Jump to content

User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 131

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 125←Archive 129Archive 130Archive 131Archive 132Archive 133→Archive 135

User rights

Hello, you denied my request for rollback rights around a month ago. In this one month, I've learned and comprehended a lot. Please examine my contributions and, if possible, grant rollback and pending change reviewer rights. I will use these rights in compliance with the terms. Thank you! DreamRimmer (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Over 30 vandals have been reported by me on AIV, and all of them have been blocked as a result. DreamRimmer (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Please spare some time for me; I will be grateful. DreamRimmer (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I see you've requested them at PERM. I'll go and clear the backlogs there and evaluate your request when I do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

bennerley viaduct

Harry, i had a quick question regarding this article and the associated blurb. instead of linking "lattice truss" to "lattice truss bridge", would it be more appropriate to link "lattice truss girder" to "lattice girder"? in both the blurb and article lead, the link appears in a sentence discussing the components of the bridge rather than what type of bridge it is, so i would assume that readers would expect a link to a component of the bridge rather than a type of bridge. dying (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 May 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Qualified for NPP?

Hello again HJ! If you get a moment, I am sure you are very busy on and off wiki, could you tell me if you think I’m qualified for NPP rights. Here’s how I come out on official requirements:

  1. The editor should be a registered Wikipedia user for at least 90 days.
     ~91 days
  2. The editor should have 500 undeleted edits to the Wikipedia mainspace that clearly demonstrate proficient knowledge of articles and page quality control.
     +1,300 edits
  3. The regular and consistent participation with Wikipedia processes - such as AfD, PROD, CSD (including CSD tagging), and AfC - will be particularly helpful in regards to demonstrating this knowledge.
     CSD tagged over 200 pages and most deleted. Occasionally participate in AFDs
  4. The editor should have a solid history that demonstrate proficiency with communicating and interacting with new users, and in a positive, civil, helpful, and appropriate manner.
     Teahouse host and VRT agent
  5. The editor should have experience with moving pages in accordance with guidelines.
     A little. While I don’t have much experience moving pages, I understand Wikipedias naming conventions and use the movetodraft to somewhat regularly.
  6. The editor should have no behavioral blocks or 3RR violations for a span of 6 months prior to applying.
     Clean block log.
  7. The editor must review pages solely on a volunteer basis.
     Will do

Thanks for taking the time to review this. If you feel I am qualified, please grant the rights, and if you feel I am not, please tell me why and how to improve.

Have a great rest of your weekend! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Illusion Flame The first thing I look at when assessing a request for NPP rights is deleted edits. Yours are fine as far as they go, but I'm not seeing a lot of experience with the article criteria for speedy deletion. The general criteria are pretty easy to apply but some of the article ones (especially A7) are a bit more subjective and require experience to aply correctly. One of the other things I look for is expereince with other deletion processes like AfD or PROD. I don't see much of that in your history, which is short as it is. NPP is different to things like anti-vandalism because it requires more judgement. Most vandalism is so obvious that computer programmes can identify it, whereas it can take time and attention to detail and research skills to determine the difference between a puff piece and an article with potential, or to find a credible claim of significance in a poorly written article. Speaking for myself, I'd be more comfortable if you'd writen something yourself; first because writing the encyclopaedia is why we're here, and second because it gives you some empathy with the people whose articles you're reviewing. So in a nutshell, I'd say you need a bit more experience before I'd be happy granting the permission. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much for throughly laying out what you look for in a NPP candidate. I will definitely participate more at AFD and try CSD tagging articles when I see them. As for creating pages, I probably won’t. I feel I have the knowledge of policies and guidelines to, but it doesn’t interest me as much as maintenance tasks do. If not, that’s completely fine, but would you be open to a trial of NPP? I will only do things that I am confident with, and ask other NPPs if I have any questions. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Also, since the above post, I have started reviewing AFC drafts, which may show further knowledge. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:00, 24 May 2023(UTC)

TFA

Thank you today for Bennerley Viaduct, introduced: "Something a little bit different for me. Here we have a long-disused railway bridge in the English East Midlands, an area that was once a hive of industrial activity but there is little left to suggest it these days. The bridge was built as part of an attempt by a railway company to break its rival's monopoly on the area and carried trains for 90 years before it fell victim to the infamous Beeching Axe. After sitting neglected until last year, it is now in use again for pedestrians and cyclists. It has a certain significance to me as my grandmother lives a few miles away."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

InedibleHulk proxying

This is the second attempt by InedibleHulk to recruit users to make edits on their behalf. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

InedibleHulk proxying

This is the second attempt by InedibleHulk to recruit users to make edits on their behalf. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

IP range block

Hi. Please range block me under /16 range for three months.197.3.245.242 (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Please Unblock 2600:387:15:1416:0:0:0:5

Hi,

I am sending this message on another device to request you to unblock my account for another.

