If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question(in question) 00:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you noticed - but there is a similar question already posted here... just not sure if you wanted to double up. Thanks. 7 03:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice until I'd already posted the question. I've turned my addition into a subsection. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the same many times... ;) 7 03:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any particular reason why you reverted my edits today?[edit]
The Panama Canal Zone doesnt even exist as a separate entity anymore, let alone an independent country. So I stand by that edit. I also stand by the others, especially the reorganisation of the leading paragraph to group together the arguments being made, and requested under the Jefferson quote. I'd appreciate a little more effort to explain such a sweeping reversal than a link to the page which proves my edit is correct! Mdw0 (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]
(I originally posted this in the Spanish-American War talk page; but, since I’m waiting for your reply before I make additional edits, I thought I would repost it again here. Please excuse the redundancy.)
Dear Wtmitchell,
Thanks for your comments and your edits. I’ve received far too little feedback to date. So, it is with some pleasure that I welcome yours. I would, however, like to make my ideas on the context and organization of the article a little clearer.
When I constructed the revision, I debated how to best introduce the concept of US Expansionism. I believe it’s important to ground historical events in their proper context. Since popular attitudes toward expansion in turn-of-the-century America exerted enormous influence over policy makers, it would be absurd to avoid mentioning the concept in an explanation of the 1898 war with Spain. And, while I can understand the natural sensitivity to the subject of US expansion (a mere euphemism for US empire building), I don’t see how this could be construed as inveighing the “evils of American expansionism.” I believe I worked very hard to explain US expansionism in the most concise and neutral way possible. Stating that expansion was quite popular in turn-of-the-century US discourse is demonstrably true. Associating expansion with “evil,” as you seem to do, is a value judgment based on your own understanding of expansion (or empire) that is in no way implied in the text. If you believe there are any negative qualifiers in the explanation that could be purged, I’d welcome your edits.
As for the Monroe Doctrine, you are quite right. In fact, I’ll do you one better. Neither the Monroe Doctrine nor Roosevelt’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine exerted much influence on US attitudes toward Cuba in 1898. This was precisely the idea that I was attempting to convey. I debated whether or not to mention the Monroe Doctrine at all. I came to the conclusion, however, that, because the Monroe Doctrine has become such large part of how Americans continue to popularly understand US expansion, I could not ignore it entirely. This is why I chose to explain that Roosevelt’s Corollary (which I accurately noted was “a policy he developed years after the campaign in Cuba”) is what made the Monroe Doctrine “an effective vehicle for U.S. expansion and international intervention.” This does not mean, as you say, that the corollary is “irrelevant to the history of the Spanish-American War.” Rather, they are intimately related. The process of causation, however, runs from war to corollary, not corollary to war. I think we could work together to make this relationship more clear in the article.
Don’t get me wrong; I understand your edit. And, I understand why you would want to remove (or at least put in a footnote) mention of Roosevelt’s corollary. I took on rewriting this article primarily because it had degenerated into a list of autonomous statements that gave the article an awkward flow. I fear that your edit, in the way it currently stands, constitutes a return to that sad tradition. I humbly propose that we either collaborate on how to make the transition from the Monroe Doctrine to western expansion a little smoother or simply remove mention of it all together. I’ll respectfully wait for your response before I make any changes to these ends.
As for your fear that this article has a “substantial POV thrust,” I must emphatically agree. All history has a point of view. To paraphrase the late historian E. H. Carr,
historical facts are not like fish on the fishmonger’s chopping block; rather, they are like fish in the sea. And the type of fish one catches depends heavily on the type of bait they use and the location they choose to fish in.
To say this another way—and I don’t intend to be condescending, but this is something that’s commonly misunderstood about history—there are an infinite number of historical facts. The process of selecting facts as well as the order you place them in are both parts of the interpretive process. If you think any of the statements I’ve made are false, by all means you should correct them. But simply noting that there is a point of view is not something that should alone warrant alarm.
As I wrote above, I’ll patiently wait for your response before I make any edits.
--JCWBB (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for dropping in.
I'm afraid that I don't have time right now to focus on one article. I live in the Philippines. Because of that, I've developed a bit of an interest in the SpanAm War. Out of that interest, I've done some editing to the article and keep it on my watchlist. Because of that interest, I do focus on that article more than I focus on other watchlisted articles.
