Hi Bill. Thanks for restoring the link in Cook Islands - (your diff).
I acknowledge that the source states that the original people of the Cook Islands migrated from "Tahiti, to the southeast." The source is ambiguous because it doesn't clarify whether the people left Tahiti traveling in a southeasterly direction, or whether Tahiti lies to the southeast of the Cook Islands. Either way it is incorrect. Wikipedia states that Tahiti is at 17°S, 149°W, and the Cook Islands are at 21°S, 159°W. I calculate a heading of 249 True (reciprocal 069 True) from Tahiti to Cook. That means the Cook Islands are WSW from Tahiti, and Tahiti is ENE from Cook Islands. The great circle distance is 623 NM (1154 km).
I have tweaked the article to correctly show that Tahiti is northeast of Cook Islands - see my diff. Regards. Dolphin(t) 00:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the improvement. I had done the revert hurriedly, after seeing the content change and checking against the cited source which had not changed. I didn't pick up on the wording ambiguity in the source. Cheers. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion: I would like to have added information to the Boracay Page and or a link to boracaylive.com/boracay-beach-live-camera/ . This is a live camera that streams "LIVE" video and sound of Boracay Beach 24 hours a day. The camera will soon have the capability/availability to see live day shots at night time. The camera is owned and operated by TravelOnline and is positioned infront of Red Coconut Boracay Resort. I have interesting history about the live camera BUT I think for the page being informational that this would provide special interest information along with visual association not to mention weather report. I can see many outgoing external links that are existing on the Boracay Page. Maybe this can be added to the section at the bottom called External links or in the information section. I have noticed that there is 3 links there (External Links) (outgoing) :
1. Boracay travel guide from Wikivoyage this is a good informational link and it does allow Boracay Live Camera section.
2. Boracay Official Tourism Website - This is nothing more than a travel agency selling rooms and advertisement. (boracayisland.org) This site is NOT the Official Boracay Tourism website. This is an Association of hotels marketing their rooms and advertising. It is not even close to being any OFFICIAL Boracay Travel Tourism Website. [Comparison] That would be like me saying Boracay Official Tourism Website and linking to TravelOnline.ph Now, if that is acceptable, then I would like to have a similar link going to TravelOnline in the external links. This is the official Boracay Tourism Website by DOT : itsmorefuninthephilippines.com/boracay/
3. Boracay Travel Information and Travel Guide (Lonely Planet)- This is to lonelyplanet.com/philippines/the-visayas/boracay - which is basically lonelyplanet.com which sells rooms, travel and advertsises on it.
Now with that said: Can I put under external links with the words "Boracay Beach Live Camera (TravelOnline)" going to boracaylive.com or directly to the live camera page: boracaylive.com/boracay-beach-live-camera/ thus being exact structure of Lonely Planet --- Boracay Travel Information and Travel Guide (Lonely Planet)-----There not a Travel Information and Travel Guide of Boracay --- They are a travel agency selling rooms, cars, packages, activities and so on. The real Boracay information site OFFICIAL is the DOT site - itsmorefuninthephilippines.com/boracay/
I would like permission from the administrator or editor incharge or discuss how we can put this in print. This camera has been in place running for many years. It has become a landmark. The facebook of this camera is 540,000 fans and growing every day.
Please advise what I can do? (My request based on existing links) Glade22—Preceding undated comment added 16:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any status on my request? Please advise what I can do? (My request based on existing links) Glade221/7/2014 —Preceding undated comment added 13:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Due to still no response by editor, I made the link under external links and after 24 hours --- It was removed. However, I received no reason why or an answer to my questions about meaningful external links and adding the live camera link to the page. Can anyone give me information on how to contact the person BoracayBill reports too? I wish to discuss the total disregard of Boracay information to only editors taste/feelings and the allowing of external links that violate policy. There must be a higher power here than a dictatorship of ones Obvious personal bias feelings. Glade22 (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Glade22 - 1/8/2014[reply]
I've moved this recently added section here from the top of the talk page. See WP:TPG. Without making a judgement about your attempted addition, I'll suggest that you read WP:ELNO and WP:COI. Personally, I think that links to live webcams would be a useful addition to this article, but I don't want to become embroiled in a discussion about that. Re your request for "information on how to contact the person BoracayBill reports too[sic]", I presume that you're referring to me (and I'm not sure why), but that's not how WP works; see the info I've added to User talk:Glade22. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
***Discussion: I have read WP:ELNO and WP:COI. And understand both. I created a link under “External Links” which was Boracay Beach Live TravelOnline Camera This action is completely legal under WP:ELNO and WP:COI. WP:ELNO says: This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. It also goes on to say: Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. THE KEY PHRASE: External links should not normally be used in the body of an article.[1] Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable. The link that I have suggested provides unique resources beyond what the article contains, does not mislead the reader, 100% accurate, contains NO Malware or viruses, does not require payment, no copyright or infringements, NOT a social website, No Redirects, and already featured on https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Boracay.
I also propose that it should be considered to have a webcam section under “MEDIA” below Local Radio Stations and Local Channel because this is a form of MEDIA and it is local. Honestly, what makes a radio station more special than a live camera? Media is Media!
I provide something that is pertinent to the article that no other source in the world can provide. The other links in the External Links provide NOTHING that you could not find in any travel agency site. Think about it? If that is there than why can’t I have a page linking to TravelOnline as a Boracay Travel Reference? Makes no sense?
I should be able to have my link there just based on the above and advertising sites already existing. What’s good for some – Must be good for all! Glade22 (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Glade22 - 1/8/2014[reply]
TravelOnline Facebook with about 550,000 Fans. The Live camera I have been promoting and paying for since 2002. The camera cost about $15,000 dollars not to mention Bandwidth, router, fiber optic adaptors and I have a fiber optic internet line to the camera straight from Kalibo Cable. Popularity of the camera climbs every year and just recently EarthCam announced that my camera is the most popular camera in the world. The link, it's not really that important. I already own the number 1 spot for boracay camera or anything related to that in ALL search engines. I JUST WANT PEOPLE TO SEE BORACAY! I spent so much to promote Boracay. I took this project and paid for it because the DOT could not afford. YES, I proposed this to the DOT and they loved it and had NO BUDGET. I PAID FOR EVERYTHING!
Now, the reason for the link. I like Wikipedia!!!! It is in the number 1 position for the key word "BORACAY". This means people open it first and maybe they will find my camera on that page causing more viewers and more interest in Boracay. The whole purpose!!! More interest means more clients which means MORE Philippines Tourism. Thus, the camera will get people excited about Boracay then they will search the web for Boracay Packages and hopefully find me. (THIS GOES FOR ALL TOPICS on the Boracay page = read = excitement = they want to go there! I am number 1 in ALL search engines for the key word "Boracay Packages".
Anyways, the goal of DOT and I was to get people to the Philippines and your link or special NOTATIONS or its own section would be helpful in that matter. This is Truly a notable addition to your page!!! This is better than a thousand pictures on a encyclopedia page. This is real time action! Real time weather! Real time sound! I will even be installing a memory disk in the camera soon that will allow people to watch day time action at night when its dark so that USA and other countries can enjoy the view of the beach too.
Please put some thought into this! Thank You
(Glade22 (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC))Glade22[reply]
:As I said at Talk:Boracay#Live Webcams in Boracay, I don't want to become embroiled in a discussion about this. Please note, however that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia -- not a travel promotion site. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
***Ok, you do not wish to discuss this WHY? Let us examine your exact words: Please note, however that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia -- not a travel promotion site. NOW, if that is the case, then why are you promoting many travel agencies on the page? MANY! Going against policy of wikipedia using the exact policy references you gave me. The live camera at its bare minimum is considered MEDIA. However, you choose not to even mention its existence at all even without a link. This is unbelievable and unacceptable.
Can you please give me the name or email of who you report too for further unbiased discussions. It is clearly obvious that there is favoritism on this Boracay page as you being a local at Boracay and editor. I can name many boracay travel agencies that you are linking to on this page that are Island based. I too have been here for 20 years and know everyone and every company in Boracay. I am sure I even know you. I definitely know I can find you to discuss this in person if you like. I dont mind having a coffee there at DMall or Starbucks to understand your views. I dont understand why you hate the camera and are so against it. Like I said, it does not make sense. Glade22 (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Glade22[reply]
****Does anyone know how to contact a higher authority than Wtmitchell AKA Boracay Bill or how I can report misconduct of an editor? I have opened a discussion on the topic "Boracay Live WebCams" and he refuses to discuss this infront of everyone and says, "Please note, however that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia -- not a travel promotion site". However, it is clear to see in the Boracay Page that he is contradicting himself because there are so many links to travel agencies up and down the page. It seems that it is not OK to have a camera under say MEDIA with a link to the camera that actually shows boracay beach live and with live sound but ok to have links to travel agencies, radio station and TV stations. This to me is inconceivable? He says one thing and does another! What kind of editor is he?
What does Lonely planet (Travel Agency) have to do with Boracay. Its a travel agency! What does Lonely Planet sales and room packages have to do with encyclopedia? (there are more than 2 links to that)I found another 35. ^ "Philippines : Weather". Lonely Planet (travel guidebook). There is 2 links here Philippines : Weather link going to http://www.lonelyplanet.com/philippines/weather where their selling rooms and airfare. The link next to it "Lonely Planet" link too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonely_Planet which links back to Lonely Planet which again is selling rooms and airfare. They have many links on this page which would lead people to see a connection/association with the editor.
Boracayisland.org link claiming to be the OFFICIAL Boracay Tourism Site. say what? The only official Boracay Tourism site is DOT Department of Tourism. Boracayisland.org is an association of Resorts and Hotels with one goal on the site----sell rooms/advertise Rooms----Now what does advertising rooms have to do with encyclopedia?
---another Boracayisland link slipped onto the page slick like 26. History & Geography | Boracay Island | Boracay's Official Tourism SiteBoracay Island | Boracay's Official Tourism Site -- going to who else: http://www.boracayisland.org/?page_id=18 What does a travel agency have to do with encyclopedia? Boracayisland.org is hiding many links on the page. Why? well, He is a island local and Wtmitchell AKA Boracay Bill is an island local. (in cahoots I would think)
http://www.exploreiloilo.com/guide/boracay-philippines/ there is a anchor link "Boracay Philippines" that goes to a ililo travel agency website selling rooms and packages for Boracay. What does that have to do with encyclopedia?
Anyway, just a few contradictions - there is more.
I propose Live Cameras be added under MEDIA with radio stations and cable providers. They dont even have Kalibo cable there as a huge cable provider on the island. THE VERY LEAST - "External Links" Yes, TravelOnline is a Travel Agency (just like the other links on the Boracay Page) TravelOnline provides first hand LIVE viewing of Boracay Beach with sound. The other travel agency pages just provide rooms and airfare on their links from this Boracay page------atleast I offer MEDIA of Boracay. (ACTUAL)I say to the editor of this page - what is more encyclopedia than actual live footage. This page is about BORACaY!!! What is more Boracay than a joint effort between DOT and TravelOnline creating a LIVE Camera to increase tourism and awareness of BORACAY!
Wtmitchell AKA Boracay Bill has always been a attacker of TravelOnline and is a hater who is bias which has been reflected many times in the past in his Trip Advisory post where he always attacked TravelOnline. Just my observation and personal view. I am in no way mad or in anyway trying to hurt Wtmitchell AKA Boracay Bill. I just think that if you are going to be a editor/journalist than be even and fair without contradictions and favoritism. That is why I suggest that there be a LIVE Camera section under media (TravelOnline Camera not being the only one) or remove ALL External links leaving wikipedia Boracay Page to be 100% fair to all and follow policy without question. I dont think an editor should allow some links and not others. It should be 1 way or another ---links or no links! (By the ways, links are allowed under policy but at the discretion of the editor. However, it needs to be fair! The editor is telling me no travel promotion then allowing travel promotion????? (Need Higher Authority) Glade22 (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Glade22[reply]
*** FYI - as the editor you should look at this because your breaking its policies - Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and even Wikipedia:Edit warring - You wont discuss or even consider any way but your own thus breaking the above mentioned policies. You can read in this talk page how people consider you like a tyrant of the page. When someone makes a change you immediately erase it and revert it back to your style and no other style or additions but your own. I have seen you run this page for many years and your style makes this page unappealing with stale information.
Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring". Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold. A potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed. You opposed my change so you must provide educational reasoning. The Boracay Page must be FREE of contradictions to prove your point/reasoning.
Is this the proper venue to report an issue/Editor? Edit war/3RR noticeboard Glade22 (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Glade22[reply]
Glade, If you want to report me or any other editor, the place to do it is the Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard -- also known as WP:AN.
You seem to have a problem with some of the edits I've made to the Boracay page. It would probably be better for you and I to discuss the specific edits which concern you before you report me, but feel free to proceed directly to WP:AN if you want. If you want to discuss things first, please let me know which of my edits concern you and what your concerns are. Please try to be succinct in describing your concerns.
Re live webcams, see this comment of mine in reaction to your asking about that at Talk:Boracay. As I said there, I think personally that links to live webcams would be a useful addition to the Boracay article. However, my guess is that anyone adding such links will meet resistance, and I don't want to become embroiled in discussions which would probably ensue. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, I was trying to edit Compact executive car, and I was trying to mention the 300 instead of the 200, because the 200 is priced too low to be part of a luxury car. 166.137.191.41 (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This concerns this revert, I think, which looked like vandalism of a section heading to me. I take your explanation as saying that the edit was not intended as vandalism, but resulted from some sort of mis-click or unintended save while editing the article. OK. If you were editing from a logged-in account I would tell you to feel free to remove the warning associated with this revert from your talk page, per WP:TPG. Since the warned talk page is associated with a (possibly shared) IP address, though, I think that the warning ought to remain. I'll take no action if you remove it, though. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It must be an accident. Unfortunately, my phone has a really bad keyboard. 166.137.191.38 (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
People's Republic of China only joined the UN in 1971 when UN recognized PRC as the only chinese government.
