not related to the Obamas or WP:FPC) before. Honestly, my only concern is that the way it closed passers by while it is on the main page probably feel that there is free license to do whatever they want. I expect it will probably go to WP:NFCR, but I was hoping that there would be a way to discourage people from fighting about this issue while it is on the main page. I was hoping to be able to say don't make changes because a lot of people have considered this and not been able to come to a consensus to remove it. I am sort of worried that prurient people will try to remove this while it is on the main page now. Any thoughts on how to handle possible debate while it is on the main page?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
It's DYK, not TFA, so I'd say it's unlikely you'll get any bother, and if you do you can point people to the RfC (to show them that some thought has gone into it) or tell them to take it to NFCR. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
O.K., if people try to remove it, I will attempt to revert and encourage them to take it to NFCR. I hope not to get WP:3Red.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hi, you just blocked a random anon. I wanted to know if you did it because of my report about him. If so, I'm adding it to my tally of people I've helped block.Fungal vexation (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes it was because of your report. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

problem

hello mitchell, i am [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell&diff=623576078&oldid=623575948this one]. I was saying that even if i click on "edit" i can not change this ifobox: 

• Ethnicity[1]

35.2% White British


2.3% White Irish

0% White Gypsy or Irish Traveller

24.1% Other White

0.9% White & Black Caribbean

0.9% White & Black African

1.6% White & Asian

1.8% Other Mixed

3.3% Indian

1.1% Pakistani


2.9% Bangladeshi

2.7% Chinese

4.6% Other Asian

4.2% Black African

2% Black Caribbean

1.3% Other Black

7.2% Arab

3.9% Other

I have also some reliable sources , but how can I edit it? Thanks 109.145.204.149 (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


HJ Mitchell can you answer please?

I'm not sure what the problem is so I can only guess. Can you see an "edit source" button anywhere? If so, clicking that should open a window where you can edit the wikitext, including the infobox code. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell i can not find. For example "35.2% White British" how can i change to "35.1% White British". Can you change on my behalf? so i can understand thanks.

You have written "If you have a question, ask me. If I know the answer, I'll tell you; if I don't, I'll find out (or one of my talk-page stalkers might know!), then we'll both have learned something!" SO I THOUGHT THAT YOU REALLY CAN HELP ME, BUT YOU ARE NOT ANSWERING ME. WHY? DID NOT YOU UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION? IF SO, DO NOT WORRY, YOU CAN TELL ME, I WILL NOT MIND.

I understand the question, but I'm not sure what the problem is that you're having. Without being bale to look at your screen, the only thing I can suggest is to got to the talk page and ask for somebody there to make the edit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

So now what can i do? Please help me. I already explainde you what is my problem. i want change the population, do you unertsnad?

My suggestion is to go to Talk:City of Westminster and state that the infobox needs to be changed (and what you want it changed to) and provide your sources. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A very tactful block & How to lessen risk/harm

I want to commend you for your wisdom and tact in the way you blocked User:MeropeRiddle. It needed to be done. Hopefully s/he will drop the stick and get back to something more constructive. These editors who constantly play around the edges of burning issues and constantly touch the limits of policy are playing with fire. It's not good.

I also see that you hatted the discussion on Jimbo's talk page. Note that I haven't followed this matter closely, and I haven't even read that thread...yet, because I want to share some of my thoughts with you without any influence from such discussions. My thoughts have to do with the concept of "risk/degree of harm" and how notability/publicity is a big factor.

I leave open as a legitimate possibility that, to cause less harm, we sometimes may need to (temporarily) ignore RS and suppress the information here. We are not obligated to immediately use any or all RS which exist, only to use them when we finally do write about a subject. If we choose to temporarily ignore a subject, then we can keep the RS on our own PCs at home. The issue is that most RS related to current events are of a temporary, less notable, nature. They are newspaper and magazine articles. Print media are already gone tomorrow, but on the internet they may remain visible for a short while, and then are archived, often behind a paywall, so many of them do disappear, but not all of them. Those forms of RS coverage have limited notability and thus a limited potential for causing harm.

If we accept that Wikipedia likely has the largest degree of notability on the internet, and that by enshrining these otherwise temporary RS into very notable and high profile articles here, we are greatly increasing the degree of risk/harm, then we are justified in temporarily suppressing coverage of a story which can increase the risk of great harm to individuals.

Wikipedia magnifies and amplifies the influence of RS, and we share the responsibility for consequences. Our articles can increase the likelihood of individuals being used as hostages, or being moved to the front of the line of hostages to next be executed. Their notability was greatly increased by Wikipedia, and we actually facilitated and hastened their demise! It's a rather sobering thought, and should cause us to take our job seriously. We must consider BLP issues and potential for harm each time we are dealing with such matters.

