User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 58

This is an archive of past discussions about User:HJ Mitchell. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

→

Archive 65

Hi,

Can you have a look at Marisol Deluna, it, I believe has been the subject of a number of issues, including COI, Socking and SPA editing. I think it could do with a administrator to take a look and advise on the way forward.

Thanks

Mtking ^(edits) 21:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Fastily's taken care of it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello there,

I have unintentionally broken the 3RR, and quite badly I think. I didn't know the rule. I realise that is not an excuse, especially since I joined Wikipedia in 2006, but it's true. I thought the rule was that you couldn't revert the same editor's submissions three times in 24 hours. There were more than three reversions on the London riots page today which seemed mischievous that I reverted. I don't know how many times I reverted.

I tried to revert my last reversion, after it was pointed out to me that I'd reverted three times, but it was too late. I'm just wondering whether there's anything I can do to avoid being banned forever or a very long time. Thanks for any advice. Rubywine . talk 23:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Don't worry about it, Rubywine. Even if you were blocked, it would only be for 24 hours. And since you don't seem to have reverted again after someone pointed out the rule, no one is going to block you anyway. Also, I haven't looked at what you were reverting; if it was vandalism or a BLP violation, those don't count as reverts. Anyway, even assuming the worst, you're not going to get blocked for anything if you don't revert anymore. Around here, not knowing the rule is actually a fairly good excuse, as long as you don't make a habit of it :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Floquenbeam, it's really nice of you to let me know that. Cheers! :) Rubywine . talk 00:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• You're welcome. I'm no HJ, but I'm no slouch either. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ha, thanks for your help, Floq! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

About a certain user you blocked for soapboxing recently at ITN... I suspect this might cause more unnecessary drama, but doesn't said user's userpage read like soapboxing of stuff that hasn't gone his way on Wikipedia over the years? What do you suggest? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but removing it would do more harm than good. Unless they change their behaviour pretty soon, they'll be indef'd, anyway. Going back into the same dispute that just got you blocked is not a good idea. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Sir! I noticed that you removed the page Gökhan Töre recently due to several reasons, one being that his status as a senior professional footballer had yet to be determined. However since that time he has made two 90 minute appearances for Hamburger SV both in the Bundesliga and the German Cup and tonight made his first senior cap for the Turkey national football team. I would be delighted if you could unblock editing of his page, or allow me to create the page, as I have a wealth of info/sources that I would like to make available. Thanks for your time. (Could you respond to my page? Cheers) Bouazizi (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I actually deleted in July 2010, so not so recently. There are several problems here—there was consensus in a discussion that his person was not notable and the article was deleted. Since then, somebody has re-created the article a dozen times at two different titles, which is why it's now protected so that nobody can re-create it again. In order to re-create it, you will need to go here, where you will have to convince participants that this person meets Wikipedia's notability requirement for sportspeople. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Harry. I saw you were active - could you please userfy this for me, in regard to assisting me presenting rfarb evidence, if you are involved in any way please say and I will ask another admin - thanks Off2riorob (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you much. Off2riorob (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Let me know if/when you need it gone again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Harry -it turned out to not be relevant - excuse me for just template-ing it and not getting back to you, sorry - Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologise. I just made sure the history got back t where it was supposed to be (to save one very confused admin if it ever has to be undeleted!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As I illustrated on Talk:Luke Evans (actor), the consensus seems to be that the information should be included. Off2riorob is the lone editor still arguing against inclusion at this point. Can you please remove your protection of the article page, due to this consensus for inclusion? Silverseren^C 19:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, sorry again for requesting all these moves... but could you move Come On Over Tour to Come on Over Tour? Thank you :) -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 20:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries, done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Michael Phelps Foundation. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. .