"The United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 2758 on Oct. 25, 1971, recognizing that the People's Republic of China is the only lawful representative of China to the United Nations. As a result, the PRC was able to take over the ROC's membership in the United Nations, and its permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_United_Nations
jthomas91 02:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, and thanks for clarifying it in the article. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revert the population to the 2010 estimate?[edit]
You reverted the Philippine population figure to the 2010 estimate, when the official population clock of the Philippine statistics office:
The government says that the population is officially 99 Million, yet you reverts my updates which acurately reflect the government figure to an estimate done 4 years ago (Outdated) Are you smarter than the government itself to conclude that the government is wrong in its saying that the Philippine population is 99 million? Furthermore, you used an estimate that was for the year 2010, today is 2014! Your edition is illogical, I'm reverting it to the proper population statistics. See you again soon.
Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the problem is that in the source I stated, http://www.popcom.gov.ph/, you just looked at the statistic: "Population as of May 1, 2010 is 92,337,85" but maybe you didn't notice that just below that statistic, (you have to wait for it to load), you find another statistic of the Philippine's total population, which changes every 5 seconds to account for new births, that statistic said the population is 98,997,576 or approximately 99 Million. I hope you now understand why I edited the previous population projection. Thank You
You got that right. My apologies, and thanks for the info and the later fix.
I'm on Boracay island, and my internet service is generally very bad lately. At the moment, I'm getting just a few kbps. Service is generally worst on weekends -- I made the edit in question on Sunday and it is currently very early Monday morning. Service might improve after people come to work at my local ISP in a few hours -- or it might not. I don't remember specifics of the edit in question, but I'm guessing that I never saw the update you mentioned -- I probably waited a lot longer that five seconds for the page to load initially, and just went with the figure which it eventually presented after initially loading.
As of {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}, the [[United States]] has a total resident population of {{formatnum:{{#expr:{{data United States|poptoday}}round-4}}}},<ref>Estimated by extrapolation. According to [http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html The U.S. Census Bureau's Population Clock].</ref> [...]
It wouldn't be a good idea for a single editor to charge forward on such an undertaking, though. Are you active in the the wikiproject WP:Tambayan Philippines? If so, perhaps you might bring this up at WT:Tambayan Philippines. Otherwise, please let me know and I will do that. Cheers. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your revert in the topic Muslim. Please tell me a more reliable source for the subject you reverted. My source is http://quran.com/2/255 What is yours regarding the matter.
If you do not have a source, then revert your reverts.
Khawar.nehal (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khawar.nehal (talk • contribs) 02:53, January 27, 2014[reply]
I don't really recall what drove me to make the revert. I see that my edit summary said that I was intending to add an explanatory section to the talk page, but the talk page contains no such section -- I'm guessing that the talk page edit save failed for whatever reason and I missed noticing the failure. Offhand now, I can't think of what made me think of unreliable sourcing, but I don't see how your cited source saying
And give good tidings to those who believe and do righteous deeds that they will have gardens [in Paradise] beneath which rivers flow. Whenever they are provided with a provision of fruit therefrom, they will say, "This is what we were provided with before." And it is given to them in likeness. And they will have therein purified spouses, and they will abide therein eternally.
supports the article's assertion saying
Muslims believe that God (Allāh) is eternal, transcendent and absolutely one (monotheism).
I don't want to get drawn into a theological discussion, though. Feel free to remove my warning (for which I cannot recall the justification) from your talk page. If you re-add the cite of that source, perhaps you might clarify how it pertains re muslim views about an eternal and transcendent monotheistic diety. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you[edit]
Thanks for the heads-up. I've responded on the article talk page. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May you create a "semi-clone" template for me?[edit]
Hi. As you know List of sovereign states and dependent territories by population density uses the Popdens template for a few countries. I noticed it works properly for all countries except Canada. Other countries' density values don't need any rounding, but Canada's values need to be rounded (to the second decimal digit) in the primary table (the whole secondary table uses round 0, so the template works just fine there). If we are to edit the Popdens template it's going to round up all numbers, including those that don't need to be rounded. Since I don't have an account here, may you make a template identical to Popdens except that it rounds up the population density values to the second digit? Maybe it should be called Popdensround or something, not sure since I don't know all that much about naming conventions on Wiki, but it's going to be used specifically for Canada and only in the primary table. Is it OK to create a template that is only going to be used once?
If I understand things correctly, there might be a better way to solve the problem - to just create an optional parameter for Popdens that deals with rounding... Is that possible? I might be able to do it myself, but with my attention span it might take too much time - time that could be saved if I ask someone more knowledgeable to do it for me. :) 77.70.30.216 (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
{{popdens}} was rounding the population to 0 and using that to do the density calculation without specifying a rounding value. I have changed it to do the density calculation with the rounded population value as displayed, and to round the calculated density to two decimal places for display. Also, I see that the template was using the total area in some places and the land area in other places (an error which I apparently introduced). I've changed that to use the total area consistently. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the undoing of my corrections to the St. Columba article:[edit]
I had changed the Latin word "Scotorum" from "Scots" to "Irish", because historically, that's how the Irish were known, internationally. The word "Scoti" (from which the genitive case "Scotorum" is derived, means "of the Irish". It's important for readers to understand that the word really does mean "Irish", and not "Scots", as it had been translated. There is a great deal of popular confusion today, and Scotland has historically benefited from this confusion, as many people regard the work of Irishmen as the work of people from another country. "Scoti" is Latin for "Irish". Ireland before the thirteenth cent. was known as "Scotia Major", and what we call Scotland today was on maps called "Scotia Minor", since the Irish had begun to colonize its southwestern regions. St. Columba, being born and raised in Ireland, is described in Latin as "hope of the Irish". Please research this to your own satisfaction to verify what I'm saying is true; and return the translation of "Scotorum" to "Irish", as is linguistically and historically accurate. Thanks.
In this edit, you changed Scots to Irish without comment. In the next edit, I reverted that change, with a comment which did not provide much explanation, and that I placed a notice on your talk page which also wasn't particularly informative. This was done during a WP:Huggle session, and both my edit summary and the talk page notice were supplied by Huggle. I don't really remember that revert, but I was probably thinking that such a change ought to cite a supporting source (and Huggle does provide a opportunity to select more specific revert message re sourcing -- I apparently chose not to exercise that option, for whatever reason). Looking at the article now, I see that the entire section where these edits were made is unsupported.
I don't doubt your assertion above about the meaning of the word Scots, but I have been unable to confirm that (but I'm limited to sources available online). Perhaps what the article needs is a cite-supported clarification about that. That section of the article probably also ought to cite sources supporting other content there. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
to be 125,000, of which 85,000 were in the Army and the rest in the Navy-Marines and Air Force.{{cite web|url=http://philippinestoday.blogspot.com/2012/01/no-reduction-in-afp-manpower-size.html|
Hi, you wrote me on my talk page to answer your qoustions on Template talk:Popdens. That I did. Happy editing, Tomdo08 (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response and the heads-up about it. I've commented on the template talk page. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday I read an article on Pixar, and found the traditions section interesting. I did some research and found some more traditions found in Pixar feature films. I thought The information I added was constructive, or I would not have included it. I also included sources and a picture to enhance the topic. I do not understand why my work was removed.
This concerns this revert, which reverted your edit here changing from "One particular tradition has been a part of every Pixar feature film ..." to "One Easter Egg has been a part of every Pixar feature film ...".
My revert was done during a WP:Huggle section, and was based on what I saw through in huggle's porthole view into the article -- I've now looked at that particular article snippet in a wider context, and that led me to look at the Easter egg (media) article. I see the clarification there that, "An Easter egg is an intentional inside joke, hidden message, or feature in a work ...". I'm not a media insider, I didn't get the inside joke, and I made the revert as a consequence of my ignorance about that (combined with the lack of context afforded by my porthole view into the article). I suspect that other readers of the article might be similarly lacking in insider insight. I took a look at the current version of the article, and see that the insider viewpoint and the use of the particular insider term easter egg has since been toned down.
This huggle revert produced thiswarning message on your talk page. The warning level was chosen by huggle as a "level 2" warning because your talk page already contained a "level 1" cautionary message. I suggest that you remove or archive these messages after taking note of them (per WP:TPG) because if you do not do that later edits raising concerns which move other editors to message you are likely to involve warning messages with escalating severity levels based on the severity levels of messages already present on your talk page.
I see that your Wikipedia contributions are relatively few thus far, but that the overall thrust is towards improvement of article content. I thank you for those contributions and hope that you will continue to contribute. Cheers. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
of the public schools, with the additional subjects including: [[computer education]] and HELE (stands for [[home economics|'''h'''ome '''e'''conomics]] and [[livelihood|'''l'''ivelihood]] '''e'''
# Madrasatul Filibbeen As-Shamilah (Philippine Integrated School (PIS) Foundation, Inc.
Done. Fixed it. It was an unpaired-paren problem unrelated to my edit. I got the message, I guess, because I was the last editor. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there and sorry to bother you. I seem to have hit an impasse with user Markxvi who keeps removing a paragraph from the Philippines claim and which you reverted yesterday. I received an explanation on my talk page, rejigged the article content, explained what I'd done and boom! (s)he reverted without a word. Here's the rub: my hands are tied by 3RR and I don't want to drag it to ANI, even though the user in question has undoubtedly broken the 3RR. What do you think that the best action is? Many thanks, ► Philg88 ◄talk 06:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your input at the talk page. ► Philg88 ◄talk 09:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(this was moved here from its misplaced original location where it trashed the table above)
|| TJ Young has inspired me for years, and he hails from Ironton, Ohio. I feel as though it is constructive for him to be added to their page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.133.164.168 (talk • contribs) 10:00, March 23, 2014
|| Hi Wtmitchell talk. I am personally offended and outraged at the removal of TJ Young from the notable people of Ironton, Ohio. When I got stuck inside my own bathroom, he was there for me. He also has drawn cartoons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.133.157.240 (talk • contribs) 10:05, March 23, 2014
|| Hello sir, I am upset that Timothy Young has been removed from the notable people list of Ironton, Ohio. TJ Young is the Xavier University liaison to the Phillipines. I would like to request that Timothy Young be promptly added back to the list of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.21.168.234 (talk • contribs) 10:10, March 23, 2014
I noticed that the added TJ Young wikilink was a WP:redlink, and I have no idea to whom this might refer. I see that there is a Tom Young (baseball) article about Thomas Jefferson "T.J." Young, but that doesn't seem to be the person referred to. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at that and it looks like a flat-out error on my part -- probably an unintended save. I had concluded that the edit war in that article deserved admin intervention, and had been drafting a talk page comment about that when I had second thoughts because of my currently slow and spotty internet connectivity. I intended to close the open edit window, and apparently inadvertantly saved it in some uncompleted draft state. This is clearly my error -- would you like me to acknowledge that on the article talk page? I see from the talk history that discussion has continued, but (due to my bad connectivity) I have not followed the comments there. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See this insertion on the article talk page. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,
you blocked this user for one week. Now he pastes his crap (totally useless machine-translations of some religious kind with no sense in german at all) in the german wikipedia. I don´t know if this bothers you, but I would regard it as cross-wiki-spamming. Weissbier (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly sounds to me like vandalism on the German wikipedia. I have no experience over there and no German language skills, and would not be comfortable trying to do anything there. I have reset this user's block expiry time here to indefinite, but this will probably not affect his user rights on the German wikipedia. I suggest that you contact an admin there. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
I just left the last sentence the way it was before.
Check out these articles Agriprocessors and Postville Raid. This is perhaps the reason in the policy change. This employer is currently spending 27 years in prison. It all started with an immigration raid that lead to the company's bankruptcy 5 months later. Bordguy (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This was initially placed in Archive 8 -- I've moved it here since April hasn't been archived yet. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a second look at this. Please understand that I am not pushing a POV on the article topic here, or on the subtopic focused on by the edited section. My guess is that I saw your edit during a WP:Huggle session, looked at your change and at the supporting source cited at the end of the changed sentence, and didn't see support for the specific change which you made in that cited source. That source doesn't say that employers are unhappy because they will be targeted, it quotes the head of ICE saying "Now all manner of companies face the very real possibility that the government, using our basic civil powers, is going to come knocking on the door," (which I read as ICE announcing that they intend to give employers plenty of reason to be unhappy because of targeting). I tried to leave the point about employers being unhappy (for other, supported, reasons) in there by adding the quote of one employer from the article. I'm not trying to push a POV here, I'm concerned that assertions in the article need to be supported by sources cited in the article. This is probably easily fixable by a bit of rewording and/or the citation of another supporting source. I don't intend followup edits on this, but feel free to improve the article yourself with further edits. I won't be looking over your shoulder unless I happen to see your edit on my watchlist or during a huggle session. Thanks for contributing thoughtfully. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not make inappropriate accusations of vandalism[edit]
Please do not make inappropriate accusations of vandalism. I made a good-faith erroneous edit when I said that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government in upholding RFRA in the case of Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006). I should have been more clear and explained that the opinion supported the constitutionality of the federal government's enactment of the law insofar as it applied to federal statutes, and only in that sense did it support the authority of the federal government. Anyway, please understand the difference between an editorial mistake and vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonymousGANGSTA2568 (talk • contribs) 23:44, April 12, 2014
I've added a signature to your unsigned comment above.
