Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:25, 20 January 2011

Admins: If one of my admin actions is clearly a mistake or is actively harming the encyclopaedia, please reverse it. Don't wait for me if I'm not around or the case is obvious.

This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.

Deletion review review

• I made the nomination so my vote was to unprotect and recreate
• Spartaz, the closing admin, endorsed his own deletion and protection
• DGG wanted to unprotect and permit recreation
• Umbralcorax endorsed the original decision but wanted to unprotect and permit recreation
• Jclemens wanted to unprotect and allow recreation
• Oakshade wanted to unprotect and allow recreation
• The Hand That Feeds You endorsed the protection
• Hobit endorsed the close and opposed the protection
• Starblind wanted to unprotect and allow recreation
• Fetchcomms endorsed the close and protection
• Uzma Gamal wanted to unprotect and allow recreation
• Pnm endorsed the close but decided it was at least notable enough to merit a section on iPad
• SnottyWong endorsed the close and redirection
• Blueboy96 was neutral
• The ip wanted to unprotect

There is consensus here to recreate. In addition, there is consensus to reword CHRYSTAL. Marcus Qwertyus 02:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You should do your homework. A consensus (which you dond;t have to start with) in one small venue at one item cannot override WP:NOT, which is a policy and cannot be changed without a much wider consensus. When there's something to write about the iPad 2 that doesn't violate policy (or you've managed to gain a consensus to change the policy), then we can talk, but a DRV just days after a close that most people agreed was decent is never going to go well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOT contradicts WP:OR. As you said, small scale policy cannot override wider consensus. Marcus Qwertyus 02:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want to change WP:NOT (and I don't necessarily oppose that), then you need to start with WT:NOT. Even if everybody at the DRV agreed with you (and half didn't) about CRYSTAL, it doesn't change anything because policies are implemented and amended by much wider consensus than a single DRV. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

CHRYSTAL was added in March 2005 by Dpbsmith with the edit summary "Be bold, Dan, be bold" (i.e. no consensus). If I were to ask Dan his opinion on the iPad 2 (which I will), I'm sure he would tell me that his intention was not to create a policy that barred all articles from reporting speculation originating from outside original sources. WP:NOT is just a mirror of policy dumbed down enough for beginners to understand. This should not be a go-to source for policy in deletion discussions. Rather, editors should look at the original policy and exercise common sense. There is consensus on WT:NOT to reword the policy. A wording has not yet been agreed upon. Marcus Qwertyus 03:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if I had a penny for every AfD I've seen hinge on WP:NOTNEWS, I'd be a rich man. The fact remains that there is nothing to write about the iPad 2 that isn't speculation, regardless of whether it's Misplaced Pages doing the speculating or journalists who think they know more than the rest of us. Hence, there isn't a consensus to overturn the original AfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

So are arguments for the Aurora. There are people who claim to know the release date of the iPad 2 and people who claim to have worked on the the Aurora. These assertions are presented as claims and not as fact. These arguments will be presented in the same way on the iPad 2 article. Marcus Qwertyus 04:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

With respect, even if that weren't a WP:OTHERCRAP argument, this isn't the place to re-re-argue the AfD. The AfD was closed as redirect and there wasn't a consensus at DRV to overturn that, so now would be the time to admit defeat. It would be a better use of both our time if you spent the next few months making the iPad 2 content in iPad the best it can be so it can be easily spun out into its own article when the time comes. I'm not sure why you need a separate article for a slightly-updated version of the same thing, but that's a matter for another AfD (and not one I have the time or inclination to start). Out of interest, is the iPad any good? Not that I can afford one, but it looks interesting! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't got one but my friend does. Don't believe all the marketing that suggests it is an immediately useful tool. My friend just thinks of it as mostly "a hobby".