Also, I'm curious as to why you deleted the redirect as an A6? It seemed like a reasonable search term to me. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there a requirement that the DRV nominator try to resolve their differences with the admin first? Anyway, I deleted it to allow a move of an AfC submission, per a request at RfUP (the redirect was protected). That's the extent of my involvement, and you'd have to ask Chzz (talk · contribs) about the progress of the AfC. I assumed he would just move it to mainspace once the redirect way out of the way, but perhaps he didn't notice... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

~HJ; I see misunderstanding here, and inadvertent but well-intentioned actions, on both our our parts; I tagged it for unprot, seeing a 'valid' AFC (ie, one I could accept if I worked on it a bit), and trying to help it progress - which might've been presumptive. You deleted it, instead of unprot, trying to be helpful to me as you knew I couldn't move over it. a) I prob shouldn't have requested unprot *until* said AFC was ready; b) you prob shouldn't have deleted the redir, because I only asked for unprot. But, I think we both had good intents. If I'd noticed the prot had been removed, and had fixed it up and accepted it...well, that's what should've happened. I try and keep notes to 'check back', but sometimes I fail. Meh :-)  Chzz  ►  22:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I probably should have checked that you actually intended to move it to mainspace! Facepalm! Are you able to move the AfC to mainspace, or should I restore the placeholder redirect? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi HJ, I'm posting this message because I've got an article at MILHIST ACR. I saw that you have reviewed Hawker Siddeley Harrier a few months ago during its ACR, so I thought perhaps you would like to do the same for McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II. I'll do you a favour in return if you give it some comments. Cheers! Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't normally review aircraft articles, but the Harrier is a fantastic aircraft, so I'll have a look at it when I can. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm looking forward to it. :D Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 22:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Nalit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks like one of these guys, and has not edited for any purpose other than to attack GB Fan. I've reverted their 4th–6th edits; I'll leave it to you (or stalkers) as to whether a WP:DUCK block is in order. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller got 'em. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you take a look at PNC (Sam Hansen) and see if you agree that it would be better restored to its original title of PNC (rapper)? it was moved tothe current title by Nickoso (talk · contribs), who seems to have a thing for renaming pages for no apparent reason. The older name seems more in keeping with conventional dab practice, and doesn't require as much prior knowledge on the part of the reader in order to be found. Thanks. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What a mess. I've reverted that and a couple of other moves, and blocked the editor because their talk page is littered with people asking him not to do that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably for the best. You probably saw that I had reversed a few myself; a couple seemed to be almost justifiable (though not necessary) and I didn't try, but it's like there needed to be an ability to add a user to a watch list just to keep track of what might happen next. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Selenagomezluver24 *Quack Quack* of Special:Contributions/Iluvrihanna24. Tag and block please and thanks :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh look, another one! Blocked. Not sure there's much point in tagging them, but you;re welcome to if you think it's worth it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Makes it easier to keep track of the goof (Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Iluvrihanna24) Thanks again. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Wayne's ready for his Huggle rights to be returned. I'm planning on keeping an eye on him for the first few hundred reverts, just to make sure he doesn't abuse it. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Reaper Eternal has restored Wayne's Huggle rights. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't know you were involved in this. :P I thought Utahraptor was. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This may be unconventional, but User:Crisco 1492 has expressed an interest at becoming an admin on his user page. He does a lot of work with Did You Know and I think the admin bit would help him contribute to the project even more. I am not positive about his contributions to speedy deletion, but he has a huge list of contributions to AFD. He also seems to have a good knowledge of image copyright rules. Here is his edit counter page. He has a nice list of pages created as well. Perhaps you could take a longer look at the editors contributions (I haven't gone very in depth into the content of his contributions) and possibly do a nomination. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not actively looking for a nominee, but don't mind finding one. Though I have to say, this is the first time somebody's asked me to nominate a third party. I think there's a big difference between displaying a userbox that expresses a vague wish to become an admin and actually wanting to put yourself through hell week, so it's probably best to wait for Crisco to approach me or someone else on his own initiative. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I am looking for a nominator, although I'd like the current DYK fiasco to die down a bit. Thanks Ryan (and HJ)! Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I was about to say something similar. If I were you, I'd give it a few months. Basing an RfA nomination on DYK work in the current climate is not a good idea. It might also be an idea to broaden your experience a little—familiarise yourself with some of the other admin areas (there's no end of jobs to do or messes to mop up, but the overwhelming majority don't get recognised on the Main Page!), perhaps bring an article up to GA. Those are the types of things people like to see at RfA, but more importantly they can be good preparation for admin work, and there's no harm in broadening one's horizons anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look into doing a bit more with copyright; MRG could be a big help there. I've done quite a bit of work with AFD as well, but DYK's been keeping me busy right now. I'll try and bring something to GA status, but would FL be okay too? Thanks for the input! Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not contesting your decision, I have the same hopes, but just noting that my nomination wasn't based on the last few reverts, but also on the fact that the same word had been warred over slightly earlier (29-30 July). Anyway, they appear to have stopped for now, so thank you. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'll intervene if things deteriorate again (or you can go back to RfPP if I'm not around). I was reluctant to protect it because, realistically, "bold, revert, revert, revert, then discuss" is quite common, and then people usually come to their senses after they've made their displeasure clear (doesn't always work but 7 times out of ten the edit war dies out quickly enough). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

