User talk:HJ Mitchell/Archive 80

Archive 75

←

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

→

Archive 85

User:The Banner

I don't see disruptive conduct. Did you block this guy for having a dissenting opinion? I'd like to request a block review on WP:AN. I find this highly inappropriate, and contrary to open discussion and the way we develop a WP:CONSENSUS. A consensus formed by blocking editors who oppose is not a consensus at all. The worst you've got is that he's been a bit snarky. That's not blockable.--v/r - TP 05:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I've spent some more time looking into this. The 'consensus' on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Civil_parishes_vs_villages is not as explicit as I'd have expected for this block. Besides Mr. Blofelf and The Banner, the other editors seem to find a mixture of the two opinions to be optimal. In fact, the argument that received the most support is that articles about Parishes and Villages should be combined or not based on geography. However, even setting that aside and assuming Dr. Blofeld gained consensus, this edit that you blocked The Banner for is actually enforcing that consensus against The Banner's own opinion. He included information about the parish in the article about the village. That was the so-called consensus by Dr. Blofeld. And yet, Dr. Blofeld reverted him blindly anyway. If anyone earned a block, it was Dr. Blofeld. Am I reading something wrong here?--v/r - TP 06:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You're probably having a busy Sunday morning and haven't had the chance to respond yet, but I don't believe that to be fair to The Banner that he remain blocked when I believe it to be unjustified. So I've addressed the matter at WP:AN, the link is below. Thanks.--v/r - TP 22:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec, I was typing this as you were running to AN) I certainly did not block him for having a dissenting opinion, and I'd thank you not to suggest that I aim to be anything other than even-handed in my admin actions. As I see it, there's an interpersonal dispute between Blofeld and Banner; the consensus at the wikiproject talk page favours an approach somewhere between the two extremes. Blofeld seems to have accepted this t some extent, but Banner seems to have continued edit-warring. If he was edit-warring against Blofeld, I'd have given them both a bollocking and perhaps protected the article, but when he's edit-warring against several editors, and several more are telling him on a talk page that he's wrong (and he's continuing to edit-war, rather than calling a moratorium on reverting while the discussion progresses), I tend to think it's a conduct issue and not a content one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I find it highly ironic that somebody who on his talk page professes " And I absolutely hate arrogance to the level that no respect is shown for an opponent's ideas because of a self-righteous belief in being the only correct point of view" thinks I'm the one who should be blocked here. It's precisely that which is causing all of the problems. Banner simply cannot accept consensus. I'm happy to discuss the issue and try to move forward constructively, it's Banner who won't.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The thought of blocking both of you crossed my mind, but you gave ground, whereas he wouldn't give an inch. I hope the two of you can resolve the issues through discussion, I really do, but I stand by my decision to block them (and equally my decision not to block you but to ask you stop reverting). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Narendra Modi

Have a look at my request. Decision is pretty much essential, at the earliest please. Shriram^Talk 09:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC closure

Sorry, but I find your summary of this RfC about YYYY-MM unhelpful. You wrote "No consensus to change anything." But there have been changes in the guideline while the discussion was in progress, so it would be much more helpful to have an unambiguous summary: is YYYY-MM an acceptable date format, or not? Jc3s5h (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion doesn't, to me, look like like it reached a consensus. So, at least on the basis of that discussion, there's no consensus that YYYY-MM is acceptable and no consensus that it's unacceptable. I know it's not much help, but that's all I can do as the closer—I can't just pick the sick I find convincing, I can only tell you what the consensus is. If you think I got the close wrong, feel free to ask for a second opinion at WP:ANRFC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

A person who just wants to know the outcome might look at the beginning of the discussion, which states, as of the beginning of the discussion, that the guideline said YYYY-MM was unacceptable. They could look at your closure, which says there is no consensus for a change. That adds up to YYYY-MM being unacceptable, or at least it could be interpreted that way. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Does this address your concerns? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 Formula One season RFPP

Hi. I was scrolling through WP:RFPP when I noticed a user has requested you extend your protection of the page 2014 Formula One season. Thought I'd let you know. Cheers, Mz7 (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look; I was meaning to go and clear out RfPP anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't fancy sticking an oar into the 2014 F1 season discussion, do you? I don't know if you've had the fortitude to follow it closely, but there's never going to be any resolution there. There is previous history of this kind of problem (four or five editors against one or two) and stalemate can literally continue for weeks/months. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

As a Formula 1 fan, I'd love to. Alas, since I've acted in an admin capacity, I have to keep my distance. Though if I might offer a suggestion: if it's the same old people having the same old arguments, an RfC might be a good way of attracting outside opinions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks, I appreciate it :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey

Hi, hope you're well. I was wondering if you could take care of the speedy deletion tag I added to Josh Willis (Neighbours)? - 23:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey! Long time no speak. How are you doing? Anyway, always happy to mash a button to help a friend. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm doing okay. Been busy creating articles as usual. Thank you! :) - JuneGloom Talk 00:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

RE: Warning spammers

Well, actually STiki doesn't have a separate warning option for spammers, it only provides us with two choices: "revert vandalism" or "revert good-faith edit". Therefore the tool doesn't understand the final warning others gave for spammers. The message you saw was automatically sent by the program when I hit "revert". ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 14:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

fair enough; I'll mention it the STiki folks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for approving my rollback request.