Some digging through edit histories led me to this January 29, 2014 edit of your talk page, in which I had used WP:Twinkle to place a vandalism warning on your talk page after reverting this edit which you made a short time previously. Your edit had changed content reading "... ruled unanimously against ..." to read "... ruled unanimously in favor of ...", without explanation. I don't recall the particulars of that revert or what other than the lack of an edit summary caused me to believe that the edit was vandalous. I also don't see what moved me to escalate from the level-one warning which had previously been placed on your talk page by another editor to the level-four warning which I placed there. It looks like this revert and warning were my initial edits that morning a few months ago when I was reviewing my watchlist, I see that you have removed my warning from your talk page -- I'm OK with that, and I acknowledge that my explanation of the reason for the warning and particularly for the warning level escalation should have been clearer. You say that I reverted a good faith edit and not a vandalous one. I accept that and, seeing that it is not clear to me on reviewing my revert now what my reasoning was for considering it vandalous, I apologize for not having assumed good faith.
That said, I also want to say that a look at your contributions shows that you are still editing articles without leaving explanatory edit summaries. Please, when you edit, do provide an edit summary as this helps others to understand the intention of your edits -- see WP:ES. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About Philippine Revolutionary Army , Its ok bro that you can edit or develop it for the better of that Article
you can edit and correct some of it bro and thanks for reminding of that split of some tables
Thank you
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Wtmitchell,
I was create a wikipage for RayDonato, but it was deleted for some reasons that i just want to know.
Please help me..
Thanks.
Meldine (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I took a look at User:Meldine/sandbox. The content there looks like an uncompleted draft for such an article. One way, once the draft is completed, would be to (1) edit the wikitext there, select it, and copy it to your clipboard; (2) edit the Ray Donato article, click on the link there which says Start the Ray Donato article, and paste the clipboard content in there.
However, I see in the deletion log for that article, that
I deleted the article on February 12 as appearing to be advertising or promotional. I think that deletion was done during a WP:Huggle session. Looking back at the article's content at that time, I don't think I would make the same deletion today.
I deleted the article a second time a few minutes later per WP:G7 after seeing that it had been recreated, and then blanked by you.
The article was recreated on April 3 and edited several times on that date.
I see that there is no web page currently present at http://www.tiburondata.com/raydonato/. The content which appeared was present there as of 2014-04-07 can be seen here.
I would add to that that even though the text is no longer present at the site, the copyright rule still applies. Once something is published, it stays copyright until (usually) 70 or 75 years after the death of the author, even if it is no longer in print or visible online. Peridon (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LGBT-related_television_episodes Post stone wall list[edit]
Witchell where is list the post-Ellen LGBT episodes ones listed past the year 2000 or more current because the episodes listed are old... Venustar84 (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be related to this help desk response. This is not an interest area for me and I may have missed something, but it looks to me as if nobody has created those lists for the 2000s and 2010s decades. There may (or may not) be info which would be helpful in creating list articles for those decades in articless categorized in Category:2000s in LGBT history, Category:2010s in LGBT history, and/or Category:LGBT-related television programs. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The [[New Testament]] includes no description of Jesus' everyday appearance before his death (he is only described in the [[Resurrection appearances of Jesus]].<ref name=Barton132 >The
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nidal Malik Hasan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
granted the defense motion for a continuance in part, rescheduling the trial for August 20, 2012.<<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.forthoodpresscenter.com/go/doc/3439/1229091/|title=Timeline for
Means' to Connect with Terrorists"], ''ABC News'', November 9, 2009. Retrieved November 12, 2009]</ref>
<!--<ref name="AUTOREF2">[http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL7505069 Lewis, Ori, "U.S. Army gunman's act "
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Boracay may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
City]] and Caticlan.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://travel.2go.com.ph/|title=2GO Travel webssite]}}</ref>
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mikhail Batin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
Foundation, he organized the Third International Conference on Genetics of Aging and Longevity) in Sochi, Russia<ref>{{cite web|url=http://aging-genes2014.com/conference-secretariat/ |title=
Could you also check for potential copyvios? I think I got the majority. The article I am talking about is Nonverbal_Influence. Tutelary (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I see any obvious ones I'll try to fix them, but I've already spent more time on this than I intended -- I noticed some stuff which looked easily fixable and just jumped into it to get that done. My edits were drive-by fixes prompted by seeing the article go by during a WP:Huggle session. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EXCUSE ME I EDITED MICK JAGGER PAGE WITH LEGIT FACTS AND FINDINGS BASED ON THE STE-O-METER V.32211 SO IM DEEPLY OFFENDED THEY WERE TAKEN DOWN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.224.115 (talk • contribs) 05:46, May 5, 2014
This apparently relates to this revert. See WP:RS and WP:V. Also, my understanding is that his name is Michael Philip Jagger -- Mick being a nickname. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He/she added radio-format style like AOR and adult contemporary as a genre in the infobox for Jennifer Rush. (Though I undid.) We all know AOR and adult contemporary are radio-formats, not a genre. Why don't you block him/her for extend? (Previously Berean Hunter blocked him/her for one month)
183.171.177.198 (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble relating this to anything which involved me. I don't seem to have warned that anon or to have edited the Jennifer Rush article. Generally, I only edit entertainment-related articles if I notice edits to them during a WP:Huggle session. Going by the edit history, it looks like this IP address is probably used by a single editor, but I don't see a history of warnings on his talk page which would indicate to me that a long block is needed. No action by me at this point. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
St. Thomas Aquinas Secondary School (Brampton)[edit]
Why did you revert yourself here ? It seems pretty clear than notable alumni edis that refer to a "fitness gorilla" and the "reincarnation of Jesus" are not a good faith edit. If you have any doubts, you might want to look at these last edits by the IP: [1] and [2]. Meters (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The revert was done due to a mis-click during a WP:Huggle session. When I realized that I had mis-clicked, I unreverted. Both the revert and the unrevert were done without considering whether or not the affected material was apparent vandalism. I didn't take a look at the content after the dust settled because I was in the middle of something else. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Been there myself. I've put him up at AIV. Thanks. Meters (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've blocked both indefinitely. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Your participation would be welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 01:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Wtmitchell the source you insist on using have grossly over estimated the total Muslim population of the Philippines, the pew research poll that shows the 5.5 percent result is more consistent with reality than with the 11 percent estimate by a Muslim organization.
You are playing into Islamists propaganda, the Rajahnate of Cebu is not Islamic, You are citing biased and fictitious sources invented by Islamists who wants people to believe that all of the Philippines is Islamic before the arrival of the Spanish, why are you supporting efforts of these people to distort History? Do you even do objective research? or do you just favor sources biased in favor of Islam and Muslims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solarpiece (talk • contribs) 10:34, July 1, 2014
Solarpiece, I've signed your comment immediately above, which you neglected to sign. Please sign talk page comments (see WP:TPG). After looking back through my edit history I presume that you are now discussing this edit to the Lapu-Lapu article. I thank you for mentioning this on my talk page, as I had not noticed your reversion of that edit. I have responded at Talk:Lapu-Lapu#BRD discussion re beliefs about the Rajahnate of Cebu. Please continue this discussion there. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Religion in the Philippines may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
247,500.<ref name="WCE-05">{{cite web| title = Most Baha'i Nations (2005) | work = QuickLists > Compare Nations > Religions > | publisher = The Association of Religion Data Archives | year = 2005| url =http://www.thearda.com/
or 81 million by the end of 2014) and Muslims' approximately 2.5 million adults who are voters (Islam members is 5% of the Philippine Population. The approximate 1 million adult voters of INC is
and promote Pentecostal standards of Holiness in conversation, appearance, and way of thinking.{{cn|date=June 2014
]]
I can't find that typo, though it looks like one I might have made. BB has saved me from myself in numerous past instances. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
I think we're in for a long night on this one. Sooner they slap some page protection on it the better. Amortias (T)(C) 23:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've semi-protected it for a week. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Im either smarter than I give myself credit for posting on an admins page without noticing you were an admin(I doubt it) or thats a damn fine coincidence. Many thanks. Amortias (T)(C) 23:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
www.veooz.com/news/aHJr5pv.html|title=Planes Nearly Collide At Barcelona Airport|date=July 10, 2014]]|publisher=[http://www.veooz.com/ veooz.com]}}</ref>
[[Brothel]]s, sometimes run by foreigners, sometimes with links to larger criminal networks], manage to exist in several cities of the country by paying [[bribes]] to [[Afghan National Police|
waters when it launched its missles.<ref name=ICJ-Aerial-Incident-IV.B />{{rp|at=§1.27}}}} Regardless of any mistakes made by the crew, the U.S. was fully responsible for the actions of its
Hello
This is Geoff frank312900
I noticed you removed my post about toro what is not constructive about my statement toro has said in its address to its share holders we must treat people with ethical outcomes they truly haven't with me so I must insist that this post stay so as they are held accountable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank312900 (talk • contribs) 10:43, July 13, 2014
Hi. I moved your comment down here from the top of my talk page where you placed it, added a section header, and supplied the signature you neglected to append.
I see that you are a new editor. As such, you are probably not very familiar with Wikipedia's editorial policies. Yur initial edit looked to me as if it had serious conflict of interest problems (usually described in wikipedia (WP) as COI). I just placed a welcome message on your talk page which has come information about WP and COI and also contains links to some other project pages which ought to be useful and informative. I have seen the user page you created and, even though it is customary to allow quite a bit of latitude in user page content, it was my opinion that you are more than a bit over the line there. Betweeen the time I looked at it and now, I see than another administrator has deleted that user page, saying, "BLP/Wikipedia isn't a webhost for complaints". Please see WP:NOT, WP:SOAP, and WP:UP. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I'm not up to detective work today, and not much good at it in any case. I've got a WP:Huggle session running but I'm only looking at it sporadically as I do other things.. Cheers. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I moved your comment down here from the top of my talk page where you placed it, added a section header, and supplied the signature you neglected to append. This is apparently in response to this revert of one of your edits. After doing this google search, it still appears to me that the revert and the associated vandalism notice were justified. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning Bill. I made a similar edit to Emoticon back on 20th Sep '12, to distinguish articles in discussion within the page from the text and page punctuation. This change was previously commended by other editors, for making the page easier to read. Although I'm not a prolific editor I do know the basic ins and outs of contributing to Wiki projects, and have been doing for some years now, so know all about the Sandbox and such. The edit to Emoticons yesterday was a deliberate attempt to make the page once again legible, and so would like to revert back to that edit unless you have any other points for discussion on the page :) Ginga123 (talk) 07:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for calling my attention to this. After a second look, I see that the revert and autogenerated the talk page notice which probably went with it were errors on my part, and I apologize for having made those errors. It looks like I was either going too fast or had something distract me during a WP:Huggle session. I would have undone my revert after that second look but, since I see that there have been some other edits in the meantime, I'll just encourage you to go ahead and do that. Also, feel free to delete the notice from your talk page. Cheers, Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
I'll be happy to provide whatever details I can. On that particular crash, I had huggle open in one window, was looking at another non-huggle window, and got a pop-up notification that huggle had crashed. The pop-up had a clickable option to view details, so I did that, cut&pasted those details, and posted them as feedback. I have seen occasional similar crashes before and after that one, sometimes as I was working in the huggle window and sometimes as I was working somewhere else with a huggle window open. What other details can I provide you?
Alrighty, thank you. I'll move your text towards the feedback section. Regards, ///EuroCarGT 01:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
why the fuck do you have a small dick fuck off twat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loui299 (talk • contribs) 21:32, July 18, 2014
Apparently prompted by this reversion. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No; apparently not. The remark was inserted prior to the reversion. Apparently prompted by something else. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Mitchell... I am the City Attorney for Park City, Illinois. I am passionate about telling the Park City story, given some of the anecdotes I have heard during my service to the City. I have been adding material to the page without problems until now. I wrote most of the current "Park City" page. My source for my added material is an interview I had with former Alderman Jack Palmieri, whose father incorporated Park City. Further, Mr. Palmieri served on the first City Council after its incorporation. What do I need to do to restore the material you deleted? I appreciate your advice on how to accomplish this.
I would also like to add the City seal and some pictures of the City to this page. Any advice on how to do that?
Hi. This concerns this revert, sourced inline to Legend has it. I don't really have any objection to leaving the info in as an unsourced assertion, but if anyoue else challenges it it ought to be supported or removed; see WP:V. I've placed a welcome message including a number of informative links on your talk page. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to locate the interview I had with Alderman Palmieri,and cite the date of the interview. Is that acceptable?
It wouldn't be verifiable unless a supporting citation was supplied containing sufficient information for a reader of the article to locate it and verify it. If the interview was published in a reliable source, a cite of that publication instance would work. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so You deleted info about bear bile farming, because You didn't find it constructive. Any proposal how to make it constructive, or You are just censoring?