I see that you've been editing under this username just since 4 Nov of last year and have a total of 34 edits, concentrated on this one article. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but it's unusual. I haven't looked back at the gist of your edits prior to the one which caught my eye, but a quick glance gives the impression that they are well informed and well thought out. I'll try to find time to take a read through your changes and to do a re-read of the article. In the meantime, please don't let my comments put you off editing. If I find something in particular I'd like to talk about, I'll probably bring it up either on the article talk page or on your talk page. If I think it's a mninor matter, I may just make an edit explained by an edit summary—if you disagree with any such changes I might make, feel free to challenge them on the article talk page.
If you are a WP newcomer (check that linked article out), welcome to wikipedia. If you're not a newcomer, you need to check out the WP policy on sockpuppets. Also, presuming that you're new, if you haven't already done so you need to check out some of WP's policies. In the article content area, focusing on this particular article, the policies on Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view are particularly important. NPOV concerns about one of your edits is what caught my attention; it might be a good idea to (re)read that policy and the WP essay on Describing points of view. Considering your heavy focus on this one particular article, it might be a good idea to check out the WP policy on ownership of articles—there are a some articles around with a few editors having high levels of both expertise and interest watching over them, but it's tricky to do that well and it's especially tricky if you're trying to restrain a strong personal POV in favor of editorial neutrality.
I haven't looked back at the edit which began this but, as I recall, I was challenging the thrust and appropriateness in relation to the article topic of your edit more than challenging the factuality of your assertions. As I recall it, the thrust of that edit would have fit much better in the American Empire article (a redirect target from such alternative names as American expansionism and American imperialism) than in the Spanish-American War article.
I'm seriously overloaded at the moment, so I'll leave it at that for now. Again, welcome to wikipedia. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you reverted my edits to Glenn Beck, and I understand why. Would it be acceptable for me to change "low debt" to "low debt"? this seems clearer to me, as "low debt" could be understood to be personal debt, or some other kind, and the text should still line up with the reference. Thank you, Efcmagnew (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would have been this edit. I think I may have done the revert without noticing that it was the Glenn Beck article and considering it in that context. Your suggestion sounds good to me. Perhaps, even, it would be good to rearrange that list of core values to place debt last and add a follow-on sentence something like Beck says, "A conservative believes that debt creates unhealthy relationships. Everyone, from the government on down, should live within their means and strive for financial independence.", which the cited source supports. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to ask your opinion if you think comfort women during world war two for the Japanese military should be included in the article on human trafficking in the Philippines? kind regards Susanbryce (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just botted, the unbooted. Although I created this project, I think my continuation maybe hampering its growth. So I am asking others to take the reigns and run with this project. You have good suggestions. I suggest you take a greater role, and boldly make some of the changes you suggest. Okip BLP Contest 01:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't have the time reliably available to do that. At the moment I am able to spend time on Wikipedia day-by-day, but that could change at any time. I'm just not currently in a position to take on anything which requires commitment beyond a day or two. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rules of the contest have been changed significantly since you signed up. Please check out the new page and its subpages. Any input as to how to improve any part of it would be greatly welcomed. J04n(talk page) 02:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RE: [1] Thank you for the links you provided, I will look at them later! Your comments were the most useful, I truly appreciate it! Okip 03:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not sure what vandalism you thought you were reverting here, but the inclusion of the links to Wiktionary and to German Wikipedia were certainly not vandalism. +Angr 10:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back at it, it clearly seems to have been a mistake on my part. I don't remember it, and that article is not on my watchlist. My guess is that it must have come in the midst of vandalism patrol and I somehow misidentified it. My apologies. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working on a template for nesting references at {{Refn}}. I just stumbled across a proposal you made some time back on this. I would appreciate if you would take a look at it and respond to comments on the talk page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 00:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm traveling at present and just had time to take a quick look. It seems to work OK. I don't offhand recall why I made the name= parameter a required parameter in my version here. I suggest that you include examples in the docs of multiply-nested {{refn}}s -- see the final two test cases below for examples of what I mean by that.
following are the testcases I genned up quickly to take a look at this. There may be problems in the testcases -- I did this quickly. If I had more time, I would have done this in a more systematic manner.
