User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

RPP comment

Ref. Electronic body music [1]

Just a note to say, I did intend to choose 'full'; my first reaction upon seeing the ongoing issue, and seeing >1 confirmed user involved, was to request full prot while we worked out what was happening.

In the event, soon after that, Shirik semi'd it, and then the IP involved was temp blocked (24 hours), and I then spoke directly to one of the other parties, so the imminent problem was resolved. I've followed up on it with User talk:Can You Prove That You're Human#Electronic body music and User talk:DarkProdigy#Talkback.

I've also written Talk:Electronic body music#Suggestions for improvement about how it can be better sourced to solve the longer term issue.

The thing about Twinkle is not a bug per se, it's actually this: In the RPP drop-down, the entries are;

Full protection

Generic

Dispute

Vandalism

High-visibility template

User talk of blocked user

Semi-protection

Generic

Dispute

Vandalism

High-visibility template

User talk of blocked user

Spambot target

Other

Move protection

Create protection

Unprotection

This is quite a small menu, and if one does not pay careful attention, one reads down the list, spots e.g. 'Dispute' or 'Vandalism', and chooses it - ie the first - thus requesting FULL not SEMI. I've almost done that myself a couple of times, and I'm pretty sure that is the reason for the problem that you mentioned. I think perhaps the menu needs clarification, or two separate choices - FULL or SEMI, and *then* the specific reasoning.

In any event, thanks for your efforts in RPP. Best,  Chzz  ►  14:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, at least it's resolved now. As for Twinkle, I use it myself and admins have the same drop down menu for applying protection- I've ended up having to reduce accidental full protection once or twice when I've been trying to clear RPP late at night! Sometimes I swear I'm the only admin who ever look at that board! I came on this morning to find almost nothing had been done since i left it last night! Nice to hear from you anyway :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Pashtun people

I just wanted t notify that the current version of Pashtun people contains a) wrong information and b) a falsification of sources. Since I am not allowed to revert the edits of User:Ahmed shahi, even if they are wrong or against Wikipedia rules, I want to at least mention it here on the talkpage of an admin. The current version has wrong information, but keeps academic encyclopedias - posted by myself to support the earlier correct version - attached to the wrong information, hence giving the wrong impression that it is somehow sourced by academic works, which is not the case. The sources are:

• "Afghan" (with ref. to "Afghanistan: iv. Ethnography") by Ch. M. Kieffer, Encyclopaedia Iranica, Online Edition 2006.
• Morgenstierne, G. (1999). "AFGHĀN". Encyclopaedia of Islam (CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0 ed.). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV.
• Pashtun, Encyclopædia Britannica, Online Edition.

A fourth source used by Ahmed shahi is History of the Mohamedan Power in India by Muhammad Qāsim Hindū Šāh Astarābādī Firištah, a source that a) does in no way support his claim, b) cannot be used in the article as a primary source, c) its author (a 16th century courtly writer of the Mughals) is only cite-able by experts.

So, in other word: Ahmad shahi has put wrong information in the article, but kept the older sources which are actually supporting the information he has deleted. Besides that, he has added another source that does not support his claim and cannot be used as a source (since it is a work from the 16th century and only cite-able by scholars). In fact, he has admitted various times that he does not even have access to the Encyclopaedia of Islam.

I suggest either to revert to the earlier sourced version or to delete the above mentioned sources (which are currently being falsified) and to tag the article with an "accuracy tag" since it is not supported by four of the aforementioned academic sources. You can check 3 of them yourself. This is not an attack on Ahmed shahi, but just a note to an admin. I cannot correct it myself, otherwise you'll block me.

Take care.

Tajik (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It's noted. I have no objection to you adding a tag to the article, but don't use language like "falsification" in your edit summary. This is the sort of thing that the mediation is supposed to be sorting out- the interaction ban is just there to try to get you two to focus on the content and not on each other. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've previously said that the mediation just covers Kabul and Kabul Province (with the hope that progress with those two would naturally spill over into other articles). I can't see immediately how this would be the case with Pashtun people, so I'd be OK with adding "Pashtun people" to mediation, if that would be helpful? TFOWR^propaganda 19:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I am fine with that. Meanwhile, I will remove the above mentioned sources (since they are very obviously not supporting his claim), and tag the article. Tajik (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

@TFOWR: That would be excellent. The alternative is page protection and/or more blocks so if there's a more productive way of getting things done, I'm all for it!