I do believe that all though there may not have been enough consensus to recreate, there was definitely enough consensus to overturn the protection (which was imposed on us without consensus by an overprotective _{(excuse the pun)} admin). Sem-protection should be sufficient. Marcus Qwertyus 04:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If I do that, I take you at your word that you wouldn't re-create it, but I'd bet a tenner that somebody would before the day is out and then there'd be an edit war and somebody'd probably end up blocked and the protection would end up back where it started. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Google for 10 reasons ipad (no quotes) and you'll get lists of things both good and bad about the iPad (but mostly bad, as people are less eager to write up a blog post telling you how good something is). —Soap— 12:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

HJ, You made the comment in the close that it has to have a ref from Apple, but surely you have enough clue to know they never announce until the day it goes on sale. That criterion makes it impossible to have an article even when the NYT , notably conservative on unreleased products, has one, e.g. : this, which is a staff column, not a user blog. Similarly, any rumor reported in the mainstream eweek and eweek again, and pcworld and the extraordinarily staid computerworld is surely enough ? DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, you're asking the wrong person. I can't arbitrarily unprotect it or allow its re-creation. As I'm sure you know, that requires either the agreement of the admin who closed the original AfD (who stuck to his guns in the DRV) or a consensus at DRV, which wasn't established. There wasn't no consensus at the DRV either way and, in a "no consensus" situation, the status quo prevails. I honestly couldn't care less if the iPad 2 has its own article or not on a personal level, but I'm pretty sure someone would complain if I cited WP:DGAF as my close rationale. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask you guys seriously why you STILL haven't bought this up for discussion on Talk:iPad. That is the appropriate venue for this discussion, not anywhere else. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Because this is a simple matter of we already have consensus to recreate. Marcus Qwertyus 20:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, of course, that explains why the AfD was closed as redirect and how there was no consensus at the DRV. Now I see where I've been going wrong! For crying out loud, there is no consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Everyone, drop the stick, please; this discussion seems to be going nowhere. HeyMid (contribs) 21:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would I just let HJ off easy? The consensus here is clearly to recreate. Marcus Qwertyus 21:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This would be the consensus that three uninvolved administrators have failed to see? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently. 5 people endorsed the protection and 9 asked that it be unprotected. Then there is all the people at WT:NOT who are willing to reword CHRYSTAL. I know it's not a vote but you should not have disrupted the consensus building process by closing the debate with your Supervote. Marcus Qwertyus 21:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Supervote my arse. If you have nothing else constructive to say, then I'll take that as the end of this conversation, which is deteriorating rapidly into an argument. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

HJ, I have great respect for your closures, but this time it either was a supervote or a plain error.

As for the protection, it was protected by User:HereToHelp, but he protected it back on Dec 27, & you were the last admin to take action regarding it. Of course any admin who decides the material is sufficient can remove the protection. Courtesy is to ask first, but I think he'd might say it would be you who should get the request. My own view is that the deletion makes us look like fools collectively, which obviously harms Misplaced Pages. and anyone who can take corrective action should do so. But as a matter of prudence and tactics, and to avoid the absurdity of harming Misplaced Pages further by a possibly denied request or another fight about it, it will be a much stronger case when it is further expanded. As for rewording CRYSTAL, it would be better to wait till this one is over--it's not a good idea to rewrite fundamental policy to meet one actively disputed problem, given that the basic way of meeting individual problems is by making exceptions under IAR. The reason for rewording (soon but not immediately) is there have been too many of these absurd objections to articles on obviously forthcoming things, so it's a general problem. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• If someone is not happy about HJ Mitchell's conduct as an administrator, they can take this issue to WP:AN. HeyMid (contribs) 10:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Nobody has suggested it; it would be highly inappropriate for just a particular AfD that may or may not be wrong, but is not seriously abusive. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Kenneth O'Keefe

I don't know who the master is. There are probably 10 of these SPA/socks who were active on the article and AfD. My guess is that it's someone who knows the subject of the article. I'll let you know if there are any more problems. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

They're baaaaaaaack. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Roger that…