*This is an example.{{refn|This is a note.<ref>This is an included reference.</ref>|group=note}}
*This is an example.{{refn|This is a note.<ref name=noteabc group=note>This is an included reference named noteabc.</ref>}}
;refs
*<ref name=abc>this is a ref named abc</ref>
*{{refn|this is a test}}
*This is a ref of a named refn{{refn|name=name|this is a named test}}
*This is a reused ref of a named refn<ref name=name />
*{{refn|name=ref1|this ref1 includes two notes<!--
-->{{refn|group=note|name=ref1note1|this is ref1note1 and it refs ref1note2<!--
-->{{refn|group=note|name=ref1note2|this is ref1note2}}<!--
-->}}
}}
*{{refn|name=ref2|this ref2 includes two notes<!--
-->{{refn|group=note|name=ref2note1|this is ref2note1 and it refs ref1note2<!--
-->{{refn|name=ref2note2|group=note|this is ref2note2}}<!--
-->}}
}}
;references
{{reflist}}
;notes
{{reflist|group=note}}
My question at VPT about performance impact if this becomes widely used in large articles with lots of hits remains unanswered. Cheers in haste, Bill.
Hello, Wtmitchell. You have new messages at Apoc2400's talk page. Message added 16:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
I'm wading through the templates. A good chunk of them are quotation templates using cite tags??? ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 14:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Under HTML 5, <cite>...</cite> is only for titles. With the push towards HTML 5, this is a good reason to clean it up now. You might note that the examples of incorrect usage are from Wikipedia— I would not be surprised if we weren't one of the major violators. We now have a number of templates on the cite list up for TfD (they should go regardless) and are looking at more. I knew I would find more ref templates once I did that search. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 18:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Woof indeed. On a related note, see this. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bill. Is the action plan on this to go though these articles and remove the cite tags? (By replacing them with more conventional Wikipedia techniques to get similar effects?) I doubt there would be any objection. And we should also remove any remaining examples in the guidelines that use them. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 07:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<cite id=<anchor name> >{{cite book <citation parameters>}}</cite>
directly with this:
{{cite book | ref=<anchor name> <citation parameters>}}
and avoid the redundant call to Wikicite. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. I've just checked a bunch more, and you've already been there. How far did you get? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 07:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about 1900 BCE Near East mass migration. I must have been tired when I did that edit. The {{wikicite}} changes were targeted more at hand-crafted cites (see this edit), for which <cite>...</cite> highlighting recently stopped working (see here). My using that for a {{Cite book}} cite was a mistake.
I got into this through a problem with the coauthors field in {{Citation}} (see the talk page there). That developed into changes to that template and to {{Citation/core}}, which is used by Citation and by the {{cite xxx}} templates. The plan was to quickly follow up those changes by putting changes similar to the Citation changes into {{Cite book}} and {{Cite journal}}. Unfortunately, the Citation/core changes had problems (see the talk page there) which, hopefully, are now solved. If no more problems surface in a few days, I'm planning to bring Cite book and Cite Journal up to date re the coauthors parameter in a few days.
I'm hoping to avoid having to deal with hand-crafted cites manually (see this, to which I have not yet received a response). If I'm unsuccessful in getting a bot to help out, I'll probably start manually working slowly through the articles with Cite tags, time permitting, hoping that other editor will see my changes and do similar changes where needed. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is tracking this by watching here, I went back and re-fixed several articles with cases similar to the fix which was questioned above re {{cite book}}. The fix using {{Wikicite}} which I had applied did work, but was not the proper fix for those cases. See WP:CITEX.
It seems like the recent change to Citation/core may have broken something in the templates. See this query about dates suddenly showing up twice. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 09:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first mentioned of the above was a complaint about dates showing up twice, which said to look here to see the problem. I looked, and don't see the problem.
The second complained that editor fields weren't working, saying to look here. I looked, and editor fields seem to be working.
The third also concerned editor fields, pointing to the second example here. I looked, and the editor fields seem to be working.
