User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 113

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.

This Month in GLAM – Volume VII, Issue VIII, August 2017 Headlines Argentina report: New material on Wikimedia Commons Brazil report: Edit-a-thons to spread mathematics and neuroscience; Women of Culture and other activities Côte d'Ivoire report: Presenting about West African context at Wikimania 2017 Estonia report: First Art Exhibition in the Estonian Wikipedia is now opened France report: Images from Jean-Auguste Brutails Germany report: Collaboration with volunteers and how to "wikify" GLAM-institutions Italy report: Edit-a-thons & goals Macedonia report: WikiWine project; Two days of edit-a-thons Serbia report: Public Domain Photos Donation Sweden report: Connected Open Heritage; Tekniska museet template migration; Stockholm Pride week USA report: WikiMania & Wikiconference North America, Beer, Hip Hop Wikidata report: Meeting Europeana; Conference News WMF GLAM report: GLAM-Wiki team, Wikimania, and updates Calendar: September's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Just seen you have put up Mells War Memorial for A class review (presumably to go to FAC later). I've not been involved in A class (or MILHIST) much so don't really know what is expected but....

• I did spot in 1st line of "Commissioning" section a mention of "Kensington School of Art" is this the same as what is now called the Royal College of Art which is a redirect from Kensington School of Art in London?
• I was confused by "most intricate of three of Lutyens' civic war memorials" which then names 3 apart from Mells so either the maths or grammar is confusing.
• I might get round to doing an article on the mentioned village hall but not sure when.— Rod ^talk 09:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rod, thanks for your feedback. If you feel like commenting on the ACR the locals are friendly and it works pretty the same way as FAC except that it's more informal and geared towards providing feedback but I'll certainly look at your comments when I get chance. Though I can answer the first one off the top of my head because I spent half an hour trying to figure it out and the answer is probably, but I'm not certain. It would be good to see some more articles on Mells. It's a shame the article for the village itself and the church are in such a dilapidated state but the place is littered with history. Btw, have you seen the sister article Equestrian statue of Edward Horner? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Ta. Village hall article should be up in an hour or so & I will look at the general village article. Yes I have seen the statue one & tagged it for wp: Somerset as B - could g to GA I reckon. I'm currently working on Grade II* listed buildings in Somerset, so the village hall article contributes to that, but there are hundreds & I haven't got around to Grade II* listed buildings in Mendip yet.— Rod ^talk 11:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I am aware that you blocked this user but this user is still vandalising their talk page even after being blocked. Please revoke access for this editor to be editing their talk page. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you revoke TPA? This is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/UnderArmourKid –72 _(talk) 12:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

User talk:GlowyGD too. –72 _(talk) 12:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm probably going to take this to deletion review. I understand your position, but I do not believe your close matches up with the discussion. BLP concerns were raised by a few editors, but the vast majority of editors did not share those concerns, with many refuting. The majority of editors advocating deletion advocated such on grounds of NOTNEWS or unencyclopedic/IDONTLIKEIT. I'd agree with your close if it really was a 50/50 split on policy-based arguments for whether or not this topic is inherently a BLP violation, but I don't read the discussion that way at all. I have a feeling my writings here will not change your mind, but I would like to give you a chance to respond to my thoughts before I go the DRV route. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It was probably going to go to DRV whichever way it was closed, but it needed to be closed. There's really not much in the arguments; strip out the politics and it's essentially GNG vs NOTNEWS and UNDUE with overtones of BLP. In my opinion, concern that it focuses unduly on one (generally negative) aspect of a living person's life significantly strengthens the case for waiting to see whether this becomes a defining part of Trump's presidency or just a storm in a teacup, and in the meantime there's no prejudice against a merge to a broader article. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the deletion. While I am not a deletionist, this was blatantly not neutral. Eric Cable  !  Talk  14:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not easy to be the decision-maker -- you can't please everyone, after all. You showed sound judgment on this matter. Xcalibur (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

