User talk:HJ Mitchell
Add topic
| Hello and welcome to my talk page! If you have a question, ask me. If I know the answer, I'll tell you; if I don't, I'll find out (or one of my talk-page stalkers might know!), then we'll both have learnt something! |
 |
Admins: If one of my admin actions is clearly a mistake or is actively harming the encyclopaedia, please reverse it. Don't wait for me if I'm not around or the case is obvious. |
- This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.
Boo!
[edit]
Hello HJ Mitchell:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– (🕸️Zahrazamedahmedi🕸️) (🍭My Talk Page🍬) (🦇My Mistakes🦇) 02:13, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
 |
Zahrazamedahmedi has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the preceding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!
'"On Psych, A USA Network TV series Episode 8, The Tao of Gus, Season 6, Shawn refers to pumpkins as "Halloween Apples" because he thinks all round fruits are a type of apple.
If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message! |
 |
(🕸️Zahrazamedahmedi🕸️) (🍭My Talk Page🍬) (🦇My Mistakes🦇) 02:13, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
ArbCom
[edit]Hi, I'm conscious of the word limit at ArbCom, which is why I've been limiting my replies as much as possible. Is it possible to add a detailed rebuttal of Vanguard10's points? Danners430 tweaks made 13:13, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Danners430 Detailed, no. If we have a full case, there will be an evidence phase and a workshop for that. I don't want to leave you without a right of reply, but I also don't want to encourage lengthy tit-for-tat. If you feel that you have vital context to add, I would consider a small extension (100-200 words) but just disagreeing them is not likely to be helpful in determining whether there should be a case or what its scope would be. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:50, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
- I'll leave it for now then :) End of the day, I've made enemies and that's how things are - I just wasn't sure about the procedures here, so it's probably best to wait for evidence since that's all I'd be adding here anyway. In my experience, and the reason why I often post on noticeboards and go quiet for a bit, is replying to everything doesn't necessarily result in constructive discussion anyway, for the very reason you just outlined! Thanks for the advice :) Danners430 tweaks made 13:54, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I have never read Arbitration cases nor have been named in one before. Generally, I live a peaceful Wikipedia life, trying to disengage, not argue.
In the Airports case, I see the pink instruction box as banning refactoring edits. What I think that means is revising it to make it more concise is banned. If it weren't banned, I would go back and re-write. But then, this is the first time I've been named in a case.
It is very common to see this case as a content dispute. I look at it differently and in broader terms that would also help with other Wikipedia topics. That broader look is whether it is ok for Wikiprojects or others to impose different and/or stricter requirements for articles (aside from contentious political articles, which this is not). I have other examples on non-airport topics and at least one quote from a former ArbCom member that this broader issue is an important issue. Therefore, ArbCom consideration shouldn't just merely be "airport destination charts can or cannot be in articles" or is editor X subject to sanctions. Even a decision to incarcerate Danners430, which ArbCom cannot do, would not resolve this broader issue, though it might tone down mayhem and some editors leaving the topic. Vanguard10 (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2026 (UTC)