User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 64
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:HJ Mitchell. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 60 | ← | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | → | Archive 70 |
Final Sig Proposal before I revert back to my standard sig.
Would you accept this signature? It is significantly shorter.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 00:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- How many characters is it? It's certainly a huge improvement (in terms of length) over your previous attempts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- 275 which still doesn;t meet criteria. I don't think it's much of a hurt either.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 00:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- I can live with 20 characters over the limit, but if you can shorten it to 255, please do. It doesn't make a mess of the edit window, which is the main thing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- 275 which still doesn;t meet criteria. I don't think it's much of a hurt either.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 00:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- You can shave off 14 characters by removing the unnecessary quotation marks. –xenotalk 00:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Or that! ;) I didn't know they were unnecessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Done Thanks. I wanted to archive an old thread that should've gone to Archive 62. Being that I am not yet an admin (hope to be soon), I was unable to put it in that archive. I put it in the very beginning of Archive 63. I believe my comment somehow was preventing MiszaBot from archiving.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 01:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Or that! ;) I didn't know they were unnecessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- You can shave off 14 characters by removing the unnecessary quotation marks. –xenotalk 00:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Log
HJM, can you please log your topic ban of FergusM1970 at Wikipedia:TROUBLES#2011? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Woops, I'm out of practice! Thanks for the reminder and please call me Harry!. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
well this is not media speculation carl hirschmann was indeed convicted in court and then he confirmed himself that he has psychological problems and neurosis etc, re the video reference.
http://www.sonntagonline.ch/ressort/aktuell/1948/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.226.46 (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
http://www.24heures.ch/actu/suisse/millionnaire-carl-hirschmann-condamne-33-mois-prison-2011-09-09
http://www.sonntagonline.com/index.php?show=news&id=727
http://www.sonntagonline.ch/ressort/aktuell/1948/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2fsolncotk --86.185.226.46 (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Looking a little further
Hi Harry - As I indicated, I was recused on the Abortion case, and so deliberately didn't look at any information related to the case. However, your concerns about that particular provision led me to dig a little deeper to see why there was so great a concern that the arbitrators voting on the case would feel this was a necessary step; I'll admit it's a rather unusual remedy. On looking very carefully at revdeleted (and in some cases suppressed) edits, it seems that some IPs have been inserting information into articles/talk pages related to the topic that are intended to provide personal information about doctors who carry out abortions. (Sometimes the relationship to the abortion topic would not be obvious by the subject of the article, but is made clear by the edits done by the IP.) Given that several doctors (and their families) have had their lives put at risk or have even been murdered in certain places (including large North American cities) for their willingness to conduct abortions, the addition (even cloaked in bafflegab) of any personal information about them or their families can place them at serious harm. A registered user would be banned without second thought for this kind of behaviour; however, semi-protection is much more effective at addressing such additions by IPs. Although I'm not directly privy to any discussions about this case, I suspect that this was a key factor in the decision to make it clear to administrators that if they encounter such situations, they'll be strongly supported in taking aggressive protection steps. Risker (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's not entirely unreasonable (and I thought ARBPIA was a nightmare; the things people do when they think they have the moral high ground...!), but there was no need to "authorise" it or to limit it to three years or to require it to be logged—that really is just added bureaucracy, and it looks like an attempt to micromanage administrators. Simply suggesting that admins might want to make greater use of semi-protection in that topic area than they would normally (the same sort of thing that has developed with BLP, although that has formed out of special enforcement) would have been more sensible in my view. But thank you for explaining the thought process behind the motion (though even your phrase "strongly supported in taking aggressive protection steps" seems to get that aim across much better). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- ....aaand then someone else would hassle us for being too vague and not precisely specifying what the motion/remedy was trying to do....sighCasliber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Possibly, but as I said on WT:ACN, the more verbose the motion, the clear its meaning becomes (at least in my opinion). I don't think that hypothetical situation would be too much of a worry, though, because it's not trying to do anything at the moment—it's no longer mandating the semi-protection of several thousand articles, just suggesting that admins might like to be a m=bit more liberal when doling out semi-protection in that topic area. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's actually an interesting step forward for the ArbCom to be attempting to give a "steer" to admins (for the best of intentions), and one that I think I'd welcome. When the community constructs an ArbCom whose fundamental function is dispute resolution, it shouldn't be surprised when the ArbCom shifts from reactive to proactive and seeks to promote dispute prevention. Spending large amounts of time at the seediest end of Wikipedia almost certainly provides an unique insight into modes of bad behaviour, and probably does qualify the committee to push the kind of unusual solutions that have appeared. The truth is that there are certain concerns that, on balance, should overrule our normal desire to keep articles open to IP editing - and potential threats to the safety of individuals is surely one of them. The only question that remains for me is, should this rationale be more widely publicised? Given the large number of potentially vulnerable articles and the low ratio of active admins to active editors, I would speculate that it's not just admins who need to become informed, peons such as myself might be more likely to ask at RPP if they spot problems as well. --RexxS (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- With Risker's explanation of the intent of the motion (ie to allow, and perhaps encourage, admins to be more liberal with their use of semi-protection on abortion-related articles), I think the motion is just poorly worded rather than being wrong in spirit—it's hard not to agree with the spirit when it's expressed more articulately, such as by Risker. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's actually an interesting step forward for the ArbCom to be attempting to give a "steer" to admins (for the best of intentions), and one that I think I'd welcome. When the community constructs an ArbCom whose fundamental function is dispute resolution, it shouldn't be surprised when the ArbCom shifts from reactive to proactive and seeks to promote dispute prevention. Spending large amounts of time at the seediest end of Wikipedia almost certainly provides an unique insight into modes of bad behaviour, and probably does qualify the committee to push the kind of unusual solutions that have appeared. The truth is that there are certain concerns that, on balance, should overrule our normal desire to keep articles open to IP editing - and potential threats to the safety of individuals is surely one of them. The only question that remains for me is, should this rationale be more widely publicised? Given the large number of potentially vulnerable articles and the low ratio of active admins to active editors, I would speculate that it's not just admins who need to become informed, peons such as myself might be more likely to ask at RPP if they spot problems as well. --RexxS (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Possibly, but as I said on WT:ACN, the more verbose the motion, the clear its meaning becomes (at least in my opinion). I don't think that hypothetical situation would be too much of a worry, though, because it's not trying to do anything at the moment—it's no longer mandating the semi-protection of several thousand articles, just suggesting that admins might like to be a m=bit more liberal when doling out semi-protection in that topic area. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- ....aaand then someone else would hassle us for being too vague and not precisely specifying what the motion/remedy was trying to do....sighCasliber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Just Checking
Did you mean to delete a post from both User:Bioplus ans yourself here? Just making sure. Also, if you are having trouble with a user, please let me know and I will do my best to help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's being handled, and I really can;t say any more, but I appreciate you having my back old friend! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Understandable. Glad to help out. :) Let me know if I can be of assistance in anything else that pops up on the ol' talk page. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
http://www.firstpaigeinc.com/FirstPaige/my_work.html. She's a paid beauty writer. Fences&Windows 21:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, but are her edits promoting her business? It might be necessary to mandate a change of username, but if the edits are unacceptable, then there's not much point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Message Bar?
Hey HJ, I noticed your post above about real life happening (hope it isn't any bad). I was wondering if you want me to put a message bar saying something like "HJ Mitchell will be editing/commenting sporadically over the next few days due to real life" or something like that at the top of your talk page and your user page? Also, if you are going to be away for a couple, I will watchover the talk page more-so and help with the non-admin issues that arise. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm around, so a notice probably isn't necessary, I'm just busy for the next day or two and then I've got a bit of a busy weekend. I always appreciate you keeping an eye on ym talk page though! Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 14:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Okie Dokie, no problem. :) If you do need the banner/bar, do let me know. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
More images for OTRS approval
Since you helped me with ticket 2011112810034763, I thought I'd ask you. I found 146 images on Commons (and 4 local) that are currently claimed for use under the permission from 2011112810034763 but that aren't the specific type of image approved under that ticket. I emailed Robert Webb about them, and he gave us permission to continue using those 150 images under the same "Attribution" terms. To avoid confusion, it seems to me that a separate OTRS ticket number would be preferable. But either way, how do we want to do this?
- I could put {{OTRS pending}} on those 146 images, leaving some unlucky OTRS volunteer to have to mark them all approved manually.
- I could create a special licensing template just for those 146, and put {{OTRS pending}} on that. I don't know if Commons likes such things.
- We could create the OTRS ticket first, and then I tag all 146 images with {{PermissionOTRS}} directly (and link in the edit summary to where you say that those 146 are OTRS-approved) as I update the license tag on them.
- Something else?
Thanks for your help. Anomie⚔ 18:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Option two is probably the best. Option two would trip the abuse filter on Commons and option one requires two people to make nearly 300 edits between them and seems like a lot of duplication of effort. Forward the email to OTRS (put "FAO Harry Mitchell" in the subject line and if I don't get to it first, somebody will hopefully pass it to me) and I'll make the edit once everything's in order. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Email sent, template created. Details in the email. Working on applying it to the images now. Anomie⚔ 03:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking care of it. The ticket also needs to be placed on the following enwiki images:
- Since there's only 4, I didn't bother making a copy of the template here. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 15:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Done, done, done, and done. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Email sent, template created. Details in the email. Working on applying it to the images now. Anomie⚔ 03:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
WP:V
I didn't vote in the RfC, so if you would like some help in deciding the outcome, I'm willing to assist. Cla68 (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have started a deliberation page here. Please jump in and add/subtract/disagree/agree with what I've started there. Cla68 (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll have a look when I get chance (real life just got in the way, so I might be comemnting sporadically over a few days). Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 14:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
FWIW I started to break down the votes into classes while the RFC was still open then had the page U2 deleted User:Crazynas/verifiability rfc it might be useful. Cheers. Crazynas t 21:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- HJ, you and whoever helps you to close the RfC are invited to use what I wrote on my userpage if you find it helpful, and please feel free to use it as a place to hold your own discussions if you feel so inclined. Good luck! Cla68 (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- It should be noted that Cla68's summary of those opposing the proposed change omits several key arguments (at least, from my perspective):
- It's not broken, don't fix it. Despite repeated and repeated calls, nobody could produce a single example of an editor knowingly insisting on including false, but verifiable information in an article. For such a major change in policy, I would expect supporters to have provided dozens of such examples.