You read my mind incorrectly. I think that this comment was probably sparked by this revert, which was actually sparked by the ref name of "lie" -- that seemed POV to me. I only noticed the bear bile insertion after I had made the revert. Having seen that, I took a second look at the article and redid the impacted portions. Please revisit the article -- the bear bile bit is now tagged {{failed verification}}. You might try redoing the bear bile bit and citing a supporting source from e.g., those listed here. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought ref name is just a tag, invisible to readers. I have removed the ref name and inserted proper source. Thanks for support! I haven't even expected it could stand an admin's intervention:) (You can delete this conversation, I don't want to spam on Your talk page)
You're right about the ref tag name invisibility. I saw your edit in a WP:Huggle session, and I noticed the addition of the name but missed seeing the addition of the bear bile material and reuse of the ref tag there (my error -- I should have seen that). From what I had seen, it looked like a bit of invisible editorializing. I (mis)took that as vandalism and reverted. From there, things developed as described above. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Wtmitchell. Another editor removed a dated PROD tag from Current news of india. You reverted that edit noting, "unexplained speedy deletion template removal". Since the tag was PROD rather than DB, though, any editor could remove it. A third editor has again removed the PROD tag. Cnilep (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. That was done during a WP:Huggle session where I was quickly reviewing lots of articles, and it looks like I ought to have looked at that particular article for longer than I did before making my revert. My revert unintentionally flouted WP:CONTESTED by restoring the PROD tag. I see that the article currently has an AFD nomination, and that seems appropriate to me. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you were an admin, so I came to you. Please tell me if my edits to Mafia were incorrect. I do not want to edit war with someone irrespective of who is right. Please review the past few edits and let me know. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I generally stay clear of dispute resolution, and I've been known to block edit warriors. This looks to involve a disagreement between you and User:The 5th Doctor which started to escalate towards an edit war but from which you both backed off after a few exchanges. This would be better resolved by WP:BRD. Here's my take on it after a quick look:
02:33, July 20, 2014, 5th inserted an assertion saying "The word most likely derived from Arabic." ahead of existing article content in the lead paragraph of the Etymology section saying, "The Italian term 'Mafia' (sometimes spelled 'Maffia' in early texts) was created in Sicily, ...". The inserted content was unsupported and, in my opinion, did not fit in smoothly with the existing content. No edit summary was supplied,
01:16, July 21, 2014, 5th reinserted the material you had removed saying, "Explained on her talk page." I'll omit remarking on later discussion re that apparent misperception of your gender.
01:23, July 21, 2014, You reverted the reinsertion, saying, "Not required. arabic is mentioned below anyway. Plus your sentence makes no sense grammaatically."
01:59, July 21, 2014, 5th reverted your reversion saying, "my change was explained, your opinion is your own, you never replied to it to this point."
On your talk page:
02:02, July 21, 2014, 5th disagreed with your disagreement, inviting you to correct the edit's grammar if needed but saying not to remove it.
02:08, July 21, 2014, You reverted the reversion of your last reversion, saying "Statement makes no sense. It is out of context. This is my last undo. I'm not violating 3RR"
02:09, July 21, 2014, 5th reverted your reversion of the reversion of a reversion, saying "I heard you the first time and I told you, it IS grammatical."
On your talk page:
02:11, July 21, 2014, you remarked about grammar, context and structure and said, "I don't care. I'm not crossing 3RR because you think I'm wrong."
02:14, July 21, 2014, 5th made some tutor-ish remarks about grammar and asked where you saw a problem.
02:18, July 21, 2014 you said, "As I said, it is out of context, 'is' is missing, and I am not interested in arguing with you.
02:51, July 21, 2014, 5th said, "If it is out of context I will remove it myself. Out of curiosity, where within the passage do you require "is"?"
02:51, July 21, 20145th self-reverted the last reinsertion saying, "I don't wish to argue either."
On your talk page:
02:53, July 21, 2014, you said, "Oh, by all means keep it. Why are you removing it> Because I said so?", and said, " I really don't get your point." in the edit summary.
02:55, July 21, 2014, 5th said, "No, to keep peace. I am a civilized person you know."
I think I've got that complete and correct. The article edits look like a short-duration edit war which had the article flipping back and forth between two different versions for a bit more than a day. The discussion on your talk page doesn't seem to focus on what I take to be the core of the disagreement -- whether or not it is "most likely" that the word Mafia was derived from Arabic and, if it was, precisely how an assertion to that effect ought to be expressed in the context of the affected paragraph -- which paragraph already says that there are several theories about the origin of the word.and mentions that it may derive from Arabic slang. In my opinion, the now-removed insertion as a new lead sentence for the paragraph would have been clumsy, but I don't hold my own writing up as a shining example of fine wordsmithing. Incidentally, some googling turned up this and this; there is probably a lot more source material out there on this.
OK. I see that you have unreverted, and I have confirmed that a search by name at the source you cited only shows the hand surgery certification. It looks OK to me from what I have seen here. Sorry about the hair trigger revert for a potential WP:BLP problem. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Why did you delete the article I created about my ex-girlfriend? It's an encyclopedic subject, I don't understand why the article was deleted. You'll Never Ban Me Alive (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wtmitchell for your edit to the dog whistle article. I can't reproduce the street lope/fist bump cite either using Google Books ATM, but I'll hunt up the page number later (if nobody else does it first). Thanks for pointing out it's missing :) Sue Gardner (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about doing a WP:BRD revert and beginning discussion in a talk paage section, thought about placing a {{dubious}} tag and a talk page explanation, thought about a {{failed verification}} tag, and decided to settle for a {{pageno}} tag. My guess is that the source cited does not provide verifiable support for the assertion as written. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Matt Entenza is both a weasel and a dirty bugger. His page needs to reflect that. Writing the truth is not vandalism. Censoring the truth is first amendment vandalism. Do some research. Major newspapers have called him worse things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.48.104 (talk • contribs) 10:38, August 11, 2014
See WP:BLP. Flouting that policy is a good way to get yourself blocked from editing. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
St Dubricius. and Merlin.
I must let you know that Dr. Norma Goodrich is a Professor emeritus of Scripps College and the Claremont Graduate School. Her 386 page book
on Merlin is intensely researched and considered to be the first real true history on the Subject of Merlin/Dubricius. How can you dismiss her findings
on complete impulse when you have not carefully considered her work?
Dr Raymond Schep Rayoohoo@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.150.240 (talk • contribs) 12:01, August 11, 2014
I've moved the content above down from the top of the page where it was initially placed, provided a section heading, and added the signature which was omitted.
This appears to concern this revert. The revert's edit summary said, "Reverted edits by 76.171.150.240 (talk): not adhering to neutral point of view ". It was prompted by content saying (in Wikipedia's voice) "Respected and pre-eminent historian Dr. Norma Goodrich in her excellent and well researched book;", without citation of sources supporting that glowing characterization. That glowing characterization may be well deserved, but if you are going to offer that characterization in Wikipedia's voice, it needs to be supported by citation of verifiablereliable sources, with due weight given to other sources where differing characterizations might be offered. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit of googling and there seem to be over a thousand books mentioning both Merlin and Dubricius. Some of them mention Dr. Goodrich and her theory; some mention other persons and other theories. If this is to be explored in the Dubricius article, please observe WP:DUE, part of the Wikipedia WP:NPOV policy. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see you reverted this user. Would you consider RELDEV on their edits and from the user creation log? It's clearly an attack on an individual. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 04:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DELREV I think you mean. Hmm... I could buy it as criterion #3 there. Associating that image with the article appears to me to be purely disruptive and to have little/no encyclopedic or project value. The username appears to clearly violate WP:USERNAME, so I could buy it there too. This is not something I do often -- in fact the one time I've tried it, another admin beat me to it. As long as I've got the keys to the mop closet, though, I'll use my best judgement about using the tools in there. I've hidden the article revision and the log of the userid creation. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was in response to a reversion. I've sent this new user a welcome message. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to thank you for your edits and monitoring of the William Northrop page. I strongly suspect that user Csatlos is either Northrop himself or one of his cronies, and that they created the page. Now that the controversy over his claims of military service has been added to the article, I suspect that Csatlos is desperately trying to delete any mention of the controversy or simply the delete the article entirely. The criticisms in the Military Controversy section are all appropriately sourced, I think, and definitely should be included in the article. I am interested in this particular article as I had relatives who served in Vietnam and were wounded, and these types of false claims should be noted, IMO. Again, thank you for paying attention to this article - it is shameful to have non-veterans claim service when they didn't. 70.145.229.162 (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After I made this revert of a major content removal during a WP:Huggle session, I took a look at the article, and found an edit war in progress. From the edit history, User:Csatlos seemed to have instigated the war. I blocked him for 48 hours to force him to cease hostilities, put a message on his talk page inviting him to discuss his issues on the article talk page once the block expired, and asked him to read WP:EW and WP:OWN in the meantime. I see that another editor has since chimed in there with an invitation for discussion and that Csatlos has asked that the block be reviewed and that the article (which he still refers to as "my article") be deleted. We'll see what develops from here. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You invite me to ask you questions on your talk page, which is tremendously kind of you and I thank you for giving me this opportunity. Yes, I have many questions, for example, UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.71.154 (talk • contribs) 06:38, August 17, 201486.133.71.154 (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well phrased, considering your edit here, my reversion of which apparently prompted this inquiry. You might read WP:VANDAL. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making that change. As a looooong time Wikipedia reader, I knew better than to post the edit. Although I would fight to the death against any claim that it was not factual, it was also not tonally appropriate nor properly sourced. Just an impulsive reaction to reading pure drivel, not to excuse it. Sorry to put you through the trouble of reverting it, as a reader I appreciate the good works of people like yourself.
Parenthetically, you chose a fantastic location to retire to. I spent a Christmas/New Years holiday there in 1994/1995, back when there wasn't even a pier on the island. I'm sure it is still just as lovely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.25.172 (talk • contribs) 12:24, August 18, 2014
That concerns this revert which disagreed in Wikipedia's editorial voice with an opinion attributed to a named outside source -- terming that opinion "flagrant nonsense". This source explains it better, I think -- I don't think Scott was saying what you took him to be saying. If you do think an opposing view needs to be aired, it ought to be aired IAW WP:DUE. I take it that you knew that and just made an injudicious hair trigger edit. We've all done that, and most of us have been called on it (I certainly have).
I first visited Boracay in 1991, and retired there in 1996. I've been trying to get moved to Romblon, Romblon since the badly managed (pretty much unplanned and unmanaged) tourism overpromotion and overdevelopment transformed the experience of living on Boracay. My wife is dragging her heels on the move, and so far I've only managed to get as far as spending about half my time on Romblon and half on Boracay (minus time spent traveling back and forth and an occasional trip elsewhere). Things could be worse, though ;^). Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made an edit to the property section to clarify how the Natural Right to property argument created by John Locke in the first and second treatise on government are constructed. The reason labor-mixing works is quite explicitly because God grants man dominion over nature in Genesis 1:28-30. The right to dominate plants and animals and the earth itself is therefore a Natural Right - inalienable and god-given. And so it is that in laboring upon land one comes to own it as property. But only through God first granting dominion. If you leave the God part out of the argument, the whole thing falls apart and makes no sense. One is then left to ask, "Where does this right to property come from?" And without Locke's God explanation, we get no answer.
Look at the Second Treatise, Chapter V, Section 25, entitled "On Property." Locke begins his theory of property thusly: "Whether we consider natural reason, which tells us, that men, being once born, have a right to their preservation, and consequently to meat and drink, and such other things as nature affords for their subsistence: or revelation, which gives us an account of those grants God made of the world to Adam, and to Noah, and his sons, it is very clear, that God, as king David says, Psal. cxv. 16. has given the earth to the children of men; given it to mankind in common. But this being supposed, it seems to some a very great difficulty, how any one should ever come to have a property in any thing: I will not content myself to answer, that if it be difficult to make out property, upon a supposition that God gave the world to Adam, and his posterity in common, it is impossible that any man, but one universal monarch, should have any property upon a supposition, that God gave the world to Adam, and his heirs in succession, exclusive of all the rest of his posterity. But I shall endeavour to shew, how men might come to have a property in several parts of that which God gave to mankind in common, and that without any express compact of all the commoners."[1]
Since I've never had a single Wikipedian undo their unwarranted deletions after they revert my changes, I'll assume this evidence does nothing to convince you to undo the damage you have caused or bother to correct the article, and typing this all out was probably a big waste of my time.
Bad assumption. You know what they say -- "when you assume, you make ...".
Lets see... This seems to be in re this reversion. If you'll look at the talk page section just above this one you'll find a discussion I had with another editor about a too-quick edit he made. Like his edit, my reversion was done too quickly -- it was done during a WP:Huggle session, while taking very brief looks at a lot of edits, but that doesn't excuse it. I don't actually remember doing that particular revert, and don't know what it was about your edit which caused me to revert it -- it could have been a mis-click (mis-clicks should not happen, but they sometimes do, and they sometimes go unnoticed by the mis-clicker). Anyhow, I've undone the reversion, I apologize for having done it, and I thank you for calling the problem to my attention. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, another user is trying to delete large sections of the William Northrop page. I suspect that it is User: Csatlos simply using an anonymous sign-in (it's listed as 208.54.64.200). The reason I say that is the user started out by trying to delete only the section on the controversy over Northrop's military service. When user Flyer22 reverted his edits, the user simply kept deleting large sections, again mostly dealing with the military controversy section. He's still at it the last time I checked a few minutes ago. Thank you for being so helpful with this, I just thought you'd want to know! 2602:304:691E:5A29:4879:BF20:4EBE:EA53 (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in responding; I've been off the nternet for a couple of days and have a lot of catching-up to do. I took a quick look and didn't see any major deletions since my last edit there. perhaps another admin reverted the deletions and suppressed visibility of the revisions involved (I haven't taken the trouble to check that). Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking, and I certainly don't mean to bother you. After I sent you the message above, the anonymous user who kept deleting things inexplicably reverted his edits and restored the article to its original state before his edits. It appears the article is fine for now. Thanks again for checking. 2602:304:691E:5A29:8D20:EC17:EC78:BE02 (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still no halo-halo from the drop down menu. Just wanted to say hi. It's been a long time. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Real world concerns have kept me of the net for a couple of days. I just got back, and I needed that. Cheers. 112.198.82.212 (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed my edit was deleted on the issue of polygamy within Islam, more specifically on a husband allowed to have more than one wife, without the permission of his first wife, based on the lack of referencing.
