User talk:HJ Mitchell

Hello and welcome to my talk page! If you have a question, ask me. If I know the answer, I'll tell you; if I don't, I'll find out (or one of my talk-page stalkers might know!), then we'll both have learnt something!

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

A list of archives of this talk page is here. Those in Roman numerals come first chronologically

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.

"specified non-editing actions"[edit]

Hi there! FWIW, I just rolled back this edit] by 83.30.178.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There was this strange edit summary "(avoid plague of TAB-s)", and as far as I can see, the edit resulted in nothing visible. I noticed that you range-blocked 83.30.0.0/16 in april for "specified non-editing actions", and I was wondering what this meant, and how this IP can still edit. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: here's another one: [1], by 83.30.189.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with edit summary "(minus FULLWIDTH space)". - DVdm (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: looks like 83.30.151.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is narrowly blocked for a week by Extraordinary Writ. Given the above, that will probably not be sufficient. - DVdm (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See again, Special:Contributions/83.30.172.136 but "partially blocked". Also pinging Extraordinary Writ. - DVdm (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you'd like to bump Special:Contributions/83.30.0.0/16 up to a full block, Harry? Looks like that fellow has been using it for quite some time. (I'd do it myself if it wasn't a CU block.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ my considerations were that he's not necessarily using the whole /16 at any one time and it's a big and busy range. But you have my permission to make it a full block if you don't think there's a better option. I won't be able to look in any detail today. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like JBW has blocked the /17, which should do the trick for now. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short blocks on smaller ranges is probably the way to go. I think I blocked a /17 last time but blocked account creation on tge /16 to slow them down a bit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to expand block on IP user[edit]

Hi, would you consider a full block for the user 2605:8D80:6A4:5E00:4159:1D20:2AAE:F476 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) per recent edits? [2][3] Many previous blocks. xRENEGADEx ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XRENEGADEx the partial block is on the whole /32 which is absolutely enormous. It's likely your juvenile friend here is a different person to the one who was causing problems a few months ago. We can block individual /64s if necessary but there's nothing on that one except those two edits so blocking it would be disproportionate at this time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're busy and not around much at the moment, but...[edit]

If you have any time, I've got a PR open on the Brighton bomb, running here; it may be of interest to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat definitely! I'm easing back into things now that real life is a bit more stable but I'll be sure to have a look. It's right up my street (almost literally these days!), and I might have some sources for you! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent - always happy for more sources, and any comments, of course! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat Fancy a collaboration one day on Balcombe Street siege? Between us we must have most of the sources and enough background knowledge to get it up to FA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. It's been on my list for a while (I got some of the sources from the Wiki library when I finished on the Spaghetti House siege, and that was a few years ago now!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat Mine too. I did the Iranian embassy and Operation Flavius (of "Death on the Rock" fame) years ago and there's an overlap with some of my police shootings. I've been compiling sources for an article on the SAS and the IRA for a while too. Balcombe Street could make an interesting little project. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, HJ Mitchell. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

recent revert on taylor swift page[edit]

hello - you reverted my recent edit - is there a rule POV lead cannot be placed on featured article. we have tried to use talk page - you can see it. but two involved editors are making disruptive reverts and making it impossible. An uninvolved editor who put lot of effort has already quit because of disruptive edits by these users ( see talk page history ). We need that tag so that we can get attention from more editors. please revert your edit. @HJ Mitchell Gsgdd (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gsgdd I will be re-reverting your addition of the tag and if you reinstate again I will block you from editing that article; I'm contemplating doing so anyway. I can see that there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page and that you have found your way to the dispute resolution and NPOV noticeboards which has attracted outside opinions, and I can see that the discussion appears to be productive. The only disruption I see is your conduct towards editors who disagree with you. You will struggle to get revolutionary change on Wikipedia; the consensus model just doesn't move that quickly. I suggest you continue working towards evolutionary change and finding a version that most people can agree on. A request for comment has already been suggested as the next step once you have a proposal to ask for feedback on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]