- Proponents of fringe theories frequently abuse Wikipedia to promote their fringe nonsense. I don't know how many times I've seen a Birther insist that Barrack Obama isn't a natural born citizen, or that he's a secret Muslim. Or a Truther insist that 9/11 was an inside job. "Verifiability, not truth" is a simple, but important tool for trying to bring sanity to some of Wikipedia's troubled areas.
- The RfC contained a non-neutral title and a non-neutral explanation of the change. The RfC only contained arguments in favor of the change. I suspect that if the RfC only contained arguments against the change, the percentage would be different.
- 65% is not consensus. This is not a democracy and this is not a vote. And if it were a simple vote, the only situation I'm aware of where a hard number is used on Wikipedia is for RfAs and 65% would fall short.
- A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Take it easy, AQFK. I'm adding your concerns. Cla68 (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- It should be noted that Cla68's summary of those opposing the proposed change omits several key arguments (at least, from my perspective):
- Also, HJ, thank you for the vote of confidence after Hans Adler objected. Much appreciated. Cla68 (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
MonmothpediA
Hi Harry
A pleasure to meet you, hopefully see you in Monmouth in the new year some time, I'll talk to the museum people and try to find a date that suits all. I'm having withdrawal symptoms from exciting company and someone making all my food for me.
All the best
--Mrjohncummings (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:GLAM/MonmouthpediA
- Let me know when you want me and I'll get on a train. Then another train. Then a bus. ;) I'm not around on the day of the WLM meeting (whenever that is) and there are a couple of other commitments I have in January, but it shouldn't be a problem. It was a nice weekend, wasn't it? Lots of interesting people, interesting discussions. And it was good to meet you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey HJ! I was wondering if you could take a look at Aaron Rodgers and see what you think about it passing a WP:GA review, I haven't done much work to it imo, I added a few predraft sections and organized it a bit better. If you have some time I'd appreciate you or one of your other Talk Page stalkers letting me know what you think. Regards,--SKATER Is Back 14:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Edit Filters
Hey HJ, do you edit the filters or just turn them on or off? I ask because I need an edit filter tweaked as the vandal it was made to keep out has gotten around it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I can only do very basic things with filters (and usually only when it's urgent—I've only made three filter modifications in 18 months and only two of those required ticking or unticking a box!) so you;re probably better finding somebody who actually knows what they're doing! Sorry, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- No worries, I have a message into KingOfHearts, you were online, he wasn't, I was being impatient. :) Typical me, I tells ya. :) I will wait on him. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I need your input
Hi Harry. I hope you don't mind me calling you that. I am seeking input from numerous administrators and experienced users I have interacted with in the past. I would like to know if I believe I would be a capable administrator and what I could do to better myself. Your response is really appreciated. Please send me a TB.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 22:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Of course I don't mind, that is my name! :) I'm not going to beat around the bush, but please don't be too discouraged. As a rule of thumb, I look for about 5,000 edits (excluding Huggle etc) and 12 months' experience as a minimum standard at RfA. I don't stick religiously to statistics, but that's my rule of thumb. Note that I've opposed editors with much more impressive statistics than that, because the important part is much less quantifiable. I want the candidate to have enough experience that I can be confident they won't break anything too important, enough common sense that they don't go wading out of their depth (something I learnt the hard way), and to have been around for long enough that I can trust them not to deliberately misuse the tools. I like to see candidates who have poked their head in most areas on Wikipedia and understand how it works (that includes writing something—not necessarily an FA, but something that most people would say advances knowledge about its subject; that includes expanding an existing article). If that was an entry fee, then major discounts would be available to anybody who's written an FA in the last couple of years (because writing and maintaining an article at that level, and then taking it through the various review processes and being receptive to feedback provides [or requires, depending on your perspective] many of the skills admins rely on for anything that's not clear-cut) and for people who have successfully carved out a niche for themselves and have been doing impressive work there for several months.
