Jump to content

User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 99

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95 ← Archive 97 Archive 98 Archive 99 Archive 100 Archive 101 → Archive 105

How to get a picture that is copyright-free

Hey, I was just wondering how I can add a photo to a wikipage that is marked as copyrighted. For example, I have been trying to add a photo of Michiel Huisman to his wikipage but I can't seem to find any copyright-free images on the internet. I have searched on google pictures with the searched options set to "licenced for free use or share" but there are no photos of him that are licenced with that. What do I have to do to add one? Do I have to buy a picture? Can I take a screenshot and claim it mine? Can I ask for example michiel-huisman.com (which is a fansite) for permission to use one of the photos in their gallery? What do I have to do? It would be nice if you explained it to me like I am an idiot (cuz I kinda am :P). If you can't help please tell me who can, so I can ask them istead. Sebahed (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sebahed: There's fair use, but Wikipedia policy is quite restrictive on that and non-free photos of living people are almost never allowed. The best thing to do is to ask somebody who owns a photo whether they'd be willing to release it. In simple terms, they'd have to be happy for anyone to use it as long as they give credit and don't try to pass it off as their own. Then they'd probably need to fill in this form and fire it off to us in an email. Let me know if you get anyone to agree to all of that and I'll do what I can to help. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

How to get a picture that is copyright-free nr. 2

I sent a request to this website http://www.picpicx.com/michiel-huisman/ to be able to use one of their pictures at the bottom of the page in the "leave a reply" section. I this a legit website? If so, do they own the copyright to all of the Michiel pictures? If not, how to know who owns each of the pictures. Sebahed (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sebahed: My guess would be probably not, but wait and see if you get a response—they might be able to point you in the right direction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for being reasonable. An admirable quality for any person or feline. Though the latter is much harder to find. Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 02:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

JzG

You've previously warned JzG not to invoke his administrator status during a dispute. What am I to make of this statement?

-A1candidate 15:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with him bringing it up in terms of his experience rather than as an authority figure. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Then you probably need to look at it again. -A1candidate 00:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
There's a big difference between "I've been an admin for a long time" (which is what we have here) and "you can't give me notices because I'm an admin" (which is what prompted the warning). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
There's certainly a difference in the way these sentences are formulated, but the intended meaning is similar - To bite the newcomer ("I have been an admin since a long time before your first edit") and to end the discussion ("Seriously, there is no need to discuss the obvious"). Are you aware of the expected behavior for dealing with new editors? -A1candidate 08:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Roswell UFO incident

Hello Harry, Could I please bring to your attention the activities of WayneA86 on the Roswell UFO incident article. This user has made four same edits to the lead and has been reverted back to the consensus each time with a warning on their Talk page. All warnings have been ignored without explanation and the 3RR rules have also been ignored. Could I please leave this to you for action. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, the immediate disruption seems to have stopped yesterday afternoon (unless it's being covered up by the US government ;) ), but I suspect if WayneA continues the way he has been, he's not long for this project. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Obama at Jimmy Kimmel on UFOs] and commenting on Roswell while at Roswell. The truth is out there. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Really? People are restoring incivil comments?

Let me know if trying to get editors away from personal comments is bad. [1]. I don't think any editor has to put up with it. The diff is EvergreenFir but the antagonizer is PeterTheFourth. EF isn't doing anything wrong but I fear PtF is baiting in light of recent AE events. --DHeyward (talk) 04:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

see my comments about this at User_talk:EvergreenFir#Baffled.. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Strike. Not meant to be a big deal. PtF will either revert them or not. --DHeyward (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
If it's not a big deal, letting it pass unremarked or quietly talking to the person is probably the best option. Admin intervention is only liable to create drama and the heat to light ratio of the talk page is gradually improving at the minute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Cwobeel and Eternity

Hi HJ Mitchell. I have witnessed a short revert engagement between User:Cwobeel and the user at 89.110.17.156 on Eternity.

Upon checking his talk page, I have noticed that a recent Abitration Enforcement listing he or she was involved in, and was blocked and unblocked by you after an appeal. I understand that the article in question here has nothing to do with the discussion and action taken on him or her, but because of this knowledge I am presenting you with this incident to request for the appropriate action to be taken on this matter.