I appreciate your strictness on referencing and kindly request if you would ask to the original editor to please provide more references and sources on this issue in particular.
Taking one fatwa (ruling) from one school of thought within Islam is a highly deficient way to derive a general consensus and is thus misleading to the reader. Not one scholar represents the entire Islamic populous due the immense diversity in Usul (principles of derivation) please see the article of legal derivation within Islam [3]
To reiterate, deriving a general statement from one fatwa from one school of thought on an issue in particular is highly inadequate.
Please refer to the Wikipedia page on fatwa [4] for more information on how fatwa is derived and if they are universally binding or not.
Kind Regards,
Al — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.65.120.63 (talk • contribs) 07:54, August 24, 2014 (final edit of a series of five)
Hi. This apparently concerns this revert, which removed content you had added which read,
It is worth noting that the above sites mentioned (islamweb.net and ahlalhdeeth.com) have Salafi leanings so do not represent the general consensus of Muslims worldwide.
I had two problems with that edit:
It is inappropriate to give advice to the world in Wikipedia's editorial voice. That includes advice about what should and should not be noted. Your added content did not quite do that, but it asserted in WP's editorial voice that a particular bit of information was worth noting, while providing no verifiable, outside reliable source supporting such an assertion.
the content asserted that (A) the sites islamweb.net and ahlalhdeeth.com have Salafi leanings and (B) so do not represent the general consensus of Muslims worldwide, without citing verifiable, outside reliable sources supporting either of those assertions or supporting the asserted conclusion that (A) implies (B).
I see from your comments above that you have specific concerns about contributions of other editors in that article. Please take those concerns to that article's talk page.
I see that you're a new editor -- I'll place a welcome message on your talk page with a number of useful links about WP. Feel free to contact me again if you disagree with any of the above or need a bit of help. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Naomi Grossman is a confirmed cast member and is rumored to be playing Pepper in Freak Show. I cited my reference as Huffington Post but ppl keep removing it. She is cited in more than one article to be a cast member — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordjoshua420 (talk • contribs) 15:22, August 28, 2014
I've moved this down from where you added it at the top of my talk page and added a missing section header and signature.
This appears to be in reaction to this revert which removed an unsupported assertion regarding an alleged rumor. I think the removal was justified, but I'm not going to make it a hobby to babysit this article. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you blocked me from posting anyway so it seems you are babysitting. I cited more than one article that has her as a confirmed cast member and the rumor of the role she is playing. I didn't just make it up
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted two deletions I made saying I hadn't made edit summaries whereas, in fact, I had as follows:"Removed map - this is a 19th century map with walls of 1560 superimposed" and"Leith and Leith Links are not mentioned in the Act". I would appreciate an explanation as to why you say there were no edit summaries.
I have made these deletions again with slightly longer edit summaries, not that I think this strictly necessary 77.99.106.6 (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My error. Apologies for having committed it and thanks for fixing it. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images, apparent differences example and verifiable support[edit]
and Figure 1 on page 5 here, from which I understand both of these images to have been derived.
I've asked both users mentioned above to take a look at this here and to comment. I don't mean to criticize, I'm just trying to understand what went on here in the production of these images. It is entirely possible that I'm simply misunderstanding something here.
Secondly, a recent discussion elsewhere about something else entirely reawoke thoughts about verifiable sourcing of information behind images making visual assertions. That discussion referred to older discussions at [5] and [6] and to an example at [7]. I would be interested in comments about that.
Thanks for any input. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so you are wondering why my image and DancingPhilosophers image show different values?
That's easy: my map is not based on the source above. The map by DancingPhilosopher shows Ingleharts latest version of the map, whereas my map is based on an earlier version. The source for my version of the map is the website of the World Values Survey as of 2008 (and also an earlier article in a different peer-reviewed journal). The source for DancingPhilosophers map is the article referred to above. If you read the article, you will find that the scientist discusses why/how the map has changed. Koyos (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for that information. I have other things going at the moment so this goes on the back burner for me right now. When I have time, I'll take another look at the commons image pages and see if I can figure out how I misunderstood the difference in sourcing. I may or may not try to do something there to make the sourcing of the images clearer. I'll also take a look at the WP articles where the images are used and try to figure out what, if anything, needs to be done in those articles.
Cheers, Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(update) When I got back to this, it quickly became apparent to me that I don't have sufficient topical interest for this and that I am not effectively situated to do it properly. I'm just going to bail on this for now, and probably will not get back to it. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Twenty-First Amendment to the United States Constitution[edit]
Hello, (Twenty-First Amendment to the United States Constitution)
I am looking for information about article 5 of the US Constitution. In the page about the ratification of the 21st amendment it states that this is the only time an amendment was ratified by state convention. I have found other sources that have stated that there are no cases in the Constitution in which this method of Amendment has been used. While looking at the amendment itself I see reference to state convention in its ratification. I am looking for more solid sources on how this amendment was brought about, specifically how it was proposed, and if it originated in petitioning at state conventions. I would appreciate any information you can offer on this topic.
Thank you,
Krista KristaBawden (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a topical expert, but see [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], etc. With WP:HOMEWORK in mind, I'll suggest that you take a hint from that final link for future research. Cheers. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nyawa contacted me about reversion of edits concerning the New York Arm Wrestling Association to Sports in New York City. You also reverted edits to that article but it appears the user did not contact you or has not done so as yet. I thought I should tell you that I left a detailed explanation on my talk page and the user's talk page of the reasons for my reversion of the edits. I gave an opinion that some of the addition could be kept without the inclusion of the web site (an external link in the text rather than in the external link section) and the bluntly promotional final sentence. Donner60 (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update. I received a nice reply from the user who expressed unawareness of the policies, which I think was to be expected. He said he would try to comply with his further edits. Donner60 (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info and the update. I made my edit after seeing the insertion of what looked like linkspam into the article -- it was a drive-by made edit during a WP:Huggle session. I'm not really following this. Cheers, Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wtmitchell. I am only trying to update my company's product, Aqua Velva, and removed all pictures and links, leaving only my update. Why was this change not acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WelCombe (talk • contribs) 03:42, September 18, 2014
Hi. This, I take it, was prompted by this revert, which added "Aqua Velva, known as America's first after shave, has been helping soothe, cool and refresh a man’s skin since 1917. Handed down through generations, Aqua Velva is part of the longstanding ritual of a father teaching his son to shave and after shave." at the top of the page. I took that to be blatantly promotional. I did the revert from within WP:Huggle, and did not have a lot of flexibility from there in explaining my reason for the revert (I had to choose one of several categories from a list, and chose WP:SPAM). Please see WP:NPOV. As you are a new editor, I will place some useful links on your talk page. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the extra user links.
Fyi, we only want Aqua Velva to read as follows:
Aqua Velva, known as America's first after shave, has been helping soothe, cool and refresh a man’s skin since 1917. Handed down through generations, Aqua Velva is part of the longstanding ritual of a father teaching his son to shave and after shave.
Would you help me to show the above?
091714, Hi wtmitchell
I am only trying to update my company's product, for Aqua Velva. I removed all links and pictures. Please tell me what you felt was an inappropriate link? How can I update our page, correctly? Thank you. WelCombe (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved this here from the top of this page.
I have reverted the article to an earlier version prior to your edits, where editor Edison had reverted your earlier changes and said, "Reverted good faith edits by WelCombe (talk): Rollback major deletion of text and removal of categories. Inadequate explanation provided for the changes." With regard to your desire to control the content of this article, see WP:OWN. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(added) Please also see WP:COI. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. My recent edit to the Jonathan Winters page was entirely factual, listing word-for-word the "in memoriam" section of the Smurfs 2 credits. I hope I am sending you this message correctly. 173.78.125.6 (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC) Kirsten[reply]
This apparently follows on this revert, where I said, "Reverted edits by 173.78.125.6 (talk): not adhering to neutral point of view". The edit had added a parenthetical comment saying, " (In Memoriam Jonathan Winters - Thanks for giving life to Papa Smurf and making the world a Smurfier place.)" at the end of the second paragraph of the article's lead section.
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia -- not a blog site. Your addition was made in Wikipedia's voice, not in your own, and was inappropriate. You say that you were quoting credits from a movie. If you had made the entry further down in the article and had identified the source, the addition might have been appropriate (or, possibly, it might have been undue weight, depending on the specific details of where and how you added it). I see that you are a new editor; I'll add some info to User talk:173.78.125.6 which might be useful in future edits. In any case, I would suggest that you register a username with WP, and edit as a logged-in user. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OMG this is too cumbersome. I'll stick with contributing to IMDb. This surprises me. I thought of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia of all, where participation would be more encouraged and nurtured, rather than punishing newbies by removing their contributions and reprimanding them publicly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.78.125.6 (talk • contribs) 03:16, September 22, 2014
you, wtmitchell, live on apparently, what is the best island in the world. let us have the little things in life while you bask in paradise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.41.20 (talk • contribs) 04:47, September 29, 2014
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is how I contact you, but I was wondering if I could edit the Noah's Ark article that is posted. It has failed to list evidence suppporting the Flood such as the fact that nearly all fossils are found in a massive sedimentary rock layer deposited around the globe (sedimentary rock is laid down by water), the Dinosaur "death Pose" which is caused by drowning, fossils in the mountains, and much more.
Thanks you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.42.240 (talk • contribs) 11:17, October 7, 2014
This appears to be in reaction to this revert. To the extent that the material has due topical weight and is supported by cited reliable sources, addition of such material should not be a problem. However, that does not describe what the edit which I reverted edit did.
I have just added a section titled Assertion: "There is no scientific evidence supporting a global flood." to Talk:Noah's Ark. Perhaps it would be a good idea to propose in that discussion the addition of a description of the evidence of which you speak to the article. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I AM Bonnie Bishop and I have been so frustrated that this Wiki page was not accurate for YEARS. I did not put it up in the first place and only just now figured out how to edit it. I worked very hard on those edits just now and I am asking you to help me make right these mistakes by putting the content I just replaced back on the page.
I also need to know how to change that picture, as it is nearly 15 years old!! I am a professional touring artist with an established career and this page makes me look very bad - people quote this information in media and at shows and the information here is largely untrue and horribly outdated! (For instanve, My parents weren't even musicians!)
Pls tell me how to remedy this and keep it in my control in the future.
Bonniebishopforrockstar (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to have been sparked by this revert. Please read WP:Autobiography, WP:BLP,WP:OWN, and WP:NPOV. If you have concerns abut or disagreements with some content on page, it might be best to discuss that on the article's talk page. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, My name is Pat Culpan and I am a cricket historian/statistician and chairman of the Valley District Cricket Club which is one of the largest in the world, and on the Queensland Cricket Grade Committee. I have recently updated our club page Valley District Cricket Club with our new numbers etc, I also updated the Queensland Cricket page due to the new competition sponsorship naming rights XXXX Brewery is no longer the name of the competition and it is now the "my Foot Dr" (http://www.myfootdr.com.au/) 1st Grade competition and/or premiership. I also update our website at the bottom of the page which was referring to a defunct website, it is now www.valleycricket.org.au In addition, Woolloongabba is not a defucnt cricket club (like the other two), they have changed their name twice firsts to Eastern Suburbs and now their current name of Redlands, they rightly lay claim to all premierships under all three names.
So all changes that I made (and checked) that you reversed were in fact correct. Can you please change back or advise.
Hi. I have undone my reversion and added a clarifying footnote about my Foot Dr and club sponsorship. I did this revert during a WP:Huggle session; the appearance of the my Foot Dr name threw me and I mistook the edit involving that name as vandalism. That Huggle reversion also undid a group of consecutive edits which had been made by you immediately prior to the edit which I misapprehended. All ought to be OK now, but please check it. Feel free to remove or archive the related warning message which Huggle will have placed on your user talk page. My thanks for calling this to my attention and apologies for the error. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaving this message in regards to the edit on the "Rolf Harris" page. I did not, and still do not, believe that the post could be considered vandalism. For years, Rolf Harris was passionate about committing these offences; therefore, it could be considered an occupation.
Hi. I reverted your edit as vandalism during a WP:Huggle session after looking at your edit in isolation in huggle's porthole view into the article showing your edit in isolation along with nearby portions of the Rolf Harris article wikitext. What I saw was the unsupported addition of "and big-time paedophile" onto the occupation= parameter in the infobox. I have since tiken a wider look at the article and see that Harris has been convicted of 12 counts of indecent assault. I won't recount the relevant info here, but its reportage in the article seems to be in line with WP:BLP. Your edit, however, considered on its own merits, has BLP problems and other problems. It seems to me appropriate that the negative information about Harris be mentioned in the infobox, but not at the point where you added it and not using the language which you used. Looking at the {{infobox person}} template, I see that it supports a known_for parameter which is intended to contain a brief description of why the person is notable. You might consider adding the information there, using more encyclopedic language language that you used in the reverted edit, and citing a supporting source. You might or might not get pushback from other editors of the article if you did that, and it would probably be better to propose the addition of this information there on the article's talk page and discuss it there rather than WP:BOLDly adding it.
Feel free to remove or archive the warning message about this edit which huggle will have placed on your user talk page. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hello, I'm just sending you this message saying it's not me that's making the disruptive editing on wikipedia. I made the account but my friend kept on doing it I told him to stop and he wouldn't listen
hello, I'm just sending you this message saying it's not me that's making the disruptive editing on wikipedia. I made the account but my friend kept on doing it I told him to stop and he wouldn't listen
Hello, I added a yu gi oh game to the list of konami games made. Yu gi oh is owned by konami. You said you did not find it constructive. I would like to know why? It because the game I listed is called yu gi oh gx spirit caller for the ds. It was made by konami and thats why i listed it. So I do not understand why it was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario and Wario (talk • contribs) 10:46, October 14, 2014
A misuderstood what you were doing. I have undone that reversion, restoring your edit. My error, for which I apologize. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wtmitchell, I have removed the reference to the gray wolf (Canis Lupus) because none of the 3 citations listed (by somebody in the past) actually said that.
They talk in terms of wolves, or wolf-like canids, but none confirms Canus Lupis. If someone wants to argue that the Gray Wolf is the ancestor of the dog, they will need to supply the citations.
There are plenty of those about that indicate this, but they are getting a little dated. (I have supplied a couple myself, under the heading DNA.)
I am already in debate with an "editor" about what he did with my Thalmann reference, which he has not replied to as yet - Thalmann actually stated that the research indicates that the ancestor of the dog was a now-extinct European wolf-like canid, and not Canis Lupus. I can only cite what the research shows; it would appear that there are some who want to interpret that research to suit their own ends. Warm regards, William William of Aragon (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We've spoken before, and I know you have a few history books knocking about. I wonder if you could help me with this: I have noticed on many Phil history pages reference to a work by Redondo, for instance National Shrine of Saint Joseph (Mandaue). usually (Redondo 1886 and a page number). But I am unable to find any works by him, not within wikipedia and not in the outside digital world neither. Do you happen to know what the work is? As far as I can tell, he was an Augustinian priest, so Fr Rufino Redondo OAR (or maybe Ruffino).
I prefer to work not-logged-in, so a reply here would be best. Thanks 112.198.82.136 (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
The name Redondo as an author does not ring a bell. I did some googling around and did not come up with anything useful except possibly http://pinoychurches.wordpress.com/category/by-region/page/40/ which leads to a private wordpress page. You need to be a wordpress member to request access but there is a free registration option. If you register with wordpress and request access, they notify the site owner of the request. I'll do that and let you know if anything comes of it.
Some googling also turned up the Borbon, Cebu WP article, which has a Harvard citation to Don Ambrosio; Redondo (1886, 157) but no full cite for that. It is maddening when this happens -- I think it comes about when WP editors copy a Harvard cite along with some material they requote or WP:copypaste into WP from an academic work and neglect to copy the associated full cite. I've placed {{cnf}} tags on the Redondo Harvard cites in the two WP articles mentioned here. Perhaps something will come out of that.
I'll also reply to your anon talk page. Cheers. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for any/everything. Because my immediate area of interest is Bohol, I just did a wikisearch of "Redondo Bohol" or "Redondo 1886" which throw up a few more, including Sogod, Southern Leyte - not Bohol at all. I chose National Shrine of Saint Joseph (Mandaue) (also not Bohol) as an example only because it was top of the list.
There is some dispute about his persuasion – one site says he was a Jesuit, other say Augustinian (recollect). And his first name. The most cites were actually on a page I blanked earlier this week for {{copyvio}} – Roman Catholic churches in Bohol but you'd probably need to look at the source to get to them. That seemed to me a direct copy of a single external site (which is why I copyvio'ed it), but annoyingly it has the same inline cites and no proper citation, so I guess they nicked it all from somewhere else, question is where? All seems to be one book, of 1886.
I had a look at that pinoy churches site – nice pictures but not much more. However I left a Q on the author's blog page. Which says s/he's 15 hours behind here, so I imagine US west coast. There is also a facebook page, with no further info.
Hello. Could you make the block of User:grayfell12 indefinite? It's clear that the account was created solely to make a snotty point about my editing. I don't know exactly what's going on, but in addition to the name, it's a vandalism-only account which copy/pasted my user page as it's first edit: Special:Contributions/Grayfell12. I can't think of a reason to let that block ever expire without an explanation. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After a look at some past edits by that user, I've done that. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I recently attempted to upload a photo of my ancestor Louis Rafield to the drummer boy article. I found out I did not have permission to upload a photo or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenneth Ford (talk • contribs) 14:00, October 23, 2014
You just deleted Mieszkanie czy dom as nonsense. If I was to assume good faith, I would have to assume that you speak good Polish and were able to tell that it was gibberish in Polish. Otherwise, I need to remind you that G1 explicitly says it does not apply to foreign language material. If it isn't gibberish in Polish, then the page needs to be restored so that a Polish speaker can review it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Restored. I was just looking at the wikitext and missed seeing the {{Notenglish}} tag. It looked like gibberish to me. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However it was spam, so I've deleted it again--Jac16888Talk 15:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was kinda fishy, and I think some spammers intentionally post on the wrong language to avoid scrutiny. See Template talk:Not English to discuss. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi this is nordicwarrior 1. You told me to write you if I believed you made a mistake on the above mentioned article and yes you did. The article is relative to the product and it is information that is by and large hidden from public view. So I took it upon myself as an american to let people know about the product they are using instead of using the national socialism approach of hiding or withdrawing important data that consumers and those seeking information of a product should know. I will wait 12 hours for your reply before reposting this necessary edit unless you have a legit reason of why. Hail to the Gods, and merry meet.---Vanadis Folkvangar II — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordicwarrior1 (talk • contribs) 10:20, October 31, 2014
I've moved this here from the top, added a header, and provided a signature. This relates to this revert. The reverted edit wasn't clear as to what study it was describing, and seemed to be advocating a POV more than providing information in a neutral manner. I did take a quick look at the advocacy sites mentioned in the edit, but was not able to quickly locate the study mentioned in the edit on either of them. I suggest that you identify the sources you are relying on for support when you repost, and compose your contribution from a neutral point of view rather as an advocate of some particular point of view (see WP:NPOV and WP:V).Also, re your reference to what you called "new medical research", please see WP:DATED. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a similar revert in the Grizzly (tobacco) article. That addition had previously been reverted there by another editor for different reasons. Re your re-adding the information there after it had been reverted, please see WP:BRD. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your recent edit. If perhaps Nordicwarrior1 does provide reliable sources supporting this information, does it warrant inclusion? His edit failed to meet many Wikipedia policies but I cited WP:UNDUE. Would this apply here? Doesn't seem like that type of information belongs on specific tobacco company pages but rather at smokeless tobacco. Let me know what you think. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me as if the information he added would be suited or a subtopic section on that page -- something like Medical risks or Comparison with tobacco smoking perhaps -- but not in the form which he added them, and a supporting source ought to be cited. Nordicwarrior1 is a very new editor and doesn't seem very clueful about Wikipedia. I've placed a welcome message on his talk page with some wikilinks which ought to help him get started editing. I'm a bit rushed right now with offwiki things to get done. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi its me nordicwarrior1. You say I should post facts that are neutral and reputable. Ok smokersonly.org is written by an oral pathologist. I do my research throughly and accurately with reputable sources only. How can you know? I bring facts before a judge and jury everyday. Though I can see this is not the reason my edits have been deleted. They have been deleted so as to hide the truth for the public. The articles on these smokeless tobacco products is only half complete without these reputable studies. It is educational accurate and precise. It is knowledge that pertains to these products not withheld. If you do not see this, then clearly I am wasting my time trying to place accurate information on this website to educate people on smokeless tobacco products.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordicwarrior1 (talk • contribs) 12:02, October 31, 2014
I just noticed this misplaced at the top of my talk page. I've moved it here, added the missing header, and added the missing sig. Please read the request at the top of this talk page which reads:
One way to contact me is to edit this page and add a section at the bottom. Please Put a section header above added sections. If your topic concerns a particular Wilipedia article, please mention the article name. To cause your edit to be signed and timestamped when you save it, please sign it with four tilde characters (like this: ~~~~).
Wait, why is my username used in the header and signed at the bottom of the first paragraph? I did not make those comments. I went ahead and removed my signature you added. Meatsgains (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry -- my mistake. I got confused with two different people placing comments out of place on my talk page at about the same time. I've fixed the errors (I think). Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Errors are fixed. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Regarding the entry to the Weibull distribution page, the expression next to my edit makes no mathematical sense. Either one should use a resubstiution sign for lambda or use the value lambda' on the left hand side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pioneer colonel (talk • contribs) 03:50, November 1, 2014
I've moved this comment here, added the header, and supplied the missing sig.
This comment relates to this revert which undid the insertion of the text "(It makes no sense!)" into the article body following a math expression. This is improper. Feel free to edit the article to correct problems with it to leave comments on the article's talk page. Don't insert comments about the article into the article body. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Human rights in the United States, adding new section[edit]
Hello, and thanks for your attention. But please refrain from making "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" per WP:CIVIL. A discussion about this edit has been going on for an entire week on the talk page, and the other parties have ceased to actively participate. And per WP:REMOVAL, "it is preferable that good-faith additions remain in the article pending consensus", Please join the discussion if you like and make constructive comments. Thanks. Roamingcuriosity (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Roamingcuriosity, I don't really care what REMOVAL says (which is an essay anyway): you seem to be edit warring. Discussion is over, you didn't get consensus: move on. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Justify your accusation of edit warring. I bet you also don't care what WP:EW says. If you thinks it is edit waring, it is edit waring, right? Roamingcuriosity (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't tell the difference between an essay and a policy, then it's going to be a long night. I saw your accusations on your talk page: tone it down, since you're making claims you can't possibly substantiate. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't think my warning was ill-considered or that it transgressed WP:CIVIL. It was selected from WP:WARN, and is the softer of two edit war warnings available there.
WP:REMOVAL is an essay which contains opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Opinions on that vary; it's a judgement call which tends to be decided case by case. Judgement calls are generally decided by WP:consensus. So far, I think the consensus on retention during discussion in this particular case is running against you.
The discussion seems to be doing fine without my two cents worth (too many cooks, spoiled broth). FWIW, I think the topical relevance is marginal -- very marginal if considered in light of the article's opening paragraph. I think the material you are trying to add arguably does deserve a mention but that, if it is mentioned, the details should be presented in a separate summary styledetail article.
Re my definition of edit warring, the initial sentence of EW works as a description of what is going on between yourself and other editors of the article. It is open to question whether all of the editors involved are edit warriors. Procedurally, I tend to go with WP:BRD on that most of the time even though BRD is just an essay. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a bad essay. What we have here is someone clearly going against consensus. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was not referring to you when I wrote "There are those". But now it seems that you are a good fit for that category. Btw, I know what a policy is, and your actions are not justified by the policies (neither is what I am doing here now. But you started it). Roamingcuriosity (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wtmitchell, thanks for the considerate input. Sorry I was a little rash when I mentioned ill-considered accusations. My edits had just been BOLDLY reverted without any reason, although it was my effort in terms of reaching consensus by suggesting "alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns", just as I have been doing for the entire week. Btw, the new section was intended as an edit summary, but I expanded it in an attempt to meet other editor's standards. Overall, I believe I have been making good faith effort and far from leading to an edit war. Unfortunately, given the current situation, especially the unfriendly atmosphere, anyone in my position would have withdrawn. Nobody in the right mind is here to seek trouble. So I will cease my activities on that article all together. But anyway, thanks for your input. Hope to collaborate with you in the future on technical articles. Roamingcuriosity (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are in an excellent position to perhaps winkle out local sources on the seemingly nearly forgotten events in the Philippines 1935—1946 among the population in the U.S. Of course I saw some college students here confused Lee and Ike and Normandy and Gettysburg! Of all the sad collapses 1939 until allies went on the offensive the collapse of the Malay Barrier and Philippines is one of the most dramatic. Small boats fleeing Singapore "made it" only for the survivors to do it all over or die or be captured down in Java or further south. I reread Reeman's The Pride and the Anguish a year or so ago and finished looking on Google Earth at the "escape" strait, calculated days and realized they'd just "escaped" into a new hell as the whole island arc to Australia fell. Same with so many trying to escape Luzon in small craft only to be caught after weeks of hiding along the coast in daylight. There are some of those I might like to see if you can dig up local sources to add to what I have. Anyway, perhaps I will get back to that area after getting diverted by another project. Palmeira (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is likely some material on that in the National Historical Institute and the National Library, which are within walking distance of one another in Rizal Park in Manila. I rarely get to Manila, though. I live part time on Boracay island and part time on Romblon island, neither of which have any research facilities whatever. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds nice. Then there are those downsides of typhoons and quakes. I'm dreading wet snow here. I see you have gotten into shipping companies there so I was thinking of help with the Philippine commercial history of some ships I did a while back: USAT Don Esteban, Don Isidro (1939), Dona Nati (1939), SS Mactan (1898) and Tugboat Trabajador (1931). All had their notable moment in the war, but information on civilian service is sparse. Several were De la Rama ships and that line's history is interesting but I do not have enough good information to become interested in developing that further. De la Rama was involved in Philippine family/island political issues seem to be interesting. If you run across anything that could fill those gaps it would help get those articles fleshed out beyond the wartime period. Palmeira (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't sound like anything I would stumble over by happenstance, but I'll keep it in mind. Some quick googling which you must have already done turned up this, which let to this and other thingss. Cheers. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, I've "Googled" those to death and dug into my terrabyte or so of .pdf official and other documents. Those are truly interesting ships in that valiant but failed effort to resupply the Philippines. There are hints of people in the Manila area being very fond of some that ran inter-island service and not many now know of German built, U.S. flagged, Philippine vessels engaged in rather high end Pacific international trade as was Dona Nati and others. From your page you are a wee bit younger than I so I am a bit envious of your opportunity to warm old bones in tropical sun as out time change, dark days, wind, cold and snow are showing fangs! My years at sea in the tropics (and howling NORPAC/NORLANT gales) and relatives in the tropics sometimes gets to me this time of year! Go bask for me! Regards. Palmeira (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May I please receive some assistance regarding a potentially disruptive editor at the article Asian American, the subject has engaged in multiple attempts to change the infobox to be preferential towards Asian American ethnicities from the Indian sub-continent. I have requested that the subject rather than continue to edit the article, take the discussion to the talk page, but without a success in getting a reply.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea in the world what this relates to, but it sounds like it might need WP:SPI. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The editor that I had requested assistance with, has again made changes to the article Asian American without achieving consensus or responding on the talk page. Assistance is requested in returning the article to its previous state before the article was disrupted, and assistance is requested in talking to the editor.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to attempt to arbitrate or to mediate here, even though I am put off by the apparent unwillingness on the part of @115ash: to engage in discussion on the article talk page to build consensus for his desired changes. Even though he has a substantial edit count, he appears to be fairly inexperienced (see this), and not comfortable with Wikietiquette. If he won't engage on the article talk page, and if it is importante enough to you to make the effort, I would suggest looking at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE and WP:RDD. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arabic text says "Allahu akbar" EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 04:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Google Translate translates the Arabic text to English as "Allah is the greatest" (repeated 3 times) on the left and as "God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of God" on the right. It probably comes out less clumsily in Arabic to an Arabic speaker.
I don't see anything in WP:UP which would prohibit this. There is some stuff which might be stretched into an argument to prohibit it, but I think it would be a real stretch.
I see here that this image appears in a lot of places on WP, including some other user pages. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking into it. Wasn't sure if having UP's that support terrorist groups is okay or not. Really don't care too much, but it seemed questionable. Would have asked the same for a pro-al Qaeda page. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 05:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Wtmitchell, I noticed that you removed my edit on Ray Comfort's page. I do not understand how informing people of his other names is not constructive. We in the atheist community refer to him almost exclusively by these names. Surely the rest of the world deserves this information as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexisgod216 (talk • contribs) 22:16, November 8, 2014
I have moved this here from the top where it was improperly added, suplied the missing header, and supplied the missing signature.
The Midland Ontario edits were made by someone living in Midland Ontario. We were trying to show our town as it truly is so as not to mislead people to accidentally vcation there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.51.73.226 (talk • contribs) 20:42, November 11, 2014
I've added the missing signature to the above.
This appears to concern this revert, which I did at 22:16, November 8, 2014.
The explanation I gave at the time o the revert was, "Reverted edits by 138.51.73.226 (talk): addition of unsourced content". After having had a second look, I will also say that it looks like the work of a dedicated vandal. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've unblocked Boccobrock (talk·contribs) at his request. It appears there was some high frequency new change patrol and you blocked him by mistake. Please confirm; can re-block if there is some deeper story here. Kuru(talk) 23:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for intervening.
I am in the middle of other things at the moment but I've taken a quick look back and this looks like an error on my part. Based on what recall and on what I see looking back, I'm pretty sure that it is related to this. How I managed to rope Boccobrock into that is presently still a mystery to me, but it surely does look like a mistake.
I'll take a closer look at this when I have some time and will post whatever info & conclusions come from that here and at user talk:Boccobrock. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My fault -- no doubt. Multiple small mistakes and too much rush compounding into a large mistake. See [14]. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Wtmitchell, thanks for your message. I did intend to update the Blue Cross page with the changes I made but this is the first time I've done so and I didn't see the 'explain the changes' box until half way through my edits, which is why some bits of the page have reasons and some do not. I have made updates as some information was out of date and is no longer accurate, and I also corrected some grammar. Please let me know if I need to make the edits again. I have saved them in a document on my computer so I can do so if I need to. Thanks, Blue Cross UK
Petition
Dear Professor Kissinger,
Please help United States Congress to proclaim a declaration that the 500 hundred years of Ottoman slavery in Bulgaria was a genocide. Bulgaria, my country of birth, was conquered in 1396 and until 1878 when we gained independence we struggled to survive as people at first and as Bulgarians later due to the destruction of our population, libraries, schools, churches, culture, statehood and national identity.
This period in Bulgarian history constituted the worst genocide imposed in the world and threatened our physical existence as human beings. This period in our history is known and referred by the Bulgarians as the "500 years of Ottoman slavery".
For these five centuries, the Ottoman Empire imposed constant genocide on the Bulgarian people, expressed in physical destruction and displacement of the Bulgarians during the conquests of our territory. Our attempts to defend ourselves against the invaders and against the imposition by force of the Islamic religion over the Bulgarian people were not entirely successful leading to national degeneration and loss of the Bulgarian identity (the consequences of which can be seen very clearly today among the set of so-called anti-Bulgarians, people without national identity trapped in radical Islam). Bulgaria's national identity was weakened by the system of kidnapping Bulgarian women and forcing them into the Ottoman masters' harems or of selling them as slaves in the markets of the Empire. In the Ottoman Empire, the trading of slaves was practiced until late nineteenth century, whereby our national identity was further weakened by a systematized form of genocide, that being the enslavement of young boys from every Bulgarian family. These young boys were forced to adopt Islam and fight as soldiers of the Sultan, known as "Janissaries" against their own people. These young boys were always at the forefront of any war waged by the Ottomans.
An American journalist from Ohio, Januarius McGahan, was one of the many Westerners who described the genocide and cruelty against the Bulgarians and Bulgaria. His articles describing the massacre of Bulgarian civilians by Ottoman soldiers in 1876 created public outrage in Europe, and were a major factor in preventing Great Britain from supporting the Ottomans in the Russian-Turkish War of 1877–78, which led to Bulgaria gaining independence from the Ottoman Empire after five-hundred years and prevented the dissolution of the legal Bulgarian state.
The whole world is aware of the genocide carried out against the Armenians in 1915. The whole world has heard about the Holocaust. Yet, the five-hundred years of genocide of the Bulgarians is not well known and not publically recognized in the States. The suffering of the Bulgarians for such a long period of time caused the Bulgarian people to develop a strong sense of compassion which led them to be the only people in the world to save 50,000 Jewish people from Nazi genocide.
The fact that the U.S. Congress has never had the chance to pass a recognition of the genocide of the Bulgarians by the Ottoman Empire only further complicated matters such as the Balkan conflicts in Bosna and Kosovo and recent disputes between Greece and Republic of Macedonia.
Every nation has its history in hard times and has endured suffering. Bulgaria is no exception. Bulgaria has lagged in its development due to the oppression it was forced to endure. While enslaved, the Bulgarian people could not thrive and prosper as other European nations did. The Ottoman Empire sought to destroy Bulgaria completely and attacked its state, religion, education, culture, property ownership rights. Bulgarian civilization was nearly destroyed under Ottoman slavery rule.
During many of these nearly 500 years, the Austro-Hungarians ruled over the Czechs and Belgians. However, the Czechs and Belgians still progressed, unlike Bulgaria. In 1534, the first stock exchange in Europe was opened in Antwerp and its ports accepted about 500 ships a day. In the Czech Republic, the first large manufactory was opened in 1679. Czech serfdom was abolished in 1781 and land ownership was permitted in 1839. The Czechs opened a university in Prague in 1348. In contrast, Bulgaria was able to open a university 487 years later. Ottomans were opposed to European progress. In Belgium and the Czech Republic there were printers years after the invention of the Gutenberg. In 1520, Europe had 250 printers. The first printing press in the Ottoman Empire opened in 1727 - more than 250 years after Gutenberg and the first Bulgarian printing started in 1838. The truth is obvious. History had not given Bulgaria a chance for good fortune.
Therefore many ask the US Congress, and appeal to democratic ideals that the people of the United States share, to adopt a declaration of symbolic support for the Bulgarian survivors of atrocities. Such a showing of support would give recognition to these people as ones who fought against slavery, injustice and inhumane cruelty for 500 years. It would also mean so much to the present day Bulgarian nation, as well as Bulgarians living in the United States. Only by adopting such a declaration, will the people of the United States and their Congress confirm their commitment and respect for the universal ideals of everyone striving for life, freedom, dignity and the pursuit of happiness.
Respectfully,
Prof,
I know that it is hard to make sense of all that unless anyone is Bulgarian.
But its possible not within a hundred years, but tomorrow the Russians with
an executive order to fix the fact that Macedonia and Serbia are pure Bulgarian
countries as well as Volga Bulgaria. Between the Balkan Bulgaria and Volga Bulgaria
lays Russia and Ukraine. It makes no sense to not accept Russia as part of Bulgaria
and part of the European Union. Its inevitable.
The termins Tatar and Tatars are historically wrong. These termins and many more would be
debugged and history will be fixed if such an executive order is accepted. Also Russians know
and admit that the languages between Bulgaria and Russia are practically like English
and broken English, but they have no clue how to fix that. I know what I wrote would
no sense to a non-bulgarian, but please consider reading it several times.
Bulgarians saved 50 000 Jewish people during World War Two. Its in US interest
to have United Europe against terrorism. Such an executive order from the Russians
would stop any claims by Turkey to the Balkans and would trace back the origin of the
Turks back to tarki/kotrak which confirms that Bulgaria was first and Bulgaria has
right to claim and not the other way around.
This would relief enormous pressure from the European Union. The whole world would
be focused on terrorism more easy;y and cheap.
Putin just won a Noble Peace Prize
I write this in the spirit of Samantha Smith, a small girl from Maine who wrote a letter to Yuri Andropov in 1982. I would like to start by setting forth some chronological facts which will explain to Russians all around the world that Russia will be soon part of the European Union as an equal and respected member.
The President of the United States, Barack Obama, is a great man, father, husband and statesman. He has dedicated his entire life to achieving peace and prosperity for people all around the world so that they will be able to enjoy freedom and liberty. For this, he won the Noble Peace Prize.
President Obama’s approach to foreign policy is a peaceful one. Bulgarians when studying their history know that King Krum asked several times for peace his rival in 811 AD: “Nikephore, koito ne shte mira, shte poluchi sekira.” When translated into English, the phrase does not ryhme as it does in Bulgarian, but the message comes through all the same. The English translation is essentially the following: “Nikephoros, he who doesn’t wish peace will eventually get an axe.” The message being that all foreign policies should be guided first and foremost by diplomacy.
At dawn on July 26 811 AD, the Bulgarians managed to trap the retreating Nikephoros in the Vărbica pass.The Nikephoros’ army was wiped out in the ensuing battle and Nikephoros was killed, while his son Staurakios was carried to safety by the imperial bodyguard after receiving a paralyzing wound to the neck. It is said that King Krum had the Nikephoros's skull lined with gold and used it as a drinking cup.
This does not mean any comparisons should be made to today’s Ukraine conflict. This example is meant to inspire research to formulate a diplomatic resolution to the problem and avoid loss of human life. The problem is that the Russians are not aware that they speak and use Bulgarian language. This causes them to get offended and to be afraid of the United States.
U.S. foreign policy should not be hostile either. The United States, the greatest country ever created on the face of the earth is tolerant enough to be patient with the Russians during this conflict. But the United States, unfortunately, cannot provide the evidence that the world desperately needs in order to bring the Russians back to the negotiation table.
The evidence and answer can again come from the Bulgarians. The former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing said once that Bulgaria is one of the oldest civilizations in Europe refering to present day Bulgaria being the natural successor of the recognized Great Old Bulgaria 632 AD which is the successor of ancient Thracia and the Thracians. Thracia is the land of Spartak, Velizar and Orfei or, as the world knows them, Spartacus, Belizarius and Orpheus.
Both President Obama and Putin graduated with law degrees. Both can solve this dispute in an hour talk. Unfortunately, neither of them is aware of this yet. If we unwind history we will see that the error was not made on purpose, therefore the Russians cannot be blamed for defending their national pride.
The evidence is that the work of Eliezer ben Hurcanus was misprinted and/or mistranslated over the centuries. After running a statistical model of several copies of his work, including the Josippon Chronicle and the Chronicles of Jerahmeel and the Book of Jasher, it is clear that Gomer sometimes refers to Cimmer or present day Cremea. Also, Ohguz is a mistranslation of Ungar, Avar is a mistranslation of Alan, Buzar is a mistranslation of Bugar. Tarki is a mistranslation of Traki.
The most important error is by far with respect to Aldigar. This term is written by historians as Ragbiga, Khanbina, Ragbina and many more. The correct term is Aldigar and the evidence is in the word GAR meaning tribe. Present day Bulgaria and Hungary preserved that same root. Countries like Avar and Hazar have not survived over the centuries simply because they lack historical support due to these errors.
The Kievan-Rus theory for Slavic tribes bears its roots from the term Aldigar. Over the centuries the term was known as Alstek in Italy and Bulgaria. The term had many other variations such as Ardagast (a Slavic Leader) and Radegast (a Slavic God), as known to the Russians. Also, Arcaduis at the battle of Nedao as known by Western chronologists.
If this mistranslation/variation over the course of the centuries is analyzed we will come to the following conclusions: that the Polish, Czeh, Slovak, Croatian and Russian languages are all part of the the Bulgarian language group. The creation of Great Moravia 870 AD, Kievan-Rus 882 AD and Poland 966 AD are all Post Factum the Creation of Great Old Bulgaria recorded before 632 AD. This explains the works of the Bulgarian brothers Cyril and Metodii who created the Bulgarian alphabet at the time and spread it through all territories populated with Bulgarians by the commission of King Boris the First and his son King Simeon the Great starting 850 AD.
Today there is a Polish parish in Hartford, Connecticut, built by Polish immigrants in 1902, called Saint Cyril and Metodius. Why would the Poles build a church to other conquerors? They wouldn’t if they were being conquered. Rather, it’s a show of respect and the preservation of culture and language. The mistranslations over the centuries made the Russians think this is “old church slavonic” language. However, there cannot be a language in a legitimate legally recognized state before 600 AD called anything other than Bulgarian. John Paul the II proclaimed the “holy brothers” as patrons of Europe in dedication to their work.
The legal dispute concerning the “slavianski” language, which is derived from the term “old church slavonic,” should be once and for all resolved. It should be called and referred to with its legitimate name - Bulgarian. President Putin should declare with an executive order that the Russian Federation recognizes that the term “slavianski” language should be called Bulgarian. The slavic languages are part of the Bulgarian language group. This would not diminish the Russian culture or its country great history. This would only build a bridge for Russia to be part of the European Union as an equal and respected member.
The implications of such an executive order would legitimize the historical truth that the Russian language is Bulgarian and therefore this would eliminate a number of disputes. This would ease the pointless conflict in the Ukraine and would focus on resolving the financial dispute between Russia and the Ukraine without any arms. It is inevitable that Vladimir Vladimirovich will receive a Noble Peace Prize which he will deserve considering he is a great Statesman for making Russia the newest member of the European Union.
I am not Professor Kissenger. This is an inappropriate venue for this material -- it will have no impact in this venue. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I was wondering if I'm able to fully edit the Grandville,Michigan page on mobile?I only seem to be able to edit a partial of the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZackM20 (talk • contribs) 01:52, November 16, 2014
I've moved your question down here from the top, added the section header, and supplied the missing signature.
Try this link. My guess is that you are not clicking the IEdit tab at the top of the page but are instead clicking the [edit] link just after the page title. That'll open an edit session on the lead section of the article. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
Now you did it. You should have known that anyone who wanted to edit the Grandville, Michigan article was going to add something (yawn)interesting. Now that you made me look the guy up, you must watch this too. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oral Roberts notable friend of 900 foot tall Jesus[edit]
So, you're directly disputing the notion that Oral Roberts was a friend of a nine hundred foot tall Jesus? Which is already mentioned in his own wikipedia article? Seems like you might not believe a nine hundred foot tall Jesus exists. Which makes sense, but still, Oral believes he exists. So he exists.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:374a:a870:28ab:4ab9:eac6:78d0 (talk • contribs) November 16, 2014
This was apparently prompted by this revert of another anonymous edit from a different IP address to the Oral Roberts Golden Eagles article. That revert had nothing whatever to do with who Oral Roberts' friends might have been, to how tall his friends might have been, to the notion that some of his friends might have been imaginary, or to the relationship to reality which any of his claimed visions might have had. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The medicinal interpretation of someone claiming to see a 900 foot tall Jesus would be "claimed to have recurring hallucinations of a gigantic Jesus-like figure" granted it may not have been a "homeless bro" but Oral most definitely did insist it was Jesus. (in response to a very angry message about how someone vandalized the Oral Roberts Evangelical something page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.27.252.26 (talk • contribs) 03:17, November 16, 2014
Neither the reverted edit nor the revert had anything whatever to do with any of that. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(moved here from its initial placement at the top)
Hi,
I'm new to wikipedia and am not sure what to do, I am a passionate Welling United fan and just wanted people to know that he plays for our club he's the first national player to ever play for us so I wanted to make a difference,
Sorry for any inconvenience,
matthew 548 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew548 (talk • contribs) 20:55, November 19, 2014
Hi. I reacted to the ping-pong edit warring which was going on in that article without dropping out of a WP:Huggle session to explore the topical details. It looks like I jumped in too fast. It also looks like the issue now seems to have been clarified in the article and a supporting source properly cited. Feel free to remove or archive the warnings which were placed on your talk page (see WP:TPG. Please also read WP:BRD and WP:EW). Welcome to Wikipedia -- please don't let the teething pains put you off. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made an edit to the founding date for it to contain more accurate and exact information with the accompanying documentation. The information was removed due to you not seeing it as valuable? Before the edit the founding date stated 1896 and I corrected by stating June 10, 1871 by Ole & Ingrid Estenson.
Please provide an explanation why changing the information back to the incorrect date of 1896 is more historically valuable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9.45.236.23 (talk • contribs) 02:32, November 20, 2014
hi honestly i think that this is constructive and giving more info in less words which means the person of interest gets more info in a shorter amount of time
I have no argument with that but, if there is disagreement, please obtain :consensus between yourself and other regular editors of the article on the article talk page. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me Sir, the Edit I had written was 100% accurate, if I were you I would consider looking into it further.
Gemma "slut" Collins is the name given to this person by many, throughout the UK.
Besides, she isn't even fit, find it in your heart to have some friendly banter.
I've added the missing sig above. I've looked back at my past edits, and It looks to me as if yu are complaining about this edit, which reverted yur addition of "The internet was invented by Ieuan Pugh Jones 20" tto the 1996 article. Please read WP:V. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand whatever language that might be.
Please use English for content on the English Wikipedia. For some help with material from nonenglish sources, see WP:NONENG. I'm guessing based on the content of the Koit article that you might be able to get some help at WP:WikiProject Estonia. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did leave a source. Put my edit back. If you would like I can forward you the emails confirming my edit.[edit]
I did leave a source. Put my edit back. If you would like I can forward you the emails confirming my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reknep (talk • contribs) 22:44, December 17, 2014
You seem to take quick action when editing posts on Wiki but can't respond to my message in the same timely manner? What more do you want? If I link a complaint found on Yelp would that be a sufficient source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reknep (talk • contribs) 23:04, December 17, 2014
Probably not. Read WP:RS for more info or ask at WP:RSN. A citation of such a source would provide reliable support an assertion that the cited source did publish what is found there, and might be accepted as reliably confirming that such a complaint was made there from outside of that source. It would confirm nothing one way or the other regarding the validity of the alleged complaint.
Since this appears to be a followup to the section above, I've made it a subsection. I have also supplied sigs for your comments. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I edited Geb Bush. You deleted. I have a degree in political science and have been watching the Bush spin show for to long and haven't anything about what he and his family really are to media and politics globally. Somebody has got to say something and get this point in the news or the US public is going to be brainwashed into another 9/11, anther war in the mid east or Asia and here in the US and another recession or even worse anther cold war which is where everything is going but it wont be cold in the end. If you want the part about Eygpt out take it out, but elsewhere the statement made is solid and all you have to do is watch these assholes for a couple of years to figure it out. None of the media goes after Bush and his family seriously till he is elected and then the globe spins all of his actions with the US because that is what Bush does-profit after screwing people and spinning it by brainwashing people through the media and that is why nothing bothers them accept when you make statements like these and people start to think. It directly isolates what G. W. fathers basic strategy has been since day one when he escalated a Cold War oriented military into a place it should never have been in secretly in reality doing a another muslim factions dirty work, making money with his buddies, and ultimately screwing the US and crating there historical interpretation which is childish but people buy it because statements like the one made by me based on fact are deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.83.218 (talk • contribs) 23:22, December 18, 2014
I have supplied the section header and supplied the sig above. This appears to concern this revert. Please read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: Per wp:CANVASSING I am "non-biasedly" advertising a topic for discussion by posting a notice on the ten most recent users who commented on the page in question's talkpage and also the ten most recent users who edited the article in question.)
Commentators continue to reference/allege Card's piece involving a fictional, future Obama's coup d'état by way of urban guirillas as racist (eg see here in Slate, 2013; here, HuffPo, 2013; here, Wired, 2014). Should our article mention this aspect of controversy with regard to the piece here: "Orson Scott Card#Politics"?
I vaguely recall making an edit related to this, but I haven't been able to nail it down. Can you give me a hint? Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That block was done from a WP:Huggle session when I reverted an edit after the editor had reached warning level four. The editor you mention is being warned, and looks to be on the way to level 4. I've shut down huggle for now, but some admin will probably block that editor after a vandalous edit at warning level 4. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I saw the message that my edits for the page for "The Powers That B" have been reverted, and I was invited to leave a message if I felt the reversion was made in error. I do believe it's an error.
As stated when I made my edit, this was based on the listing for the record on the HMV Japan web site. HMV is not some random fly-by-night site making up stories to mess with Death Grips fans. I've been ordering stuff from the HMV Japan's online store for 15 years. The information I've found on their site has always been reliable. The only people I've seen complaining that the tracklisting is fake are people who I suspect have never ordered anything from Japan and are completely unaware of HMV Japan, or are just far too paranoid. This is no different from the many times tracklistings have been linked accidentaly by shops like HMV, Amazon, etc.
I can only see two potential issues with the tracklisting, both of which can be fixed once Hostess (the Japanese label), Harvest (the American label licensing the record to Hostess), and/or the band announce final details.
1)Some of the spellings or capitalizations may be inaccurate.
2)While unlikely, IMO, it's possible at least one listed track is a Japanese-only bonus track, or the CD could have unlisted bonus tracks.
If these edits are going to stand, then I insist that, for consistency's sake, the running time for "Inanimate Sensation" also be removed any time it's added. We don't know the exact running time on the record (the YouTube upload has silence at the beginning and end of the video), it could be an exclusive video-only edit, etc. Seems only fair to me.
Thanks.
Hi. I made that revert in a WP:Huggle session based on a quick evaluation of your edit here. The content you added lacks a supporting source, but it seems to be common practice in entertainment industry articles for articles to contain quite a bit of unsupported content. Based on the above, I am going to undo my revert and let regular editors of this article do any sorting-out which is needed here. Cheers. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that other editors have effectively already done the revert, so I won't change the article from its current state. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those users are clearly vandals, and both have been warned as individual edits were reverted. Aaronnunn has made two total edits to date, and Kyleblues has made three. If they are not socks, they are newbies. If they continue their vandalizing behavior, both will be blocked after escalating warnings. Continued vandalism after that will lead to blocks of increasing length and eventually to indefinite blocks.
WP:BLOCK says that blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. The disruption these users are currently causing is slight and is being corrected as it occurs. In my judgement escalating warnings, possibly leading to escalating blocks, possibly leading to indefinite blocks, will likely be more effective at this point in handling these cases than immediate indefinite blocks would be. Thanks for raising this, though. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wtmitchel. I was attempting to move a page here but it seems that I've made things worse. Could you take a look? Thanks. -C759 (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm.. This is not something I'm good at, but I see here that you moved
Hello Sir Good Morning . I want your permission to let me maintain the Wikipedia page of PH Azkals . because i'm a football and Azkals fan .
i hope that you will allow me to edit and update the page . once again sir thank you and god bless :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nailsong (talk • contribs) 01:28, December 29, 2014
This seems to be related to this revert, which I had noticed caused a problem by its attempted use of the nonexistent template {{nat fs no caps}}. I see that subsequent edits to that page seem to have rectified the problem. I'm in the Philippines but I'm not a football fan and am not familiar with PH Azkals. In any case, you do not need permission from me or from anyone else to edit Wikipedia articles. I see that you are apparently a new editor, with only a few edits but all having to do with Philippines national football team . Welcome to the Wikipedia editor community. I'm going to place a welcome message on your talk page with some links which may be helpful. Cheers, Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WT – Re my reverted edit on the Reddit/reddit article: You're entirely right—the original text was "most if not all", not "most but not all" as I misquoted in my edit explanation. However, do you disagree that either expression is redundant, considering that "most" means "not all"? Even if you do, do you think it add value to the article to emphasize that not all of the leaked photos were published? Shall we start pointing out ways in which other crimes could have been more comprehensive? – AndyFielding (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I think that depends on context. I vaguely recall that in this edit, after I saw the disparity I mentioned I had dropped out of a WP:Huggle session to do a revert and add a hand-crafted comment without tagging the edit as vandalous and I didn't dither too much about the surrounding context. Consensus of editors of the article in question will decide it case-by-case. Cheers, Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of reversion, I may have to revert my own entry here, and submit meekly to your reversion too. I always thought "most if not all" meant "most, although not all". I now understand it often (or just correctly?) means "most, and perhaps all"—which, in this case, would indeed imply it was unknown what percentage of the leaked photos were put online. Well, I'm always glad to be wrong; it's how we learn. (I understand this is also a characteristic of non-religious people [smirk].) – AndyFielding (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and a characteristic occasionally seen in one of the God mob. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm DHeyward. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Ben Stiller because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Pardon the Template as it was easiest. While your change from roll to role was correct, the underying edit that Ben Stiller is best known for his role in the Bee Movies is probably not correct. Whence I chose not to accept either edit. It wasn't a revert of your edit.DHeyward (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2014
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of sovereign states and dependent territories by population density may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Done Fixed it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
talk 06:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
talk 09:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Map_of_state_religions.svg#Supporting_sources){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_state_religions.svg){kind=link}
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 115ash at Asian American. Thank you. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino American#OVERLINK. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm DHeyward. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Ben Stiller because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Pardon the Template as it was easiest. While your change from roll to role was correct, the underying edit that Ben Stiller is best known for his role in the Bee Movies is probably not correct. Whence I chose not to accept either edit. It wasn't a revert of your edit. DHeyward (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2014