I would advise you against an RfA in the near future, especially since your recent block will draw a lot of opposition on its own, but your heart is certainly in the right place and with time and experience there's no reason why an RfA at a later date wouldn't go well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I appreciate it. By heart you mean my attitude toward Wikipedia and it's editors? Send me another TB.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 22:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly. It's obvious that you're here because you care about the project and you want to help. That attitude will take you far (as long as you stay out of trouble). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Always try to. The fact is, I've been editing for years now under an IP address and never saw the need for an account. When my IP's started to get blocked and pages I like editing started to get protected, that's when I developed this account. Now I wish I had made this sooner. If you respond to this, send a TB. It's always helpful if I receive a TB from now on.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 23:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly. It's obvious that you're here because you care about the project and you want to help. That attitude will take you far (as long as you stay out of trouble). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I appreciate it. By heart you mean my attitude toward Wikipedia and it's editors? Send me another TB.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 22:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Back on 25 January 2011 you granted this editor "autopatrolled", given his block log and tenancy to recreated deleted pages do you think it is worth reviewing this ? Mtking (edits) 20:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi HJ, I appreciate the work you do and have a question: Why did you delete the Bloody Knuckles page, which I created a few years ago to explain the rules and also to sort out the different versions of drinking, card, and fisticuffs games people play called Bloody Knuckles? I don't know whether the page got vandalized or something, but I suspect deleting it outright was perhaps erroneous. Thinker jones (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid the simple answer is "I didn't". The deletion log for the page is here and my name's not in it. It could be that I deleted a redirect to it or that I deleted a page with a similar title, but it seems that page was deleted at AfD, so I would suggest that you would have to talk to some of the delete !voters and convince them that the subject is notable if you want the article restored. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- It does look like you deleted the page Bloody knuckles. Perhaps it was a redirect - I'm not certain - but I'm surprised that that article would be deleted after it had so many contributors and the content had been refined. Or perhaps it had become vandalized. I don't know. It was a useful article at one point. Can you shed some light on this process? Thinker jones (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I pulled up the deleted histories to see what was going on. It seems Bloody knuckles (note the lower-case "k") was moved to Bloody Knuckles (with a capital "K"), and it was then deleted by Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk · contribs) who cited speedy deletion criterion G6, but without a detailed log summary. I'm not entirely sure how G6 applies in this instance, so all I can do is suggest that you ask Jim on his talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- It had been tagged {{db-xfd}} (which classes as G6), linking to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloody Knuckles. G4 would have been more appropriate. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I pulled up the deleted histories to see what was going on. It seems Bloody knuckles (note the lower-case "k") was moved to Bloody Knuckles (with a capital "K"), and it was then deleted by Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk · contribs) who cited speedy deletion criterion G6, but without a detailed log summary. I'm not entirely sure how G6 applies in this instance, so all I can do is suggest that you ask Jim on his talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- It does look like you deleted the page Bloody knuckles. Perhaps it was a redirect - I'm not certain - but I'm surprised that that article would be deleted after it had so many contributors and the content had been refined. Or perhaps it had become vandalized. I don't know. It was a useful article at one point. Can you shed some light on this process? Thinker jones (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Soapboxing
Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BPosted.5D_Poll_fraud_protests_in_Russia This is obviously not soapboxing right? Or is it just because you dont oppose said comments?Lihaas (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC).
- You might not have noticed, but I haven't been very active at ITN lately. Since I haven't visited ITN/C for several days, it's not reasonable to expect me to police every comment made on that page and if such policing is necessary, it is probably better done by the administrators who are familiar with the current situation there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Another RfA
Hello, HJ Mitchell, I am the beginner in Wikipedia, but would like to become an admin sometime, so your kind assistance would be very useful to me. I hope to count on your nomination as I reach the level of edits required by Wiki rules (soon, hopefully) - have only 1500+ edits so far in English Wiki. --Orekhova (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I would suggest working reeeaaallly hard and wait for a while. I asked for input from him and I have to work a lot harder myself. I am hoping Harry nominates me when I am ready but, based on all the input from numerous experienced users and administrators, I have a lot to learn before I can become a good or great or the best admin. Good luck in the future.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 12:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Linking to that discussion may actually be useful (except for the gawdawful colours) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
| Thank you for giving me that slap in the face. I really needed that. One of my autistic traits is stubbornness which is something I am really trying to get out of. Thanks for you help. —cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 01:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC) |
A Suggestion
Heyas, might I suggest an article that I created (shameless promotion) that might help with any "please stop deleting my page" and "why did you delete my page" posts you might have received. It's User:Neutralhomer/WWMAD. What I do is just post it as {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/WWMAD}}~~~~ and it creates the section header and signs it itself, just a copy/paste job. It might help so you won't have to constantly answer those posts. Just slap the template on their talk page. Feel free to tinker with the page at User:Neutralhomer/WWMAD, if you like. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- It might interest you to see my comment at ANB DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
OTRS in Welsh
Hi Harry
I remember you saying you were an English OTRS volunteer, a group of people have written a local town trail and then have paid to have translated into Welsh here , they are thinking of releasing some of the Welsh language version under free license. Could they do this through permissions-en@wikimedia.org or does it need to go through the Welsh language version?
All the best --Mrjohncummings (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's probably the best place for it (I don't think there is a Welsh-language queue). If they put "FAO Harry Mitchell" in the subject line it should reach me, and if you let me know when it's sent, I'll go and fish it out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Request for review
Hi, I am looking for an unbiased admin who is willing to spend a little time reviewing this discussion, please: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#Anglo-Irish and Irish Bios. The other disputing editor in question subjected the thread to considerable selective canvassing, and as such it has become a little messy since. I had tried to start it with a serious breakdown of the issues that I identified, which are substantial imo, and proposed a solution, but the way people get into Wikidrama these days it is impossible to maintain a straight-forward discussion on any AN board, let alone determine where civility issues begin and end. Fortunately, this has not gotten too long and confusing, some parts are totally irrelevant, and there only a few editors have commented constructively. Needless to say, I am not amused with the way it is being played out, derailed, or ignored by several other admins that I contacted who are familiar with the restrictions of the editor in question, but have not responded. Perhaps an uninvolved outlook would help in this matter? You know the way I work on MilHist, and that I usually aim to be thorough and helpful where I can, but AN boards are a whole different ball game with a lot of trivial titt-for-tatt, self-importance retorts, and manipulative replies that usually brings out the worst in me, and others. Hopefully you can see past that, and aid in finding a sensible resolution. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 10:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- It will be interesting to see what will happen when your interactions on the relevant discussions here [2] will be scrutinised to assess the situation from an impartial perspective. Sheodred (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- And this is the guy who accuses me of Wiki-stalking. Hi, lover... Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 10:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting to note how your language here is significantly more polite when you are addressing an admin for your own reasons, people will not say the same when you are addressing ordinary editors who disagree with you. My "stalking" is justified when the subject is me, not one's contributions to articles, unlike yourself. Sheodred (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Talk to the hand. You haven't defended your 43 POV edits yet, not a one. Those, and only those, are of primary concern to WP:ECCN. Nothing else matters on that board. ECCN is not AN/I. You chose it though, remember that. Once you get topic banned for POV pushing, failure to cite, source or reference, we can look to your list of personal attacks on several editors in the past week who oppose your POV edits. Once you're blocked, indef I hope, the situation is closed. Easy really. POV pushing is a WP:FIVEPILLARS no-no. Someone with a history as long as yours, has nothing on me. My arse is so clean in terms of neutrality, it whistles when the wind blows through my legs. Your comments here won't serve to derail the process, or incriminate me. Try as you might. I suggest you await HJ Mitchell's response, and stop making a further fool of yourself. Those 43 POV edits are a big enough burden on your shoulders, no point making it worse. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 10:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting to note how your language here is significantly more polite when you are addressing an admin for your own reasons, people will not say the same when you are addressing ordinary editors who disagree with you. My "stalking" is justified when the subject is me, not one's contributions to articles, unlike yourself. Sheodred (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- And this is the guy who accuses me of Wiki-stalking. Hi, lover... Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 10:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- It will be interesting to see what will happen when your interactions on the relevant discussions here [2] will be scrutinised to assess the situation from an impartial perspective. Sheodred (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
V
My conclusions are at User:RegentsPark/Verifiability RfC. --regentspark (comment) 15:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like we're in broad agreement. Let's see what WTT comes up with. Meanwhile, when I said I had plenty of time available, I didn't mean unlimited so I'd better go back to earning that daily bread! --regentspark (comment) 15:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed it does, but there's no harm in waiting for Worm, and a dissenting judgement might even inspire more faith in the close. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Interestingly, it looks like we've all come to a similar conclusion here, here and here. I was dissenting at first, but I hadn't read all of the RfC at the time and my final thoughts are along the same lines. Writing it up is the next step and since this was different to the last close we should probably make mention of it. WormTT · (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well it's great that we've all come to that conclusion separately and publicly. So, do we want to make a joint statement or should we all just copy over our own rationales and close it jointly (considering we're all agreed on the outcome). I'm hesitant to spend time addressing previous closes, since we're the committee that's now been tasked with closing it. I just read Sarek's close for the first time, and it's very brusque and seems to be based mostly on the numbers and a "majority"—Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and even if it was, I would hope we can come up with a system better than first past the post. Frankly (and I'm loath to say this as I've always held Sarek in high esteem), I would have expected to see more thought put into a close of such a large RfC on a core policy, even at the stage when only ~100 editors had opined. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm. I wasn't aware of Sarek's close. But, I don't think that's an issue. Sarek closed it before the requisite 30 days and, at the time of his/her close, there were only 66 supports and 31 opposes, a fairly narrow range of inputs for what is an important policy issue. We have a much larger set of editors (4.5 times) and a lot more to work with. --regentspark (comment) 17:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well it's great that we've all come to that conclusion separately and publicly. So, do we want to make a joint statement or should we all just copy over our own rationales and close it jointly (considering we're all agreed on the outcome). I'm hesitant to spend time addressing previous closes, since we're the committee that's now been tasked with closing it. I just read Sarek's close for the first time, and it's very brusque and seems to be based mostly on the numbers and a "majority"—Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and even if it was, I would hope we can come up with a system better than first past the post. Frankly (and I'm loath to say this as I've always held Sarek in high esteem), I would have expected to see more thought put into a close of such a large RfC on a core policy, even at the stage when only ~100 editors had opined. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Interestingly, it looks like we've all come to a similar conclusion here, here and here. I was dissenting at first, but I hadn't read all of the RfC at the time and my final thoughts are along the same lines. Writing it up is the next step and since this was different to the last close we should probably make mention of it. WormTT · (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed it does, but there's no harm in waiting for Worm, and a dissenting judgement might even inspire more faith in the close. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I think we could just close it with a statement that all three closers agree that there is no consensus to implement the changes and with links to our individual writeups. Not much point in trying to craft a joint statement. If we're all agreed, then HJM can you do that? Just remember to duck! --regentspark (comment) 17:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- If I may intervene, I don't think you should do that, because it would mean a lack of clarity as to what the reasons you all agree on are, and therefore confusion as to how best to go forward. --FormerIP (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm a little wary about trying to force an accord across the three of us. Speaking for myself, I'm only reading community consensus on whether or not the proposals should be adopted but am unwilling to lay claim to judging what sort of proposal should come out of all this - that would require a great deal of thought and others such as Blueboar, North8000, SlimVirgin, and others are probably better suited for that. On reading each of the three write ups, the main message seems to me that community is not willing to give up the 'truth' word and, perhaps, that the proposal was overly ambitious. I think that there are many pointers on how best to go forward (small steps!) but, rather than our laying down the steps, it is probably better that the next steps come out not just from our close statements but also, and this is far more important, a careful reading of the oppose !votes. --regentspark (comment) 22:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting that you should make suggestions on ways forward. I think there's a potential problem, though, in just having three opinions for editors to synthesise, interpret and read in different ways, whereas as we could have a clear statement of the key deciding factors. So for example, you seem to be saying that 65% is not enough for a consensus in this case. HJ, denies this logic at the outset, but reaches the same conclusion in fairly strong terms. Worm doesn't seem to think this is anything like as important a factor. This is only given as an example, but I think for the three of you to agree on a single line - even if it is only given in a bullet-point. I editors end up disagreeing about why the proposal failed, they it will be harder for them to agree about where to go next. --FormerIP (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- The three of us agree that the proposal has not reached consensus, but we all take a different approach in evaluating that and the advice we give for continuing. I think the community was unwise to suggest that three admins close it if they wanted a single rationale, and doubly unwise to pick three with such diverse experience and backgrounds if they just wanted one admin to close and two others to append their signatures. I think posting our three separate rationales is probably the best way forward—not least because we now know what the result is going to be, and by discussing exactly how to effect that result only prolongs the limbo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's not about how to put the result into effect. You do that by simply saying "no consensus". I must be expressing myself really badly. I don't want to get into what my personal thoughts on the way forward might be, but I have some. And other users have expressed that what they will do is read the decision (singular) and try to take in what it means and what its implications are, then think about next steps. My worry is that if its meaning is unclear, then the road ahead is unpaved. Three admins is a young process and maybe it will need some tweaking. But surely you can understand that, after all this process has gone through, editors might appreciate something clearer than "we didn't like it for various reasons which you can interpret as you will". Hope you can appreciate that this is as much me trying to help you as trying to get you to help me. --FormerIP (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I certainly understand your intent, but I don't think it's too much of an issue. We have three closing statements, each of which contains its own advice (and all three of us may have picked up important themes in the discussion that the others missed), but all of which agree on the principle that a consensus hasn't been achieved. I think it would be most productive for editors to decide which pieces of advice they want to take and to request clarification on anything that's ambiguous—the three of us will almost certainly still be around to field questions about the close over days and weeks to come. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds sensible to me. Harry, I'd be happy for you to write a short statement and include our conclusions - linking our investigations, since you were a member of both closing trios. I'd certainly be willing to answer any questions. WormTT · (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yup. You have my blessing as well. Go for it! --regentspark (comment) 15:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Will do; thanks gents. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yup. You have my blessing as well. Go for it! --regentspark (comment) 15:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds sensible to me. Harry, I'd be happy for you to write a short statement and include our conclusions - linking our investigations, since you were a member of both closing trios. I'd certainly be willing to answer any questions. WormTT · (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I certainly understand your intent, but I don't think it's too much of an issue. We have three closing statements, each of which contains its own advice (and all three of us may have picked up important themes in the discussion that the others missed), but all of which agree on the principle that a consensus hasn't been achieved. I think it would be most productive for editors to decide which pieces of advice they want to take and to request clarification on anything that's ambiguous—the three of us will almost certainly still be around to field questions about the close over days and weeks to come. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's not about how to put the result into effect. You do that by simply saying "no consensus". I must be expressing myself really badly. I don't want to get into what my personal thoughts on the way forward might be, but I have some. And other users have expressed that what they will do is read the decision (singular) and try to take in what it means and what its implications are, then think about next steps. My worry is that if its meaning is unclear, then the road ahead is unpaved. Three admins is a young process and maybe it will need some tweaking. But surely you can understand that, after all this process has gone through, editors might appreciate something clearer than "we didn't like it for various reasons which you can interpret as you will". Hope you can appreciate that this is as much me trying to help you as trying to get you to help me. --FormerIP (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- The three of us agree that the proposal has not reached consensus, but we all take a different approach in evaluating that and the advice we give for continuing. I think the community was unwise to suggest that three admins close it if they wanted a single rationale, and doubly unwise to pick three with such diverse experience and backgrounds if they just wanted one admin to close and two others to append their signatures. I think posting our three separate rationales is probably the best way forward—not least because we now know what the result is going to be, and by discussing exactly how to effect that result only prolongs the limbo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting that you should make suggestions on ways forward. I think there's a potential problem, though, in just having three opinions for editors to synthesise, interpret and read in different ways, whereas as we could have a clear statement of the key deciding factors. So for example, you seem to be saying that 65% is not enough for a consensus in this case. HJ, denies this logic at the outset, but reaches the same conclusion in fairly strong terms. Worm doesn't seem to think this is anything like as important a factor. This is only given as an example, but I think for the three of you to agree on a single line - even if it is only given in a bullet-point. I editors end up disagreeing about why the proposal failed, they it will be harder for them to agree about where to go next. --FormerIP (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm a little wary about trying to force an accord across the three of us. Speaking for myself, I'm only reading community consensus on whether or not the proposals should be adopted but am unwilling to lay claim to judging what sort of proposal should come out of all this - that would require a great deal of thought and others such as Blueboar, North8000, SlimVirgin, and others are probably better suited for that. On reading each of the three write ups, the main message seems to me that community is not willing to give up the 'truth' word and, perhaps, that the proposal was overly ambitious. I think that there are many pointers on how best to go forward (small steps!) but, rather than our laying down the steps, it is probably better that the next steps come out not just from our close statements but also, and this is far more important, a careful reading of the oppose !votes. --regentspark (comment) 22:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well my first choice was for each of us to post our own closing statement and then I'd just spell out the result. What do others think (TPS input welcome). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Wow...it's definitely been awhile if WP:V is now up on RFC! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Right, it's closed. The formatting is a bit of a botch job but I couldn't get it to work any other way. Anybody who fancies fixing it is most welcome! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
WP: INVOLVED on AE appeal
I was wondering if you had an opinion on an issue regarding the AE appeal I made, where you recently closed discussion. An admin who argued in support of the block on my talk page expressed a position on my later appeal in the section for uninvolved admins. My position is that he was not uninvolved given that he had already taken part in a dispute of the block as mentioned in the procedural notes of the AE appeal template. The admin who created the AE appeal template that includes this criteria for WP:INVOLVED did not want to comment on whether the admin was violating the policy. At this point my primary concern is that this admin not misrepresent himself in a similar manner on potential cases in the future. Just insuring the admin is aware he was in violation of WP:INVOLVED concerning that appeal would suffice.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be proper of me to comment on one particular instance where an admin is alleged to have misrepresented their level of involvement. I haven't looked at the details of this particular complaint, but I'm sure you and I could recite the wording of WP:INVOLVED from heart—the standard is whether an admin's actions went beyond simply acting in an administrative capacity, and whether they can adjudicate neutrally (and be seen as adjudicating neutrally). Advocating a block of an editor for a violation of a topic ban would not normally preclude that admin from commenting as uninvolved at an AE appeal of the block, though it might not be a bad idea for them to make it clear that their comment on the appeal is not their first comment on the matter. The thing to remember is that INVOLVED is not a technicality with which to beat an admin who has expressed an opinion (and I'm not accusing you of that in this case, but it's an all-too-common application of it by tendentious editors), it's designed for cases where an admin can't (or can't appear to) possibly keep an open mind. You might say that applies in this case, but I would suggest that having already reviewed the facts and expressed an opinion rises to that level; the best example I can think of would be an admin continuing to advocate declining an appeal even after exculpatory evidence had been presented, due to some pre-existing bias against that user. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Move request
Heya HJ, would be be able to move something I've wroked on into the mainspace and perform a history merge. User:Raintheone/Ric Dalby to Ric Dalby - The target is currently proctected as it had previously been recreated without any sources and the original admin is inactive. I did ask someone else but I think they have called it a night.RaintheOne BAM 22:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Given how old the AfD was and that your version is completely different (not "substantially identical"), there shouldn't be any problems. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks buddy. I was a tad worried at first, given the article's history - but I think I did an okay job of establishing notability. :)RaintheOne BAM 23:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- You did. The important thing is that it's not the same as the old version (I had a look at the deleted history, and they're very different), so if naybody wants it deleted, they'd have to take it to AfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks buddy. I was a tad worried at first, given the article's history - but I think I did an okay job of establishing notability. :)RaintheOne BAM 23:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Boeing 767 now at FAC
Dear HJ Mitchell, as suggested, I have nominated Boeing 767 for FA review; the link is here. Thanks for your earlier assistance during its copy edit at GOCE/FA. Cheers, SynergyStar (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
topic ban appeal
I am appealing the topic ban that WG issued on November 30th and thought you might want to comment.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you think I'm ready?
Hi, I've been considering running for sysop, and would like you to take a look at me and see what I would need to do/achieve before running. I know I don't have that many edits, however I have attained them all in a relatively short space of time (101 days). Here is all you should need: Akjar13 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi). Sincerely, He's Gone Mental 11:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Happy Birthday!
|
Happy Birthday Harry. Don't get too drunk. —cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 12:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC) |
Birthday? Go on; have a few too many. Alarbus (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hehe. He's right. It's your birthday. You can have as much as you want. But don't drink and edit at the same time. ;)—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 12:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Happy Birthday! Hchc2009 (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh no, I'm late! Happy Birthday HJ! I hope you had a brilliant day. :) - JuneGloom Talk 17:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Absolutely have a 'few' too many, just don't drive, or walk, or swim, or boil water ... etc. Simultaneous editing and drinking might cause you to spill a drop!
- 220 of Borg 23:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Absolutely have a 'few' too many, just don't drive, or walk, or swim, or boil water ... etc. Simultaneous editing and drinking might cause you to spill a drop!
- Oh no, I'm late! Happy Birthday HJ! I hope you had a brilliant day. :) - JuneGloom Talk 17:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Happy Birthday! Hchc2009 (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hah; thanks guys. I appreciate you stopping by. Btw, Cyberpower, I'm around, I've just been doing a little work at the WMUK Office. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Just trying to help. Now I am on a Wikibreak because of all the stress piling on me. Which is why my signature is black.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 01:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Tis the season
.jpg)
MarnetteD | Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec11}} to your friends' talk pages.
Though I didn't bump into you as much as past years I still want to say thanks for all your work here at WikiP and have a superb 2012. MarnetteD | Talk 22:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Seasons greetings
ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec11}} to your friends' talk pages.
Hi HJ, Seasons greetings from me too. ϢereSpielChequers 23:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Re Deolinda Fonseca deletion
Have you had a chance to look at the revised bio, per your instructions from a month ago?
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Aadelse/Deolinda_Fonseca
If this meets your approval, can you restore this page? Thanks! Aadelse (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
5 albert square (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
--5 albert square (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
|
Everybody has their own way. For us Germans, we celebrate with duck, goose, wine and beer. Since three of the 4 aren't available, I hope that this beer suffices. Merry Christmas Harry. —cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 19:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC) |
Topic ban appeal
Responding to concerns about the need for further evidence and explanation there are now two sections under the headings "Clarification on distortions" and "On efforts at consensus" at my appeal detailing extensively my objection to the topic ban. It does contain a considerable amount of information, but all of it is relevant to the questions raised about my editing behavior and the reasons given for the topic ban. I do not think the situation can be really understood with a single paragraph or two of comments with half a dozen diffs provided without any context in a complicated case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Merry Christmas for 2011
Would like to say "Merry Christmas" for 2011! Hope you have a wonderful day and have good memories with family and friends. Adamdaley (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
 |
HJ Mitchell, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day. Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
Merry Christmas
|
Season's greetings! |
| I hope the holiday season is relaxing and fulfilling, and that 2012 will be fruitful for you. --John (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC) |
Happy Christmas
|
Happy Christmas |
| Happy Christmas HJ, I hope you have a good day today. Enjoy! :) RaintheOne BAM 05:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas and/or Happy New Year
AlexiusHoratius 11:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Season's tidings!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
About a month ago you deleted this article on a PROD (I don't know if it was your or someone else who PROD'ed it). According to your summary the PROD concern was "can tell that it has existed and exists but couldn't really find anything that can support anything said in this article. Main site no longer works." I've recreated the article, and it should have suffient content and sourcing now, but since I can't see the old version, I'm not sure what it looked like (and therefore, whether the concern has been adequately addressed). Could you take a quick look and let me know? Thanks, cmadler (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I don't see any notability... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- I can (and eventually will) certainly add more sources, but I would think that three non-trivial articles in professional newspapers (AnnArbor.com and The Detroit News) plus a chapter from a real (not self-published) book would satisfy the GNG (though of course, that only establishes a presumption of notability). cmadler (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Please comment at Fandi Ahmad's ongoing peer review!
Hope you have a wonderful 2012! Thanks for volunteering to copyedit articles on peer review. I have written an article about Singapore football legend Fandi Ahmad and am aiming for GA status. Would you like to start 2012 by commenting at its ongoing peer review and thus supporting the quest to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia? Thanks! 谢谢！Terima kasih! நன்றி! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)