Revision as of 22:01, 30 March 2014 editTParis (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators30,356 edits →User:The Banner: You're probably having a busy Sunday morning and haven't had the chance to respond yet, but I don't believe that to be fair to The Banner that he remain blocked when I believe it to be unjustified. So I've addressed the matter at WP← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:15, 30 March 2014 edit undoHJ Mitchell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators121,842 edits →User:The Banner: ever heard the phrase "patience is a virtue"? If you wait for a response instead of running to AN, you might actually get somewhere.Next edit → | ||
Line 138: | Line 138: | ||
:I've spent some more time looking into this. The 'consensus' on ] is not as explicit as I'd have expected for this block. Besides Mr. Blofelf and The Banner, the other editors seem to find a mixture of the two opinions to be optimal. In fact, the argument that received the most support is that articles about Parishes and Villages should be combined or not based on geography. However, even setting that aside and assuming Dr. Blofeld gained consensus, that you blocked The Banner for is actually enforcing that consensus against The Banner's own opinion. He included information about the parish in the article about the village. That was the so-called consensus by Dr. Blofeld. And yet, Dr. Blofeld reverted him blindly anyway. If anyone earned a block, it was Dr. Blofeld. Am I reading something wrong here?--v/r - ]] 06:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC) | :I've spent some more time looking into this. The 'consensus' on ] is not as explicit as I'd have expected for this block. Besides Mr. Blofelf and The Banner, the other editors seem to find a mixture of the two opinions to be optimal. In fact, the argument that received the most support is that articles about Parishes and Villages should be combined or not based on geography. However, even setting that aside and assuming Dr. Blofeld gained consensus, that you blocked The Banner for is actually enforcing that consensus against The Banner's own opinion. He included information about the parish in the article about the village. That was the so-called consensus by Dr. Blofeld. And yet, Dr. Blofeld reverted him blindly anyway. If anyone earned a block, it was Dr. Blofeld. Am I reading something wrong here?--v/r - ]] 06:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
::You're probably having a busy Sunday morning and haven't had the chance to respond yet, but I don't believe that to be fair to The Banner that he remain blocked when I believe it to be unjustified. So I've addressed the matter at WP:AN, the link is below. Thanks.--v/r - ]] 22:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC) | ::You're probably having a busy Sunday morning and haven't had the chance to respond yet, but I don't believe that to be fair to The Banner that he remain blocked when I believe it to be unjustified. So I've addressed the matter at WP:AN, the link is below. Thanks.--v/r - ]] 22:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
:::(ec, I was typing this as you were running to AN) I certainly did not block him for having a dissenting opinion, and I'd thank you not to suggest that I aim to be anything other than even-handed in my admin actions. As I see it, there's an interpersonal dispute between Blofeld and Banner; the consensus at the wikiproject talk page favours an approach somewhere between the two extremes. Blofeld seems to have accepted this t some extent, but Banner seems to have continued edit-warring. If he was edit-warring against Blofeld, I'd have given them both a bollocking and perhaps protected the article, but when he's edit-warring against several editors, and several more are telling him on a talk page that he's wrong (and he's continuing to edit-war, rather than calling a moratorium on reverting while the discussion progresses), I tend to think it's a conduct issue and not a content one. ] | ] 22:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Precious again == | == Precious again == |
Revision as of 22:15, 30 March 2014
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.
Making OTRS human.
Good morning young man. There is a empty glass on the table- awaiting your visit. How do you rate the NHS (stub, Start, C, B- or still pending?)
To business, can you have a look at this page and give your OTRS opiniion. Does it have all the detail OTRS needs to give the donated text a thumbs up.
Martin of Sheffield sent me a poke regarding a young man who had asked a webmaster friend if he could copy a chunk of the website onto a Misplaced Pages page. He did, and Martin just wanted a simple way to get Misplaced Pages approval. We ought to be able give him the correct text to make official I thought. I have spent the weekend playing Dungeons and Dragons with the official OTRS pages- they make Stalin's and the STASI look like a bunch of pussy cats. The language is a direct cut & paste from the Old Testament (/rant)
I think I said in Manchester that we needed some simple A6 cards, like the creative commons one, to encourage new people to get involved and to signal that the text & photographs on their websites was CC-BY-SA- and they would like WP to use it. So here we have a practical example of that almost happening.