I have already messaged both users reminding them not to engage in disruptive edit behaviours. Thank you for your help. Optakeover(Talk) 15:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

They've only made two reverts and the block was for BLP issues, not edit-warring, so I don't think any admin action is necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention. It seems that other users are still taking issues with the users' edits, but I understand that nothing for immediate attention is on hand. Once again, thank you for your help. Optakeover(Talk) 15:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure Cwobeel will have the good sense to take it to the talk page or ask for outside eyes on the issue before it gets out of hand. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I came across this article while patrolling recent changes. See Talk:Eternity#Removal_of_material_by_anon - Cwobeel (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I have answered you part way in a reply on my talk page. If you have good reason to request administrator's attention for his vandalism that you say, warn him and bring it to WP:AIV. If he is repeatedly reverting your edits and removing information without reason or consensus, then bring it up for administrator's attention in the many channels there are. Engaging in such repeated edits is quite disruptive in my opinion, and I would think others would say the same. Optakeover(Talk) 22:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@Optakeover: WP:EW is quite clear on this point, reverting vandalism does not violate 3RR. Perhaps policy needs to be updated to reflect a new community consensus, but your position is not currently supported by policy. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
(unindent) @Mandruss: Well you see, I don't think his edits ARE vandalism. Optakeover(Talk) 22:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, but that's not what you said. If they aren't vandalism, AIV is beside the point. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I say that from the perspective if Cwobeel really do believe that his edits are vandalism and has proof to show that, then he should go the procedure to report the user for his vandalism. I said that to prove the point I was making that if the edits are vandalism as Cwobeel said, then he should go by the right procedure. And if they are not, then such edit behaviour can be seen as edit warring. Also to add to my previous reply, maybe the IP user's edits really are disruptive and pointy. But based on the (granted) exception that reverting vandalism is not edit warring, I would like you to explain how the user's edits are vandalism. Unless you can disprove what I explained on my talk page that he is making good faith edits, albeit unknowledgeable of Wikipedia or is otherwise incompetent, then I don't see how you'll be able to prove beyond a doubt that he is a vandal. Granted the user can still be sanctioned for reasons of other disruptive or policy-breaking behaviour, but my point is vandalism can't be one of them. Optakeover(Talk) 22:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I haven't looked into this particular situation. I thought I understood you to say that repeated reverting of vandalism is disruptive. If I misunderstood, I retract my comments with apologies. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@Mandruss:I have edited my previous comment, please take a look at it again, although the "non-minor" edits do not change the meaning of my comment.There is no problem at all. My intention was to explain why I sounded out on the matter, and I hope that you'll be able to understand what is going on and also to understand my opinions. Regards, Optakeover(Talk) 22:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Some things are obvious, and in these instances a bureaucratic and by-the-letter approach as you suggest is not the most efficient way to deal with stuff like that. A bloody waste of time, imo. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
@Cwobeel: Firstly, I don't think assuming good faith is anything bureaucratic. Secondly, the reason why we have proper procedures for reporting vandals and dispute resolution channels I have mentioned is because there are cases where it is clear cut, where it is CLEARLY disruptive editing in the form of vandalism. If you consider his addition of OR disruptive, you can warn him through the tools which you most probably use and if he persists, he can be reported. The aim here is to give the user the benefit of the doubt actually warn him adequately so that he actually knows his edits are unconstructive, and to seek remedy if he carries on. You did chose not to go this path, and engaged in an revert fight, which led me to remind both of you not to do so because no matter who is right, such edit warring is disruptive. I did suggest that if you do have the proof that his edits are vandalism or he is intent on disrupting Wikipedia, then here is your channel. But this brings me to my next point, that his edits are not a clear cut case of vandalism. I don't think he is out to deliberately vandalise and disrupt Wikipedia. That can be seen from how he has tried to engage in a discussion (albeit rudely and irrationally imo). He is what I feel, is editing Wikipedia in his way of rationality, which I feel has been pointy and disruptive in another way. But that goes my point that his edits are not a clear cut violation of some policy or rule that allows for a exemption under the multiple revert rule. Such edits are still disruptive but the method of resolution is through appropriate means, not by reverting edits back and forth on the claimed basis that he is vandalising. Because I truly believe this system are in place to protect against taking advantage of the system by branding all unconstructive edits as simple one category of edits where other editors are allowed to revert on sight with impunity. This led me to giving both of you a reminder that you are close to being deemed as edit warriors, and I have to remind you, that was the original why I messaged you, which was to give a simple reminder that your edits can be seen as edit warring. I'm ready to take this to WP:AN/I anyway, and besides we are commenting on an admin's user talk. Optakeover(Talk) 14:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
@Cwobeel:Oh and I just realised. The page has already been semi-protected. Optakeover(Talk) 14:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Optakeover: See this FTN thread. Coincidentally, HJ had once range-blocked IPs associated with this person. The next time you see a Saint Petersburg IP inserting nonsense essays about the eschaton, eternity, teleological gradients of gravitational synergy, and flowing matter waves, bookended with quotes from Terence McKenna or Rupert Sheldrake (e.g. [2]), just revert. It's unfortunate that a single determined user can cause so much disruption and drama over the course of years, while Wikipedia has only very limited ways of dealing with it. Manul ~ talk 16:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Manul: Heh. I do say, that if the metaphysical explanation of eternity can add to the article with reference to proper sources, I think there is a way of writing it, unless there is already some sort of community consensus on metaphysical explanations on the subject. But what the hell. Optakeover(Talk) 16:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems Bishonen has taken care of it, but I've increased the duration of the rangeblocks since it seems this has been going on for a very long time and the person responsible is still on the same ranges. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Yup, it's all good now. My, how did you manage to avoid an entire shitstorm. Optakeover(Talk) 17:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
With an old friend and a bottle of this stuff. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Hah. I don't drink much, but Lagavulin would be my favourite. Cheers! Optakeover(Talk) 17:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Relaxation of Jaqeli's topic ban — how many articles?