If a user asks for the page data, could you make sure that they have an applicable place to merge the information? Thank you! Sleyece (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Concur w/Rob. Very unexpected close (while I argued to keep, I figured it would end on merge as a token compromise despite the poor quality of so many of the delete !votes, or otherwise no consensus). Regarding this, should we have an article on every subject that meets our agreed notability criteria (ie that which receives sufficient coverage in independent sources), or should we wait until the subject can demonstrate lasting significance -- lasting significance has already been demonstrated. The sources I linked span relatively evenly from the beginning of the year until just recently, and that doesn't even count coverage of individual examples or material preceding his presidency. This isn't a single event with a flurry of news coverage over a few news cycles. It's not even relying on coverage from a couple individual events. The sources I listed all cover the subject broadly, and after I posted the list towards the end of the AfD, the subsequent !voters numbered 8-4 in favor of keeping. Of the 4 deletes, one was a straight up DONTLIKEIT, one was a "per [user who said DONTLIKEIT]", and a third was an IAR argument. JDLIs run throughout the discussion, with just as frequent "all mainstream media is biased and shouldn't count as a reliable source" arguments. As the latter was a big part of many of the BLP claims, and given the preponderance of coverage in reliable sources, I was surprised to see BLP play much of a factor. Anyway, given the trend following the list of sources, a relisting may be justified. Regardless, thanks for taking on a close that I'm sure you knew would be a pain. Just for clarity, so as not to start DRV unnecessarily, is it safe to assume there won't be any changes to the close? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your patient and considered comments, even if we disagree with each other, and thank you for ending with such refreshing directness. My personal preference would be for a merge to a suitable broader article like presidency of Donald Trump, but the overwhelming majority of the discussion focused on keep versus delete, and for the closing admin to have imposed a third option would have been supervoting. I respect the effort you went to to provide sources, but sources are not the only consideration in whether something should have an article in its own right. It is valid to consider whether the topic could adequately be covered elsewhere and the applicability of various sections of "What Wikipedia is not" (note that NOT is a policy while N is a guideline), as well as other concerns like neutrality and BLP. Undoubtedly the subject in this case is notable, but it was and is my judgement that the other concerns were compelling and that many of the keep voters missed the point. As an aside, there's an interesting precedent with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms, which was deleted as trivia and undue despite wide coverage in reliable sources, and was upheld at DRV. But to answer a direct question directly, I won't be reversing my decision. I'm very happy for you to take it to DRV, so long as you think I misinterpreted policy or consensus, as opposed to simply disagreeing with the outcome. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Harry, for giving such a detailed (and to me persuasive) explanation of your thinking on this matter. As a new administrator, I have not yet closed something so controversial. But when I do, your reply here will be a model to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's another Thank You, Harry, and it mirrors Cullen's sentiments. You never cease to amaze me with your fair & balanced, intelligent, common sense approach to controversy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

*blushes* Well thank you, both, or your kind words. They mean a lot, especially coming from you two. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I came here to discuss

There was a suggestion to broaden the coverage to Donald Trump's diplomacy or Diplomacy of Donald Trump or similar, where the handshakes could be mentioned, without having an article dedicated to them. A topic can be sufficiently notable to warrant mention (a redirect, a sentence, a paragraph, a small subsection) without needing to have a standalone and discrete article. BU Rob13, any thoughts on this? Did you start a deletion review yet or are you still mulling it over? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi MZ, as you say, BLP is still relevant. We should be careful not to do anything that might damage somebody's reputation or cause them undue harm, even they're perfectly capable of ruining their own reputation. But also as you say, it's not *the* consideration and my decision would likely have been the same if we weren't discussing the actions of a particular individual. There were indeed suggestions to broaden the scope of the article or merge into a broader article. The AfD naturally focused on deletion versus keeping so it wouldn't have been proper to close the discussion with such a result, but I can't see any reason that somebody couldn't add something about handshakes to an existing article (DT's presidency or DT in popular culture, for example) or create a new one with a broader scope, such as your suggested DT's diplomacy, that included material about his handshakes. And if something like that existed, I'd have no objection to some of the deleted content being merged in and the original title redirected. I don't believe Rob has started a DRV yet; I haven't been notified of one and I'm sure Rob is diligent enough to see that I would have been. You're welcome to use this thread or start a new one somewhere else if you want to work together to come up with a plan. Just let me know what you need from me, but I have a dying dog in my arms so I might be offline or my mind might be elsewhere for the next few days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I should begin by saying that I was impressed by the featured article North Eastern Railway War Memorial. I posted a note on the Talk:North Eastern Railway War Memorial talk page wondering about the best name for the article, since Historic England https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1256553 uses a slightly different version and OpenStreetMap a quite different name. Your comments would be welcome on the talk page. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. It's always nice to know that somebody reads the things I write. I'll reply regarding the name on the article talk page s we don't fragment the conversation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