- I have C&P ed the available text and customised- but does it hit all the points on your OTRS checklist? Can we point the young man at the page and let him get his friend to fill in the blanks.
- Is the format right?
- What have I missed?
Then
- How can we extend this into a Smartphone app? That will take some backend work
- Then what about a OTRS Tutorial for humans?
- Can we make the OTRS pages more encouraging, and less threatening?
-- Clem Rutter (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Clem! Still pending wrt our beloved NHS; perhaps they're waiting for the Tories to privatise them completely. I'm already being seen by a private company that runs part of the hospital "under contract" from the NHS. I'll get back to you wrt OTRS when I have a bit more time. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
More Barney articles
See Category:Misplaced Pages indefinitely semi-protected pages. Article A Day in the Park with Barney might be doing well for almost a month. How many more Barney articles must you lower to PC? --George Ho (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Forgetting something? George Ho (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've dug up this thread from the archives, but I can't find a full list of the protected articles. I'll happily consider putting some more on pending changes, but not the three in that thread—two of those have had problems even with the semi-protection and the third was constantly having problems before, so it seems reasonable to assume that the problems would resume as soon as they were unprotected. Find me some quiet articles, though, and I'll happily drop the protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Barney's 1-2-3-4 Seasons and Barney's Adventure Bus? George Ho (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll give them a go. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Barney's 1-2-3-4 Seasons and Barney's Adventure Bus? George Ho (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've dug up this thread from the archives, but I can't find a full list of the protected articles. I'll happily consider putting some more on pending changes, but not the three in that thread—two of those have had problems even with the semi-protection and the third was constantly having problems before, so it seems reasonable to assume that the problems would resume as soon as they were unprotected. Find me some quiet articles, though, and I'll happily drop the protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Barney's Musical Castle, Barney's Magical Musical Adventure, Barney's Good Day Good Night, Barney's Colorful World, and Barney's Big Surprise. George Ho (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Last three, sure, we'll give them a go. First two seem to have been favourites, and one of them has had problems even since the protection, so I'd rather give them a few months to see how the others get on with pending changes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Waiting for Santa? George Ho (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Protection of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants
Hi, Harry. You fully protected Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. There was a request at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#RFC closed for the protection to be removed. It looked to me as though there was consensus in support of that, so I did it. Possibly it would have been better to refer the matter to you, in case you know of good reasons why the protection should not be removed, which I did not see in the discussions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission implementation. The latter suffers from a bad case of WP:TLDR, and although I skimmed the page and looked out for anything that seemed relevant, I can't be certain I didn't miss something. Anyway, if you think I was mistaken in removing the protection, please re-impose it. I promise not to drag you screaming to the mob at ANI for wheel-warring. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nah, it was an RfPP request, so not something really attached to. I had a feeling it wouldn't last, this being a wiki and all! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
WMP Museum
Hi Harry,
Are you planning to write up PC Harold Etherigton-Wood, GM, or should I hassle ask someone else? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- I couldn't find much on him (I remember doing a little digging on the day but I got distracted by something else). Alas, the GM (as opposed to the GC) does not confer inherent notability. If there are sources, he should definitely have an article, but I've got quite a bit on my plate atm, so if someone else is keen, I'll pass the baton (or, er, truncheon!) to them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thank you for your most polite demeanor and professional conduct at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Operation Flavius/archive1. I've since voiced my support for FA promotion at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Operation Flavius/archive1. I really appreciate the way you composed your replies to me, it was most kind and thoughtful. I apologize if I seemed a bit brusque, I've been under a bit of stress lately. Thanks again very much for your professionalism and kindness. — Cirt (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC) |
- Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to read the article more than anything—that's why we write these things, I suppose! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed! Thanks again for your awesome attitude, — Cirt (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014
|
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) 12:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Total Siyapaa Edit Protection
Hi there, I notcied that the talk page of Total Siyapaa was edit protected without a link to WP:RFED. I'm also confused as to the reason the page was protected in the first place. There was not a great deal of vandalism which usually warrants such protection. Greedo8 17:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- The IPs are clearly being used to evade sanctions; the range is too big to block, so that leaves us with either whack-a-mole or short-term semi. I went for the latter for a few days. The socks will probably be back, and whack-a-mole will continue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Understood. Thanks! Greedo8 18:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Quick question
I just saw this block and was wondering if there is any specific reason for the time or if it was just random? Northern Antarctica (₵) 18:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's 1001 days, but since the WMF, in their infinite wisdom, changed how the software deals with dates longer than a year, it shows up like that. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Okay. I always kind of chuckle on the inside when I see a block that is that specific (and that long). Northern Antarctica (₵) 18:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Angie Goff
Hey HJ, thanks for the page protection on the article. Much appreciated. Hope all is well with you. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- No worries, Homer. Long time no see... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's been awhile. I'm still around, still working on radio articles. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Glad to hear it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's been awhile. I'm still around, still working on radio articles. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 March 2014
- Comment: A foolish request
- Traffic report: Down to a simmer
- News and notes: Commons Picture of the Year—winners announced
- Featured content: Winter hath a beauty that is all his own
- Technology report: Why will Misplaced Pages look like the Signpost?