This is being discussed here. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, are you aware that you just misspelled a word and uncapitalized the beginning of a sentence with your last edit to Glenn Beck? Just wanted to make sure you know. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 05:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing that. My intent was only to add the wikilink. I don't know how I managed to do that garbling to unrelated but nearby text. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, that's all right. Probably just an edit conflict that didn't get caught. But I was starting to wonder, and I really didn't want to countermand the edit of a sysop. I've had problems with administrators on power trips on other wikimedia sites (not that you seem prone to power trips at all) that it's enough to make me nervous. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 05:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tolerance = no impirsonments and execution or maltreatment for religious minorities. It was just a type of patience. It was enough to stop the religious genocides, but it was not more!
Freedom: when the government declared the equality of religions. The government, the political leaders (royal/imperial advisors) and the leaders of armies contains religious minorities. Religious Freedom or Equality = when your mental constitutions and beliefs doesn't stop your state career or the rise of your career into the highest power-structure of the society. And it didn't exist in most Western European countries until the end of 19th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.251.238 (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Forexample: A catholic PM was unimaginable in Britain in the 19th century. A protestant president was unimaginable in France in the 19th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.251.238 (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Go to the discussion of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.143.25 (talk • contribs) 17:10, April 6, 2010
Hello, Wtmitchell. You have new messages at Pigman's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Wtmitchell. You have new messages at Bradjamesbrown's talk page. Message added 03:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Hello Bill, in regards to your recent edit on the Presidency of Barack Obama article that stated you were fixing the quote to reflect the direct quote from the source, removing the portion that stated "The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures of most of the blue chip indexes out there". The quote removed is actually in the cited source video interview. On the page the source directs user to. For reference, if one doesn't want to view the video interview, there is a transcript of the show here. With the portion that you've removed on page 3 of the transcript here. I had this in my archives when I fixed the quote recently when reverting an IP who had altered the section with vandalism. DD2K (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I've seen so many misquotes that I've become a bit of a nitpicker about that. Cheers. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it was easily missed due to the fact it wasn't in the quoted text on the original source page. Another user fixed it, adding a reference to the transcript. Happy editing! DD2K (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why you edited my edit, but my information is accurate, i just dont know how to revise[edit]
I do thank you for correcting me though, because I did not cite my information properly. I don't really understand the wikipedia format and when I finished editing the page, only one part of my edit came up. I'll try fixing this, but if I can't, could you please? The death of an Al Qaeda "inner circle" member is an important event that should be presented accurately (especially for students like me!).
Thanks for asking, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
I've taken a second look at my reversion of your edit. I see that the reason I gave was deletion of content, and your edit which I reverted had deleted cite-supported content—with the deletion beginning in the middle of a {{fact}} tag which the edit broke.
The edit also inserted an assertion directly ahead of an existing supporting source. I didn't see support in that pre-existing cited source for your inserted assertion, which was removed by my reversion. I don't offhand recall whether or not I checked this out prior to my reversion, which was made after seeing that your edit deleted cite-supported material without explanation.
I've now taken a second look and found another source which does support your inserted assertion, so I've re-inserted it, citing that source.
For info on citing sources in Wikipedia, see WP:CITE, WP:FOOT, WP:TEMP, and other project pages mentioned there.
Re your {{uw-test1}} on Treeflu (talk·contribs) - I've since reverted all his other edits because they were clearly vandalism. However, I've not slapped a {{uw-vandalism2}} (or higher) on him, since he's not been active since prior to your message. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree with you about this article. I stumbled across it while studying for a U.S. history final and it was in terrible shape! I spent about an hour working with the introduction to at least make the beginning acceptable, although the article itself still has some major problems. Anyways, I'll probably be looking to edit some of the content in the next few days, and I just wanted to stop by and thank you for helping remove some of the poor writing! XenocideTalk|Contributions 02:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The anon user 203.84.189.136 and his sockpuppets for repeated vandalism and inserting libellous statements and lies in BLP. Thnx
Seeing several cases of clear vandalism among the most recent edits. I've blocked this IP for 72 hours. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Can you also check his IP range and block them? I suspect this guy uses many sockpuppets/anon IP. I see many vandalisms in Philippine related articles esp BLP. anonymous IPs inserting and replacing facts with lies. Thx.