In recognition of your election as one of the Military History Project's Co-ordinators, please accept these Co-ordinator's stars. Thank you for your ongoing efforts in support of the project. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

		The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you the Military history A-Class Medal with Oak Leaves for your awesome work on Norwich War Memorial, Rochdale Cenotaph, and Manchester Cenotaph. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at Australian involvement on the Western Front in 1918 and in post-war New Guinea Op-ed: TomStar81 on the October Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

This Month in GLAM: September 2017

This Month in GLAM – Volume VII, Issue IX, September 2017 Headlines Argentina report: Edit-a-thon in the Parque de la Memoria and new materials in Commons Czech Republic report: 2017 Edit-a-thon in the Research Library in Olomouc France report: Heritage Wiki Days Germany report: Prepare Your data Ireland report: New Irish partnership Italy report: WikiDonne and Wikidata Macedonia report: Three months WiR at the City Library in Skopje accomplished successfully Netherlands report: UNESCO WiR in Middelburg and Amsterdam Spain report: Culture and Citizenship Switzerland report: Third Edition of the Swiss Open Cultural Data Hackathon Tunisia report: Wikipedian in Residence UK report: Wikidata in Parliament USA report: September Song Wikidata report: Number crunching WMF GLAM report: Running Edit-a-thons, Studying GLAM Uploads to Commons, Project Grants and more! Calendar: October's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Hi,

Per your closing rationale at the AfD, would you be content with restoring Donald Trump and handshakes as a user subpage for me (something like User:DrStrauss/Donald Trump and handshakes) because I think I can merge the content?

Thanks,

DrStrauss talk 19:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Certainly, but not from a tablet so it'll have to wait til the morning (UTC)). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks (sorry for the late response, I've had to go through lots of talk pages because ping is borked). DrStrauss talk 14:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Just learning how to reach out on Wiki when I don't get a response on grant applications:) Agnes Bruszik (WMUK) (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Agnes :). Nice to hear from you. I' hoping to get to Mells next weekend, bu I'll email you about that when I'm sure. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! Could you take another look on Unlocked? I really tried to make it flow better in the past two days. Is the article in a better shape now? Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the

Na, Norwich is as good as any. Tanks for the heads up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi HJ_Mitchell.

@Clayoquot: Are you asking because pending changes isn't working, because it isn't necessary, or just because it might not be within the letter of the law? By the way, that pipe ("|") in your signature needs to be a |; it looks exactly the same but a displayed pipecan cause problems when you sign in certain places. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on signatures :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll answer the question you didn't ask, which is whether it's within the spirit of the law :) Having pending changes protection on a page makes it less fun to edit, because it delays the satisfaction of having a change go live. And it sends a message of "We don't trust you." The community accepts these costs as a trade-off for benefits in a narrow set of circumstances. When the question becomes "Why should we not have indefinite pending changes protection on this article?" rather than "Why should we have pending changes protection?" then that's a sign that a culture of "you cannot edit this page" is becoming normalized, and that to me is a concern. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree in principle, though I see pending changes as an alternative to semi protection. I'd rather say "you can edit, but..." than "you can't edit". Sometimes it works, and we get constructive edits that we might not have otherwise (and I make it a point to review pending changes when they pop up on my watchlist); sometimes it doesn't and we have to protect it but at least we tried. But in this case, we'll give it a go. I can't promise some other admin won't restore the pending changes, especially with it being a medical article, but there's not much harm in trying. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

If you say so AIV diff. However, I don't wish to spend time doing a detailed ANI report when many admins would block. I'd rather spend my time doing more effective things. Now there is this mess: on Richard Wilson (Scottish actor) Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The AIV instructions haven't changed in all the time that I've been an admin, and I've blocked more vandals than most admins. It says quite clearly in the header "The edits of the reported user must be obvious vandalism or obvious spam" (emphasis original). Using IMDb as a source is misguided, but it's not vandalism. It's improper to treat it as such, and it would be improper for an admin to summarily block for it. It needs more input, which is not what AIV is set up for, hence my suggestion to use ANI. The report needn't be a long one because anybody can see what's happening from the diffs (a few sentences would be sufficient), but that doesn't obviate the need for some sort of discussion or input from more than just one random admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, this is why AIV gets backlogged. Nobody blocks the accounts because they're not vandals, but the reporters don't like being told that so nobody removes them either, and they just sit there for hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for your efforts to clear out that backlog at AIV. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 12:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello HJ Mitchell:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Apparently, there was an exchange in the pages of Private Eye about this, see here. Thought that might be of interest. I had forgotten that Sassoon is buried there! Carcharoth (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Curious that the Eye would oppose its relocation given that it was only put in the chapel in the first place because the wardens wouldn't allow it anywhere else. There are quite a few interesting characters connected to Mells. Odd for such a small place in the middle of nowhere. I'm eager to get there to look round and take better photos, but I'm waiting for a friend who can drive me; public transport seems to end at Frome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you declined my report of 120.37.163.75, although I have re-reported this IP for now. If you said the report was stale at the time, it's definitely not the case. They have been active before and after your removal of the report: 1, 2. Their edit behavior is intentionally adding incorrect flags to articles of places. This vandal is an LTA and doesn't need to be warned before reporting, there is an edit filter set up for them, see the IP's edit filter history. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 14:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Two reasons: first, it had sat there for eight hours by the time I got to it, so it seemed unlikely that anything was going to come of it. Second and most important, you didn't provide that information in the report. Some admins might have telepathic abilities, or you might get lucky and an admin who knows that LTA case might be looking at AIV, but as a general rule assume that any information that's not in your AIV report is unknown to the admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I did clearly mention that the user was triggering edit filters, which you were supposed to check - the original report was: long-term abuse - image flag vandal (see edit filter history). There isn't an LTA page describing this vandal so there is no link to LTA page, but from the name of the filter you should have realized this edit filter is specifically set up for this vandal. Also, a report sitting there for X hours does not necessarily mean it's getting stale. In fact, I had been reverting their edits as of 1 hour after I filed the report, I stopped reverting since I had to get to sleep. If you could take a moment to check the IP's contribution, their most recent edit before you decline the report was 20 minutes ago. While the report had been sitting for 8 hours, it's actually more reasonable to say "20 minutes" is "recent" in this case.

If you don't know about their edit behavior, it's pretty easy to recognize actually. For example this edit - that's a simple question you could have answered yourself if you were willing to check their edits - why would a county in China have the flag (see file name and file usage on other pages too) of a place in Spain as their county flag? Anyways my purpose here isn't about arguing, AIV was indeed way too backlogged at that moment for some reason, but hopefully you will know about this vandal's behavior from now on and deal with them more efficiently. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 18:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

Hello, HJ. User:Merle Lang moved the Maddie Ziegler page to a nonsense title. Then you and another admin seem to have cleaned up the mess, but shouldn't someone leave a warning or note about it on User:Merle Lang's Talk page? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: Zzuuzz has indefinitely blocked Merle Lang. Considering they haven't edited in years and have suddenly surfaced to do that, the most likely explanation is that the account is compromised. But if a new account did something like that, they'd be blocked on sight as well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on late 1917 naval warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi

James, nice to hear from you. Clearly I didn't quite snip enough. Btw, will you be joining us on the 26th? I promise I won't sit on your hat this time! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

13:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I hope to be there. I thought we had agreed not to mention the hat again. Oh well, I suppose it's something to talk about. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk

) 15:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Could you please unprotect Maan Al-Sanea? The two The New Yorker about his affairs make fascinating reading...Huldra (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM – Volume VII, Issue X, October 2017 Headlines Australia and New Zealand report: Adding Australian women in research to Wikipedia Brazil report: Integrating Wikimedia projects into the Brazilian National Archives GLAM Bulgaria report: Botevgrad became the first wikitown in Bulgaria France report: Wiki Loves Monuments; Opérations Libres Germany report: GLAMorous activities in October Italy report: Experts training on GLAM projects Serbia report: Wikipedian in residence at Historical Archives of Subotica; Model of a grain of wheat exlusivly digitized for Wikimedia Commons; Cooperation of the Ministry of Culture and Information and Wikimedia Serbia - GLAM presentations and workshops for museums, archives and libraries Spain report: Women Writers Day Sweden report: Swedish Performing Arts Agency; Connected Open Heritage; Internetmuseum; More Working life museums UK report: Scotland's Libraries & Hidden Gems Ukraine report: Wikitraining for Librarians; Library Donation USA report: trick or treat Wikidata report: WikidataCon & Birthday WMF GLAM report: News about Structured Commons! Calendar: November's GLAM events Read this edition in full • Single-page To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Harry, can you tell me how you get those little FA stars, which link to the relevant articles, to appear on the top right of your user page? I should like to record my modest collection in the same way. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

(watching:) take it from User:HJ Mitchell/Recognised

Many thanks indeed. KJP1 (talk) 09:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Harry, I came to thank you for the TFA

wrote in German ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk

) 08:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. And @KJP1: I'll be honest, I let several other people (mostly Jack Merridew) take care of the fiddly bits like that. I see you've got your stars though. :) If you want them to hover at the top right, you might have to copy the markup from the subpage as well. Jack also left some helpful hidden comments on my userpage as well when he was trying to get them to line up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Harry. Would you mind taking a look at the FAC for Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral; it seems to have stalled somewhat. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course. Hopefully I'll get time to look over the weekend, or failing that I have some time off work from Tuesday so I'll be able to look then. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Harry, thanks for your comments, much appreciated. I don't mind discussing sources and standards in a professional manner, but to be honest the needless infantilism demonstrated by comments from certain editors such as "you're waisting my time", "your inability to read", false accusations that I belong to an advocacy group, etc, are unbecoming of a respectable organization. I understand that such language doesn't meet your Wikipedia definition of "NPA", but such comments come across to normal professional people as disrespectful personal attacks. Would you say any of these things repeatedly in a professional job, whether to a coworker or customer, and not expect to get fired?

If, on the other hand, you can demonstrate that abrasive and over-aggressive comments are necessary and productive to a healthy online discussion, I would certainly love to see your WP:MEDDEF psychology sources for that!

I know that Wikipedia has challenges from all kinds of sources, but Wikipedia also suffers from editor flight, and will continue to push away more casual editors with this kind of behaviour. I think Wikipedia can do better and hold everyone to a professional standard, which benefits the whole community. Wikipedia needs to show mutual respect for all participants. Maybe something to discuss in the future?

Thanks for your consideration. Be well! PolarYukon (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Harry, Have you thought about running?

I believe that you would make an excellent candidate and would do a great job.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Thanks for the compliment. I appreciate you thinking of me, but ... ha! Hahaha! Even if I had the time, I've seen enough of the inside of the sausage factory to know I'd be a terrible arbitrator and I'd hate every minute of it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Sensible chap! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for blocking the IP troll.

My pleasure. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)