@Tajik: if you're reverted, do not revert back. My best advice would be to add a tag and just leave it for now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what I did: keeping the wrong version of Ahmed shahi, removing the sources that do not support his claim, tagging the article with accuracy and neutrality, and leaving a message on the discussion. Tajik (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

semi-protection of Attack Attack! (album)

: Declined Vandalism has calmed down over the last 24-36 hours and please read the instructions at the top of this page when requesting indefinite semi protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Actually, it hasn't. There have been several vandalism posts by IP addresses within the past 12 hours. This, this, this, and this. Recent enough? qö₮$@37 (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the level of vandalism is decreasing not increasing and I feel it would be poor form to protect an article just as the vandalism is dying down- rather like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. That said, I keep an eye on all the RPP requests I decline and I'm happy to protect it if the vandalism is sustained or starts to increase. As to my other comment, you requested indefinite semi protection of an article that has never been protected before according to the log. The RPP header says:

If you are requesting indefinite semi-protection, be aware that it is only applied to articles with endemic and endless vandalism problems which multiple increasing periods of temporary semi-protection have failed to stop.

Italics original, bold text added by me for emphasis. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, just let me know if it gets so it has to be protected. Thanks. qö₮$@37 (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm on my way to bed right now, but if it gets worse or if it keeps up for a few hours, just take it back to RPP and another admin should sort it (you can quote that there if you want!) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Email

You've got mail, nothing major so take your time.--SKATER ^Speak. 03:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A quick request... no mop required.

(Since half of the requests here are asking for admin actions!) HJ, can you take a look at List of accolades received by The Hurt Locker quickly? June and I are considering a putting it up at FLC, but an independent glance at the prose would be nice first. There's not much of it, so this shouldn't take too much time. Thanks! (P.S. thanks for reducing the size of the cat!) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes my talk page does seem to have turned into Administrators' noticeboard/Miscellaneous, but it's getting quieter now! It'll be nice to take a look at an article I'm not protecting! I'll have a look in a bit after I've checked my watchlist, email and the goings on at WN! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh No!

Hi HJ,
If you have time, have a look at this on my talk page. One revert and I get a level 4 warning, from another IP! Ooooh! And they're a pommy English Gentleperson, see here OMG! >:( --220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

<Cough!> Having a British ISP is no proof that they are (a) a gentleperson, or (b) English. Their ISP is the same as mine; a Kiwi residing in Scotland ;-) TFOWR^propaganda 14:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I take it back, they're a Bovver boy from Bristol, a Skinhead from Surrey or maybe a Larrikin from Lancashire. I was just AGF! Or is it just all ^propaganda ? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed at with 99 support, 9 oppose, and 2 neutral. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Block Request

Could you block User:MerryP and User:Dfwb98? These accounts seem to be a vandalism only accounts, plus one got declined at AIV for insufficient warning. Seriously, why waste time? Connormah (talk | contribs) 21:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the latter for BLP violations, but there's no way any admin would action an AIV report on the former, so it would be improper to block them unilaterally. Sorry. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand, I'll keep a close eye on the account. Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Remove

Please could you remove the following page: User:Sco1996/My User Boxes

as it is no longer requiered. Sco1996 (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done 12:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Our old talk

Hi there! Do you remember our old talk about image copyrights? I have one more issue on my talk-page in the same section. Could you pls help? Thanks! Aregakn (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at Aregakn's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aregakn (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at Aregakn's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aregakn (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please come back whenever you have time :) Aregakn (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Issue with Gay Byrne article

Hi, as an administrator would you be able to observe the edits of User talk:78.105.236.144 in relation to that article. They have received more warnings than might be necessary in this case and, through checking their contributions, it seems they have threatened to continue leaving a trail of chaos across several internet cafes. --candle•wicke 15:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

(A talkpage lurker delurks...)

Per this edit, I'd suggest semi-protection might be better than potentially playing whack-a-mole with IP socks.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 15:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've semi'd it for a week. Hopefully that'll put a stop to it. I'm reluctant to block the IP if they're only going to be there for a few hours at most. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for handling that. --candle•wicke 16:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

AN3?

You recently semi-protected Diane Abbott due to non-autoconfirmed vandalism. If you are already familiar with the situation at that article or are so inclined, you might consider taking a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:83.146.15.87 reported by User:Quantpole (Result: ). I consider myself WP:INVOLVED on all matters related to homeopathy, but you could have the honor of clearing off the board :). I also just commented at that talkpage, so feel free to disregard this if you think that might compromise your neutrality or the appearance thereof. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm neutral enough to deal with it. Yet another edit war to sort out! Hooray! Adminship is fun! ;) I'll get to it in a minute once I've taken a look at everything. Thanks for the heads up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Active Banana

This is not the administrators' noticeboard/miscellaneous, this is my talk page, where bickering is not allowed. Try WP:ANI
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Good day Sir, I would like to raise a complaint against user, Active Banana, who keeps on deleting articles on SkyCable wiki page. Similar incidences, deletion and/or redirection of other articles, mostly Philippine wiki articles, and vandalism have also been done previously by the same user. The user would also revert rather than discussing it with other users as per WP:Deletion policy#Discussion. I have also noticed through the user's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Active_Banana and his/her replies to the other users are somewhat arrogant, boastful and does not mind what the other editors have to say about the article before he deletes it. Is this a candidate for Admin ban? Thanks in advance. g8crash3r 16:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC) FYI- not all of the statements above, particularly the claims of not discussing changes are entirely accurate. Active Banana (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC) There you go, straight from the horses mouth, user: Active Banana actually did violate the Deletion policy of Wikipedia. I think the next course of action should come from the Wiki admins themselves. g8crash3r 16:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