Hello HJ, there are two things which I would like to raise with administrators, but I don't know how or where to do that.

This is the background. Template:The Marcoses, a navbox used on Ferdinand Marcos, was proposed for deletion or radical reduction with repeated assurances that linking in the article is present and sufficient, and that links to be removed were marginally relevant. This was totally untrue. A lot of highly relevant articles about Marcos's political opponents and collaborators might easily have been orphaned from Ferdinand Marcos, and nobody would have known. (I have since posted on the relevant talk pages and Wikiproject pages so that this won't happen, or can be rectified.) So these are the problems I want to raise:

• This, that and the other seems to be engaged on a mission to delete what he deems to be redundant templates and articles. Sometimes, he uses speedy delete. This example shows that he can be reckless and irresponsible. I want to request that his history of article and template deletion is independently reviewed.

• I have a problem with the TfD process itself. TfDs often strike me as poorly motivated and potentially harmful. Nobody replying to a TfD discussion is required to look at the relevant articles, and it's obvious that many people don't. There's nothing to ensure that linking in the article text is sufficient. Surely it would be better for a TfD proposal to start off with notices on all the relevant article and Wikiproject talk pages, to engage editors who grasp the context. Yes I know there's a miniature notice displayed on the actual navbox but it looks designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. You could edit an article all day long and never notice a navbox especially if it's inside an outer shell.

I hope that I am making sense to you. I'm trying to be concise but perhaps I haven't explained it properly. And no doubt there'll be aspects to all this that I have no visibility on. If you understand my concerns and think they have merit, what should I do to take them forward? Rubywine . talk 20:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid TfD isn't my area. The only thing I can suggest is to post your concerns at WT:TFD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Rubywine . talk 21:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

--5 albert square (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey HJ!

Can you please look at this users contributions please? Just looking for a second opinion.

I'm wondering if you would class that as him spamming Wikipedia? I had to revert quite a few edits of this editor yesterday. If you look, what he's doing is actually adding references to the references section, but because he's just 'dumping' them there, they're not actually referencing anything in the article. The edits I reverted yesterday were all providing direct links to the specifications of particular phones all on one website. I reverted them because all the phones had the official manufacturers page on their Wiki page anyway so if people were really wanting to know the specifications they could click on that link and find it from there. Was worried that by the references having a direct link, it could look like Wiki were trying to promote the phone.

Today, in the case of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1's page, he dumped a reference in the page regarding the Apple lawsuit but again it didn't reference anything and it was from the same website he got all the specification links from yesterday! Now I've had a chance to look closer into the editors contributions I'm starting to wonder if that would class as spam.

Could you look please and give a second opinion?--5 albert square (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It was really not a smart choice to protect the page that much. You should've put a block that prevents unregistered users to edit. Please lower the protection system on the page. SimpsonsMan1234 (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If you expect me to change my mind, you'll have to at least give me a reason to. Simply stating I should have done something different isn't a reason. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Schmidt's Primer (shortcut WP:MQSP) Whatcha think before I go live? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I have chance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I'm going to unsalt this page per request on my talk page. Seems the young lad has made a top-level international appearance for Turkey, and a couple appearances in the Bundisliga, so the 2009 AFD is no longer applicable. Courcelles 09:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No objections here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Four additions of original test editing synthesis. Ive hit 3rr and he needs a block, i issued a final synth warning and continues to add without any attempt for contact. Can you revert and possible block? Thanks. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Harry, could you please take a look at this article? I'm trying to get it promoted to FA status, and would like as much feedback as possible. Thanks, The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 20:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but not today. I'm feeling more than a bit under the weather and not up to anything challenging at the minute.HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright then. Let me know when you look at it. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 20:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Just making sure the bot doesn't archive this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Just coming to tattle on this guy for abusing his rollback feature on me. Thanks for all your work. =) • GunMetal Angel 11:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I left a note. I'm assuming it was a one-off or a momentary lapse or something. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