Hello, Wtmitchell. You have new messages at Addshore's talk page. Message added 16:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
My edit of this page was in good faith. The section I reverted was poorly written and ignored the convention that academic sources are referred to in the present tense, no matter when they were written. Perhaps I could have been bolder, but I'm not sure I deserved to be called "stupid." That's a particularly dangerous word to throw around a user-edited resource like wikipedia. Peccavimus (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. My edit and its grumpy edit summary was prompted by having seen this article repeatedly pop up on my watchlist with the assertion about that 1939 article switching between "is" and "was". I looked back just now and could only find a few instances of that ([2], [3], [4]) -- Apparently, I just happened to have looked at my watchlist after those particular edits. Apologies for my grumpiness. Hopefully my compromise wording (avoiding asserting either that the U.S."is" or that it "was" linguistically diverse) and the supporting cite I added are will end the flipflopping. 04:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind, I'll make a proper SPI case out of the page, per your request on User talk:NJA. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 12:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me Sir, but what is this all about. I did not do anything bad to the Iglesia ni Cristo article. When I reviewed the edit history, the so called "personal commentary" was added by this user: Angrybot and not me. I did not notice it so I edited as I planned without adding any "personal commentary" to the article. IronBreww (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I at first thought that this might relate somehow to this edit of mine, which my Contributions page shows as being immediately followed by an edit to place a warning on User talk:Angrybot. As I recall it, this diff came up on my watchlist, and I tried to verify the quote. The supporting URL for the quote was useless, and I searched for and found another source. That source confirmed the pre-edit version, so I changed it back and supplied a working link to the supporting source which I had found. You edited the article about 45 minutes later, making unrelated changfes and, a couple of hours later, this edit removed a bit of POV unrelated to any of the above. My guess is that I saw that last edit via another look at my watchlist and mistakenly attributed the POV assertion to you -- the last editor prior to the POV removal -- and placed a mistaken warning on your talk page. Sorry about the error -- I usually look back to confirm which editor inserted problematic text but I apparently slipped up and didn't do that this time. This is clearly my error and I will strike out the warning on your talk page. I have no objection to your removing it, and suggest that you do so. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please explain why you revertedthese comments of mine on the Sharia talk page with an edit marked as "minor" and an edit summary of "edit copy". As far as I can tell, all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines were well satisfied by my comments, and your reversion of them was neither a minor edit nor an edit copy. On the contrary, it would appear to me to have been a clear violation of Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was an inadvertent screwup on my part. this diff came up on my watchlist and I noticed that the lower-case 'i' added at the end of the heading reading "== Why doesn't the Arabic spelling of Sharia at the beginning of this article begin with a double aliph? ==i" broke that heading. My intent was to remove that stray char. Apparently, I mistakenly reverted your edit rather than making a new edit to do that. Apologies for the mistake, and thanks for catching it. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks for the explanation. In fact, I had already removed the stray "i" when I added my comments. You apparently must have performed your edit on this preceding version of the talk page, in which my comments don't appear. I now understand how you could have easily done this without having had any intention of reverting my edit, and I fully accept your assurance that that was the case.
My apologies for the temper of the remarks on Demographics of the US. The hardcopy did indeed say 41% and labeled that as the highest ever. However, the softcopy, available to you, did not. I assumed, wrongly that it did. I have had mild problems with "mismatched" material before and will mention it on some FOOTnote discussion and see where I get with it. Normally, I copy "box" scores from local papers. I use softcopy ref for credibility but the box score isn't on softcopy, only hard. I mention that in a comment. So this is far from the worst mismatch I've had. Close enough, I suppose. Just startling to me, since I knew what I read (and was copying at the time I wrote it!). Maybe when the link goes dead I can revert it back! :) Thanks for your kindly rejoinder on my page, considering what you were reading and what I was writing! Student7 (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and no apology is needed. Thanks for contributing your time and effort to the project. Cheers, Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not bite on newcomers. It says on the very same page, if you have healthy eyes to read of course, that Michelle Malkin was born in the Philippines. Not everything in Wikipedia contains sources and doesn't need to. Do not mislead others into thinking correct information is vandalism. And watch your temper. Fhank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.57.255 (talk • contribs) 08:53, May 25, 2010
This pertains to this reversion and this talk page warning. I don't know what "very same page" you mean, but the article says plainly that Malkin was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and that her parents were both Filipino. "Filipino" is spelt with an 'F', not a 'Ph', and I see no support that her ethnicity includes African-American. The contributions of the warned user include several prior vandalous edits, and his talk page contains one or two prior warnings. The warning I added was a standard level-2 warning from WP:Twinkle's warning menu. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you lend a hand on a new citation template?[edit]
Hi, I'm putting together a template that cites signs (tourist information signs, grave markers, building cornerstones, museum placards, etc), and I need a little help. I've got the basic syntax down, but it isn't parsing correctly, and I'm obviously missing something. Can you take a look at my code and make some suggestions or tweaks? Right now, it is living at User:Noraft/Sandbox/3. By the way, I noticed you live in Boracay. I'm an expat living in Manila. Did you know Wikimedia Philippines just incorporated here in April? Anyway, thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 02:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've made a local copy of that and will take a look at it as I get time. More info sent to you via wiki-email. Re the Philippines wiki, see WP:Tambayan Philippines; the talk page there is pretty active. Cheers, Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I've taken a quick look and made a couple of changes...