Is there any way we can get these principles encoded into policy? I can't comment on the matter at Jimbo's talk page, especially in the current context, but we need to discuss the principle and make it clear in policy. Where should I share these thoughts? What do you think? -- Brangifer (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not something I take any pleasure from. I recommend against continuing these discussion for the time being. If discussion or codification of practice is necessary, I think it would be best done when there is more water under the bridge and after everybody has calmed down. Decisions made in the heat of the moment or as knee-jerk reaction to an incident are rarely the best. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked school IP using their talk page as a playground

Hello. You blocked 62.253.232.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (Aylesbury Grammar School) for a year a while ago, for repeated vandalism, but they're using the talk page as a playground, including abusing the "help me"-template. So maybe you could take a look at it to see if they deserve to lose their editing privilege on their own talk page too? Thomas.W talk 11:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I've revoked their talk page access. Thanks for letting me know. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Reply

On Merope Riddle's page you posted:

Kosh, please get your facts straight (or at least read what I wrote above) before launching into a diatribe like that. I had nothing to do with oversighting of the article, and this block is simply about Merope's refusal to let the issue die by continuing to spread it across across multiple noticeboards and talk page, which prevents people from getting on with building the encyclopaedia—which is the only reason this project exists. Also, this isn't a vote; your bolded "bad block" isn't going to win you votes at your RfA. The ball is in Merope's court; only they can decide whether they want to move on and get back to building the encyclopaedia or whether they'd rather remain blocked, but there is no third option—continuing to raise the issue at any and every opportunity is not an option.


I wasn't actually launching into a diatribe, I was giving my opinion, and yes, I know he was blocked for not dropping the stick. I also know he didn't drop the stick was because every time he tried to discuss, the name of the individual he was trying to discuss kept getting rev del'd. You can't very well discuss a problem about an individual without at least using their name. Or put another way, if he was posting " { Some famous person } did { illegal or otherwise crazy things } " with no reference at all , and it got removed, ok, no problem, that violates BLP and he's on his own, BLP can't be violated anywhere, for any reason. The point here was that only the name was being rev del'd, which makes any discussion moot. Rev Del can be used if there was a blatant copyright violation, material that was grossly insulting or degrading, if it was disruptive, if the information was valid under a deletion policy, or if the information was was considered oversightable information The person's name (just so you know, I actually don't know who that person is ) could in no way qualify for any of those things. Yet, it kept getting rev del'd when he would try to discuss it. Under those conditions I could easily see why he'd feel like he was being unfairly treated. And, locking his page was not a great idea either, it just add fuel to the fire. All in all, this looks wrong. (Please understand, because I don't know who the person is, I won't say "is wrong" - I will only say it looks wrong ).

Yes, I read the reason given for the person's name removal (either they or their family requested it ), and historically, we've never removed a person's name for that reason, nor have we ever rev del'd it for that reason. Like I said, it looks wrong and the block and subsequent locking down of his page also looks wrong. I would ask that you reconsider both. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 19:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's a more articulate expression of your opinion than you posted on Merope's talk page, but I still think you're barking up the wrong tree. Arguing over the merits of the decision to oversight the edits (and note that thy were oversighted, not just RevDel'd, and different criteria apply to oversight actions—note also, for example, that revision deletions by administrators are publicly logged, cf. my deletion log) is futile at this point. We're here to build an encyclopaedia, not to endlessly argue over the rights and wrongs of past decisions, and Merope's continual postings on noticeboards and talk pages all over the wiki have long past the point at which they've become disruptive. As for the protection, I think it will have precisely the opposite effect—it will prevent passers-by from using the page as a forum and thus exacerbating the situation. When it expires in a couple of days, Merope can decide whether they want to get back to building the encyclopaedia. If they do, I'll unblock them without a second thought. In fact, I hoped they'd be unblocked by now, and I think they might have been had the discussion not been derailed by third parties' comments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can you look at this ? An ip vandal (185.34...) deleted the sourced content and added his POV. 149.140.83.29 (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I've left them a note about original research. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Impersonator

Thank you, HJ, for taking action against that impersonator! It's much appreciated, regards, Diego Grez (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've no time for impostors—I know what it's like to be impersonated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:AIV removal

Why did you remove User:24.5.245.119 from the list without blocking? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Because the report was still sitting there two hour after it was made, and the IP hadn't been blocked in that time they weren't going to be. Actionable AIV reports are usually dealt with in the space of a few minutes at most (and often within seconds), so reports older than an hour or so are routinely removed at a quiet moment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. You cannot usually remove stuff for purely procedural reasons in any case (per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY at least), and you definitely can't go around assuming procedural outcomes. What if every other administrator happened to be busy during those hours? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Five admins (in order: Diannaa, me, Favonian, Chillum, and Ixfd64) actioned reports or edited the page in the two hours and nineteen minutes between your report and my removal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
So? What if they all happened to miss that report, or just decide to deal with it later (per WP:NOTREQUIRED at least)? Do you realize that, having elected to let this vandal continue to run rampant, you are now partially responsible for said vandal's future edits until an actual block? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I reviewed the report and decided not to action not long after you made it. In those two hours and nineteen minutes, it will most likely have been seen by dozens of admins (and certainly the five of us who actioned other reports in that time). I reviewed it again before removing it and again couldn't see grounds for a block. I reviewed it a third time when you posted here and it still doesn't look like obvious vandalism or spamming to me. The only information you provided in your report was Twinkle's standard "vandalism after final warning", so I'm at a loss as to what the problem is, and you seem more interested in berating me than in explaining the problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Also 96.243.56.50 (talk · contribs), where you ignored his continuing vandalism. Note that there was continuing disruptive activity on his part, and additional information was added to the block request after the “declined” notice. Useddenim (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not vandalism. Misguided? Possibly. Helpful? Perhaps not. a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia? emphasis in original I don't think so. May I suggest talking to them politely? And if they carry on after a polite, non-templated explanation of the problem, report them to ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Archive_83&oldid=1178737851"