I'm well aware of what Spider Man said - "With great power comes great responsibility" - so I know that this isn't something to dork around with.

Vjmlhds (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not that big a deal, but you'll be fine as long as you apply common sense. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible edit war

Can you consider my request for protection as soon as possible. Possible Wikipedia:PUSH, WP:Soapboxing and WP:crystalball also.

I've seen the request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I seriously need your help. [1], [2] Shriram^Talk 17:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks for Rollback

Hi. Many thanks for granting me Rollback. Have to say that I keep reverting with Twinkle sometimes by mistake. But nonetheless Rollback is very useful so thanks again.--good888 (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad you find it useful! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Please remove protection for Space Elevator

Hello,

We've been having problems with IP 68.228.67.228 on Space Elevator. However, I don't think it would be anywhere near as big a problem without the uncivil antagonism of Tarlneustaedter. In this go-around, Tarlneustaedter essentially baited 68.228.67.228 with 1) reversions based on the editor not based on the edit content (ad hominem), 2) Uncivil commentary toward 68.228.67.228 in edit summaries. IP 68.228.67.228 has a checkered past, but in this cycle he started out with good good-faith editing and only "went rogue" after abusive treatment by Tarlneustaedter.

Please review Tarlneustaedter's edits and see if you agree. If you do, please consider removing the protection you put on Space Elevator a few minutes ago.

Skyway (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis of the situation, but leaving it open just because the IP started out in good faith isn't a realistic option, especially when they've used proxies to evade blocks in the past. Perhaps you could encourage them to engage in conversation and make suggestions on the talk page, then we can think about lifting the protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll buy that. It's a difficult situation. We need the contributions of IPs to give us vitality, but the way things work, one determined rogue can place any article under siege. The protection periods get longer and longer with less and less review each time. Before we know it, we have permanent protection for "persistent vandalism" by just one person who long ago moved on to other things. I hope we can avoid that path here. Skyway (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. We have very few defences against anybody who's determined enough and patient enough, but we have to hope that that energy can be channelled into something positive. Permanent protection isn't in anybody's interests. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look at this

He followed me to other articles after I told him to stop. After he was unblocked he has continued the same behaviour. QuackGuru (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps assume good faith on that one. They did revert themselves, and they did apologise. Unless a pattern emerges post-unblock, I'm inclined to hope that they move on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

If it was an accidental there would of been an autogenerated edit summary. The apology is disingenuous because it was obviously intentional.

He added OR to the lede but he claimed the text was verified. The text added to the lede was not a summary of the body. The references he added to the lede did not verify the claim. He was being disingenuous because he obviously ignored my comments.

After I told him to stop following me to other articles he did continue but has never apologised for following me.

It was also a strange coincidence that two different accounts made very similar edits.[3][4]

I thought it was important to give you more detailed information on this. I don't want the editor to move on to other articles to do something like this again in mainspace. QuackGuru (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

QG, it might just be best to leave it for the time being. They've hardly done anything since they were unblocked, and they've provided a plausible explanation for the one questionable edit. Frankly, you both seem to have an unhealthy obsession with each other; can't you just give them a wide berth? If they carry on the way that got them blocked the first time, there are plenty of other editors who can deal with it, and I'm sure somebody will bring it to my attention. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

• News and notes: Wikimedia conferences—soul-searching about costs, attendance, and future

• WikiProject report: Deutschland in English

• Special report: On the cusp of the Wikimedia Conference

• Featured content: April Fools

• Traffic report: Regressing to the mean

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The Banner disruptive editing

You have blocked user:The Banner for disruptive editing, especially edit warring for one week. There was a hope that after that he will act more responsibly.

However, after he had served his block, he has engaged twice in edit warring on article UE Boom. He also posted a number of uncivil messages on the article's talk page in the first section. He fails again to accept consensus, and engages in name calling. Please see him calling A merger of Roman Catholic parish article in AfD nomination as "vandalism". Overall, he continues the same pattern of behavior as prior to the block - disruptive and uncivil. Dmatteng (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not in the habit of indef'ing established editors on the basis of a single post on my talk page, but in this case it was the straw that broke the camel's back. I had my own concerns about The Banner's conduct since their block expired, so I don't think I had any choice in this case. I've blocked them indefinitely; I hope not infinitely, but that's up to him. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Please check your post on The Banner's talk page, I think the block template is missing (and also mistyped 'yo' should be 'you'). Although I'm an involved editor, I would rather prefer that his disruptive behavior would cease without a block, however I'm afraid that it is rather not possible at this time.