Pseudoqueue

Hello, Is it possible to look at the deleted pages Pseudoqueue and Pseudo queue to see if it is similar to this article found on the simple English Misplaced Pages. After a note presented on its talk page , It's looking more like a hoax, and if those articles above are similar, it could make it much easier to prove. wiooiw (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I can tell you that the first (without the space) is the same subject, but a longer, better structured article. The second (with a space) is identical to the article on Simple, with the sole exception that the enwiki version had an external link at the end. I can also tell you that all three articles (the two here and the one on Simple) were created by different accounts, but, if I had to put money on it, I'd say they're the same person. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well looking at the AFD nom and the fact there are the same subject, I'll go ahead and tag it. Thankyou very much for the help! wiooiw (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

AAWolk

Hi Harry, your assistance in protecting this BLP is greatly appreciated, best regards to you. Off2riorob (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Question at RFPP

Hey HJ. Thanks for considering my request at WP:RFPP. I posted a follow-up question there and would greatly appreciate your response on that page. Thanks so much!--Gnowor_C 17:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Your use of revdel is being discussed

Your name hasn't exactly come up yet, but a revdel done by you is presented as evidence at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Clarification of RD3. At a glance I'm afraid I have to agree this looks like an overzealous use of revdel, I'm hoping you can provide some insight as to why you thought it was needed for such run-of-the-mill vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. That's coordinated vandalism. In context, they don't look like much, but for the last couple of weeks, we've had open proxies vandalising the TFA and related articles. Their idea is to use multiple edit summaries that make some obscene message or other when one reads down the history. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Help Please HJ.....

Hi, HJ, I bring this issue to your attention because I trust you. Here we go: I have the WP:HELPDESK watchlisted, and try to help people out by answering their questions. I also monitor others answers to ensure they are not rude, but I came across one that certainly was. I "warned/messaged" the user on their talk page seen here, they then removed my message calling it vandalism, as seen here. I then replaced my message (as it was not vandalism) with another note, as seen here. I see two faults here; A. Being rude to an editor on the helpdesk who had a question and B. Not using rollback privileges in the correct manner (even though it was Twinkle, he used a "rollback" function, reverting edits that certainly were not vandalism; just a message about his rude behavior on the help desk. Tofutwitch11 02:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Not much I can do, really. We're given pretty wide latitude within our own userspace and if I get involved, it may just fan the flames. The post wasn't that rude. You were right to drop them a line, but how would you feel if somebody came to your talk page telling you " to be so rude" and that something was "unacceptable"? You're level-headed enough not to hit rollback (which was unnecessary, but within the bounds of WP:OWNTALK), but I don't think you'd be impressed. Maybe if you'd been a little more collegiate, they might have responded better or maybe not. Best to just leave it, if you ask me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, but it frustrates me when experienced editors are rude to new editors....it gets no where. If he removes it again, It's not worth edit warring over to get it back. There was no reason what-so-ever for his response to that new editor...we will see how this goes. Thanks, Tofutwitch11 02:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I've reminded him to watch it with the Twinkle, but really I don't think he was being rude to start with, and he is entitled to remove your messages from his talkpage. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

@Elen, I see you've joined my merry band of talk page stalkers! It wasn't exactly rude, but it was more condescending than it needed to be for a good faith suggestion. @Tofutwitch, you should review OWNTALK—you shouldn't really have reverted the revert. We can remove what we like from our own talk pages (with the sole exception of declined unblock requests while the block is still in effect)—it's simply taken as evidence that the message has been read and understood. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::I didn't mean to come across rude with my message, I understand that he can remove my messages, and if he had not marked them as vandalism, I probably would have moved on. As I mentioned, you cannot even be slightly rude on the helpdesk -- we have to help new users, no matter what their questions. We don't want to drive them away. Tofutwitch11 02:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well it's not as if he said "go away you silly twat, that's a ridiculous idea". I know you weren't trying to be rude (it's kind of ironic that you hit a nerve with them warning them about rudeness!), but politely asking them to mind their tone might have been more effective. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Noted, thanks HJ and Ellen :) Tofutwitch11 03:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ghost Adventures