I moved the incluseion of the docs into the <NOINCLUDE> part.
I uppercased the first letter of the parameter names passed to {{Citation/core}}.
{{User:Wtmitchell/Draft1
|title=Cathedral Information
|subject=St. Michael's Cathedral
|date=12 May 1993
|format=Information placard
|site=in the courtyard
|publisher=Roman Catholic Church
|location=Qingdao, China
|viewdate= 21 February 2010}}
^ abcdefgSeveral sources assert that shortly after installation of the Paterno cabinet, General Antonio Luna arrested Paterno and some or all of the cabinet secretaries.[4][5] At least one source asserts that the Mabini cabinet was reinstalled after the arrests.[5] Another source asserts that those arrested were released on orders of President Aguinaldo, but does not provide any indication about whether the Mabini or the Paterno cabinet was in office after the release.[4]
^In the Mabini cabinet, the Secretary of Welfare had responsibility for Public Instruction, Communications & Public Works, and Agriculture, Industry & Commerce.[3]
Problems still remain, which look like they come from passing the names of parameters to core which core is not coded to support. It looks like you'll need to modify core to add support for your new parameters if you intend to use it this way. Alternatively, you might use parameters which Core supports currently (e.g., ''PublicationPlace instead of Site, though this seems a bit hackish and might not be workable for all of your needed parameters.
Perhaps it would be better not to use core and instead to do all the processing locally.
The above comments are pretty offhand—I didn't take a very close look at anything. Hopefully they'll be of some use, though. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I guess I misunderstood how it worked. What I was trying to do was to rename some of the parameters locally, so that the user typed site= and that was processed in core as "type=" Because if you look at Cite book, you'll see that place is "renamed" as location with |Place = {{{place|{{{location|}}}}}}. In fact, almost every parameter is renamed. Local processing is an option, too. That's the way Cite visual works. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 14:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Re the local wikimedia incorporation which you mentioned, it's a WikiProject for articles related to the Philippines. See WP:Tambayan Philippines. The talk page there is pretty active. Cheers, Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:Tambayan Philippines has been around for years. Wikimedia Philippines is different. It is an SEC-registered nonprofit corporation that was registered in April, and had its first meeting of the Board of Trustees in May (a couple weeks ago). It is a new actual, physical, real-life chapter, getting grant funding from WMF. Exciting! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 14:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess I have a distorted picture of that. I've just seen discussions of the incorporation, etc. in Talk:Tambayan and assumed more homogenaety (sp?) there than apparently exists. Being non-filipino and living outside of Metro Manila, I haven't looked at it very closely. Cheers, Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not surprised by the confusion, considering half the active WP:Tambayan Philippines members are on the Board of Trustees. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 01:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
If you check out User:Noraft/Sandbox you'll see I got most of the parameters working. Only problem is I can't control their order. Well, not the ONLY problem, but the one I'm thinking of right now. Any ideas? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
If you use Citation/core, that template outputs its parameters in whatever order its maintainers choose. After struggling with a couple of rounds of changes to that, it struck me that it would have been better implemented to be invoked something like:
{{template_name
|p1=''This is the text to place in the first-displayed parameter, italicized''
|p3='''{{orange (color)|This is the text to place in the third-displayed parameter, bolded and colored orange}}'''
|p2='''This is the text to place in the second-displayed parameter, bolded'''
}}
That would allow the invoking template to process its parameters in whatever order was convenient, italicize, bold, color, or otherwise set up the desired per-parameter display details, and to arrange the display order by invoking the worker template with desired display-order parameter numbers. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so where do you recommend we go from here, a rewrite to the template having it do its own processing, or something else? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 11:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Re your template—your call. I haven't done much more than glance at it.