why dont you block the users for toastin bin ladens death? lord forbid you dont liek things being said. and where was the discussion and defense before your dictatorial whims to block??!!Lihaas (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You rightly blocked him 10 days, based on a whack of discussions. Apparently he enjoyed it so much, he's here asking for it again ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yup, he's back to trolling. [1] Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• He's trolling me as well and deliberately continuing to soapbox.[2] Swarm ^{u | t} 20:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Well he stopped a couple of hours ago and it's the first time he's been on WP since the block, so it looks like he's just letting off steam. If it continues, I'll do something about it, but acting now would likely only make things worse. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There's an active OTRS ticket addressed to you here. Looks like it needs someone who knows the background on the situation to handle it, could you take a look? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I know what that's about but I can't seem to do anything with the ticket. Could you mark me as the owner of the ticket? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, didn't realize it was in a queue you didn't have. Let me poke an admin and see what they can do... A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I wish to let you know that I edited it to have the template {{Vaublock}} instead of what you put at first, simply to match the description. If you don't want it this way, feel free to revert it and let me know. Yes, I added your sig. LikeLakers2 (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Meh, blocked is blocked and with a username like that, my money's on it being a throwaway account so I didn't see much point in scrolling down to find vaublock. But it doesn't really matter. I doubt they'll remember their username this time tomorrow! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request, thought I would let you handle it. (note message also sent to unblock-en-l from him) -- DQ (t) (e) 16:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Very many thanks for your support on my talk page on this subject. Best wishes Dormskirk (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Thanks for helping with resolving the conflict with flags in infoboxes (MOS:FLAG and WP:MILMOS)!! Bullmoosebell (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Re your removal of sourced material from this article, per an OTRS ticket. Is there any way that such material can be re-added without identifying those concerned by name? All three events happened, and are verified by reliable sources – or does the OTRS ticket mean that we have to suppress all mention of the events. Other than that, should the article be permanently semi-protected? Mjroots (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The OTRS ticket was from the lady concerned, who was understandably concerned by the result of Googling here name, hence the removal and the RevDel. If you want to mention the incident without naming the individuals involved, I won't object, but I would ask one question—is it such a notable event in the history of the school that it warrants a mention in an encyclopaedia, or are we just including every reliably sourced fact we can find? If it's the former, by all means re-add it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Can i get Reverting or Rollback rights???? Karthik Nadar (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you had come to WP:RFP on this one, I would say no a) not while you still think it's funny to have the fake "You have new messages" banner on your userpage, b) you do not always put reasons when you use undo, and c) you almost never provide warnings/messages to users after you undo their edits now. That's just me, however (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that too. He has indicated some contact with the Foundation office ... I suppose they could handle it. But since we're not sure that it's the guy himself, I'm not ready to unblock just yet. Daniel Case (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

He hasn't been in contact with the Office, but with OTRS (specifically me). And he is who he says he is. I won't go into how I came to know that on-wiki, but he is Henry Isaac. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Uhh yeah this guy >.> • GunMetal Angel 09:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

By the looks of it, I think he has an alternative address • GunMetal Angel 21:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they're the same person—one of the IPs is in India, the other's in Russia. Still, he's definitely making a nuisance of himself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I have quoted you in conjunction with an arbitration case at [3]. Please feel free to suggest any corrections if you feel that I have misquoted you. I should add that the editor concerned is claiming that you were acting to protect another admin, which you may have some views about. Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure ArbCom will be able to find the appropriate receptacle for that claim. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh, no doubt... Prioryman (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey HJ!