Was hoping you could unblock my account of 2600:387:15:1416:0:0:0:5. You blocked me after I made an edit to a shark finning article a few months ago. The edit was of good faith, detailing how the U.S. just a passed a law to ban the practice, and I added sources. I have been following this topic for a few years now and have edited the page before. I am not sure of the reason for the block. I went on to make another edit with good-intentions today but saw the block.

I apologize if this is not the correct way to submit an unblock request. If you could point me in the right direction to do so it would be much apricated.

~~~~Editor of good-faith 2601:81:8402:3EF0:74EC:EF5C:6F53:2D7C (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for unbanning me.
2601:81:8402:3EF0:48D1:F2D5:F159:E202 (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

InedibleHulk proxying

This is the second attempt by InedibleHulk to recruit users to make edits on their behalf. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the belated response. I'm not sure it's worth getting hot under the collar about. It's possibly unwise but the edits are fairly trivial. Even if I were to lose sleep over it, I doubt any action would survive a community review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
HJ, would you consider a warning? IH may not know this behavior is unwise. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Violation of AE decision

Hello,

would you mind having a look at the edits of Marcelus at Slava Ukraini. I believe he has violated his 0RR restriction, imposed by you on March 7, once directly Special:MobileDiff/1158185316 and twice indirectly Special:MobileDiff/1158198794, Special:MobileDiff/1158208621.—Ermenrich (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ermenrich, @HJ Mitchell
As for [1] I didn't revert anything, if you look at the edit I simply shortened certain passages and restructured the content without removing anything substantial.
And I reworded the part which caused discussion on a t/p to make it sound more neutral (sources gave different dates for the creation of the full greeting, so I reworded the text to include all points of view). In this edit I added more content to my previous edit.
At t/p no remarks were made on my edits. The only remark was on the source, i.e. the work of Rossoliński-Liebe in connection with which I asked to start a discussion on WP:RN. Marcelus (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
@Ermenrich, @Marcelus, since there's no easy definition of a revert I'm going to say that simply editing prose (without changing meaning or reintroducing text that was recently removed/removing text that was recently added) is not a revert. Adding entirely new text is also not a revert. Removing text could be, but if the text wasn't added recently or by one person it probably isn't. By that definition, I don't think the first diff is a revert. The otger two could be but Marcelus has self-reverted so I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt unless anyone feels very strongly that I shouldn't. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Reappearing sockpuppet

Recently the user ऽ has popped up pushing the use of Kaithi script, much the same as लोहार whom you blocked back in March for abuse of multiple accounts - compare [2] with [3]. VanIsaac, GHTV contWpWS 03:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Vanisaac looks like the same person so I've blocked the account. Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
  • As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

  • Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 206, June 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Boulton and Park#Third opinion requested - response

Hi HJ, I'd be grateful to know if I was unreasonable here? First 3O I've given so not going to take it too deeply and all...! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mattdaviesfsic Full disclosure: SchroCat is a friend of mine; our editing interests often overlap. Personally I wouldn't have wandered into the middle of a dispute like that because my experience tells me that when that many have been expended, neither party will accept a third opinion. You should be commended for putting your head above the parapet, but I don't think you called it right. Personman took no account of the number of eyes that will have been over the article for it to gain FA status and was posting massive walls of text that seem not to boil down to much more than personal preference. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for your thoughts. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Appeal to the 0RR restriction

Hello, it has been exactly 3 months since the 0RR restriction was imposed on me, as I had to wait that long to appeal the decision, I hereby do so. According to Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#Appeals_and_amendments, I should do so by addressing "the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions", and since that was you, my request is addressed to you. Marcelus (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus I haven't been through your last three months' edits, but if I was to seriously consider your appeal, what ahs changed in the last three months? What will you do differently if the restriction is lifted? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
In three months, I completely changed the way I edit. I'm discussing changes a lot more, I'm trying to find a reason why my changes are being contested and work out a version that addresses that, I'm also trying to describe my edits in more detail. I don't want the restriction lifted because I'm going to suddenly undo every edit, it's just that it's a rather embarrassing restriction that hangs over me like a sword of Damocles. Marcelus (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Wishing to see the contents of drafted KidsTube.com pages

Greetings I am trying to gather as much info as I can about a website that I used to frequent when I was younger. I notice that some users tried creating pages on Wikipedia about the website many years ago but they were deleted https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=25745414 Would I be able to see the three pages that were deleted? Thank you kindly

Stapmoshun (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi, You told me to see you in about three weeks so that you will re-evaluate my rollbacks. My rollback right is expiring on 18 June 2023. You are kindly requested to have a look. Looking forward to hearing from you soon. Many thanks. Maliner (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

‎Appeal to the 0RR restriction #2

Hey, can I count on your answer to my appeal in the near future? Marcelus (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

InedibleHulk

Just a courtesy notice that InedibleHulk has appealed the arbitration enforcement block that you imposed to AE. Any comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by InedibleHulk. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 207, July 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Password Reset

Hello, I wish to reset the password for my account Teamsonic2011, but I don't have an email linked. 71.94.64.99 (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) – responded on the IP's talk page. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Promotion of Southend-on-Sea War Memorial

Congratulations, HJ Mitchell! The article you nominated, Southend-on-Sea War Memorial, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 208, August 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

added Firefangledfeathers
removed

Interface administrator changes

added Novem Linguae

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

FAC Mentorship - or even just feedback

Hi! I hope you're well. I'm considering working on European Commission with the goal of restoring it to its Featured Article status. However, I don't have any FAs yet, so I wanted to reach out to you to request WP:FAM. Would you be open to helping me through the process? If not, I'd even be happy with a quick evaluation of the article. FYI, it was delisted following this review; obviously, those issues should be addressed, but do you see anything more major? Thanks! Note: I'm asking the same from David_Fuchs regarding Angela Merkel. Of course, if both of you are kind enough to offer mentorship, I don't technically need two people to do the full thing. But the areas of expertise you mention at FAM are complementary :) Actualcpscm (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hope you’re well

H - you’ve been away for a bit. Hope all’s well in your world. KJP1 (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Full protection of Leo Dottavio

It's been over two years since this was BLAR'd and subsequently fully protected. Is full protection really still needed here? Looks like most of the disruption and restoring attempts were by newer users/IPs, which ECP should handle fine (if that's even still needed), and there's some redirect maintenance that can be done (immediately, a redirect category can be added, probably {{R from person}}). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 12:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
  • A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

  • Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 209, September 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Thriller (song)

Thriller (song) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 03:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if this matters?

Cjrlabels (talk · contribs), softblocked due to user name has just created Chad theking62 (talk · contribs). It might not matter but I'm assuming there might be a COI as they are managed by CJR Entertainment (as per the draft under the original user name). Knitsey (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Request for Rollback Rights

Hi there!

I though I'd ask for rollback rights here because I saw you on the list of admins willing to grant such requests. I have been reverting vandalism for a little while now. I think I have the responsibility and knowledge of policy to use this tool well. It would speed up my vandalism reversions greatly.I would also like to use huggle. Thanks! Any feedback of my contributions is most certainly welcome! Seawolf35 (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I see you've asked a couple of other admins who have been more active the last couple of months than I have so I'll defer to them. If neither of them have an answer for you in a week or so I'd be happy to have a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! Seawolf35 (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Revision deletion request

Thanks for anti-vandalism and please delete Special:Permalink/1175461771. Konno Yumeto 07:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Divalicio

I invite you to take a look at the userpage and determine if further action is warranted on a off-wiki basis. Cahk (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

sure , no problem Divalicio (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
@Cahk: resolved, thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

your block of user:Phil brockington fan page

Latest in along-running series of socks created 12 minutes after your block and immediately returned to Aylsham High School and North Walsham: Phillip Brockttv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Meters (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Meters I'm not shocked. I've blocked the sock and semi'd tge article for a little while. Feel free to let me know when they return. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Meters (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
No worries. Don't rely on me for for quick responses though. My activity is in fits and starts at the minute. Always happy to whack a vandal though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
You beat me by seconds to semi-protecting the article, Harry. You semi-protected it for a week; I was about to do so for far longer than that. There has been vandalism which is unambiguously from this particular vandal, using several sockpuppets, for almost two and a half months, and vandalism which may or may not be the same person continually since almost 11 months ago. That being so, I suspect that a week's block will be ineffective. Well, we'll see.
I find it interesting that the vandalism started really abruptly, and has kept going ever since. that suggests to me that it's one or other of the following: it's one person; it's a small group acting together; once it was noticed it became a fashion which spread round the school. On the whole I feel the second of those three is the most likely, but it could be any. JBW (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
I thought a week was long enough that they might get bored. Blocking the accounts seems reasonably effective so far with short-term semi for belt and braces. It's not particularly sophisticated socking so it's possible all the socks are coming from one IP or a small range. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Sanna Englund, vandalism in German-occupied Europe

Hello, i have seem you blocked Sanna Englund. I dont know if you are aware that this account has also tried to impose the same edit in portuguese and french wikipedia, and the previous accounts that made the same kind of edits were also present at spanish wiki. I think we should seek some form of global ban. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@JoaquimCebuano m:SRG would be the place to request that. I believe it should be fairly straightforward if they're banned or blocked on multiple wikis. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! I didnt know how to do it JoaquimCebuano (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Self request block

Hi, @HJ Mitchell. Please block me for 1 month to have a rest, since I'm more and more stressful on Wikipedia and acted in a worse manner day by day. I need a force stop. Sorry.

Thanks. -Lemonaka‎ 20:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka as you wish. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Shaylee Mansfield

Hey HJ! It's been eons; I hope you're doing well. For the birth date edits on this article, please see the talk page discussion. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey Eddie, great to hear from you and to see your username around, even if we don't necessarily agree. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

AIV reports

Hi HJ Mitchell, I'm really sorry for the recent AIV reports, I will stop doing that now.

Thanks, 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Filmssssssssssss Please just follow the instructions in the header. Yes, there is an exception to every rule, but not every vandal needs to be immediately blocked. A majority will go away on their own if we tell them they're being disruptive and ask them to stop. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Withdrawing your cricketer RFC close

Just kidding! Thanks for closing this behemoth of a discussion. – Teratix ₵ 23:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

FA Mentoring

Hello HJ Mitchell!

I'm thinking of nominating the article Thinzar Shunlei Yi (mostly written by me) for Featured Article status. As this will be my first nomination, I'm kindly asking for your assistance for mentoring. You were the only mentor listed who put an interest in "politics". Could you just give me a few pointers for my article?

Thanks!

@Bremps Bremps... 21:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Bremps busy week for me but I'll have a glance when I get a bit of time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Bremps... 21:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell
Hello HJ Mitchell, sorry to bother you. Could you please block me until you are ready to give me advice on the FA? These days, I am using Wikipedia to procrastinate, and I sort of need an intervention.
Thanks, Bremps... 23:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I wanted to get you a weeping Jesus in honour of your edit summary, but the entire sample had finished weeping so I left them in the van. Thanks for stepping up to read through, digest, and summarise all that. Hopefully this picture of a frothy beer stein will help you relax and steel your nerves against critics (who may bring valid criticism, I stress for the audience). If Tuesday is not a drinking night for you, pouring one out for the homies is an honourable alternative. Folly Mox (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I gave you this barnstar because I was getting so annoyed by that IP continuously adding the inappropriate picture to every page. Thanks for blocking it and cheers! NoobThreePointOh (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
@NoobThreePointOh: Thanks. If you see anything like that again, please report it to WP:AIV straight away. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Definitely. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

+reviewer

Did you mean to add the bit indefinitely? Your comment on WP:PERM said it was added as a one month trial. Deauthorized. (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Deauthorized it wasn't intentional but there's nothing to be gained from changing it now, so ... happy editing! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I see. I'll probably come back here in a month for a review either way to try and stick by the original rationale. I appreciate the opportunity. Deauthorized. (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

RFC close

I noticed your close of the RFC. Am I reading it right in that you're saying there's consensus to get rid through-backdoor all of the other 90,000 of Lugnuts' stub creations, despite that not having even proposed by anyone at all? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a very extreme interpretation and wasn't within the scope of the RfC. Considering you posted this less than an hour after I closed the discussion I would guess that you were planning to question any close that didn't go the way you wanted. That level of entrenchment is not helpful to establishing a consensus. There is a consensus that something should be done about the huge numbers of bery short articles that were created against policy without regard for fact checking or notability guidelines, and there is little appetite for another sprawling RfC like that, much less one every few months. There's no consensus on what should be done and with what subset or the whole 90,000 but part of the role of a closer is to try to identify a way forward. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not trying to question every close that would possibly be made (I honestly feel that's what the other side is doing when they don't get their preferred close); but when I read The question wasn't asked in this RfC, but there seems to be a weak consensus to apply this to other of Lugnuts's [90,000] bot-like creations of very short articles right after you admitted that the discussion on simply 1,000 only passed just barely, that seems to imply to me you're saying there's consensus to do so to the 90,000 other stubs without RFC (something that, if put at RFC, I have a good feeling would not find consensus, considering the fact that discussions 90 times smaller only passed both by the skin of their teeth). I could just be crazy and reading it completely wrong, but what exactly did you mean by that mentioned sentence? BeanieFan11 (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a general theme among the supports that something should be done with the rest of Lugnuts's articles. That's a long way from a concrete consensus to draftify 90k articles. But even among the supporters there isn't an appetite for a huge RfC on 1k at a time every few months. There needs to be discussion on how to move forward with that. My remarks were attempting to crystalise and summarise what was discussed to help move the conversation forward. That's what a close is for. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi HJ, thanks for taking the time to close this RFC and answer all these post-close questions. Unfortunately I have a couple more to add:
  1. Is it your view that the RFC "passed just barely" or "by the skin of their teeth" (to quote BF above)? I didn't see anything in your close that said the consensus was weaker or stronger than average ("rough consensus" doesn't mean weak or strong to me), and I wasn't sure if that was something you intended to communicate or not.
  2. You said in your close, "I would urge the proponents to break it down into smaller lists," but also say here that there isn't an appetite for a huge RFC on 1k every few months. Do you think that if the piles were smaller (100? 500?), then there would be an appetite for an RFC every few months? Or, if there isn't an appetite for an RFC about this every few months regardless of how many articles are addressed, then doesn't that mean smaller piles wouldn't make getting to consensus easier? I think you understand the size-of-pile/frequency-of-discussion dichotomy and I'm curious if you think there is a solution that has smaller piles and less frequent RFCs, or if you think the only solution is one that doesn't involve looking at piles at all, or something else altogether, or don't know?
Thanks in advance for answering. Levivich (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Levivich. 1) No I wouldn't say that "just barely" or "by the skin of its teeth" is accurate. The minority was significant but it was definitely a minority no matter how you look at it. I can't see that it could have been closed any other way. The importance of the close (in my opinion) is not so much the result but the summing up and the attempt to highlight a way forward. 2) Few humans can make much sense of a list of 1200 names. My suggestion was to break it up a bit more to help editors find articles they're interested in (so lists by team/country/year/etc). I don't know what the answer is to the other 90k, just that doing them a thousand or so at a time in a massive RfC every few months isn't it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
The reason I'm saying it was just barely is because both discussions were initially closed as no consensus, and in the first case the close was withdrawn after the admin was bullied and bludgeoned into submission, while in this case the admin who closed it also initially closed it as no consensus, and only after a closure review at AN with slim margins was it overturned, and then you came in with your close. Not to mention both had close percentages that would be failing if it were, for say, an admin candidate. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell, could that "something" that is needed to be done be something to the effect of an event to actually improve the notable articles (like I suggested here - it could also feature deletion nominations for the non-notable ones - and its actually been proven to result in many times as many articles improved as draftifications - see here)? As a large proportion of them are notable and these draftifications have been proven to result in next-to-nothing improvement and only the deletion-through-backdoor for notable ones (see for example the Olympian one, of which, out of many notable ones, only a few (~5-10) out of 1,000 have been improved and returned, and in just about every case the improving users were attacked by the supporters of the proposal, had their articles AFDed or redirected, and discouraged by having to do an immense amount of arguing and explaining to have their article kept (if it even was kept; at least one wasn't) - (not to mention several users active in article improvement refused to improve them if draftified, but promised to do it if not - so there goes a lot more notable articles that could have been improved...). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Backlog drives can have good results. I remember the drive to reference previously unreferenced BLPs when the sticky PROD was introduced. I don't see anything in the RfC standing in the way of that. And I wouldn't see a problem with postponing the draftification for a drive to take place. Nothing in my close mandates that it happen immediately. But you don't need me for that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
created against policy - which?
Don't worry; no close challenge from me. As long as there's been one challenge already, the statement includes any hundred words or so, and it's closed in favor of the majority, I know a challenge is a waste of everyone's time. I just find myself very discouraged by these two proposals -- not because I care about these articles, but because these are absolutely new precedents. And because of the amount of wikilawyering required to make them possible. Among other things, going against one policy (using draftspace when what you're really trying to do is delete, for example) while saying the articles were created in violation of policy (even those created well before the changes to nsports; even those created well before people told Lugnuts to stop using databases; even those that only involved manual editing...). Yet even the closer of the discussion is repeating "created against policy", and presumably that colored your assessment of the extent to which the arguments were based in policy. But yes, expect lots of beers, I'm sure. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites WP:MASSCREATE is policy; WP:DRAFT is not even a guideline. There can be no doubt that creating so many articles on such a scale with inadequate sourcing was disruptive and against policy. Ideally it would have been dealt with much earlier but it wasn't so now we have painful decisions to make. Not that there was a lot of policy argument on either side; a lot boiled down to "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" versus "we shouldn't spend more time dealing with the articles than Lugnuts did creating them", both of which I can sympathise with. Fir what it's worth, a lotbof these articles probably will be deleted eventually; a lot of them probably should if they don't meet our inclusion criteria. But I certainly have no interest in seeing them all deleted en masse and I hope my closing remarks emphasise the importance of giving interested editors the chance to review and improve these articles. The close enables the draftification to proceed with a very long deadline for deletion but does not mandate that it has to happen right now. I even said that the answer to mass careless editing is not more mass careless editing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
WP:DRAFT is not even a guideline - WP:ATD-I is policy.
More to the point, the interpretation of WP:MASSCREATE, which is about automated or semi-automated editing, to apply to users who create lots of articles manually or who use boilerplates in doing so has been repeatedly pushed by the RfC's initiator, and it has never found sufficient support. Some of the articles may have been created after some NSPORTS changes, but the set goes back ten years, well before meaningful changes were made. And that should be expected, since creation date wasn't part of the calculus in selecting this group -- just [creator + size + type of sources = delete].
The articles simply weren't created against policy, which is concerning for a close seemingly built on that premise but more importantly (since, again, no second challenge against the majority will ever be successful) concerning because it creates a precedent by imposing your interpretation (and the RfC initiator's interpretation) of the bot policy to apply to manual creation in a way that has otherwise failed to find support in the past. If your intention is not to undermine the standard interpretation of MASSCREATE (that it doesn't apply to manually created articles), just be clear that these RfCs should not be cited as a precedent or taken to apply to anything at all aside from the extraordinary, unusual, headache of a case that is/was Lugnuts. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I've stayed out of this mess, but I have thought that Lugnuts should have been, from the start, non-precedential, a la the Neelix cleanup. It's just so far beyond what is reasonably likely to reoccur in the future. Courcelles (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
To go off on a tangent, personally I consider it precedential only for situations where a single editor has indiscriminately created immense numbers of cookie cutter articles based solely on database sources. I don't think we'll see such actions going forward, as the community now recognizes that such work is disruptive and will hopefully be able to put a stop to it before it goes too far, but there are a very small number of editors beyond Lugnuts who engaged in such acts in the past and whose creations this process (or a related one; while this is a better solution than dozens of AfD's every day, as HJ Mitchell pointed out in his close there isn't appetite for one of these every few months - we need something better) might need to be applied to. BilledMammal (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to know, BilledMammal, are you really going to do these sort of discussions only for those who created thousands of stubs (and how many are you going to do it for?) - I have a strong feeling this is going to eventually move to those who didn't mass create things (or the definition will be shifted to encompass many more)... As for a "better solution," I had high hopes that my suggestion to you on your talk page would work, though you didn't seem willing to assist... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Dege31 asked me a similar question during the RfC; to avoid taking this further onto a tangent that is not directly relevant I'll just link to the response I provided to them. If you want to discuss this further, I'm happy to respond at my talk page. Regarding your proposed alternative, I didn't consider it a better solution for a variety of reasons. However, a couple of days ago I proposed a third option in that section, if you want to consider it. BilledMammal (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
ATD-I explicitly says "without consensus". The RfC is your consensus. Yes it also says at AfD but that was a much broader consensus than you'd get at any AfD. My interpretation of MASSCREATE would seem to be in line with Arbcom's or Lugnuts wouldn't be banned. And yes, this is an extraordinary measure to deal with an extraordinary case. It's not an approach I'd recommend away from cases of one editor creating huge numbers of inadequately sourced stubs. The community does not have the resources to deal with that kind of situation. In almost all other cases, discussions on notability guidelines and AfD can handle disagreements about the eligibility of a class of articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
ATD-I explicitly says "without consensus" - First, that is just about the age, and your close was the precedent for expanding that line to say AfD is no longer necessary to find that consensus. Second, the part I was referring to was the Incubation must not be used as a "backdoor to deletion" part, which doesn't have that qualifier. Regardless, that's not the main thing I wanted to dispute here, which is the premise of the close that they were "created against policy". Barkeep49, sorry to drag you over here, but as (I think) the drafting arb on that decision, would you agree that Arbcom interprets the bot policy (specifically WP:MASSCREATE) as applying not just to automated or semi-automated edits but also to manually created articles (assuming the person isn't making errors while creating them as per WP:MEATBOT)? That's not what I'm reading there -- I'm reading that there were sanctions placed against Lugnuts by the community to restrict a particular type of editing (not because of the bot policy, but because they were disruptive) and he continued doing so, while also being disruptive/uncivil in other ways... and that's why he was banned. The point of contention here is whether, years before any of those restrictions were placed, Lugnuts was violating the bot policy such that the articles in question here were "created against policy". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I can't speak for ArbCom, so any official offerings about how ArbCom interprets Lugnuts actions re:MASSCREATE would need to go to WP:ARCA. I can, however, note that we did say that Lugnuts created many stubs and that those stubs were not expanded. I will also note that the committee also did not link to MASSCREATE in our decision in anyway. Finally I will say, speaking only for myself, that helping the community find a way to deal with Lugnuts articles was a major (though not only) reason for the failed RfCs from the decision. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Since the consensus to draftify was achieved (albeit with NOTBURO interpretations of ATD-I), this RfC was a "backdoor to deletion" inasmuch as any draftification is; I'd argue it's even less considering each item will get 10x as much time, and already has received more awareness, as any normal draft. JoelleJay (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Rhodo, surely you'd freely concede that Lugnuts did not create 90,000 articles without using automated or semi-automated tools, right? I mean, no human being can create 90,000 articles manually. Just imagine how much clicking and typing would be involved. Having a human being click "create article", type stuff out, click "publish" twice... 90,000 times... would probably violate the Geneva conventions.
In the unlikely event that the sheer number -- 90,000 -- doesn't convince you that these were not created manually, just look at the "microstubs" themselves. Here are the first four listed at WP:LUGSTUBS2: 1, 2, 3, 4. They all follow the same exact template: [Name] (born [DOB]) is a [nationality] cricketer. He made his [debut league] debut on [debut date], for [debut team] in the [debut season]. This is a mail merge: make a template and fill in the blanks from a spreadsheet. It's automated or semi-automated creation, not manual creation, and blindingly obviously so.
So, yeah, HJ is correct that these articles were created against policy, because they were unauthorized automated or semi-automated creations, prohibited by MEATBOT. There's a lot for the community to discuss with respect to Lugstubs, and it would be good to winnow down the points of contention so that we can limit the size of future discussions. One of the points I'd like to see editors drop going forward, to save the rest of us time, is the notion that these were manually created articles. There really is no reasonable definition of the word "manual" that would cover creating tens of thousands of articles by mail merge, so let's drop that argument going forward. Levivich (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Scope of close

Quick question; was there a consensus in this discussion that the Village Pump is a suitable location for a consensus to draftify articles to form, or do you consider that beyond the scope? I ask because to me the result combined with policy being descriptive and not prescriptive is that there was; accordingly, I updated ATD-I to reflect this, but it was reverted. For full context Joe Roe and I also updated ATD-I, with slightly different wording, after LUGSTUBS1; this was reverted after LUGSTUBS2 started. BilledMammal (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there was enough discussion on that particular question to include it in a close. Speaking for myself, I would have thought a widely advertised RfC on a pump would trump one AfD in terms of WP:CONLEVEL. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't think there was enough discussion on that particular question to include it in a close. Fair enough, thank you for the prompt response.