My Apologies

I'm sorry to bicker on your discussion page, I would just like to nominate user Active Banana, who is arrogant enough to say that Wiki admins are merely ["Mops"] to be banned in Wikipedia for his totally offensive behavior towards other Wiki users and editors. Thanks again in advance. g8crash3r 17:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by G8crash3r (talk • contribs)

There's nothing I can do here. WP:ANI is the place for this, not my talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

On a side, and somewhat oblivious note. Please use the four tildes (~~~~) to sign your posts.--SKATER ^Hmm? 17:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Polish firefighters

Only 1 Polish firefighter died: [2]. Thought you'd see this quickest on your talk page! --Mkativerata (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed it. I'll find a way to pad the blurb out a little in a minute. I've just been fiddling with an image to get it on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps something about the PM calling it Poland's worst ever natural disaster? It's a catchy bit of hyperbole if it can be included succinctly. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I added the 23,00 evacuees and the worst flooding for 160 years. I think it looks alright now. You? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you are going to hate me but I don't think we can say worst Central European floods in 160 years. The 160 year claim was made by the Polish PM so probably only applies to Poland. 2005 European floods seem to have been worse floods in the region. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ugh! Who knew this could be so bloody complicated! Any better? :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That looks fine now, although "the severe floods" might be redundant. I don't envy your work putting up words seen by millions. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not too bad normally, but you have to be conscious of how many people are going to see whatever cack-handed blurb I just put up! Now, if we're happy, I'll deliver the credits! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to my Request for Adminship

Thanks for your input. Actually, rollback rights are more in line with what I was looking for. It seems I didn't research this adequately. I am not sure what the first user who opposed my nomination (Graeme) meant by my only having been active since April of this year, as I have been active on Wikipedia pretty regularly since 2006. There was a break in my activity in 2007 due to my being lax about hitting the login link at the top of the page. Thanks again for your input - I will un-nominate myself for adminship if the consensus continues following the current trend. Chrisbrl88 (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I'm afraid I've participated in enough RfAs (and been through 2 of my own!) to tell you that the trend will continue, but if vandal fighting is what you want to do, getting rollback is much easier- as long as you can convince me you won't do anything stupid with it, I can give you rollback right now. Adminship isn't as much fun as everyone thinks it is, anyway, and you have to have a lot of experience to get through an RfA ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I would do anything stupid with rollback. I'd like to think that someday soon my professors will acknowledge Wikipedia as a reliable source able to be used in a works cited section, but blatant vandalism seems to be preventing that for the time being. Rollback privileges would be nice, considering how time consuming it can be to get sidetracked combing through an article to undo vandalism when I'm going from page to page trying to research something - haha. I do my best to reverse vandalism when I see it to restore the integrity of the article. Lately I've also been making contributions when I Stumble onto something that seems relevant to an article on here. I've also been working on figuring out the finer technical points of the UI. Overall, I'm trying to be more active on here - but I'm pretty sure at this point that I jumped the gun by shooting for adminship before having mastered the system. It was well-intentioned, but premature. Chrisbrl88 (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're not the first and you won't be the last :). I'll grant you rollback and drop you my standard template explaining what you need to know about it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - it is much appreciated :-) Chrisbrl88 (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Rollback rights

Hello, I'm not sure if this really needs a separate topic but I just wanted to say thanks for granting my request! Vedant (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

...and, to avoid creating another section, I'll add my gratitude for your help with the KinGin22 articles. Thank you for acting quickly on the issue. I really appreciate your help in protecting the encyclopedia from hoaxes. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You're both more than welcome. Always happy to help. I'm going to open an SPI to check the connection to Exequel- if it's confirmed I'm upping his block to indef. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Amer Sheikh

Thanks for quickly blocking those IPs. Did you see the history? That article is a mess and I've requested IP protection--what do you think? Regards, Drmies (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I came to it from RPP :)! I've just blocked 2 IPs for being a pain in the arse. Hopefully that will solve your woes, but if not, ping me again and I'll protect it if the banhammer isn't effective ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha, I see. Oh, I love the banhammer. Always wondered what it would feel like to be blocked...would it be like when your parents ignore you after you've been whining all morning? (Spoken like a father here, haha.) Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but doing the blocking is quite satisfying when you have idiots as annoying as them! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Oh im sorry I didn't know that it had to be removed by an Admin. I even questioned myself when I removed it. I'm glad you agree with me that it was a really stupid report due to the fact I really didn't do anything. STAT -Verse 20:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Re User:24.68.50.170