- WikiProject report: From the peak
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Garland Grenade
You might be interested in the Garland Grenade red link on Herbert Garland. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Filter question
Hi - long time no chat. I'm trying to find out someone who can tell me a bit more about filters as I'm trying to find out if I can use one to detect copyvio and other problems of a specific type (ie certain phrases and words). Would that be you or can you point me in the right direction? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- The honest answer is "don't look at me"! I understand the basics of filters, but I'm not actively involved with them (I keep the right because it used to be necessary to view private filters, and because I've used a handful of times). The best place to ask would be WT:EF or even AN; you should get comments there from people a lot more competent than I! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. AN is a very good idea. Dougweller (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
User:The Banner
I don't see disruptive conduct. Did you block this guy for having a dissenting opinion? I'd like to request a block review on WP:AN. I find this highly inappropriate, and contrary to open discussion and the way we develop a WP:CONSENSUS. A consensus formed by blocking editors who oppose is not a consensus at all. The worst you've got is that he's been a bit snarky. That's not blockable.--v/r - TP 05:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've spent some more time looking into this. The 'consensus' on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Civil_parishes_vs_villages is not as explicit as I'd have expected for this block. Besides Mr. Blofelf and The Banner, the other editors seem to find a mixture of the two opinions to be optimal. In fact, the argument that received the most support is that articles about Parishes and Villages should be combined or not based on geography. However, even setting that aside and assuming Dr. Blofeld gained consensus, this edit that you blocked The Banner for is actually enforcing that consensus against The Banner's own opinion. He included information about the parish in the article about the village. That was the so-called consensus by Dr. Blofeld. And yet, Dr. Blofeld reverted him blindly anyway. If anyone earned a block, it was Dr. Blofeld. Am I reading something wrong here?--v/r - TP 06:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- You're probably having a busy Sunday morning and haven't had the chance to respond yet, but I don't believe that to be fair to The Banner that he remain blocked when I believe it to be unjustified. So I've addressed the matter at WP:AN, the link is below. Thanks.--v/r - TP 22:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- (ec, I was typing this as you were running to AN) I certainly did not block him for having a dissenting opinion, and I'd thank you not to suggest that I aim to be anything other than even-handed in my admin actions. As I see it, there's an interpersonal dispute between Blofeld and Banner; the consensus at the wikiproject talk page favours an approach somewhere between the two extremes. Blofeld seems to have accepted this t some extent, but Banner seems to have continued edit-warring. If he was edit-warring against Blofeld, I'd have given them both a bollocking and perhaps protected the article, but when he's edit-warring against several editors, and several more are telling him on a talk page that he's wrong (and he's continuing to edit-war, rather than calling a moratorium on reverting while the discussion progresses), I tend to think it's a conduct issue and not a content one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
- You're probably having a busy Sunday morning and haven't had the chance to respond yet, but I don't believe that to be fair to The Banner that he remain blocked when I believe it to be unjustified. So I've addressed the matter at WP:AN, the link is below. Thanks.--v/r - TP 22:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Precious again
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Do we have an FA on a documentary?
So, did you do an article on a documentary? Do we have an FA on a documentary? made me curious.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Do we have an FA on a documentary?
So, did you do an article on a documentary? Misplaced Pages talk:Featured articles#Do we have an FA on a documentary? made me curious.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Notice
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Block_Review:_User:The_Banner. Thank you. v/r - TP 22:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)