Re Citation/core, I'd like to recommend a redo along the lines above, but I have too much going on in real life just now to spend time on consensus-building about that. If I were to implement that change, I'd make a new template named something like {{ordered display}} (lousy name; there must be a better one) which functioned as illustrated above, then I'd rework all the templates which use Citation/core one-by-one to use ordered display instead, then I'd deprecate and delete Citation/core. My guess, though, is that quite a bit of discussion would be necessary to get a consensus behind that—even if I proposed to do all the work. Some cans of worms are best left unopened. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Martin has got all the parameters working now, at Template:Cite sign/sandbox. Now to get them in the right order... ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 13:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Did you give up on this? Help me Obi Wan, you're my only hope! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 02:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been paying attention to other things. As I think I said at one point, I'd probably not use Citation/core, but instead do the formatting internally, and use a helper template to reorder the params. I've roughed out a helper template at User:Wtmitchell/Draft1. Try the following:
I haven't thought about performance issues with this approach at all -- might be a problem, might not. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
What's the difference between ISBN-10 and ISBN-13? -- Foofighter20x (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The ISBN-13 is not always the ISBN-10 prefixed with "978". In the case of this book, the ISBN-10 is ISBN0195126351, and the ISBN-13 is ISBN9780195126358. ISBN9780195126351 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum, the number previously given by this citation, is a bad isbn (click on it). See the ISBN article. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for my poorly judged intervention. Your edit is perfectly valid and please continue in like vein at this and related articles. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for keeping a sharp eye out. Cheers. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. You undid all of my edits to this page. I'm not sure how to interpret your edit summary. Did you intend to do that? - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for pointing this out. I remember the edit summary, and it clearly does not match the edit. I probably6 had several edits open in different windows and confused two of them. I've self-reverted that edit and will try to figure out what articles I confused here. Apologies for the error. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I am not sure if you are still watching Talk:Dog meat, so I write a quick not here.
I would like to say that I am somewhat frustrated with the whole dog meat image thing, but I am writing with a smile. It's hard sometimes to convey an attitude over the Internet, but I am not a meany.
I don't know what { { od } } means. Can you please tell me?
If you look at the diff you refer to in this comment, you will see that I had nothing to do with it.
"I've reverted the changes to the photo caption made in this edit. These changes are unencyclopedic and, appear to not assume good faith on Anna's part."
For the record, could you please comment on this on the dog meat talk page?
Hi Anna. I responded here. Cheers, Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello again Bill. In case you missed it, I respectfully responded to your explanation. I'm afraid it didn't make much sense to me.
As you have accused me in err about an edit that I didn't make, an "oops" or a "sorry" might be in order. Instead, you responded by stating that you actually meant to accuse me of bad faith on my original image caption "as that guideline (WP:AGF) urges".
I'm a bit dumb sometimes, so I'm afraid that doesn't make sense to me either. Can you please explain? I certainly wouldn't want to think you were trying to obfuscate, as you are such an experienced editor.
Please forgive my tenacity. I live in a land of "obfuscation-out-the-wazzoo", which has given me a certain appreciation for "forthrightness". Thank you kindly. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi again, Anna.
Please drop the "respectfully". I don't need it, and may not deserve it. We're on equal footing as far as I'm concerned as long as we're within policy and somewhere near being within guidelines — and I don't see any such problems here.
No, I hadn't seen your response on the article talk page -- it was probably masked by later edits. I've now looked at it and have responded there. As I said there, if more discussion is needed it might be better to continue on here.
If I'm unclear about something it's probably because I stated something badly; it's probably not because I'm being obfuscatory. I generally eschew obfuscation. Cheers. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughful reply. Pardon my use of the word "respectfully". It was an effort to keep the tone polite. I always seek to deliver and receive respectful, well-mannered dialogue.
You just wrote: "I don't see how you can infer that I accused you of making unencyclopedic changes".
This is why:
"These changes are unencyclopedic and, appear to not assume good faith on Anna's part...."