Sorry that I have to question your actions, but I'm not sure you did the right thing in blocking User:24.68.50.170. They did, in fact, stop editing the article and went to the talk page after being warned about 3RR, which is exactly what we want users to do. They were a bit uncivil, but not really in the kind of personal attacks that would be worthy of a block. I'm not going to get into a wheel war over it, but my two cents is that blocking should only be done when something has to be stopped to protect the encyclopedia, and an argument on the talk page is not harming it. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I was a little hasty. I've unblocked. In future, feel free to just reverse me if you feel I've made a mistake. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

What more can I say? ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries :). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Was going back to do that, when it edit conflicted on me. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries :). Looks like we wrote on each others' talk pages at the same time! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I remembered to do it on my next protection. That banner is rather ugly on the top of articles. No need to advertise our problems to the world in quite such a visible manner. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The information is useful, but it's a shame it has to come in a big ugly banner like that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Help

Hi. I noticed you had commented on User talk:Closeminded8 to the editor about his tendency to attack featured and good articles and make some basically POV edits. Will you please take a look at some edits I reverted that this editor made tonight and speak to him about his editing? Look at the removal of content from the lead on the good articleScarlett Johannson [3], removal of sourced notable personal life content from Jennifer Aniston [4], claiming WP:BLP violating content on Tatum O'Neal [5] and Melanie Griffith [6], removing sourcing and changing the status of a marriage from Raquel Welch [7] that clearly says a divorce was not filed, and noting an error in birth dates by linking to an Intellius search that yielded 7 different persons with the same birth name and gives no birth date. I'm checking changes he made on Demi Moore right now. I am a bit alarmed at the changes I came across, which are damaging in some instances. Any comments would be appreciated. Thank. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Arabian Gulf rugby union team

I notice you put semi-protection on this page, thank you for doing this.

You may be interested to know that this page and several other related ones, are the subject of an abuse investigation, see Wikipedia:Abuse response/84.241.53.54.

The poster in question is using a number of names, and IPs, displaying much the same behaviour pattern.--MacRusgail (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, the subject of an RfA came up again...

...and, while my answer is still the same ("not now"), it has got me thinking again about the subject. I've asked a few questions in this thread, and I'd welcome any thoughts, comments, criticism you might have.

Cheers! TFOWR^propaganda 10:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - interesting perspective on recall in particular. I've replied in detail "over there". TFOWR^propaganda 16:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy

With respect, guys, please take this elsewhere. thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sure, but no one has established that it is a personal attack. If you really think it is, perhaps you can explain your position at AN/I. -Rrius (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC) If he wants to take those links out, I have no problem whatsoever with his cry for attention, but those links serve no purpose but to attack the editors linked and that is unacceptable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Then take that view to AN/I. -Rrius (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC) As a practical note Rrius, the page has now been protected by an Arbcom member with the comments removed. At this point even if HJ Mitchell wanted to change his mind, reverting them back would be a bad idea. I'm not suggesting you pursue having the comments reinstated, but if you feel compelled to, you either need to talk to Risker or get consensus to overrule an action by an arbcom member in a situation arbcom is actively involved in.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC) The admin protected it until the issue is resolved citing a content dispute. with absolutely no reference to arb com. In fact, the discussion is at AN/I, as I stated in my initial comment. -Rrius (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC) I think you're underweighting the fact that arbcom has said that they've had significant off-wiki contact with the user in question. This wasn't a drive by admin action, arbcom is hip deep in this matter. I could be wrong, but don't think so. Have you asked Risker for a clarification?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC) The dispute is over that particular comment, and I am taking Risker at his word, i.e., his edit summary. He says he is protecting the page due to a content dispute and will lower protection when it is resolved. There is no allusion to prior arb com action or anything of the sort. It wouldn't surprise me if that's why the page was on his watchlist in the first place, but if prior bad acts played any part in the protection decision, I would expect that to have been explained, or at least alluded to in some vague fashion. -Rrius (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Indian Expressways

