Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by I42 (talk | contribs) at 08:09, 6 June 2010 (→Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of German Ministers-Presidents by longevity: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Admins: If you feel I have erred in one of my admin actions, just correct it. I won't consider it wheel warring if you leave me a note explaining what you did and why!

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

An Award!

User:QwerpQwertus/The Puzzle Piece Award

Khojaly Massacre

The protection of the page on the version advocated by some does not accord to the requested consensus by the same protection. Neither does it encourage those users to be more constructive. The request for edit was not even requesting the deletion of the claim. It was a request to input that the issue is being discussed. What were the bases for rejection considering this? Aregakn (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I declined it because {{editprotected}} is only for uncontroversial requests or those that have consensus because bold, revert, discuss is a lot more difficult when only admins can edit the page. The protection expires tomorrow anyway, so you can make the edit yourself. Sorry, 16:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood. But I thought marking that the sentence (for which the edit-wars started and the page was protected) is disputed and link it to the discussion is an uncontraversial change, because it just projected the reality :). Regards, Aregakn (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Aregakn (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Pst... can you keep an eye on the article? it is again becoming a battle-ground :(. Aregakn (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll add it to my watchlist. Anything in particular I should be looking for or just the usual edit warring? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The edit warring in general. There's an editor that doesn't want to edit after discussions and compromise and he jumped into it just at once after the block on the article was lifted. He did the same thing on Karabakh Khanate Article. I remember the WP:TE speaks of this type of behavior. There's also a big Arbitration case against a large group of editors conducting their actions on Misplaced Pages and harassing people in real life now taking place in Ru.WP ru:Википедия:Заявки на арбитраж/Азербайджанский список рассылки where the editors involved in these and other articles in En.WP are participating. Don't know if it's relevant. Aregakn (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well if anybody specifically is edit warring or generally causing trouble or making a nuisance of themselves on en.wiki, I might be able to do something, but unfortunately what happens on ru.wiki will have to be dealt with by the admins there. I'm keeping an eye on things there, though, don't worry. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they do have to deal with that themselves, but if the editors are conspiring and agreeing on every move (on en.wiki too) it should be brought up here too, right? Maybe I should file an Arbitration on en.wiki soon oo. Thanks for watching! Aregakn (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I did some poking around and it looks like it's already subject to discretionary sanctions from a previous arbitration case, so if there's anyone being particularly disruptive, I can take action as an uninvolved admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Grandmaster, Brandmeister and Parishan are the most active. But they have calmed down due to these activities now. I think they're busy with the case at the moment.

From their conversations it is obvious they have a connection to the Azeri media and press as well and they are putting recruiting announcements on them periodically calling for edit-warring in Misplaced Pages. As a result there's now this whole thing taking place. I have invited the attention of Admins to it on ANI once or twice.

So now we have a group of 26 members under arbitratin. And these are yet the ones that could have been spotted. Also it's a closed circle, in a way, and I wonder how many miscellaneous editors we have of this type. Aregakn (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Goldstone attempts at compromise

Since the expiration of my block for violation 1R, I have refrained from making any edits to the Goldstone article. I have been vocal on the Talk page advocating compromise and possible solutions. Offending sources were removed and phrasing altered. The following four diffs represent my attempts in this endeavour.

• here

• here

• here

• here

Thus far, my efforts have been met with a brick wall from the die-hards. If this uncompromising stance continues, I'll reinsert the edit with altered phrasing and of course, without the "weak" sources. It's not something I want to do but I think some editors view this (and the entire IP arena) as a zero sum game.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Before you do anything, read up on the policies to make sure your arse is covered and you're not violating any of them. I suggest you read WP:BLP from to to bottom. It's not that long and you might find some useful information in there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to butt in, but there's no consensus to re-add the disputed information; at present there are no sources that are more or less weak, since the problem remains that all of them rely on Yediot's claims, and make no independent attempt to either verify or refute them. If you try to insert anything approaching these claims, I can assure you that you'll have left yourself exposed to accusations that you have violated the BLP policy. — e. ripley\ 00:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Read it and understand it. I'll be careful. thanks--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

G6 Images

I'd been using G6 as i've been told NOT to use F2, given that the wording of the CSD for F2 doesn't currently cover local pages for Commons images..