Could you please also add conditions: 1) The Banner should remove all non-constructive messages on talk pages that he had posted; especially name-calling and other uncivil messages. 2) He will not engage in edit warring. Thank you. Dmatteng (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave the typo for the time being to save annoying Banner. The template isn't a necessity, and sometime plain English is preferable to templatese. I'm not sure a restriction not to edit-war is necessary, as edit-warring is against policy anyway; obliging him to go back and remove previous edits would be unnecessarily punitive, whereas the aim should be to prevent further disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough

Hi HJ, I've closed the Arbitration Enforcement request regarding Rich Farmbrough and referred it to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Iranian Embassy siege

This is a note to let the main editors of Iranian Embassy siege know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 30, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 30, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Iranian Embassy siege took place from 30 April to 5 May 1980, after a group of six armed men stormed the Iranian embassy in London. The gunmen, members of an Iranian Arab group campaigning for Arab national sovereignty in Khūzestān Province, took 26 hostages and demanded the release of Arab prisoners from jails in Khūzestān. Police negotiators gradually secured the release of five hostages in exchange for minor concessions. On the sixth day the gunmen, frustrated at the lack of progress, killed a hostage and threw his body out of the embassy. The British government ordered the Special Air Service (SAS), a special forces regiment, to rescue the hostages. During the 17-minute raid, the SAS rescued all but one of the remaining hostages, and killed five of the gunmen. The hostage-takers and their cause were largely forgotten afterwards, but the operation brought the SAS to public attention. It was overwhelmed by the number of applications it received from people inspired by the operation and experienced greater demand for its expertise from foreign governments. The building suffered major damage from fire (aftermath pictured) and did not reopen as the embassy until 1993. (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Again? Bencherlite, any chance you could spread these out a bit more in future? I won't grumble about this one (though it might have been nice to have held it back for the 35th anniversary next year or even the 40th in 2020, though that's a long way off), but it's a pain in the arse to keep an eye on a TFA, and this is the second of my FAs to run in the space of a few weeks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If it had been the 25th anniversary coming up, then I might have waited a year, but the 35th anniversary isn't a particularly special number. And six weeks between TFAs isn't cruel and unusual punishment (last summer, one editor had two TFAs in three days, at his request I might add) - but I don't have any plans to run Richard Dannatt or Operation Barrass at present, which I think (after checking) are now your only two FAs yet to be TFA. I know TFA can be a pain but you are getting over 3 weeks' warning of the date, which I hope helps. Yours, Bencherlite^Talk 05:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the advance warning is helpful, and thanks for the assurance that you don't have any more planned for the near future. I cna live with that. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Good. Best wishes, Bencherlite^Talk 10:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Santiago the Surco

Hi colleague, there is no "edit dispute" there but this article unfortunately is one of the targets of a well known cross wiki vandal. See here for the file. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 07:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC) (nl-wiki admin and global sysop)

Thanks for the pointer. I've changed the protection, and I see the account has been locked. Let me know if you need any more help with this on enwiki. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Will do so! MoiraMoira (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: March 2014

This Month in GLAM – Volume IV, Issue III, March 2014 Headlines Australia and New Zealand report: Summer is over Germany report: GLAM ship; Open GLAM hackathon; Science 2.0 conference; GLAM meetup Mexico report: New GLAM projects in Mexico and Reynosa's City Hall donation of historical photos Netherlands report: Education; Libraries; Museums; Maps, Earth Norway report: GLAM edit-a-thon at Preus museum Sweden report: Many ways to meet Wikipedia UK report: Art, Women, the Police and the build up to Wikimania USA report: Women's History Month Open Access report: Open Access at Wikimania; Open Access Button; Topic Pages Calendar: April'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.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 20:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

RE: RPP India election

There was no notice in the history of the page of the semi..Lihaas (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it'll be in there somewhere—the page i protected, and https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&type=protect&page=Indian_general_election%2C_2014 it's in the log]. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Arb Enforcement: no fun