Hi HJ Mitchell, I wanted to bring it to your attention that User:Vedant and I are having some disagreements on the Indian Expressways article. User:Vedant want to keep information that is 4 year old just because CIA WordFact Book and NHAI not updated there article with latest information. If you see the article Indian Expressways there are almost 15 expressways already completed and has proper citations and 13 of them has own article links. Also I have added table and total length to it for easy comparison. If article it self has total length which is backed by its links/references. Still we need to have other references? to prove claim? As per my knowledge we write summery/introduction of article in lead section. If article it self says that its more than 500km then why need to show 200km in lead section? why need to show 4 year old information even if current updated information is available with proper article link and references. It just that CIA world factbook or NHAI are not updating information so we should not update Wikipedia articles? Should we wait for them or should we use current available references/links to update articles. Please correct me if I am wrong and also this discussion result will base for me to update/contribute to Wikipedia article from now onwards. KuwarOnline (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there's much I can do here, but you might like to request a third opinion, or try WP:ANI or WP:ANEW if you need administrator action (ie blocking an editor or protecting or deleting a page). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If I may explain myself, I believe I clearly stated to User:KuwarOnline that I understood his concerns but that there exist several credible sources (the CIA World Factbook and the NHAI website) that both state the country has only 200km of expressways. I'm aware that the NHAI website is out of date and that the CIA World Factbook simply took the information from the NHAI website. I'm also aware that given the fact that numerous projects are underway/have been completed, this number is most likely much higher. However, since a citation backing that claim up doesn't exist yet, it would be improper to remove a cited source and then insert a new number not backed up by any source. Infact, I'll even go a step further and say that I personally believe the figure to be much higher but I don't think its right to update such an important figure without providing a source as verifiability is one of the pillars Wikipedia is built on. Perhaps also of note is that User:Arjun024 also agrees with me on the matter. I have no objection to Kuwar's other productive edits but I think that he is incorrect in this case. Vedant (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

On the same wavelength again...

Was just about to do that. -- tariqabjotu 20:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Great minds think alike! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HJ Mitchell. You have new messages at NerdyScienceDude's talk page.
Message added 22:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 22:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Fred Figglehorn

Hello HJ. It was not my intention to overrule you at WP:RFPP#Fred Figglehorn, but I reviewed the history and renewed protection before I saw your note. It looked like the blocked user was only the latest in what appeared to be a steady stream of vandalism that resumed after the last protect expired. I'll undo my action if you think we should monitor the article for now. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to you. I saw that the IP causing the most recent disruption had been blocked, so I didn't see an immediate need for protection, but there aren't exactly a great many constructive IP edits, so I don;t disagree with the protection. Like I say, entirely up to you, my friend. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I replied to your email, sir. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Some time has passed…

Any chance I get rollback again? • GunMetal Angel 06:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Email...

...I sent you one ;-) TFOWR^propaganda 12:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

While I agree the template is useless, your TfD is going nowhere. I wonder if you might consent to me closing it, as the nomination has left 50,000+ articles looking like Kamla Persad-Bissessar- note the deletion notice at the top of the page. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, go for it, though I'd put money on 49,900 being incorrect uses! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

So closed- maybe the most attention TfD has seen in a while! That tag says, "There's something wrong with this article. What, is left as an exercise to the reader." Okay if you're writing a math textbook, but not great for Wikipedia. Oh, well... Bradjamesbrown (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:RPP

I left a question there earlier today. Just letting you know in case you missed it. Peter 22:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Goldstone update

You fully protected Richard Goldstone a week ago; that protection is due to expire shortly. I thought you would find it useful to have a summary of where things are at the moment. The material under dispute was a self-published comment by Noam Chomsky, some defamatory claims by Alan Dershowitz and Neal Sher, and a factually inaccurate claim by the Israeli tabloid newspaper Yediot Arinoth. There seems to be agreement that the self-published material should not be included. There is no consensus on the Dershowitz and Sher material, and a discussion at WP:RS/N has not come to any agreement about the reliability of YA as a source. However, there is unanimity among previously uninvolved editors that the YA material should not be included in the article and there is a substantial majority of editors opposed to its inclusion. There also seems to be no real dispute now that the YA material is factually incorrect (or at least, nobody is now arguing that it's accurate).