Hi. When you closed the discussion on Jaqeli's topic ban, you said he was being granted an exemption to edit five articles. However, I can see only four articles mentioned in the discussion. The notice you left on Jaqeli's talk page also said "five articles", but named only four as far as I can tell. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Woops! @Jaqeli: since I said five, is there a fifth article you'd like to edit? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I must question whether anyone has leeway at this point to expand Jaqeli's exemption beyond the four articles specifically named, and agreed to by consensus, in the AE discussion of his topic ban, without going back to AE and agreeing to a fifth article. For the time being, I we believe we need to stick to what was agreed — namely, let Jaqeli work on the four named articles and allow another review in three months' time. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
No problem. I'll stick to these 4. Jaqeli 19:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting close

"Misconduct on arbitration pages is, and always has been, a matter for the clerks, not for AE.". I agree with it. All the evidence and quotes by Gamaliel for my sanction were from Arbitration pages and the person complaining isn't allowed to file. You closed both discussions. --DHeyward (talk) 04:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I only closed the request against you because Gamaliel had taken the action he had and there seemed little point in leaving the thread open, but we normally let the clerks deal with bickering on arbitration pages. It would be nice if they'd get a little bit more proactive about it rather than leaving arbitration pages to become free-fire zones, but that's above my pay grade. The interaction ban between you and Mark is a little unorthodox, but at the end of the day it's probably for the best—I get the impression you're not going to be on one another's Christmas card list, so do you lose anything by not being able to comment on him and him not being able to comment on you? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
If he only commented on content, there would be no issue. He's already violated it and is back on AE again. I learned, through MarkBernstein's talk page that I am being disparaged offsite as a "Sea Lion of Wikipedia." He was gracious enough to make comments about it and others (not me or Orlando) took AE issue as well. When do we call it a day? He pays lip service to sanctions in order to continue his personal views and attacks. It's tiresome. Masem makes the same point and took issue with "Sea Lion" as well. I'm in the same camp as Masem except I don't think another warning will do anything and someone else will bring his next comment to AE or ANI or ArbCom or wherever and it seems never ending. At some point, there is a common denominator in all the disruption and it's not umpteen editors mad at poor MarkBernstein. There are plenty of pro-GG editors that manage to go days without and AE request. MB is not one of them. --DHeyward (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@DHeyward: And if you were MB this comment violating your TBAN would probably end up in AE within 15 minutes. — Strongjam (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I complied fully with the requirements of the TBan and have permission to discuss his latest AE action. It's also on an uninvolved administrators talk page. That's a BIG difference. I also didn't make any disparaging comments. Take it to AE if you think that's wise. --DHeyward (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
You could argue that this thread is "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution"; as long as it's on-topic and not disparaging, I'm not inclined to view it as a violation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
And you could argue that DHeyward's commenting on MarkBernstein in this thread is a violation of his Tban (or Iban). Considering a) this "SeaLion" website is not Bernstein's but is actually the creation of someone else (and I believe he's a Wikipedia editor) and b) ARBCOM didn't seem to consider off-wiki activity against topic banned editors in their case decisions, I don't think see how the content that is on this site has anything to do with Bernstein's status on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you see anything to be gained from blocking Mr Heyward for asking for clarification on what he saw as contradictory actions because it pertains to Dr Bernstein? Do you see a solution to this mess that involves retaining all good editors, at least one of whom seems to be in self-destruct mode? Because asking them to play nicely isn't working, separating them isn't working, removing one of them from the topic area isn't working, and I'm fast running out of options while the heat in this dispute seems to increase by the minute. @Jehochman: you've criticised me for blocking good editors; I honestly believe that sometimes there is no other option but, putting all else aside, if you have any suggestions to resolve this mess without resorting to blunt instruments (see sections 3, 7, and 8 at WP:AE) I'm honestly all ears. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I will look in a bit. Jehochman Talk 00:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I might be able to help because I haven't been involved in this mess at all. If any of the disputants want to meet at my User talk:Jehochman/Arena page and post a concise summary of their grievances with diffs, I will see what I can do. That page is a place for resolving disputes. As such, it should be exempt for all IBANs. Jehochman Talk 02:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Liz as I said above, I requested, and received permission from an uninvolved admin to discuss this particular incident. I noted it here. It's noted at AE. Those are the terms of whatever you wish to call Gamaliel's sanction. I complied even if I didn't have to or want to. That's the BIG difference. --DHeyward (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding Policy.

Would this statement qualify as a violation of topic ban as dicussed on an editors talk page? [discussion redacted because any discussion of Wikipedia's recent embrace of anti-intellectualism and sexism violates Gamergate discretionary sanctions, or something.] MarkBernstein (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This is actually an edit by User:207.173.78.2 which locates to Utah which is not where MB resides. There seem to be no shortage of editors trying to paint Bernstein in a negative light. Liz Read! Talk! 00:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm aware. I think the IP was trying to bring something to my attention rather than impersonate Dr Bernstein, but various matters concerning Dr Bernstein are being litigated at AE so I'm not going to pre-empt the outcome of those discussions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
This is an example showing why no editor, administrator or not, should be trigger happy. Investigate, analyze and ponder before acting. If someone else acts first, so be it. This is an encyclopedia, not a Dodge City duel. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Dominion: Tank Police

Hi HJ, Apologies for the interruption. I just wanted to bring this edit[3] to your attention. It's functionally the same as an edit previously reverted by you here[4], and there seems to be some discussion of a banned user in some of the edit summaries on the page. I don't know enough about the subject material to really comment; but it seems like a change of this magnitude, removing a lot of (what seems like) non-controversial content should probably involve some Talk page consensus first. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no idea. I think I just reverted the edits of a sockpuppet en masse. I guess the best thing to do is to decide whether the edit has merit and revert or not accordingly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
That user means well, but the problem is the very same thing which drove me away from that space in the first place - article scope. The problem with that space is a lot of young teens tend to flock to the material and many lack the maturity and skills needed to deal with the unique area. A franchise page is all but required for very different media - the editor clearly knows the material and knows it well, but the lack of discussion is the issue here. The refusal to engage is the core issue, but cannot be ignored. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi HJ & ChrisGualtieri. Many thanks for your kind responses; appreciate you taking the time. On further investigation, it appears as though the edits were to split the content into two articles, so nothing was lost, and I left it alone. The edits have now since been reverted by another editor. There is still no discussion, however, so I may well raise one on the Talk page for interested Wikipedians to hopefully form a consensus (per WP:BRD). I was considering that we might have a Template for this type of thing - splitting an article into one or more component sections - if so, are either of you able to point me in the right direction? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Something weird is going on between an IPv6 editor and a logged in editor

Hi HJ, I don't think I've bugged you in a while, so I'm randomly choosing you for this weird thing. I've noticed at User talk:Nickelodeon745 a very strange interaction between an IPv6 editor and the logged-in user, and I'm not sure if it's indicative of a disruptive campaign a'brewing, or if the IPv6 editor has identified the logged-in user from outside Wikipedia and is asking for them to do stuff on outside projects. Or maybe the logged-in editor is leaving himself cryptic notes while not logged in? Anyhow, here is a run from their edit history that is really weird. I know that not all weirdness is indicative of pernicious activity, but this is somewhat weird given the random requests and the logged-in user's bubbly willingness to fulfill them. Thoughts welcome. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The simplest thing you could do is just erase the conversation and leave a note citing the relevant portions of WP:NOT, as in not a web host and not a social network. The IP seems to hop around so blocking won't be helpful, and absent evidence of harm to the encyclopedia, I'd discourage blocking. The host editor seems to have a talk page history with a lot of warnings. You might watch the page and alert an admin if the stream of warnings continues. Meanwhile, do try to give the user a bit of helpful advice and mentoring. Jehochman Talk 02:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
That seems a sensible solution. It's not really very helpful, but it's not doing the encyclopaedia any harm. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI - Tgeairn SPI

Hello again-

Following up on our earlier discussion, the SPI case is finally closed and archived, with a crystal clear unrelated and even a clean bonus check of the IPs supposed related.

A couple questions:

  • When the SPI was archived, it did not also archive the talk page where an editor started leaving additional commentary. Is there anything that I should do or request regarding archiving that page?
  • Is there anything I should request regarding the content of that talk page?
  • Is there anyone or anywhere I can go with the list of accusations which have now been completely debunked?
  • Do you have any other recommendations as to where to go with the ongoing personal attacks? I have started to catalogue them here, but I haven't gone through to pick out the most egregious yet - I don't see the point at this time unless you have a recommendation on where to go with them.

To be clear, I'm not necessarily asking you to take any specific actions... I'm really just looking for some assistance on where to go next. Thank you again for all of your help so far, and in advance for any advice or actions you have for me. I know you have a lot of hats you wear! --Tgeairn (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I've courtesy blanked the talk page, since it's no longer useful for deciding the outcome of the SPI. As for the rest ... there are various things I'm considering, one of which is a six-month topic ban for all concerned. A bit of a nuclear option but, if you all go your separate ways and find something else to edit for a while, then there's no conflict between you and the topic area might calm down. So ... how invested are you in the Landmark article? Failing that, something probably has to be done, but I can't allow one party to edit unimpeded while removing all their opponents to the extent that there's nobody left to criticise them (or vice versa)—there are obvious problems with that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the blanking. As for the nuclear option, I'd like to believe that it isn't necessary - there are a number of smart people around here and it at least seems feasible that, given a chance, the content issues could get resolved.
The content dispute(s) don't bother me so much as the personal attacks. Maybe a (much) thicker skin is needed, but the frankly nasty comments are nearly intolerable for me. I had hoped that locking the article would allow for some talk discussions to go somewhere, but it just seems to be more of the same. A couple editors throw lots of "stuff" out there and get nasty when questioned. Complaining about the nastiness just adds to the fire, and here we are.
If, at the end of the day, it's either put up with the comments or stop editing... I'd rather play with the grandkids than deal with this, which probably answers your question as to how invested I am. It doesn't seem "fair" that editors with a long history of personal attacks and lengthy list of editing restrictions can continue to treat editors so badly with nearly complete impunity. It takes some serious cojohnes to make the kinds of statements they have at AE & ANI & SPI - but they know that they won't get blocked for it, and they just keep running over other editors. Civility is one of the five pillars, and I don't know how anyone could call the behaviour of these editors civil.
As for a solution, I say block anyone behaving badly. Calling people incompetent, making accusations of COI, accusing editors of lying, calling editors ignorant, saying editors demonstrate mental illnesses, etc... I don't care who it is, block 'em. I'd also recommend 1RR for the topic area or at least the key articles, with instant TB or blocks for exceeding it. These might not be perfect solutions, but it's likely that we will end up with much more cooperative editors.
Thanks for giving me a minute to ramble on here. I know that trying to resolve these kinds of issues with the tools you're given is a near Sisyphean task and I genuinely appreciate your willingness to help us all resolve things and move this project forward. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding copyrights

If I buy a picture on let's say gettyimages, does that give me the copyrights and will allow me to use that picture on a wikipedia article? Sebahed (talk)17:03, 18 March 2015‎‎

(talk page stalker)No it gives you the right to own your copy, GettyImages still retain the copyright of that image and as such usage on wikipedia would breach copyright law. Murry1975 (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@Sebahed: What Murry said. Buying a copy of an image is not the same thing as owning the copyright to it. With Getty images (and those from other agencies/commercial photo libraries) in particular, if you upload it to Wikipedia or Commons it will be deleted almost instantly because they're likely to get very touchy about about their commercial images being labelled as freely licensed on Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Current event edit/deletion

I saw this deletion on the Tunis article and since current events are not my forte, I thought I would ask if these "are too minor events, to be reported here". Perhaps you or someone else would know. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

unprotect

In August 2010 you semi-protected Andrew Jackson, noting "Excessive vandalism: PC having little effect". I think it is time to unprotect the article and hope you are willing to do so. Thanks in advance. 67.101.5.176 (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I had a look at the history and the logs. During the time it was on pending changes, only nine edits were accepted, while over 100 revisions were made in that time of which the vast majority were vandalism or reverts of vandalism. August 2010 was a long time ago, but there's no reason to think that an article about somebody who died >150 years ago is going to be any less of a vandal magnet after five years. Presumably every child in the US studies Jackson at school, so I don't see the problem ever going away, and most former POTUSes are vandal magnets. 11:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Move request

Hey HJ, I am here with a move request move if you get a moment. It is User:Raintheone/Martin that needs moving to Martin Ashford (Home and Away). I had finally finished the article and the redirect stopped me short. Dammit. :-)Rain the 1 16:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem. Done. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Great, thank you for that!Rain the 1 13:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Ooh, I have a request too. I'll be back when I've sorted things out. - JuneGloom07 Talk 11:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Derp900

Hi, I noticed you blocked Derp900 (talk · contribs). Vandalisms at Iguana [5] [6] and [7] suggest that Qwertyqwerrwuw (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) may be another account of the same vandal.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, the other account is a VOA regardless, so I've indef'd it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Buaku again?

User Buaku seems to have not stopped since the last time you blocked him for socking on Feb 13... by immediately registering and editing as KitanoSeiichiro (talk · contribs). Not sure what to do... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Who? This isn't my first created account, but I'm not a sockpuppet. Kitano-san (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Have you declared your previous account in that case as per Doppleganger? Amortias (T)(C) 23:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

.

Bit of advice needed at Bone China

Could you have a look at the edit history at Bone china, and advise on the best way forward. Thanks. (I have placed this on Victuallers TP- but he seems to be taking a WB) .-- Clem Rutter (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi ClemRutter, I've left an "uninvolved opinion" on the article Talk page. Hope it helps get to a concensus. Please feel free to respond. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, for the intervention. I first came concerned about this very knowledgeable IP- 17 December 2014 (UTC), after trying a little mentoring in the edit summaries- I got zero response, so eventually I got suspicious that he is on a known sock-puppet. He is good at being aggressive and pushing a POV, but needs a few lessons on referencing syntax, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE. The Vegan factoid is interesting- but 7 out of 8 of his refs did not support the statement, the one that did I inserted a page and ISBN which he proceeded to delete- along with the see also to the best article we have on Bone China production. I got as far as giving a 2RVV warning- but after that it is admin stuff.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi ClemRutter, There's been some progress on the Bone China talk page, and we have an agreement to reduce the number of references down to "one or two". FYI, I've also left a note on the IP editors User_talk page suggesting a focus on content not contributor. I hope that might calm things down & help everyone work together better. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 19:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
A real step forward would to get him to register and sign in. You can achieve the 'progress' by rolling back to 01:00 13 March. Smile.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Sadly it seems that Clem Rutter has not given up on his unconstructive behaviour and misleading statements:
  • now throwing accusations of sock-puppetry, despite no evidence. This is false.
  • repeating claims of pushing a POV. This is false. I have restored his attempts to delete the reporting a POV, which is different to having a POV, and included a long list of references.
  • still falsey claiming the reported boycot is only by vegans, whereas it also includes vegetarians. This is supported by references.
  • false, and patronising, comments about mentoring. Rather it is he who has refused to join discussions.
  • false comments about a see also on 'the best article we have on Bone China production." This based simply that I removed a see also link to a small article on an out-date single part of the production process of all whitewate ceramics: it is not about 'Bone China production' let alone 'the best' or about its overall production. Reasons it should not be included were given on the relevant talk page: Clem Rutter neither responded nor explained why it should be included. And there are other articles that are better suited to a see also, including a superior article to that individual production stage he is insistent about, and also on other individual parts of the production process: these have been brought to his attention, but he has ignored. And a see also is far better as an overview of the entire the production process such as described in Pottery.
  • false claim that 'You can achieve the 'progress' by rolling back to 01:00 13 March.' This is his edit, and hence his interest, but which does not include valid references which have been given, and misreprsents the subject..
  • his claims about 2RV is either ironic or hypocritical considering his edits.
  • should he be concerned about being aggressive then he needs to consider his own behaviour: patronising, false accusations, misleading comments, removing referenced comments and insisting on only his edits when he clearly lacks knowledge of the subject. He may also consider the polite and constructive behaviour of other editor, and how this is likely to be perceived differently to his.

Hi "171", I sense your frustration, and understand that you feel somewhat victimised. But, t.b.h, I'm not seeing that there's much there. W.r.t the "vegetarian & vegan" aspects, ClemRutter seems to be advocating that we follow WP:V, which is a core policy, and that we have good formatting for the referencing - which is good practice.

I think we would all be better off focusing on content, not contributor; as previously suggested[8].

To that aim, without commenting on the validity of them, I'm going to personally request that you strike through the allegations in your previous statement above. It would be a fantastic gesture of assuming good faith and would assist us all to get back to building a better encyclopedia.

I've made some updates to the content on Bone China in line with our discussions on the Talk page. Please have a look through them when you get a chance.

HJ_Mitchell, please accept my humble apologies if I'm disrupting your Talk page. I thought I could help to get a resolution on at least the content aspects of this one. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Help with getting a copyrighted photo

I have found a photo of Michiel Huisman that i would like to add to his Wikipage on GettyImages: http://www.gettyimages.no/detail/news-photo/michiel-huisman-arrives-for-the-world-premiere-of-game-of-news-photo/466850506 The photo was taken by someone named Karwai Tang. Have you any idea on how I get in touch with him, so that I can ask for his permission to use the photo he took? I can't seem to find any information about him. Please help me! If you can :P Sebahed (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

If Mr Tang is licensing his photos through Getty, it means he wants to make money from them, which in turn means he's extraordinarily unlikely to turn around and say that anyone can use his photo fro free, even for commercial purposes—which is required for it to be free enough to use on Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

DRV Listing

Another IP has raised a DRV listing which I assume relates to Yoshi Sudarso which you deleted as being created by a banned user. You might wish to comment there. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding copyrights

If I take a screenshot from a video of a celebrity in for example an interview on YouTube, can I then use that photo on a wikipedia article? Sebahed (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

'Fraid not. The copyright would still belong to whomever owned the copyright to the video. You might want to peruse Commons' licensing policy—that covers a lot of these things. It goes into a lot of detail in places, but it's generally human-readable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Andy Warhol (infobox)

Hey HJ. I'm a five-year, 100+ edits editor, and therefore believe I'm "autoconfirmed"; but after I added Andy Warhol's religious affiliation in the infobox of his page (Ruthenian Catholic - he was devout), the edit did not appear on the "finished product." While excusing my dearth of Wiki lexicon, can you facilitate my rights to edit the top portion (mast?) and infobox of his page? And, yes, I do need to spend some studying Wiki-ese.

I also removed the "ethnicity" entry, for no other reason than it was not appearing on the actual page, and so (I assumed) must have had improper formatting. Please restore it as you see fit.

Thank you,

Dave Peters (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The reason it didn't show is because The "Infobox artist" template doesn't have a "religion" parameter. For a list of the parameters that do exist, see Template:Infobox artist - only those will show when the template is used, and if you add anything that is not in that list it will be ignored. The "ethnicity" parameter wasn't showing for the same reason. Squinge (talk) 09:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
(watching) consider to use {{infobox person}}, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Looking at these templates, it's a shame the language they're written in (whatever it is) doesn't appear to do inheritance (like a number of oo languages do). If we had that, we could say something like "{{Infobox artist extends Infobox person | newparam1 | newparam2...}}", and Infobox artist artist would then have all the parameters of Infobox person plus its own new ones. As it stands now it's an either/or choice and you'd have to decide whether the Infobox artist paramaters (eg notable_works, style, patrons) are more or less important than Infobox person parameters (eg religion, ethnicity) in terms of the person's notability as an artist. Still, I guess this isn't the place to discuss that (and I'm sure it must have been thought of before). Squinge (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I've just seen the "module" parameter - you can embed another template and add its extra parameters! Squinge (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
You can try but infoboxes are a pretty divisive subject in the music area. Editors are strongly discouraged (prevented?) from adding personal information like ethnicity, spouses and family which are standard for actors bios (and they are also "artists"). Liz Read! Talk! 19:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier

Hi. I don't think the article ought to be fully protected, or that the tag at the top is necessary -- it is an FA article, and the only edit dispute was regarding some hidden text, so the tag is not needed to warn readers of anything. Can you please look it over again and see if you agree? Thanks! Also, since the involved admin protected the page to lock in his last edit, I think that edit ought to be reversed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree hat edit-warring over hidden notes is silly, though I've seen sillier (I once had to break up an edit war over the placement of a single comma!). Nonetheless, I think it should stay protected for a day or two to let tempers cool. Much as I'm loathe to slap a great big protection tag like that on a featured article (I know I'd hate it on any of my FAs), it seems a better solution than blocking editors. And I'm not going to revert anything—the point of the protection is to stop the edit war, not to endorse one version or the other, which is inherently controversial (see m:The Wrong Version). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

note

Please see this. Also, I will be sending an email (pretty sure I have you addy on file). — Ched :  ?  23:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Wifione

If you have time, as our resident Arbcom expert, would you mind glancing at this Newsweek article before I run it in ITM. See if anything jumps out at you as inaccurate or worth commenting on. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

They seem to have their fats straight, and they've obviously spoken to some of the major players, so there are no glaring inaccuracies. I might have mentioned the manipulation of articles about rivals, but that's their prerogative. It seems to suggest that Wifione abused his admin status, whereas it was more his manipulation of policies that were at the root of the problem, but it was a problem that he managed to become an admin and that's a subtlety that would probably be lost on all but veteran Wikipedians. The only possible inaccuracy I spotted was that the article seemed to imply that the abuse only started, or stepped up a gear, after the RfA, but I believe most of it happened in 2009/2010 and after the RfA he used his position to maintain the status quo (at any rate, it was definitely there before the RfA). All in all, this kind of thing is rare, but I agree with the fundamental point that there aren't enough people being sceptical enough to keep track of the vast number of articles and edits, and subtle stuff like this is hard to detect so it's certainly possible that it could happen again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look. I should have thought of this earlier, but interested writing a paragraph about it for ITM? Or handle it in the Arb Report since you're writing that anyway? Gamaliel (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I could chip in on ITM. It wouldn't be til tomorrow morning my time, though—I'm just about wrapping up for the night. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. No rush, we likely won't be publishing until Thursday. Gamaliel (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Archive_99&oldid=1140146204"