Hi, I noticed that you have declined my request for the page protection, since you're one of the admins, can you at least revert edits done until January 13? Since user Angsc09 has been adding future material and even place "Do not erase it, is very possible that they will announce after the season 4 ended". From there I'll be patrolling the article, because for a user like me, it will be to tedious to revert all those edits since I don't have any rollback right and no permanent internet connection. So from time to time I'll be overseeing this article from my laptop or from anywhere with internet connection. Thank you in advance! ^_^ SyFuel_Burned 04:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Kendrick7

I removed your addition of autopatrolled to Kendrick because he has a history of WP:BLP problems (see his block log). NW (Talk) 04:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't see cause for concern in the articles I checked, but reasonable minds may differ on their suitability and I'm only going through a database report. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Stuff like is what would give me pause. NW (Talk) 05:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. I wouldn't have been as lenient as a month, personally. I didn't see any of that kind of crap in the articles they've created (obviously), but certainly diffs like that suggest someone who should be kept an eye on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

terima kasih

fyi:

• wmf-is big...

I've been focused off-toxic-wp (and real life). Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Closure of RFC

Per this edit, you offered to close the discussion, indicating you would be done many hours ago. If you have decided not to, please indicate that you are passing at the AN so someone else can close it. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Slipped my mind, sorry. I'll make it my first priority tomorrow—nobody likes being left "in limbo" at the end of an RfC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Sswonk (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hi HJMitchell. A similar series of revdels are needed here also. Thanks. Dr.K.  05:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Nice guys, aren't they! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"Nice guy" doesn't begin to do them justice. :) Thanks again and take care. Dr.K.  05:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sure they'll pay me a visit later. Ah well, every edit exposes another open proxy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Greeting

Hi HJ Mitchell. I hope you are fine and everything is ok. Wish you and your family all the best. Regards, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 05:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello ?! *** in fact *** ( contact ) 19:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Looie496/Recall

- Kingpin (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrol lists

Hi HJ Mitchell, I wanted to let you know that I finished Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled candidates 5, with the exception of a couple candidates I left for a second opinion. I also wanted to say thank you for reviewing my other requests for a second opinion, and for granting autopatrol to a couple of users when I was concerned about granting them the userright. Thanks also for all the other reviewing of candidates on those pages! Best. Acalamari 15:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Every time I get to one of these lists you've already beaten me to it! That's quite alright; I'm always happy to provide a second opinion or sanity check. I did grant one that you declined, but I left a rationale there. It was a pleasure to work with you. Hopefully we'll have a more up-to-date list soon. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

My user rights

I would just like to say thank you very much for granting me those user rights. Both of them came as a bit of a surprise to me when I logged on this morning. Again, thanks! EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 16:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Your name was on a list of potential candidates for autopatrolled (I was scrolling down looking for names I recognised as looking trustworthy) and I figure you could handle the reviewer as well! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well thank you. That means a lot to me. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 16:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Lovine?

Hello. Question, why did you move this page to Jimmy Lovine? His last name is actually Iovine (eye-o-vine). His IMDb states this, as well as a PBS article, the Interscope Records page, and other sources. Plus you protected the page, but the title is not correct! Please explain your doing. Thanks! Tinton5 (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

A link would help. I've moved and/or protected thousands of pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The diffs are and . Tinton5 is correct: the man's name is Iovine, not Lovine. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I've unprotected it, so you should be able to move it back. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