I've been working on revising and expanding the article in my userspace (see User:ChrisO/Goldstone) and will copy the new text over when protection is lifted. Hopefully it will move things forward a bit. However, I expect that a handful of editors will continue to push for the inclusion of problematic material, and this may cause further problems. I'd be grateful if you could continue to monitor the article and, where necessary, take action to resolve any problematic editing. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the update, I've been meaning to get back there but found myself sidetracked with other things. If you were uninvolved in the dispute, would you consider the protection necessary? Is it likely that I'll have to protect it again or are things sufficiently resolved that any remaining issues can be worked out without brute force? I'll have a look at things there in a minute. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Just happened to see this update on your talk page, I hope you'll forgive me for butting in. You didn't ask for my opinion of course but my impression is that there has not been much (or really any) substantive work done toward a resolution of issues, or new proposed text. People seem more interested in casting sly aspersions and making snide remarks. I would prefer to see the protection extend a bit longer, so that some real discussion can be generated on ChrisO's new proposal and perhaps a consensus formed around some or all of it (with changes as necessary) before protection is lifted. Thanks for letting me stick my head in the door here. — e. ripley\^talk 21:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your honesty. If there were a day or 2 left on the protection, I'd probably leave it, but since it's 3 hours and counting, I'll extend it for a bit. I can easily unprotect it if the matter is resolved before it expires. Oh and you or anyone else is welcome to post on this page as long as they follow the rules in the editnotice :). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any further protection is necessary and I would prefer it if you could not extend it. E. Ripley is wrong to say that nothing's been done to improve the text - I've done a lot of work in my userspace to expand the article considerably using contemporary sources, academic works, legal journals etc which to some extent addresses some of the issues that have been raised already. The revised article may well raise some new questions but it gets us a lot further along than we are currently. My preference is to lift the protection now, implement the new version and then discuss where we've got to. The current version is substantially unsatisfactory in a number of ways; the new version addresses those problems. It would be more productive and better from a BLP point of view to have an improved version in article space. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any real support or consensus for your overhaul, and I'm concerned that if you were to be bold and just do it, it would re-open exactly the kind of fighting and edit warring the protection is there to prevent. Besides, I find it difficult to see how E. Ripley or anybody else benefits from extended protection, so I don't think there's any ulterior motive. I've extended the protection to 7 days from now, but will gladly unprotect if things are resolved before then. And just for the record, less of the "e. Rilpey is wrong", more of the AGF, please :). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not assuming bad faith to point out that someone is factually wrong. ER is factually wrong to say that no substantive work has been done on a new proposed text. I have a new proposed text in my userspace on which a very large amount of work has been done. I don't think it's reasonable to leave the article protected for such an extended period, particularly when a new, solidly researched version is ready to be posted. There are only three editors promoting the problematic content with (at the last count) eight rejecting it. That is not going to change in the next week. Now, we can either spend the next week twiddling our thumbs while the three editors in question make snidey remarks and attack everyone else, which is all they've been doing for the last week, or we can move forward with an improved text. Which do you think would be more productive? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the most productive course of action would be for discussion to take place on your proposed version. If it doesn't meet with substantial opposition in 24 hours, I'll unprotect it. I think that's a reasonable compromise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it's okay. No offense taken (although I don't see how I can be wrong about my opinions); I think ChrisO may just have misunderstood me a little. I never meant to suggest, Chris, that you haven't done yeomans work with your rewrite; I just took a look at it and you very clearly have done a lot of work on it. When I said that nobody's done substantive work on a resolution, what I meant was that nobody has used the talk page to suggest any changes to the article as it stands. Since you just unveiled your rewrite now, naturally I wasn't referring to that when I was suggesting that no work had been done. However, I actually think now that you have posted your revision, it's more important than ever to maintain the protection, and this is why. I'm concerned that, your significant rewrite having only been unveiled to the public (so to speak) just now, nobody's had a chance to comment on it or express any concerns or support. Given the lack of willingness by people who seem to stand opposite of your viewpoint to propose any textual changes large or small, I think it would be better for the stability of the article to at least try to seek some consensus for your rewrite before protection is lifted, as HJ notes above. If people stonewall or if a strong consensus is quickly formed around your rewrite, then the protection should easily be lifted much sooner than otherwise, and in the process we've avoided possibly destabilizing the article again. — e. ripley\^talk 22:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

One final note -- I see you've been working on this in your userspace for a few days, however your mention on this talk page above was the first I'd seen a pointer to it. Maybe I missed a link on the article talk page itself, but I suspect others may have also missed it, which achieves the same effect. Best — e. ripley\^talk 22:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I take your point about the new version only recently being unveiled, but I also think you may be missing the point that the three problem editors involved - Wikifan12345, No More Mr Nice Guy and Breein1007 - are not going to provide reasonable feedback. They have a fixed opinion of Goldstone as a vicious, evil bigot and reject any content that portrays him as anything other than that. Let me quote some of their comments on the current article: "Did you seriously think they're going to let anything from that blasphemous interview into an article about Saint Goldstone? You must be losing your grip on reality, like anyone who says something critical about our beloved hero." "Here's a new source for anyone interested in adding to this article in a constructive manner that encourages freedom of information... and not censoring all negative information that paints someone in a bad light because of personal bias." "Anything that doesn't belong in a fluff piece won't make it into this article."

Does any of that sound like reasonable, constructive commentary? The three editors in question are spending all their time attacking anything that doesn't match their preconceptions. The fact is, as I've found doing a week of research, that the main sources - academic works, legal journals and contemporary articles - are uniformly very positive about Goldstone's career. It's actually very hard to find any criticism of him prior to the 2009 Gaza report which has got these three editors so angry about him. Let me predict what will happen: I post a request for discussion on the new text, and these three editors will rant about it being "a fluff piece" and denounce me, just as they've been doing for the last week. You need to allow for the fact that these three editors have an ideological agenda that results in them rejecting objective, carefully researched historical facts. They simply don't accept what the academic and legal historians say. If the article will only be unprotected the article if these editors don't stonewall, you're giving them a heckler's veto. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If they stonewall, then I'll unprotect it, but I think it would be wise that you at least announce your intent on the talk page in the hope that uninvolved (and possibly involved) editors will give constructive feedback. The point of the protection is not just to stop the edit warring, but to try to calm things down and I worry that if you simply went and implemented your version without discussion, that the whole thing will heat up again. It can't hurt to bring it up on the talk page and wait 24 hours so that everybody at least knows what's going on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll give it a go. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll keep a very close eye on things and I'm not afraid to block people who disrupt the discussions, but hopefully it won't come to that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