Speaking for myself, I would have thought a widely advertised RfC on a pump would trump one AfD in terms of WP:CONLEVEL. I would agree; I don't really consider the line relevant, as WP:NOTBURO clearly contradicts it, but I think it would be a good idea to clean it up and I was hoping we could avoid an RfC on that topic - since the result seems inevitable, holding an RfC that is almost certain to be contentious and drawn out doesn't seem like a profitable use of the communities time. BilledMammal (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Not speaking for Beanie, but to me it's not about which form of discussion takes precedence (I don't think anybody disagrees about what trumps what), but about where deletion discussions should take place and what policies should apply to them. At AfD, arguments that try to push the limits of the deletion policy and arguments that have nothing to do with it typically get discounted. At VP, we've seen that comments along the lines of "this person was disruptive, and should've known 10 years ago that we'd come to resent their style of creation", which don't involve the article subjects at all, can not just be taken seriously but carry the day. If this is truly an extraordinary case, it should be considered an application of conduct policies rather than a precedent to use in modification of content/deletion policies.
Ok, with that, I'm done. I've said a lot already and find myself discouraged about the project at the moment. Tapping out. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry you're feeling discouraged. If we do this well enough for long enough it's inevitable we'll be on the losing side of an RfC that we think is totally barmy or wrong-headed. That's the nature of consensus. Maybe you could renew your enthusiasm by helping with the implementation and dping what you can to prevent the baby being chucked out with the bathwater? There's nothing wrong with keeping your opponents honest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Re

Hi: it is time to take action given that we are faced with a global vandal who has also been reported to the stewards. Quinlan83 (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The IP is blocked. Arguing over talk page blanking won't change that so it's not worth the effort. The stewards can globally block though I gather thye have a bit of a backlog. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the problem is that hours have passed and in the meantime he has continued to vandalize various linguistic editions of Wikipedia (targeting la.wiki, among other things). Despite this I am happy that the IP was blocked. A greeting--Quinlan83 (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm only an admin on this wiki; I can't do anything about vandalism on any other. It might be quicker to find a local admin so at least they can be blocked on individual wikis. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, we have already done so, however thank you for your response and availability. We hope that the problem will be resolved globally. A greeting--Quinlan83 (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion has been nominated for renaming

Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. HouseBlastertalk 21:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

2001:4451::/32

Thanks for that rangeblock! DMacks (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@DMacks you're welcome. Looks like it was overdue! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Request

Greetings HJ Mitchell! I don't know if this is sufficient grounds for requesting the Page mover right, as I only need it for one specific purpose, but here goes: I end up draftifying new articles (mostly un[der]referenced ones) on a regular basis, and always feel a bit bad because some overworked admin then has to come mop up after me with an R2 speedy. So if I had suppressredirect, that would cut down on the mopping-up required, right? Fully understand if this isn't enough of a reason, though. Cheers, Maliner (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Maliner sure, let's see how you do for a month then I'll look again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell Thanks. Maliner (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

  • Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Pagemover for draftifies

Hi HJ Mitchell. Since you recently granted two requests for pagemover for draftifying, I wanted to note that there was recently a related discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 203#Give NPR additional rights? about whether to give new page reviewers supressredirect in order to draftify without leaving an R2 for admins. There was significant opposition to giving supressredirect or full pagemover rights merely for draftifying. SilverLocust 💬 23:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It's always interesting when a theoretical discussion at a pump reaches a different conclusion to common practice, so thanks for the link. It's a shame draftifying is controversial; I remember NPP before draft space existed and draftifying was always supposed to be a gentler alternative to outright deletion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Your AGF

The Guidance Barnstar
Thanks for your measured comments and AGF at the Arb discussion. We can all continue to grow. Good on you. Lightburst (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I always try to start from a position of assuming good faith. In my experience those who have no such faith will make that obvious quickly enough. Which is not to say that you can't learn something and hopefully avoid a repeat trip to AE. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Archive_131&oldid=1179447037"