Passionless (talk | contribs) |
Passionless (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
==The Sham== |
==The Sham== |
||
He is still editing [[List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011]] against [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Sham&diff=prev&oldid=419727923 his sanctions]. [[User:Passionless|<font color="#000000">'''Passionless'''</font>]] [[User talk:Passionless|<font color="#D70A53">-'''Talk'''</font>]] 18:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC) |
He is still editing [[List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011]] against [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Sham&diff=prev&oldid=419727923 his sanctions]. [[User:Passionless|<font color="#000000">'''Passionless'''</font>]] [[User talk:Passionless|<font color="#D70A53">-'''Talk'''</font>]] 18:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
:And on another matter; since I don't want to be going to AE/ANI unilaterally right now as people think I'm battling, what do you think about taking [[user:Rym Torch]] to ANI for hounding me after I warned him to stop. The purpose of that account is pretty much an SPA to hound me and a checkuser has in the past shown that he is editing from a mobile device, so he probably has a second real account and uses his phone to hide the connection. [[User:Passionless|<font color="#000000">'''Passionless'''</font>]] [[User talk:Passionless|<font color="#D70A53">-'''Talk'''</font>]] 18:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:58, 26 March 2011
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.
White Horse
Would you mind going over the changes on "White Horse" and then comment on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/White Horse (song)/1. Thank you. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 00:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I was just about to retire for the night, but since it's you, I'll have a look when I re-emerge. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. Also, which I'm really sorry for, how do I nominated The Time of Our Lives (Miley Cyrus song) for a speedy deletion. My reason is that it was already deleted and the song is has the same issues as before, no media coverage, and failure to be anything but a stub. Sorry to bother you but I just need the procedures. I can't find them at WP:Speedy deletion. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 02:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, it doesn't meet any of the speedy criteria and even if it did, it's previously survived an AfD, so the only reason it could be speedied is if it's a newly discovered copyright violation. The only way you're going to get it deleted is through WP:AfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- And exactly how would I do that? I'm sorry, but I don't remember how to do this. I've only done it once before. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- You can either use Twinkle or you can follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO (mostly copying and pasting). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nevermind, me and the creator, which has been the only contributor of it, have both reached the agreement to redirect the page for what it was previously redirected for. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- You can either use Twinkle or you can follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO (mostly copying and pasting). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- And exactly how would I do that? I'm sorry, but I don't remember how to do this. I've only done it once before. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, it doesn't meet any of the speedy criteria and even if it did, it's previously survived an AfD, so the only reason it could be speedied is if it's a newly discovered copyright violation. The only way you're going to get it deleted is through WP:AfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. Also, which I'm really sorry for, how do I nominated The Time of Our Lives (Miley Cyrus song) for a speedy deletion. My reason is that it was already deleted and the song is has the same issues as before, no media coverage, and failure to be anything but a stub. Sorry to bother you but I just need the procedures. I can't find them at WP:Speedy deletion. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 02:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, what do you think about the separation between Miley Cyrus discography and Hannah Montana discography? Should it be united? If so, how? Because I want to fix up the page, but don't know how because of that. I previously brought it up on the talk page, but barely anyone commented. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 00:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- If you have a strong preference for merging, then be bold and merge them. If it came to FLC, they might have strong views on it, so if you don;t have strong views but want to save yourself some work alter on, it might be worth asking for input at WT:FL. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
ME discretionary sanctions editor
This editor you had previously sanctioned is clearly back to being pov. Does he need a talking to? Well, thats your discretions since you put the ban on him (i found from his talk page).Lihaas (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
New Pages and New Users
I've recently been doing some thinking (and a great deal of consultation with Philippe and James at the WMF's community department) on how to keep new users around and participating, particularly in light of Sue's March update. One of the things we'd like to test is whether the reception they get when they make their first article is key. In a lot of cases, people don't stay around; their article is deleted and that's that. By the time any contact is made, in other words, it's often too late.
What we're thinking of doing is running a project to gather data on if this occurs, how often it occurs, and so on, and in the mean time try to save as many pages (and new contributors) as possible. Basically, involved users would go through the deletion logs and through Special:NewPages looking for new articles which are at risk of being deleted, but could have something made of them - in other words, non-notable pages that are potentially notable, or spammy pages that could be rewritten in more neutral language. This would be entirely based on the judgment of the user reviewing pages - no finnicky CSD standards. These pages would be incubated instead of deleted, and the creator contacted and shepherded through how to turn the article into something useful. If they respond and it goes well, we have a decent article and maybe a new long-term editor. If they don't respond, the draft can be deleted after a certain period of time.
I know this isn't necessarily your standard fare, but with your admin work I thought it might be up your alley. If you're interested, read Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/New pages, sign up and get involved; questions can be dropped on the talkpage or directed at me. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Rollback
With regard to this edit, I do not understand your action in changing my user rights based on the statement "edit warring with rollback". An admin had added headers and {{section stub|date=March 2011}} to the article, which had been removed with the edit summary "just doesn't make any sense", which I felt was nonsensical. Perhaps this was a mistaken use of rollback, but it was in good faith and not "edit warring", as none of these actions had been done by anyone before. Another editor then reverted me, and if I had used rollback again to reverse that then it clearly would have been edit warring, so it was clear I should use "undo" instead, including an explanation (diff). I think you may wish to reconsider? Moonraker2 (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just listen to yourself: "An admin had added headers ..." Are you really suggesting that anyone disagreeing with an admin's edits should be rolled back? Malleus Fatuorum 03:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- BTW, nobody needs rollback; it's a useless bauble that you won't even miss. Malleus Fatuorum 03:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- In reply to this, no, not at all, but it seemed to add credibility to the original edit. The main issue in my mind was that the edit was unconstructive, borderline vandalism, and the explanation nonsensical. I am sorry if I got it wrong. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I won't comment on the edit that you were reverting, because that's for you gents to sort out on the talk page, however, it certainly wasn't vandalism (any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia', unless you want to imply that we let vandalism-only accounts rack up 101,000 edits. If you paid enough attention to notice that the guy Malleus reverted was an admin, you must have noticed that there was an edit war going on. If you want to dive in and revert until someone protects the page, that's your prerogative, but you'll do it without using extra buttons that are designed to revert vandalism. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I have been aware of PBS as an admin for most of my time at Wikipedia. The edit I was reverting is surely the issue here, and I wasn't aware of an edit war over it. I also wasn't aware of Malleus Fatuorum having a particular number of edits, and I don't know how I should have been. I don't believe rollback is intended only for use with vandalism-only accounts. Anyway, I can only say I'm sorry if I got it wrong, but it was an honest mistake. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK. Take a step back. Go read WP:RBK, make sure you understand the "right" and "wrong" use of rollback and how your revert falls into the latter, than come back in the morning and I'll think about restoring it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- But you're still getting it wrong. Rollback isn't a weapon to be wielded against "vandalism-only accounts", it's to be used against vandalism. Whether the vandal is an IP or an administrator is irrelevant. Malleus Fatuorum 03:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Malleus, I'm not sure the above is addressed to me, but if it is then it's a misunderstanding and I agree with you.
- HJ Mitchell, as you asked I have read the Wikipedia:Rollback feature page carefully, and I do understand that the issue (when not dealing with my own edits, edits in my own user space, or edits by a banned user or a malfunctioning bot) is simply whether an edit is vandalism (as Malleus says, by any user) and that Malleus's edit was not arguably that per Wikipedia:Vandalism, which essentially means that an edit needs to be abusive and not merely misguided. I was plainly wrong in this case. I also note the circumstances in which rollbacks should be explained on the talk page. If I have the tool in the future I shall use it with more caution and understanding, especially of Wikipedia:Vandalism. Thank you for your understanding. Moonraker2 (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I have been aware of PBS as an admin for most of my time at Wikipedia. The edit I was reverting is surely the issue here, and I wasn't aware of an edit war over it. I also wasn't aware of Malleus Fatuorum having a particular number of edits, and I don't know how I should have been. I don't believe rollback is intended only for use with vandalism-only accounts. Anyway, I can only say I'm sorry if I got it wrong, but it was an honest mistake. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I won't comment on the edit that you were reverting, because that's for you gents to sort out on the talk page, however, it certainly wasn't vandalism (any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia', unless you want to imply that we let vandalism-only accounts rack up 101,000 edits. If you paid enough attention to notice that the guy Malleus reverted was an admin, you must have noticed that there was an edit war going on. If you want to dive in and revert until someone protects the page, that's your prerogative, but you'll do it without using extra buttons that are designed to revert vandalism. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- In reply to this, no, not at all, but it seemed to add credibility to the original edit. The main issue in my mind was that the edit was unconstructive, borderline vandalism, and the explanation nonsensical. I am sorry if I got it wrong. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Not you right?
So HJBot (talk · contribs) is another HJMitchellBot (talk · contribs) right? Elockid (Talk) 03:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ugh. Again? Looks like it. Unless it's Tipteoty (talk · contribs). I'm beginning to lose track of the sockpuppet impersonators! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Lol. I wonder what's next. Elockid (Talk) 03:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well I've got a whole list of 'em. I believe there are at least two separate sockmasters, but I don't care which one it is as long as they're indef'd on sight. I apparently have some very strong opinions by proxy! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Lol. I wonder what's next. Elockid (Talk) 03:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
(ec)@AIV
[1] Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- User(s) blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Greetings from Oz!
I started editing Wikipedia around the end of February. I am trying to host some workshops, one of which involves trying to teach sport people about wikis. I figured if I was going to try to teach people about things like Wikipedia, I should probably learn about using Wikipedia first. As my area is sport and I already know how to use wikis, I figured I could try to learn it on Wikipedia by trying to get a sport related article to good status. :)
I've kind of given up on Wikiversity. Wikiversity is a little too tolerant of disruptive users and makes it a priority to keep them involved than they do to keep other users. And that's life.
How is merry old England? :) Australia is lovely and I'm not leaving (except to go to New Zealand) unless some one is paying my airfare round trip again. ;) --LauraHale (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
ITN
Get the article created... Stephen 12:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#05FALL07_10_21_07.jpg
Hello, there is request for refund at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#05FALL07_10_21_07.jpg of a picture that you deleted. I've restored it to allow for fixing, but am not much into images, so wouldn't be sure what exactly is missing. Maybe you can advise the requester better? Thanks. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I left the uploader a note explaining what we need, thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Request for removal from protection: {{Political parties in Slovakia}}
I'm tempted to say that the trouble at {{Political parties in Slovakia}}, regarding one editor unilaterally adding the EU flag to the template, has died down. Certainly, the three other templates subjected to the same edits have not been targeted since they were unprotected. As such, I don't think it needs to be protected any more. Bastin 09:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
contionuous IP eduts for the last two days for Rajinikanth: 15:12, 25 March 2011 122.174.111.19 14:53, 25 March 2011 68.45.222.243Vensatry (talk) 10:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Semi Protection for rajinikanth
continuous IP edits for the past 2 days: 15:12, 25 March 2011 122.174.111.19 14:53, 25 March 2011 68.45.222.243 Vensatry (talk) 10:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- That was yesterday, and neither of those edits was vandalism, which is why I declined your RfPP request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi HJ,
On Puffin's talk page it says, "and the edit you are responding to came with the (HG) tag in the page history, keep in mind that this edit was made quickly while I was patrolling recent changes for vandalism." Last I checked edits using Huggle and other automated programs should be checked and shouldn't be carried out as though one were skimming a book, if you'll look further down his talk page you'll see he has ignored civil comments by stubbornly asserting he was patrolling recent changes and was getting a rough idea of each edit. In some cases he blindly reverted justified edits because content was removed and just now he accepted a promotional AfC which I promptly tagged for CSD. I'd like your thoughts on the matter. Regards, —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:34pm • 11:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- He seems to have re-emerged today from a three-week wikibreak. Perhaps cut him a little slack on the reverts, all of which seem to have been made a while ago, or try chatting with him and encouraging him to slow down. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- From what I've seen that's been done before, I know I may sound hypocritical given my own history I mean you remember my AfC debacle early last year. But the thing is this is a recurring problem with him, you'll see the problems span from October 2010 and have begun to re-emerge again. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:48pm • 11:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, you're right I'm being entirely unfair. I'll take note of that and ask him to slow down, thanks HJ! —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:49pm • 11:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Any time. Persuasion is (almost) always a better approach to a problem than coercion and maybe they'll appreciate some advice. We've all been there at some point—my earliest talk archives make for an interesting read! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, it's part of the learning process. I understand you're taking a break from using the mop and bucket, but could you weigh in here: Talk:Hap Glaudi#Re: CSD? The CSD for the article is being contested by the original AfC submitter. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 11:02pm • 12:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't have time right now. I've picked my mop back up, but I've got a few things to sort out before going AFK for a little while. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, it's part of the learning process. I understand you're taking a break from using the mop and bucket, but could you weigh in here: Talk:Hap Glaudi#Re: CSD? The CSD for the article is being contested by the original AfC submitter. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 11:02pm • 12:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Any time. Persuasion is (almost) always a better approach to a problem than coercion and maybe they'll appreciate some advice. We've all been there at some point—my earliest talk archives make for an interesting read! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The Sham
He is still editing List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011 against his sanctions. Passionless -Talk 18:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- And on another matter; since I don't want to be going to AE/ANI unilaterally right now as people think I'm battling, what do you think about taking user:Rym Torch to ANI for hounding me after I warned him to stop. The purpose of that account is pretty much an SPA to hound me and a checkuser has in the past shown that he is editing from a mobile device, so he probably has a second real account and uses his phone to hide the connection. Passionless -Talk 18:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)