How about you read the article and tell me if you don't think it reads like a fluff piece? ChrisO wrote most of this version too. It's full of editorializing. He wouldn't even allow the uncontroversial statement "he was a judge during Apartheid" in the article.

Anyway, don't worry about me editing the article. I won't waste my time putting work into something that people who care more about Goldstone's reputation than writing an accurate encyclopedic article would just revert on sight. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what the talk page is there for. Air your grievances there, civilly, and discuss it calmly with editors who disagree with you. I can't help you if you come here with "I won't waste my time" but won't discuss what you believe is wrong with the article on the talk page. That said, if you wish to discuss the matter there calmly and civilly I will do everything I can to facilitate that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There you have it, a perfect example of the kind of unproductive behaviour I was talking about. Anyway, here's the link to the request for comments on the new version: Talk:Richard Goldstone#New version. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What's unproductive about asking an uninvolved admin to read the article and give his opinion? I have stated what I think is wrong multiple times on the talk page as well as in the discussion on the RS and BLP boards. By the way, I didn't see the consensus ChrisO was alluding to on those boards, but really, I've been around here long enough to know that if there are a couple of editors determined to keep an article in a certain state, it's usually a waste of time to try and fight them. Particularly on an article like this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well you're in luck, because "articles like that" are one of my pet peeves, so if you were to offer specific, constructive criticism on ChrisO's proposed new version, I would pay attention to that and it's my attention you want because I'll probably be the one to determine when it's unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Unprotection request

Well, here we are again after about 24 hours. I'm sorry to say that the discussion has gone very much as I predicted. There has been a positive response to the new draft and some useful feedback, which I've implemented, from most of the previously involved and uninvolved editors. Seven editors have commended the new version. However, three previously involved editors have rejected out of hand all of the changes (e.g. "I totaly reject your version", "This is a fluff piece") and have continued to assume bad faith ("Clearly many editors here have an agenda to silence the important stuff because it violates "BLP"," "You "summarize" with an agenda" etc). To be honest, it's been a frustrating experience trying to deal with their complaints because they won't make any concrete suggestions despite repeatedly being invited to do so by the uninvolved editors. Their position appears to be that they want the article rolled back to the version that was there before I started editing, including all the content that was removed on BLP and sourcing grounds. That obviously isn't a reasonable stance.

Given where we've got to, I don't think continued protection is productive - progress is being stonewalled by the three editors in question. Everyone else appears to be in favour of moving forward. Could you please unprotect the article so that we can get on with improving it? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, at this point I have to agree. Despite our best efforts, the prior detractors have not seen fit to engage in productive discussions, and now the talk page has again devolved into re-arguing old disputes over Yediot's reliability. Unfortunately I don't see any real way forward here, even with ChrisO's version. It's clear that once it's unprotected and the expanded article in place, edit warring will continue. I see no real way to a stable article, except perhaps through ArbCom. I'd be glad to be wrong, but that's how it seems to me at the moment. — e. ripley\^talk 11:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it was slightly more productive than I'd hoped. I'll announce on the talk page that I intend to unprotect it and I'll just have to resort to blocks to put a stop to the edit warring. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I would suggest keeping an eye on Gilisa (talk · contribs) in particular. It appears that he added the problematic content in the first place, some time ago, and he has been the most uncompromising in rejecting the revised version in its entirety. He does not appear to have received a WP:ARBPIA notification (see WP:ARBPIA#Log of notifications) before; could you please add one to his talk page, using {{subst:Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, and log it? -- ChrisO (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll consider it. I've been doing my homework and checking the arbitration case. The best solution I've been able to think of is to impose a blanket 1RR on the article and enforce it rigorously. Your thoughts? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't be hesitant about adding ARBPIA notifications. I did it regularly when I was an admin; it's just a way of telling editors that they need to be aware that articles in that topic area are under special scrutiny. It doesn't bear on the quality of their edits. Notifying editors of the ARBPIA sanctions gives you extra tools to deal with any subsequent disruption. Another good reason to notify editors of ARBPIA is that it encourages people to be on their best behaviour. The best way to deal with disruption is to try to ensure it doesn't happen in the first place. :-)