Could I ask you please to take a look at User talk:Daniel Case#User talk:Juice80 please? We've had a report at AIV regarding the user. I was reluctant to get involved but I knew if I didn't do something it would probably just sit and sit and sit at AIV lol. I've been extremely reluctant to do anything to the account because of what he's said on his talk page, I don't think it's vandalism more to do with not understanding Wiki. However, part of the condition of his unblock by the original admin was that he requested edits to his article via the article talk page. Unfortunately the original blocking admin is away until early September.--5 albert square (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know how much use I can be. My only involvement is that I handled his emails to OTRS (how I came to be involved is a long story, and much of it's covered by the privacy policy, I'm afraid). I was under the impression that the EyeSerene unblocked him once ES realised who he was—he's the subject of the article he's being accused of vandalising (and how I know that is on his userpage). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I've posted on Daniel's page as well and asked him for his thoughts, also posted on Juice80's talk and asked in what way is the article wrong. He's not responded yet but unfortunately there's not a lot else I can do :S--5 albert square (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have access the OTRS ticket mentioned here, but perhaps you should look at the Anucha Browne Sanders article, because it seems to contain much of the same information that was removed in the Isiah Thomas article. Zagalejo^^^ 04:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up. It's actually quite well sourced there, though, and one could make a stronger article for its inclusion in the plaintiff's article than that of the defendant who was not found to have done anything wrong as far as I can work out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the OTRS ticket said, but the info that was removed was correct. And a jury did rule for the plaintiff. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It may have been correct, but it was almost entirely unsourced. I've looked again at the complaint, and there are a few issues with the text as it was written (not all of which were raised in the OTRS complaint)—my main concern is weighting and proportion (as it was, it seemed to give it disproportionate weight); the thrust of the complaint was that the damages were for wrongful termination and a hostile work environment, not for sexual harassment per se; the tone seemed to be belittling and even mocking Thomas; the text stated that he admitted calling her a bitch under oath, but he vehemently denies this (including in the OTRS ticket), and the ESPN article says Thomas, while admitting to using foul language around the plaintiff, insisted he never directed it toward her.
If either of you want to re-add something on the lawsuit that is proportionate, well sourced, and neutral, then by all means please do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't plan to re-add anything myself. Frankly, I wouldn't care if we got rid of that entire "Controversy" section. I just wanted to make sure there weren't any similar problems with the plaintiff's article. The "bitch" line appears to have been added by some IP back in 2007, and doesn't jibe with any sources I can find. Zagalejo^^^ 06:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, HJ. I have revamped the Shania Twain discography article, and there is a backlash regarding the use of Canadian country peaks. There seems to be no consensus in the discussion going on in the talk page, and thus... where do you suggest I take this matter next, in order to meet consensus? -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 18:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey. To be honest, I'm not really sure. A wikiproject talk page might be a good place to start. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the discographies talk page is actually quite dead. It's highly probable that no one will respond (other than the same users who are participating in the original discussion). -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 23:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

What about music or country music? Even if they're not the right place for the discussion, you've a good chance of finding people interested in the subject area. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

What about Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard? -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 02:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess you could give it a try. I've not ventured over there yet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Good job on getting this promoted! Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It was a fascinating article to write. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

2011081410009653 HI Mitchell . My Name has been change .But the Appearance is still the same . Can i Pls send you my Appearance and my gols so that you do the Changes for me ? Regards Henry Isaac — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.212.70 (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2011

Hey Henry, I'm guessing that you need to log in with your new username for the change to take effect. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 13:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) KuduIO: He's referring to an OTRS request (ticket #2011081410009653), not an account rename request. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I know you're not listed as a coach, but I did know you for a while, so I was wondering if you'd like to mentor me. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 19:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'll have to respectfully decline. I don't really approve of admin coaching. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

HJ, you're an OTRS volunteer, right? Do you have access to the copyright permissions queue? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

RUN! It's a trap! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

HJ, don't listen to Ackbar. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do. why do i get the feeling I'm going to regret admitting that? ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see File talk:Old Man of the Mountain overlay 2.jpg and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 August 24#File:Old Man of the Mountain overlay 2.jpg. User:Sannse says on the file talk page that there should be an email in the queue regarding the file, but this was back in 2004. If and only if it is not too time-consuming to try to find this email, could you take a look? Evidently her word isn't good enough, and there needs to be an OTRS ticket number to keep the wolves at bay.