Do you think the issue of 'local' page for Commons image needs it own CSD? If created it would solve this issue straightforwardly. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with {{db-g6}} is that it doesn't, at the minute, categorise anywhere other than C:SD which means I have to click each one and delete it, whereas the F2 category is usually empty, so I can just empty it in a few clicks with Twinkle. I might raise it at WT:CSD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedialang

Why did you self-revert? Was there an issue? —David Levy 16:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, when I looked at it on the Main Page, it buggered it up. I think there's a noninclude tag or something missing somewhere, but my template skill is minimal at best! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stoneriver

I have some questions about this about your closure of this AfD. Please note that I don't have a problem with the result, I'm really just curious.

As far as your closure of keep instead of no consensus, I understand that many editors didn't return to the conversation, but can you assume their opinion has changed or should be discounted and not assume the same about those who were inclined to keep? It seems a one-sided adjustment. Also, for a straw poll there's 5.5 deletes and 3 keeps, and while they are !votes, isn't the quantity necessarily at least some indication of community consensus? Looking at the arguments at least Stifle and I looked at later additions of references and AlphaQuadrant's keep didn't even address notability, which (discounting earlier deletes and AQ's cmt) leaves 2 on one side and 2 on the other (including 1 SPA). Lastly, I thought your opinion as a closer should only be to judge the strength of the arguments, not whether or not the coverage was significant or not.

I'm sorry if I'm rambling and I really don't mean this to sound like an attack of any kind, but it just seems odd to me given how I thought the process worked. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've come here to express asking the same question. Closing as keep seems to be make a lot of assumptions about what editors are thinking. I explicitly noted that I had not changed my stance with the addition of earlier material. I did not think it necessary to weigh in with a "me too" comment after VernoWhitney's assessment of the subsequent source presentation as it's quite evident that I was following the discussion and not simply !voting. Stifle's opinion was added after the conclusion of the last sourcing discussion, so it would seem that there are at least 3 editors that hold a delete opinion because the sourcing remained inadequate. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm still new to this AfD-closing milarky! I suppose no consensus would have better, but the result is the same, so there's not much point changing it, but your comments are noted for future reference. I must say, the discussion was hardly the best, but I supppose it was doomed once the SPAs started showing up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, the outcome from a "no consensus" and a "keep" both result in an article remaining, but they aren't the same. A "keep" is a much stronger statement than a "no consensus" and is a stronger barrier to a subsequent nomination for deletion. For example, I'm accused of murder. The police investigate and find exculpatory evidence that clears me and thus no charges are laid. Compare with: the police investigate and find some circumstantial evidence but nothing solid enough thus no charges are laid. Same outcome, but they aren't the same thing. Would you consider amending to a "no consensus"? Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
    • You make a good argument. Are you a lawyer? :) I've amended it to no consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks, and no I'm not a lawyer. I've read through enough software license agreements that I am thoroughly sick of them. Does that count? -- Whpq (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi, as someone whose opinion I respect and who is an uninvolved person, can you tell me (discreetly or sternly - whichever you believe is required) if I'm being too harsh here in raising these questions or the way in which I'm going about it? I appear to have caused offence and don't want to cause any more. --candle•wicke 17:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, marking it minor and not using an edit summary is odd, but not (yet!) the 8th deadly sin (though make me king for a day...!) but he does kind of have a point- I wouldn't use the term "spam" but do we really need to list all those ambassadors? It's just politics and will probably have had no impact in a month's time. I'd be inclined to leave it be- I've seen edit wars over much pettier things, but it's not that important- you could just work in a link to the international reaction section or combine it with (X number of countries) recall their ambassadors... Hope that helps :). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. No intention to edit war. Thanks for your kind words. :) --candle•wicke 21:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What about Agatha?

Is there a reason when balancing out the Main Page you skipped over re-adding Tropical Storm Agatha? Do you not remember removing it just an hour earlier? -- tariqabjotu 01:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidently not, no! Ha! Temporary amnesia? :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

RfPP

Hey, if you get something crazy like that in future, drop a note on my talk page as well- if I'm on, it'll be done instantly and the worst case scenario is I don't see it in time and someone else will probably protect it. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, only if I see you are online and it's really necessary. Tbhotch 01:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wooden

Thanks for your help. BTW, that kitty is freakin' me out and I'm a bear! ----moreno oso (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I'm keeping a close eye on it. As for the kitty, I don;t like cats, but that pic makes me laugh (yes, even admins have a sense of humour. sometimes!)! ;)HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look good for him. Supposedly he hasn't eaten in days. The trucks are thick around the hospital but he's a tough bird. It would nice to see him hit a 100. Gosh that kitty is scaring me again. Aargh! ----moreno oso (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Your Signature

Hi HJ Mitchell, Just wanted know how you created your signature with some nice colors, font etc. Wanted to learn and also wanted to change my signature. KuwarOnline (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here, but since I recently wondered the same thing, I thought I would give you a helping hand to pass time before HJ can possibly give a more precise answer. I learnt from this tutorial: User:Smurrayinchester/Tutorial/Signature. I did also use alot of trial and error however. I'll also give a rough guide to the layout you should put in the box in your preferences:

''']''' (])

It is very similar to what the default signature is, except with added font tags to allow colour change. If your looking for colours, and their hexidecimal codes, check out List of colours. It has a huge list, and shows the codes for each one. Hope this helps, I don't know any of the more complex tricks though! --Taelus (Talk) 12:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Another talk page stalker here... Unicode is a useful trick, too: I've (temporarily) used it in my signature for the talk page link:

]^]

Cheers, TFOWR 12:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

hey thanks bro...the link User:Smurrayinchester/Tutorial/Signature was really helpful and explanation above, thanks again KuwarOnline (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

These talk page stalkers are handy! It took me a lot longer to figure out how to do it! In case you;re wondering, the code for mine is ] | ]. Have fun with your fancy new sig! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reply and code KuwarOnline (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup squads

Hi HJ Mitchell, I noticed that you were the admin who initially semi-protected this page and now I'm asking you to do it again. Ever since protection ended the page has been bombarded with misinformation from IP addresses and new, inexperienced users. It really could use semi-protection again, at least until the tournament ends on July 11. It's becoming a real hassle having to undo all the wrong information so it would be much appreciated, thanks. --Spartan008 (talk) 12:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me have a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You've got mail...

...sorry, this is becoming a habit ;-) TFOWR 12:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll check it in a mo! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

HJ, hope you don't mind but I made the necessary administrivial edits to make the nomination live. (Not to steal your credit, just to get the ball rolling.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Here we go! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Klemens Murańka

Hello HJ Mitchell, could you post a copy of a recently deleted article to my sub-page? Yes, there is always one lone voice out there never satisfied :-). The article Klemens Murańka was recently deleted through consensus at a AFD, as shown by the previous supplied link. I believe, in the near future, we will be able to bring this piece up to the standards required under notability guidelines. Thanks for your help. Regards. ShoesssS 18:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, give me a moment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

May I help you? KzKrann (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks appreciate the quick respone....and of course....all help is welcome....This is Misplaced Pages :-). ShoesssS 02:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

John Wooden

Could you take a look at my edit request at Talk:John Wooden? Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 21:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Done :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, according to the article, he's been in hospital since May 27 (or was it 26?). Could you update that to reflect that, and cite the article? Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking of lowering the protection, now that it's calmed down a bit. What do you think? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I guess it's worth giving it a try. Maybe semi-protection for the next week? Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reduced it to semi for the original duration. I can always extend it or put it back up to full protection if need be, but let's how that goes. Btw, any chance I could tempt you into a second RfA? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure at this point. I have exams coming up, so I wouldn't be able to pay too much attention to the questions and all. Maybe this summer, but thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll just continue stalking you then! ;) Seriously though, any time you change your mind, I'd be more than happy to nominate you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. The main reason for my RfA sinking last time was my knowledge of the CSD criteria, but I think I have at least some decent knowledge of it (though I really won't touch into CSD). My main use for the tools would probably be vandal fighting, and possibly some RFPP. I'm still not entirely sure, I've had a couple rejected RFPP reports, mainly due toi lack of recent activity (which I understand the reasoning behind, but it may sink an RfA) Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

We're all human. I don't generally work in CSD and I avoid A7 like the plague! I deal with the odd bit of spam and attack pages, other than that I stick to G6 and G7/U1. I think the vast majority of your RfPP are accurate and it can be pretty subjective so I doubt a few declined requests would sink an RfA as long as you know the protection policy. There's always a need for more admins at AIV (and RfPP for that matter). I reckon you'd have a pretty good chance and it's been just over 4 months since your last one... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good. This time, hopefully I'll have more time to respond thoroughly to the questions (assuming I get pounded by them), and not get tripped up. I'm also concerned that I may get opposed for lack of content creation. I'll leave a note here when I feel I'm ready. Thanks again. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

All right then, I'll look forward to it. :) And there's a simple way to solve that- it's not too difficult to write a reasonable article and get it on DYK, at least then you'd have something to point at and you'd probably enjoy it- never hurts to broaden your horizons. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you have this all sorted out. As HJ says, DYK's aren't that much work, just follow the rules and you'll be fine. Courcelles (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

ITN

I jsut undid your edit to T:ITN, as the words you changed made little sense in light of the entire blurb- you left it reading; "Naoto Kan (pictured) becomes Prime Minister of Japan by the Diet, following the resignation of Yukio Hatoyama.". If that's the wording you want, "by the Diet" needs to go. Courcelles (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops! That's embarrassing! Thanks for the heads up! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You are appreciated

If I could find the template for the "being the only admin we ever see at RPP" barnstar, I'd give you one. (Barnstar that is). DuncanHill (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well thank you! It's nice to be appreciated! It would be even nicer to have more admins at RPP, though! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't provide you with more admins (for some unaccountable reason I don't have the ability to create them), you'll have to make do with this -

		The Admin's Barnstar
		for tireless and often single-handed work at RPP DuncanHill (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Like I say, nice to be appreciated ;). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Bling, bling!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For doing an outstanding job with your mop. Keep it up! ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 03:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well thank you very much, NSD! It's always good to hear from you, especially when you come bearing gifts! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Template semi-protection

Good morning. I noticed that you recently semi-protected a number of nav box templates including Template:FOSS and Template:Linux even though neither has a history of vandalism. I started a discussion on both at Template_talk:FOSS#Semi-protection and Template_talk:Linux#Semi-protection respectively and I was wondering if you could add a few words as to why you believe this step was needed? - Ahunt (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. Generally "highly visible" templates are either semi or full protected even when there's no history of vandalism (I spend several hours some days running round dealing with requested edits to fully protected templates!) but the phrase "high visibility" is rather ambiguous. There was a request earlier this morning at WP:RPP for a bunch of templates to be semi protected (I copied the list into sandbox so I could batch protect them if you want to see the rest) so I obliged. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply on that. As an established editor it doesn't affect my own ability to edit those templates, but I am just concerned that when we protect templates that don't have a history of problems that we are compromising the open editing ability that characterizes Misplaced Pages. I am always cognizant that my own first IP edits were to fix spelling mistakes in articles I was reading as a casual user. That lead me to realize how easy it was to contribute, so I opened an account and 34,000 edits later I am still here. I am not at all opposed to protecting pages where there is a history of vandalism, I am just concerned that if too many pages are protected it may discourage new editors from getting involved in Misplaced Pages. - Ahunt (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think it's important to differentiate between articles and templates, of which the latter often employs intricate syntax and markup and to which changes can affect the appearance of several hundred (or in some cases thousands or even millions in one or two cases) of articles and pages. You might also like to contact User:Koolabsol, who requested the protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That does make sense vis-a-vis articles versus templates. Thanks for addressing the issue. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Bradford Murders.

Just to say I'm extremely pleased that this article has been renamed/protected ahead of the court hearing. Worse case scenario was one of the new IPs being someone connected with the trial. Whilst I have experience of working with journalists on contentious/potentially libellous material, is it possible to get some Wiki guidelines for UK bios affected by subjudice so that these could be quoted in future?

Regards JRPG (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we have a specific policy- probably because the WP servers are in the States- but the two most important policies in the area would be WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Also, the article is only move protected- it can be edited by anyone, but it can only be moved by an admin (I'll be happy to oblige if there's a consensus on the talk page)- that's just to "enforce" the AfD close in case anyone were tempted to try and get round it. If issues arise, then please do let me know and I'll take swift action given the... sensitive issues involved. Hope that helps, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

IP Vandal

Thank you for blocking User:88.26.26.159 User:80.31.248.45 User:83.39.9.248 User:79.146.111.65 User:83.59.244.54. He is quite persistent. Can you do more please? Eg semi protect Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's such a great idea considering he's not causing that much disruption and there are constructive IP edits to that article (it's actually on my watchlist and I've not seen very much of this guy). I can give you rollback if you like to make reverting him easier, but for now I think we should go with revert, block, ignore. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have rollback thank you. I don't know how to slap him with an "only warning" sticker. Whenever I see your name I think RJ Mitchell of Spitfire fame. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Not according to my checks (yes, I stalk everyone who posts here!). You have autoreviewer, but not rollback. I can rectify that in three clicks if you want. As to "only warnings", if he's just IP hopping, there's probably not much point. If he get really annoying, I'll plat whack-a-mole with a series of short blocks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Then yes please. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Just remember, vandalism only, no edit warring, etc etc. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

IRC

Please pop in #wikinews. Need to talk with you. --Diego Grez 16:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Akkadian Empire

Thank you for your assistance on this.Ploversegg (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

File:DF-ST-98-00046 cropped.JPEG

Please be more careful when deleting image files featured (or will be featured) on Main Page. This cropped image has been uploaded to English Misplaced Pages only, so you shouldn't use the {{C-uploaded}} tag, nor should you delete it, since it is likely to be used for OTD next year as well. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but surely it makes more sense to restore it next year if it's used. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Because? It doesn't do any harm to leave it without deleting it, but it certainly does harm if we forget to restore it next year. --BorgQueen (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sesame Street

Sorry about that. Just another *facepalm* moment. Perhaps I should get a bit more sleep. :)Connormah (talk | contribs) 17:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries! Looks like there is vandalism there but not recently enough for protection to do much good. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. Connormah (talk | contribs) 17:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

AL GA

Hi HJ, just checking in. Was there something else that needed to be done that I missed before you go over the article for GA review? Since last I wrote you, the overlinks were removed and most of the unreliable sources were replaced. There's only one {{fv}} tag left, and I honestly can't find any source for it (Canon Singapore). I've asked for help on the talk page, but little to no response. So we can either leave it or remove it, let me know what you think. Or maybe it won't affect the GA at all. – Kerαunoςcopia_galaxies 18:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look in a bit. Obviously it would be nice if we could find a proper source, but if there isn't one available and the information attached to the tag isn't essential, I'd suggest removing it- I can't pass the GAN until it's resolved :(. Anyway, I'll be over there in a bit to take a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Had I known it would stall the GA, I would've removed the info. I'll do so now. – Kerαunoςcopia_galaxies 22:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, info was removed. Although I've no doubt it was added in good faith a long time ago, I spent quite a bit of time, several days ago, looking for a reference, including Google's news archives, and was not able to dig up any information that supported the phrase tagged {{fv}}, so it's now removed. I don't see any other tags, AL doesn't seem to have any hidden categories that make me nervous, several people have trimmed the lede down, and the article has actually remained stable for the most part in the last couple of days; so the article should be 100% ready for your review. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia_galaxies 22:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll take my admin hat off and put my GA reviewer hat on :). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:When

Hi HJ Mitchell, would you mind having a look at Template talk:When? In my opinion the recent change doesn't make sense and breaks numerous existing uses of the template.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied at Template talk:When#Edit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reaction!

Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikinews - Turkey bans Google

i edited and developed the article regarding your comments. i hope you have time to re-check the article.

--78.162.177.220 (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion

Just asking for your honest POV on this. Thanks.--White Shadows 20:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

HJ Mitchell - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you!  7  23:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

support

The last option that you mentioned in the RFC lacks your support/oppose. Although I AGF, it appears to be a joke. Perhaps you could add your support to it? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Mail?

Thanks for the user block re Karel Capek and the unblock at The Sydney Morning Herald. Thought you may have been going for an early night 'today' (but you're back!). I have had a late night myself. Did you get my mail? Cuppa?

Someone has poured you tea.

220.101.28.25 (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, mail. I haven't seen it- another reason you should get an account- then you can email me via WP's system (and I can confirm you and generally make editing so much easier for you)! I'll check all my various email addresses in case it got lost somewhere! As to the SMH, you're welcome. It had been protected for a while, so I thought unprotection was worth a try. I'm always on around this time- 00:00UTC is switchover time on the Main Page so someone has to check that the TFA is move protected, check the balance of the columns, make sure all the images are protected and have their licensing info! It's not that easy being an admin! Thanks for the cuppa, though (you got anything stronger...?) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

How about this, some in the tea and It'll help you nod off! Which I need to do a little of even though it is morning! Ah Johhny Walker, I miss him! Have not seen him around recently! <sigh>. I'll have to check that e-mail address, it was the one you gave me in May when you wanted to vent something about the 'peanut gallery', I think it was. Or ping me on my one, I haven't used that exact one since December '09 but I mailed myself to check so apparently it is still working. --220.101 (talk) -01:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, getting closer! ;) In that case, I've probably got it, I'll have to more closely examine the contents of my inbox in the morning (it's currently full of "I tried to advertise on WP and you deleted it" type crap!). While I'm thinking about it, why don't you set up an account, use it for a little while and if you don't think much to it, you can just go back to being 220.101....? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

← Waddaya want, Black Label? or how about some: ? Account? Hmm,...thinking. --220.101 (talk) -02:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I've got a 15 year old bottle of single malt knocking around somewhere, but it's a bit late to be cracking open expensive whisky now! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, Keep the cheap(er) stuff for 'sleep enhancement' . Tis' late so I'll let you go for now. By the way Jimbo certainly ain't God, cause I think God works for Jimbo! --220.101 (talk) -02:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I've no problem with the guy, but the way some people talk about him, if you didn't know better, you'd think they were talking about some mystical deity. As far as I'm concerned, he's just another editor for all intents and purposes. Let me know what conclusion you come to about an account, but for now, I need sleep ;). Even admins need to sleep! Sometimes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Yet another ban proposal

That was not the most drama-reducing proposal, and probably didn't help a whole lot...

I'm not quite at the "that's troutable" level on this, but it would help if admins didn't do things that increase drama.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Alas, you're probably right. Not that I have anything at al against those three editors but I'm just so sick of seeing them carry on such pathetic arguments in any forum they can find! Ah well, I probably just need sleep! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of German Ministers-Presidents by longevity

I found your closure of this AfD as keep, without any explanation of your rationale, surprising. Purely numerically there were three editors for delete and three for keep, but two of the keep rationales were based simply on WP:WAX so should carry little weight. Whilst it's a judgment call, I certainly don't see a "keep" result there; I appreciate that you did, but its not so obvious it needed no explanation. The AfD also cited Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_German_Federal_Ministers_by_longevity which itself cites two other AfDs - all of which are near-identical and resulted in delete and again, your reasoning for coming to a different conclusion would have been appreciated. I42 (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)