I don't think 1RR is the solution; it's too easily gamed. Editors in this topic area have shown too much willingness to sockpuppet and obtain meatpuppets off-wiki. (One of the major contributors to Talk:Richard Goldstone was just blocked for being a sockpuppet.) I'd suggest that the best approach is to insist on a rigorous application of BLP. As you know, a majority of editors is opposed to restoring the problematic content. BLP specifies: "If [deleted material] is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." If anyone attempts to restore it at this stage they will clearly not have consensus to do so. I would suggest highlighting this policy on the talk page, requiring a consensus to be obtained before the material is restored and warning against any further attempts to edit war the material into the article. If some kind of wider reappraisal of Goldstone's career happens in the future - which is unlikely but not impossible - then that leaves the door open if things change. A future consensus might be found in that event. But I think we can all agree that it's unacceptable for people to edit war contentious material into a biography without consensus. I'd suggest focusing on that angle and backing it up with blocks if needed. At this stage I think Gilisa is the only editor likely to restart the edit war, which is why I suggested notifying him about ARBPIA. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)For the record, I gave examples of several specific problems, all except a blatant misquote (which still violates WP:LEAD and possibly WP:V) were ignored. I was expecting to hear HJ's opinion, but unfortunately that was not forthcoming. As I said before, don't worry about me messing with your precious article. You'll get the glowing untainted version you were working for. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I know you did and I appreciate that you took the time to do that, but there's still the problem of the stability of the article- I can't leave it protected ad infinitum. It wouldn't be proper for me to express an opinion, because I'm acting as an uninvolved administrator and I need to maintain neutrality and the appearance of neutrality or I'd be just another party in the dispute which would mean this has been a pain in my arse for the last 9 days for nothing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I addressed NMMNG's complaints, but for obvious reasons I declined to restore the BLP-violating content. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The only complaint you addressed was the blatant misquote. And even now after you "addressed" it, the lead says something that is a. not in the body of the article, and b. overemphasizes a comment made in one newspaper article. One guy said what amounts to "Goldstone is one of the most trusted people in the white establishment" and you turned it into "he was dubbed the most trusted person in South Africa" and put it in the lead.

That little piece of the lead is an excellent example of the overall nature of the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Grammar on the Duke of Marlborough Main Page Article

I thank you for interceding on my behalf with the 'him' versus 'his' issue. I know I'm right, but I couldn't put it into words. I've spent 20 minutes trolling the net to find a properly written discourse about exactly why I'm right. It has something to do with the verb 'to be' (in the form being) being a gerund phrase, or some such thing. Could you plase spend a minute to exaplain it to me so that I will be forever armed? Thanks tons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.197.15 (talk • contribs)

Ah, I'm not really a grammar expert, so I'm in the same boat- I know it's wrong, but I can't put my finger on the exact grammatical rule :)! If you find it, do let me know! Oh, and please sign your talk page comments with ~~~~. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I stop sulking about me grammar bad now? ;-) TFOWR^propaganda 18:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Funnyjunk

I see you just protected the page because of a request on WP:RFPP, but I was considering speedy deleting the article per CSD#A7. After one slogs through the fancruft on the article, it doesn't leave much in terms of notability. I thought I would get a second opinion. What do you think? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I'm afraid you asked the wrong person. I make a point of not dealing with speedy deletion except author requests and G10/11/12. From looking at, though, it doesn't seem to be glaringly notable and those "sources" are shite! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, no worries. I deleted it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably the right call :). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus Controversies

While you're here... what exactly was the off-wiki plan that was mentioned on WP:AN? I just deleted Miley Cyrus controversies and see the note on my talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ugh! Some idiot posted an image on imgur advertising some big plan to attack the Miley Cyrus article but nothing came of it besides a bit of talk page vandalism, but no more than on a normal day. I've just slated that for BLP concerns though. Good catch. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, the imgur thing is a dead link, which is why I asked what was up with that. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

'Twas a big red poster with the old WP logo and the Disney logo and a three paragraph rant in yellow font about the WP conspiracy to keep controversial information out of Cyrus' article followed by a call for people to vandalise the article to add The Truth^TM. That article actually seems well sourced, but it belongs in the main article and should be discussed on its talk page- you can send your friend to me if you want to claim "I can't restore because another admin protected it". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO

Has immediately broken the one RR on goldstone. Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

One more word out of either of you and I'll block you both for incivility. 1RR means every editor gets to make one revert- a second revert is a violation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I lost my rag a bit there after Off2riorob's actions. Apologies - it won't happen again (and I've redacted the incivil comments). -- ChrisO (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

My asking politely for more discussion and my opening the correct manner of doing that is fine and nothing for you to lose you rag over. ChrisO also deleted my RFC from the talkpage thereby stopping my attempt at more discussion. I don't see why anyone should be able to delete a good faith request for more discussion. I am not involved in the issue, and will simply take the article off my watchlist. 21:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob