This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
Most of the books on war memorials are on the second shelf on the left, though there are more on the coffee table!
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Norwich War Memorial you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chris troutman -- Chris troutman (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that I've requested the source materials through inter-library loan. It may be weeks until those books arrive so I won't be able to finish until then. This article will get a good going over but it'll be delayed until I can check each citation. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Chris. The books are all sat on my shelf. I could send you scans (or at least photos) of the relevant pages if you like. Thanks for taking on the review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
If you could show me p.137 of Smith and p.313 of Pevsner that would help. Skelton arrived today and the others are on order. I'll let you know if I'm further delayed by the time I check up the references I have. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Pevsner and Smith are mostly there for the sake of completeness; the article is built on Skelton and the NHLE (if you have nay interest in the subject, Skelton is well worth a read, or just a look—the photography is outstanding). But Pevsner is available on Google Books and if you let me have your email address I'll send you a photo of the relevant page from Smith. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
Technical news
When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Hello - i saw your name on the list of Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC, and wondered if you'd have a look at London mayoral election, 2016 when you have a chance? I've got it listed as a Good Article and would be interested in the process of getting it featured. There's no British elections featured at the moment and it'd be great to push towards this - I know your expertise is more in political history but I thought that as someone with a broad interest in this area you might be able to comment. I'm not looking for someone to be involved as an active mentor as such - a review with a few pointers on what to improve would be great, and I might take the opportunity to try and implement those and then get a second review before proceeding towards nomination. There's no rush on this so don't feel the need to look at it straight away. Let me know if you're able to look at it, but feel free to say no if you're busy! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I can't promise anything but I'll have a look when I get chance. It certainly looks to be of high quality on a quick glance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello - thanks, as I say there really is no rush on this so just ping me if you get a chance to look at it in depth or put a few comments on its talk page: if you haven't done so in the next couple of weeks I'll presume that you didn't get round to it, which is no problem :) --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
As promised, I've taken and uploaded several photos of the memorial, which can be found in the appropriate category on Commons. Some of them are in the queue for rotating. I'll leave you to decide which ones you want to use. Optimist on the run (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Optimist on the run: Thank you very much! Those are some great photos and I'll definitely incorporate some of them into the article. Thanks for taking the time to do that, and for the review at the FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey Chris, thanks for the heads up. I'm rarely about on Mondays but I'll try to be around for at least some of the day to keep an eye on it. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a bit controversial, both because of the nature of the subject and because of the wiki-controversy over Gibraltar. Hopefully that's ancient history by now, but if you could keep any eye out I'd be grateful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Hi Gerda. I thought about you when that article was scheduled, actually. The theme tune to This Week (of which DotR was an episode) is from the Intermezzo from your friend Sibelius' Karelia Suite (Sibelius starts after about 25 seconds here if you're curious). As for Mit Fried, I wouldn't know where to begin. I can read through it (though even that might not be for a day or two), but I'm not sure I can offer any real insight. What I know about Bach you could fit on the head of a pin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I think you are perfect to see if the article is clear, - fresh eyes. Ceoil, Victoria and Wehwalt improved the prose, - it should not be too hard ;) - Begin: begin after the lead, read the lead at the end and see if it gets the key points. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
In that case I'l add it to my to-do list. I'll probably get to it later in the week unless something comes up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Template:FreeBSD
It looks like you protected this template in 2010 but it's not clear why, as it hadn't received any vandalism and it's not included in an excessive number of other places. Would you be willing to unprotect it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavinatkinson (talk • contribs)
@Gavinatkinson: It seems from my log summary that somebody asked for it to be protected but after seven years I have no memory of that template or the request. Regardless, the protection doesn't seem necessary so I've lifted it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Morning Harry, Can I ask your advice on a small matter? I reverted a change a relatively new user made on the Tim Burton article because they didn't need include a source to back-up the change. In return he has reverted, calling me a "son of a whore" in the process. It's partly my fault for not including an edit summary (I nudged the wrong spot on my iPad while meaning to leave a response), but is there anything more to do, rather than just advise them of WP:CIVIL? All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
(ps. I have Operation Bernhard at A class review at present – an interesting subject of Nazi counterfeiting of the old white fivers – it's all rumbling on a bit slowly at the moment. If you have some spare time, would you be able to have a look through at some point? Many thanks) – The Bounder (talk) 07:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Hiya Bounder. It's not very polite but if it's an isolated incident I normally just ignore things like that. You get much worse as an admin and telling someone to be civil is a bit like telling an irate person person to calm down—it almost invariably has the opposite effect (and I like the quiet life these days)! I meant to have a look at Bernhard last week but I got distracted. I'll try and have a look over the weekend. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Harry, The user didn't cover themselves in glory in their subsequent actions, and ended up being checked (and blocked) for being a sock, so just desserts in the end. It would be great to see you the Bernhard article. No rush - it'll be there for a while, I guess. Cheers – The Bounder (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
JFK
You need to allow for the JFK page list his religion on the side menu. He is the only Catholic to serve as U.S. President and not listing it is censorship and anti-Catholic. Children need to be aware that he is the only Catholic and the bigotry that went on against Catholic from the 1600s-1990s in North America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Hut (talk • contribs) 02:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@The Hut: I'm guessing you found my name in the log because I protected that article some seven years ago but a decision like that is really nothing to do with me. You need to raise it on the article's talk page. Though accusing people of censorship is unlikely to endear them to your cause. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Long ago you blocked this user for spamming his website. You then unblocked him per request. He is at it again at Gerd Heinrich. I gave him a level 3 warning. You may want to look into it and see if a follow up is needed. thanks. -- Alexf(talk) 16:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.
Technical news
After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Morning HJM - have uploaded a bunch of photos to the Category: Manchester Cenotaph on Commons. Didn't know how to group them but they all begin MC-****. Conditions not ideal as the sun was directly towards the Town Hall, so views from it were challenging. That, and the drunks, and random passers-by at inopportune moments. Hopefully there's something you can use. If not, and you need a specific shot, or a detail, etc., just let me know. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Fantastic! Thank you very much for those. I'll look through them this afternoon. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey Clem, sorry I wasn't about yesterday. What are you doing in Sherwood? I have a great aunt a stone's throw from there. If you're still in the area, Wollaton Hall is well worth a visit; Trent Lock is interesting, depending on how old the grandkids are. Slightly further afield, there are war memorials in Derby (the Midland Railway War Memorial) and Spalding (Spalding War Memorial, probably better caught on your way home) for which we could use better photos. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of eight Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period January to March 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
If it is Mells War Memorial there isn't much the full text is: "WAR MEMORIAL in the High Street, probably by Lutyens, who was a friend of the Horners of the Manor as well as Reginald McKenna." — Rodtalk 20:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Fantastic, thanks Rod. Does it say anything more about Lutyens' connection to the village? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Not stalking - just have a, now finished, GAR with Rod, so saw your message. Have got a full set of Pevsner if you need anything. The 2011 Foyle/Pevsner has quite a lot on Lutyens at Mells, where he did quite a lot of work. He was a friend of Katharine Horner, of the local gentry family of Mells Manor, who was married to Raymond Asquith. Lutyens did Asquith's memorial in the church, as well as the war memorial in the village, "central figure of St George on a Doric column" and other bits and pieces. Let me know if you need more. KJP1 (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There is a paragraph re his rebuilding of Mells Park in 1923 "Remarkably restrained for Lutyens, though in some of the detail (e.g. the Gibbs surround of the doorway) his heavy-handed playfullness appears only too clearly." No other mentions.— Rodtalk 21:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
(ec) Stalk away! Helpful stalkers are always welcome! I thought Pevsner might have something to say. It might make useful background for the article on the memorial. Any chance you or Rod could email me a photo of the relevant page? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, HJ Mitchell. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
but I couldn't attach an image.— Rodtalk 21:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Just found your email add so sent one with page attached. Night.— Rodtalk 21:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Netherlands report: Netherlands and the World Exchange Platform; photohunt Egmond aan Zee; Iconographia Zoologica
Spain report: Wikipedia course at La Yutera Library
Sweden report: Art+Feminism 2017; Connected Open Heritage; Digikult; Art on Wikipedia; Writing about Gothenburg's history; Updating image description with new research results
UK report: Wicipop project in Wales; Wikimedia UK's impact report
Given that you know your way around FAs, could I ask a little favour? Maybe it's me, for I don't really look at too many of these video game articles, but I think there are a few issues here with both prose and accessibility for the general reader/logical order. Any chance you could take a look and see if I'm way off? I prefer not to recuse in cases like this, so more eyes would be good. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure, it's a long weekend coming up so leave it with me and I'll have a look in the next couple of days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
E-mail
Hello, HJ Mitchell. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I don't think Patar knight aught to have done this since the discussion I started at MilHist had not come to a resolution. I think this sets a bad and ugly precedent – that anyone can come along and steal other people uncompleted work and post it live and so long as there is an attribution no one can do anything about it. If I went around copy/pasting every draft in-progress by MilHist members it would be considered disruptive behaviour. I am the victim here, Patar knight has taken upon himself to "conspire" with, not only a copyvio thief, but a sock-puppeteer, someone who stole my work in the act of circumventing other blocks or a ban. I have spent a lot of money on books about Napoleon which I can read and source for Wikipedia. This act does not only steal my work but also undermines my efforts to make a serious contribution. It basically says "Fuck your efforts, we'll take what we want, when we want and to hell with you!" I believe Patar knight was Wiki-lawyering by going behind my back and attributing, as well as not waiting for the MilHist discussion to conclude, he did not advise anyone of it nor did be notify them -- if that isn't being a sneaky bastard, what is? I am disgusted. But two can play at that: I have moved the attributed draft, nullifying the attribution and will continue to do so should anyone persist in trying to userp my work prematurely. If necessary I will delete the draft completely and obliterate any chance of attribution it as no attributions can be made to deleted pages.
That a sock-puppet's disruptive actions should be allowed to take priority over hours and hours of study and work of any contributor is appauling, not only for Wikipedia but MilHist for allowing it to stand. It would have been common sense to revdel the stolen material because of the circumstances and to honour the original editor's -- my -- committment, rather than allow a sock to take the piss. This was more than a copyvio -- it was a violation of me, my work and my future ability to conclude the work. It's like someone claiming Squatter's Rights in temporarlity empty property or a rape victim being denied the right to abort what they didn't want -- slanted rules and regulations working against and being forced on victims of anti-social bevaviour instead of for them, what happened to admins woking for editors instead of detrimental edits by socks? That's hypocrisy. I am beginning to regret coming back to Wiki, already. It seems to me that MilHist numbers have dwindled... a number of regulars have either semi-retired or stopped altogether. When I went through my to-do list formed 3-years ago barely any had changed. So for me to return with some level of enthusiasm and find my earlier work stolen and then to have some editors and admins actually attempt to justify, or at least permit, that behaviour really bugs me. It's hard to want to be a contributor when some editors are prepared to snatch your work since admins are impotent in their efforts to stop them. Until something is done to properly reverse the damage done to me, by the sock, by Patar knight, I can't even bring myself to commence working on the draft. It's like trying to live in a house after a burglary, knowing someone else's grubby mitts were all over your properly and the police are making no efforts to catch them. This matter is not resolved for me, there is no justice in it, that some knobhead with at least 26 socks can leave an editor up shit creek and every other editor too scared to act to correct the problem with one simple reversal and blanking of the violations. I am in a predicament here because I will fight to keep my stolen material reverted... I don't care if I have to breach 3RR or go kicking and screaming to ANI or ArbCom again -- I feel violated and justifed to make an issue of this. So far as I see it, there is a loophole in Wikipedia's copyright policy which favours anyone who wants to steal and paste other editor's drafts, because so long as they attribute they're considered on the right side of the line. I don't think that's fair or reasonable. I think it undermines editors and their ability or right to develop material freely. Allowing their work to be stolen "legally" is not in the spirit of the MilHist I know or the Wikipedia I would expect better of, it is highly unethical.
Since I respect your opinion, do you think there is any other course of action available to put this right to my satisfaction. If you have no ideas, consider the following:
I'm thinking of raising a copyvio claim on the following grounds: All edits must accept the CC BY-SA Licence. It states "In no way are any of the following rights affected by the license: ... the author's moral rights;". Moral rights states: "The preserving of the integrity of the work allows the author to object to alteration, distortion, or mutilation of the work that is 'prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation.'" – I believe that because the material was taked in incomplete form, given that it is a draft, pending peer-review and in need of further fact-checking and source verification to guarantee the accuracy and quality of the content, that it cannot be considered reliable and all subsequent edits made are prejudicial to my reputation because I would not knowingly promote a draft to livespace knowing that the content was false. Therefore, the draft should never have been posted as all errors corrected by other editors are offensive to my "honor or reputation" as an unbiased, well-read and resourceful editor. Later reviews may have determined these errors and protected by moral standing. Therefore I object to any and all alterations since I was not prepared for the material to be made available for public scrutiny and subsequently all changes are prejudicial to me. I intend for the final article to be as correct as I can possibly make it, which is why I own so many books on the subject, because many historians disagee and I often need to find common-ground to cite.
That's as legal as it gets, since copyvios simply need to be raised without threatening anyone, and I think it's a strong position to go on.
Sorry to rant, but I'm still pissed-off with the situation and the lack of practical solutions... this is the last thing I wanted to come back to since this article might be my best work if I ever get the chance to work on it unhindered.
Hiya Marcus. I agree it's shit. I was a shitty thing to do in the first place, and all the possible solutions are equally shitty. I expect Patar knight was trying to make it less shitty, but hasn't succeeded. If it was me, I'd carry on working on the live article. I can try and merge in the history from your sandbox so that you get proper credit for your work, but there's not a lot else that can be done (in terms of what's actually physical possible, never mind what's permitted by policy). Theoretically, I could delete the article and restore only the pre-May 2016 edits, but that's almost certainly against some policy or other and the chances of it going unnoticed are negligible. It also wouldn't stop your friend coming back with a new sock puppet and doing the same thing again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
If it's that shitty I don't see why an admin can't do what you suggested or revdel as a WP:BOLD solution to an unfair situation. I mean, let's cut to the basic underlying question here, putting all other circumstances aside: whose efforts comes first, active editors or blocked socks? You say there may be a policy but "the fifth pillar" WP:5P5 of Wikipedia's fundamental pillars states: "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time." And "Be bold but not reckless in updating articles." If the behaviour of the sock was reckless, wouldn't reversing his actions be in-line with this pillar and go towards undoing a situation which prejudices an editor in favour of a likely banned editor? The way I see it, even if someone notices that an article has been restored via whatever means necessary, what are they going to do... go crying to ANI or ArbCom that an admin assisted an editor because some sock broke several rules and created a difficult copyvio situation for them? I don't see it happening, especially since the article that my work was pasted onto is very low-profile at the moment. If indeed policy is subject to change or evolution over time, is this not a situation to evaluate the policy and do right, instead of for Wiki to a blind-eye and allow a shitty misdeed (which as of this moment remains a repeatable behaviour by anyone, as you said yourself) to triumph? Editors who come here and work hard on new content should be allowed to have their work protected from such an abuse of their time, effort and trust. I have no doubt that if this had happened to any editor who had admin tools they'd instantly have reversed the paste and blocked the sock themselves, it's only when this affects non-admins that they're less willing to roll the dice. So far, all I've been shown is red tape despite everyone agreeing it's a shit situation. It's all very hypocritical, from my point of view.
Just to note, this sock is unknown to me, I don't know who he is, was or what their original account may have been. I don't think we have history, I think he was a rogue. I don't think he'll come back, personally... since he has had the opportunity to reverse the revert edit I made, yet has not. I think after having so may socks blocked at once he may have finally given up, or gone very low-profile to avoid detection, in which case he propably won't repeat this, as it would a WP:DUCK move and I'd be first to pull the trigger on him for quacking. — Marcus(talk) 16:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I've take it here: WP:Village pump (policy)#Draft articles should be protected from this. I think policy needs to give admins a fresh pair of balls against this type of copyvio. Feel free to comment, I don't know how Village Pump works as I haven't used it before, but it seems the only place left to try to get some actual resolution, by laying down some specific policy for cases like this. — Marcus(talk) 04:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.
There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chris troutman -- Chris troutman (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Administrator changes
NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Obituaries
; see Talk:Norwich War Memorial for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chris troutman -- Chris troutman (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
.png)
Miscellaneous