A well-deserved Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		In grateful appreciation to your dedication to Misplaced Pages, for reviewing hundreds and hundreds of candidates for Autopatrolled rights, and for reducing the workload at New page patrol, I hereby award the The Admin's Barnstar to HJ Mitchell. Thank you so very much for all the many hours you have put in. Your efforts are truly awe-inspiring and I'm very thankful for all your hard work. - Hydroxonium (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a well-deserved barnstar. Thank you very much. - Hydroxonium (H₃O) 17:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well thank you. Glad to see you gave one to Acalamari as well. And thank you for compiling the lists. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Thanks for the recognition mate. I'm glad to know that the articles I have created were embraced by the Misplaced Pages community. Tibullus 17:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It makes someone's life easier! Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

editor issues

there doesnt seem to be a guideline for this, but as long suspected 2 editors have a tag-team partnership in supporting articles and i just got the strongest possible evidence thereof, but dont know how to take it to high-ups as theyre seemingly not sockpuppets. as suggested before over edits on the RIRA/CIRA pages the 2 editors strongly seem to be linked, possibly off-wiki, to defend their pov. cabn you advice some course of action if possible?(Lihaas (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

I think it's unlikely that anything sinister is going on. Both are respected editors and I'm pretty sure they're on different continents. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There was an Arbcom complaint (User_talk:Lihaas#Misplaced Pages:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.23O_Fenian) by another editor some time ago. (which was turned down citing need to discuss issues and other resolving methods, but out olive branches are continually spurned). it seems despite attempts to talk to the editor he abjectly and continually refuses to discuss citing his whims. he cant keep resorting to threats/blackmail to get his way as is his only tactic on Talk:List of armed conflicts and attacks, 2011, which wont be conducive to wikipedia enhancement as all other editors on that page disagreed with him in some or another.

One can note please my efforts at offering an olive branch and discussion of his sometimes WP:Bold queries are never met by answers on content.Talk:List_of_armed_conflicts_and_attacks,_2011#lone_wolf_tag + + as expected: to his latest query same response where apparently he has not made it clear, expecting to own the article that ALL other editors at least discuss --> + tag team evidence:

appreciate your input.(Lihaas (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

I don't know what you want me to do. As far as I can tell, you've accused one respected editor of being a meatpuppet of another respected editor and now they're not very happy with you. The rest is a content dispute and not something I can get involved with in an admin capacity. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

He cant scare of editors with such threats. I think an admin needs to warn him. and its not just me. See the talk page. EVERY single response of his is only a threat without ANY discussion of content whatsoever.

then he WP:NPA's me instead.

where on earth is his "clear" response that was not ONCE mentioned on talk.Lihaas (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC).

please see this admin "While I have had no involvement in this issue I will say that the observations made by the involved parties above about O Fenians behaviour stem way beyond this issue. I myself have had conflict with him in the past and his wording of his views to me felt less than civil. For example this incident Where I attempted to invoke WP:IAR and he responded with a closed statement about IAR itself and not even willing to acknowledge my statement. He also makes statements that are rude or could be seen as offensive about former flags of a country here. Just thought I'd bring it up."(Lihaas (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).

The Dark Knight Rises

I one time requested the redirection page The Dark Knight Rises to be protected. I now request the redirection page to be unprotected (or just semi protected) for a discussion of making it as a article. See here and here. Jhenderson 19:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you want me to do. The redirect The Dark Knight Rises is fully protected so it can only be edited by admins, but none of its associate pages are protected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I just did a typo, did you understand me now? Jhenderson 19:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You want me to unprotect the redirect so an article can be created at that title? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes! Sorry if I am not that clear. Jhenderson 19:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Unprotected HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Block evasion on physics topics

Hello HJ. Please see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics#Status. It seems that Antichristos is evading your 72-hour block at Action at a distance (physics). This editor seems to be on a roll, and he is ignoring all feedback (since he is sure he is right). I propose that his block should extended to one month, and that a half dozen articles be considered for semiprotection. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh joy, block evading sockpuppets, as if I'm not busy enough already! I've extended the original block to two weeks. The rangeblock calculator also tells me that all those IPs are on a blockable range, so I've put in a two-week rangeblock. Hopefully that will have the desired effect and the semi-prot won't be necessary, but I'll add the articles to my watchlist. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Busy indeed. I have put a {{sharedip}} and a welcome on the most recent talk page. (Love your SeriuzAdminCatz - Cheers!) - DVdm (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)