If looking that far back (with no ticket number) is going to be time consuming, then please don't do it; I have no desire to contribute to this makework mentality. Instead, I'll see if I can successfully argue that it isn't necessary, and if push comes to shove the encyclopedia can survive without the image. But if it is easy, then the path of least resistance is to probably to give them what they want. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If it was received by OTRS, I'll be able to find it (unless it found its way to the junk queue, in which case it would have been deleted after a few days), but I'd need to know the email address it was sent from. Perhaps you could get Sannse to email me with that and any other details they can remember (like the title or the date). If they do, I'll look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but let's hold off for now. First, I get the impression that none of that information is readily available. Second, it seems the editor proposing deletion is also going to talk to an OTRS person, and the only thing worse than asking you to do makework is having two people doing the same makework. Appreciate the offer, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, This conversation is going same way as a lot of others have in past. Hope you can intervene. I did oppose btw but i dont care if it gets posted or not. I just dont like Medeis posting "So far the only opposes we have are based on claims of US-centrism" when clearly thats not the case. Its just too easy to blame any oppose on US item on US-Centrism and is being used as tactic way too often. Obviously HiLo8 comes back to reply and now its turning into same old topic. Since i already opposed and got a fairly useless reply from same person, i did not want to take it any further. But somehow we need to make it clear that not every support/oppose for a US topic is due to US-Centrism... Its hard to even have a decent conversation with same BS. For example Jim Sukwutput stated in there too that he doesnt want to say anything because he will just get accused of being Anti-American... i agree with him. So annoying. I would call it a form of agenda pushing to be honest. -- Ashish-g55 02:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This did get posted but i would still like the problem to be dealt with. Its been way too many years of same crap. -- Ashish-g55 03:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've started a discussion at WT:ITN. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Updated the mention of as of August 23 to the current day if that's alright with you. --Senjuto 14:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are having a field day over this article and discussion page...again. 108.41.20.231 (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw the warning you gave him. As a heads up he makes those same comments basically everywhere he goes on Wikipedia. Talk Main Pageand The Ref desk are some examples. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For being the kindest of the kindliest of kindly editors. Atomician (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Random, but thank you! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I gave you this because you awarded me a barnstar thanking me for my contributions when I left (thinking I wasn't to come back, (different account (long story))). So thanks for that. Atomician (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough! Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This is regarding the article Clicksor. I did a google search and found that the website / service discussed is a spammy one. I hope its time to delete that article BrownyCat (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Iranian Embassy siege a Featured Article! Please accept this Epic Barnstar. Your work is much appreciated. – Quadell (talk)

Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Well, not exactly, but I started this based on your recent block. Also, its good to be creative as you were! ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 19:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Why did you do this? It really doesn't matter how much of a traitor Vidkun Quisling was, but it was a Featured article, so it deserved to be on that page. Thank you for your attention. Faunas (talk) 10:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you read my edit summary? He's already on the page, under the section "Politics and government biographies". He doesn't need to be listed twice, but if you think he should be under "History biographies" instead, you can make your point at WT:FA and see if other agree. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Didn't actually see it. Thank you!Faunas (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey HJ, can you please have a look at this? Thank ye! -- Diego  talk  13:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a good poem to Mbz1 talk, but please format it that people can add new messages. I formatted one by placing it ahead, not knowing how to close a table. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Your ITN edit was correct. I note this in case there was any concern that "in the coast" might be an Americanism.  :) —David Levy 16:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reassurance! It crossed my mind for a minute, but I think Fox is from this (my) side of the Atlantic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I could go either way on the particular phrase. The linked article is about the states on the eastern coast, so in would be referring to the region, as "in the United States' South" would, rather than referring to those who live in beachfront properties. But "on the East Coast" sounds more normal. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As a lifelong resident of the U.S. East Coast, I don't recall ever hearing or reading "in the East Coast" in this context (though "in the East Coast region" would be normal). "On the East Coast" is the standard phrase. —David Levy 17:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello there. On December 30, 2010 you deleted six images (*File:Essex, Montana Train Station.jpg, File:Fargo Train Station.jpg, File:Glacier Park Train Station.jpg, File:Glasgow Train Station.jpg, File:Grandforks Train Station.jpg and File:Havre Train Station.jpg) under the F11 rationale ("no evidence of permission"). The images in question are part of a collection known collectively as the "Passenger Railroad Guide," maintained by Hikki Nagasaki. The file description pages in each reprinted a disclaimer from Nagasaki's website which states, in part, that "all rights are not reserved. You are free to use all my photos on the website. You do not need to let me know when you use my photos." In addition, the original image was linked directly to establish its source in each instance.

I'm not the original uploader of these images but I've uploaded other images from that site and I'm concerned at the way this was handled. Nagasaki's disclaimer is explicit and it seems to me that Wikipedia's requisites were satisfied. I'd appreciate if you could either reverse the deletions or provide a further explanation. Best, Mackensen (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• See the statement on my talk page as to why that release is not sufficient. Courcelles 20:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
  • And see my reply as to why it probably is. Perhaps we should centralize everything there. Mackensen (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Courcelles' talk page is on my watchlist, so I'll keep an eye on the discussion there and chip in when I can. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked, London was in England. I'd appreciate a little common sense being applied here. Please note that contrary to the hostile Edit summary, I did not remove UK from the article. Thanks. --Mais oui! (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think you've got the wrong guy...Rangoon11 (talk · contribs) is the one you're edit-warring with. N419BH 20:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Rangoon has got a serious WP:OWN problem and sees red if I edit one of "his" articles. It is he who is edit warring. I am looking for a bit of sanity to prevail, so am asking an Admin who has shown common sense in the past on such matters to take a look. --Mais oui! (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Does it really matter? I was born in England, but I have a British passport. London is in England, but it's also in the united Kingdom. It used to be in Middlesex until it swallowed up most of South East England. It seems a bit like debating whether San Francisco is in California or the United States. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

But why on earth would a User try to remove the plain fact that London is in England? It is that country's capital after all. --Mais oui! (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It's also the capital of the United Kingdom. Six of one, half a dozen of the other? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

But what on earth is the problem with including both? The company in question was registered in England (note: NOT the UK) and was thus subject to English law. Not including the legal state for a registered company is simply daft, and reeks of POV. Why not just say London, European Union? After all the EU has just as much say over the economy as the UK. --Mais oui! (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a much better argument. You've convinced me, but we still have to sort the edit war out. If you make your case that well on the talk page (and can prove they're registered in England), I can't see there being any real comeback. Or we could just have the redundant "England, United Kingdom" format if it's the only thing nobody would edit war over. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As a defunct company, there will be no live websites with legal registration notices, although it must be available on archives. The successor company: "Fujitsu Services Holdings PLC, is a limited liability company registered in England and Wales with company number 142200. Its registered office is at 22 Baker Street, London, W1U 3BW.".--Mais oui! (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

See also: "fujitsu Services holdings plc. Registered in england no. 142200 Registered Office: 22 Baker Street, london, W1u 3BW". --Mais oui! (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. So are you going to take it to the talk page, or just make it "London, England, United Kingdom"? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Bingo: International Computers Limited, Registered in England no 96056, Registered Office 26, Finsbury Square, London, EC2A 1SL. I think that, per official policy WP:VERIFY that ought to do the trick, but I do not want to breach 3RR. I am happy with London, England, United Kingdom, although the UK bit is really redundant. Calling the company "London-based" is far more encyclopaedic than "British". It was a global firm, and was just as much "English" or "European" as it was "British", so "London-based" is NPOV.--Mais oui! (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The country in the lead is usually just to establish context. It doesn't matter that much—the infobox and body are usually more precise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wow good argument. However, it takes two to edit war...Not saying anyone should be blocked/warned but in my experience it's better to head for the talk page after the first revert than it is to do three reverts then go the talk page. Glad to see you're handling it well. N419BH 00:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I just came across this discussion, not because Mais oui! had the courtesy to inform me of it but purely because I saw it in their edit history. The issue is entirely that Mais oui! sought to remove the reference to British and replace it, firstly with English, and then with London based. Considering that this company was actually created by the British government I find this especially absurd and offensive. However I have noticed before that Mais oui! is in the habit of going to articles and changing United Kingdom to England, often making another tiny edit at the same time as cover. Having looked at their edit history it is very clear that they are running a campaign to systematically go through articles and either change categories from UK ones to England/Scotland ones, or to change wording in articles to remove UK/British references. On the categories point, I see this as in large part pointless, but so long as the England/Scotland category sits within a UK one this is not something that greatly excites me.

Going to articles purely to change United Kingdom to England/Scotland I do find disturbing however, the United Kingdom is the sovereign state, but we know that some for political reasons - both within the UK and outside it - would rather this were not the case. The WP approach is very well established - sovereign states are used in infoboxes etc. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) So then, taking into account the information above which identifies the company as an English company subject to English Law, what is wrong with this edit, and why did you feel it appropriate to utilize the edit summary therin? N419BH 01:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly it's actually incorrect, as companies are registered in 'England and Wales', not merely England, and there is no such thing as 'English' company law, England and Wales share company law. Secondly and just as importantly, the United Kingdom is the sovereign state of the entity. Period. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) And the edit summary? N419BH 01:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I still think it's a ridiculous thing to edit war over—I consider myself English before British, but I would be mortified if I had an article and people were edit warring over such a minor detail! Countries in the lead and infobox are only there to put the subject in context, not for absolute precision. And which part of the MoS dictates that we must use the sovereign state, out of curiosity? No disrespect, but it wouldn't even be the first time today somebody has thought the MoS said something it didn't. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

e/c Mine or theirs? I stand by mine 100%, they are on a campaign. I make no comment on their motives or underlying agenda, although I think it fairly transparent to anyone half awake, but their editing behaviour over a long period speaks for itself in terms of behaviour pattern. Their edit summary is obfuscatory - of course London is in the UK, but replacing 'Brtish' with 'London based' is to clearly change meaning and emphasis.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a very clever use of the phrase "I make no comment on their motives or underlying agenda" to do exactly that, but this really isn't the place to discuss that. I'm sure there's a noticeboard for exactly this kind of silliness, but I can't remember its name. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

e/c Reply to HJ Mitchell - I am English too and regard myself as British first, but certainly identify strongly with being English as well. English is much more of an ethnic/cultural identity than a political one however, and there is not even an English parliament. However with respect I think that you are being naive as to the importance of this, as it clearly is seen as very important to some. The issue of Scotish nationalism is sadly a live one, and many both inside and outside the UK would like to undermine the unity of the UK. The United Kingdom is the sovereign state. Some may not like this but it is the reality. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the Act of Union is going to be undermined by a Wikipedia article, and you haven't (yet) answered my question about the MoS. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) HJ, I think the board you're looking for is WP:DRAMA. Might be a special one set up by an arbocom case too. As for the underlying dispute, I'm fairly certain it does not matter. As a not-British/English/Welsh/Londoner/etc. both "London-based" and "British" and "English" and "United Kingdom" communicate the location of the company with equal clarity to me, with "London" actually providing the greatest level of detail regarding precise location. I find the whole dispute and the personal attacks accompanying it rather silly altogether. N419BH 01:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's a noticeboard dedicated to this kind of thing, but there are times when I'm sure ANI gets redirected here! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at articles in WP of organisations and companies it is clear that 99%+ give the sovereign state. It is clear that where infobox fields require 'country' what this means is sovereign state, the UK is essentially unique in being a country composed of countries. It is also patently clear that describing something as English rather than British is not the same thing, since English is clearly imlpying an exclusivity of the rest of the UK. If I was American and someone attempted to insist that Coca-Cola was Georgian rather than American I would find that highly offensive. Many of the large companies where attempts have been made to change United Kingdom/British to England/English were actually built up with the very active support of the British government, have always had activities throughout the whole of the UK, have always had staff from across the UK, and are very much, in terms of their affiliation, British. Most large companies are headquartered in England because the UK capital is based in England, but calling them 'English' as a result is actually factually incorrect and POV.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)