I'm sorry, Harry, but I must formally decline your invitation. I took a look at WP:AE and I find this. Note the last sentence: I want to object to it because it seems as if there's WP:WIKIHOUNDing (by the filer) going on plus an implicit statement (by the responder) of "I've been waiting for an excuse to hit 'block' ASAP", which to my mind is just Not Cricket. But, at the top of the page, there's a pink box with a bunch of bullets that boil down to "if you even think about posting here to disagree, you'll be desysopped and banned for life. This is our patch: keep out". The attitude is just far too hostile: I cannot risk my neck even by posting a neutral comment, so the prospect of doing this more often is not what I am here for. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a shame, Redrose. Without wishing to discuss that specific request, I understand your feelings, and the perk of being volunteers is that we can opt to do or not do (almost) anything we please, but I think your decision not to participate (and that of other admins) contributes to the problem there, which is that it essentially an echo chamber. So few admins comment there that you just get the same opinions again and again, and it can be maddeningly difficult to get people to budge. The regulars know this, and they play it like a fiddle. Add to that the dire warnings of desysopping etc, and there's so little oversight that admins can get away with al sorts of shit. ArbCom are trying to change some of that with the DS review, but the problems really are with the process rather than the instrument, so the only way to really solve it is from the bottom up, with more admins offering opinions. And if that meant that I was in the minority, I'd be a lot more comfortable with that than I would with being shouted down by a tiny number of admins or with enforcement requests being summarily closed by a single admin with no meaningful oversight. That's why I've been mentioning it to admins I respect, including you, so I hope (though don't expect) that you'll reconsider, or at least share your thoughts with ArbCom. Ironically (since I gave them both a relatively hard time at the election), User:Roger Davies and User:AGK have seemed willing to listen to people who raise honest concerns during the discretionary sanctions review; perhaps they might have comments to make on your thoughts. Input from TPSs, especially admins, welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, I've done it. Expect the very first entry in this page any day now. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I sympathise, Redrose. In fact, I see exactly where you're coming from, and my initial reaction was not dissimilar. I like Rich, and I'd love to see him stay, and I'd love to see certain parties but the more I think about it, the more I think it's not so much about whether any one particular edit was "automated" by some bizarre definition, but the community and ArbCom want Rich to move on and find something else to do. As far as I know, he's never properly acknowledged that there were problems with his automated editing (they may have been blown out of proportion, sure, he never broke the wiki, but that's not to say they didn't exist), and now instead of just going and writing an article or something and accepting the boundaries he's been given, he seems to be testing the extent of (and arguably crossing) those boundaries. I think a ban would be absurdly out of proportion, just as it was last time, but that position is increasingly left open to ridicule when Rich goes and does almost exactly what he was banned for last time. The way Rich is going to get out of the hole that (he's dug himself|has been dug for him) is not to carry on regardless because he thinks the restrictions are unjust, but to do something else—which, as I understand it, is exactly what ArbCom want him to do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Optical Express

Hi. Can I draw your attention to a 'discussion' on Optical Express with regards to a user once again trying to add content where consensus was previously agreed that it wouldn't be included. Your input would be valuable. Thanks. Hardlygone (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Reprotection

You recently protected Template:States with limited recognition. That protection has since expired, and the exact same thing is happening again. There's more talk on the talkpage I suppose, which is progress, but still. It could use re-protection (in my opinion). Regards, CMD (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I've protected it for another week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, although saying "to the TALK PAGE, please folks" doesn't really help those who did go to the talkpage during the first protection (and in my involved opinion had a consensus), only to have their discussion ignored by various almost-SPAs that haven't touched the talkpage (one did, but didn't engage in any discussion and just ignored all the points above). CMD (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I've just looked at it in more detail, and I reckon there's something fishy going on. I've indef'd three accounts, and filed an SPI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Questionable banning

Map contributed by user Seraborum

‎Could you please explain why you have blocked / banned user Seraborum (talk · contribs)? I see nothing in his edit history that would merit such ban, yet you claim he is "clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia." The only fault I can see is joining an edit war whether to include the Donetsk People's Republic in Template:States with limited recognition. Three reverts does not call for an indefinite block. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That account has made 28 edits, almost all of them to push a POV, including tag-team edit-warring at the template you mention. That alone is enough for an indef to my mind, but I also have very good reason to believe that the account is a sockpuppet, which pretty much grounds for an automatic indef. There's a link to the SPI in the thread above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You are probably the most active admin at RFPP, if I had a nickel for every time I saw an edit summary of yours saying protected for a fortnight, well I would have a lot of nickels. kelapstick(bainuu) 19:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! That's very kind. I have some help with the edit summaries—User:Steel359/Protection js makes those sorts of things a bit quicker. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh my, that is a lovely script. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It is. It really ought to be better documented. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I was just going through MfD today, and was disappointed I couldn't find a script similar to AfD Close to use on it. That would be nice. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I think there is one, but I don't have much to do with MfD. It might be one of Mr Z man's, so you could ask him or one o the regulars at MfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, I got one to work, but it is pretty finicky. I have to open the discussion from the main MfD page (not from the page itself), and it doesn't delete the page automatically like close AfD does. It only adds the templates a discussion you are editing, and you have to save it manually. It is still better than typing in the templates manually. Took a while to get it to work for me though. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

How odd. You could see if anyone at VPT could make something better; it can't be that hard for someone clever to base something on the AfD script. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)