I guess this all stems from that statement. Considering those/that change was by someone else, I was trying to figure out which change I did make that did not assume good faith on my part. As the diff you showed was about the caption, and the only edit I ever made to the caption was when I added the image ages ago, I figured it had to be about that.
Let's call this water under the bridge. Thanks for taking the time to reply. If you need me, think of the Kimchi or Dog meat articles. Now, think of the article that is furthest away from those. That's where I'll be. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Kako anhyong hasipsio. (excuse my rusty Korean -- from what I recall, that's something close to "go in peace") Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Last month, you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. [6]). I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. I'm removing a lot of similar references as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name "Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 02:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix and the heads-up. I was vaguely aware of that re Websters, but this apparently slipped by me without my noticing. Cheers. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Wtmitchell. You have new messages at C.Kent87's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I took a quick look at recent edits and it doesn't look to me as if a preemptive block is warranted. I'd suggest that you look at Wikipedia's dispute resolution policy. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Wtmitchell. I removed the unsupported descriptions by the source you added to Horse meat. In addition, I don't think it is labeled as Baniku. "Baniku" is rather straightforward even in Japan, so it is unlikely to use for its label. (instead, Sakura niku may be used.) I can't believe in the description "This canned meat is widely sold in convenience stores ("combis") and supermarkets" from my personal experience. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification. Your paring of the article assertions to the essentials which are directly supported by the sources looks entirely reasonable to me. I don't really have a horse in this race re article content, I keyed off of your initial content removal as unsourced, and reverted that removal after finding what looked like reliable supporting sources. I should have have looked at the content I was restoring more critically myself, and only restored those essentials which the sources did clearly support. It's been a long time since I've been to Japan, so can't reasonably comment on your remarks re your personal experiences with convenience stores there. My Japanese language skills were never very good and are now thoroughly rusty, so I'm out of my depth re "Baniku". Cheers. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Earlier portion of this discussion - click show to view
I have reverted your edit because it focuses too much on the Olympics. The citation, in pages 462, 28, 35, 36, and 38, explains that the reason Puerto Ricans consider themselves a distcint nation is because of their common language, the jibaro and Taino heritages, the santos carving folk art, the non denial of Puerto Ricans of PR as their homeland and their common race, and because they share the same territory, language, and culture. In addition, it is not only Duany the one that maintains Puerto Ricand see themselves as a distinct nation. There are other sources, such as de la Garza, Morris, Levinson and Sparrow, plus a long list of prominent exponents who recently paraded thru the UN while the Committee of 24 discussed the case of PR. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
That speaks of this edit. I took the prior (and now restored) version,
Although Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States classified as a commonwealth, it is considered by many Puerto Ricans a country in and of itself. "Most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation."
as a somewhat strange presentation, apparently suggesting that the text presented in quotes is an article of faith among most Puerto Ricans. However, the cited supporting source presents it as follows:
Most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation – as validated in their participation in such international
displays of nationhood as Olympic and professional sports and beauty pageants.
I don't have a POV position re the attitudes of Puerto Ricans, but I think that my version better reflects what the cited supporting source had to say.
The supporting cite only mentions page 428, which is what I looked at and what I requoted above. If further reading in that source and/or others is needed in order to find support for the assertion as presented, please cite relevant supporting sources and/or clarify it a bit better in the article prose. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
POV is not playing a part here. Its not POVs that I was looking at, but at what the citation says. Since the citation is in double quotes and presents a link for the reader they can follow up if they so wish. But to imply that the reason depends on beaty peagants and Olympics is really far off, as attested by a significant number of other writers who never mention beauty peagenst or Olympics. I am a bit tight for time right now, but if this response still doesn't clarify please indicate that I will gladly provide you with additional sources. As I remember you have questioned this "disticnt nation" matter before. (And that is OK, in fact it is great -- that helps improve articles that may otherwise be perceived as weak in some area.) You never said so explicitly, but if you are looking for polls, please say so now, that I may better gauge what you concerns here are. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not asking that I personally be provided with additional sources. I am asking that sources be cited in the article which support the assertion. The supporting source cited for the reverted assertion, which was cited prior to my edit which you reverted and which remains the sole cited source, supports content along the lines of my edit which you reverted. It does not support the content to which it is attached in the reverted version. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, then it seems to me that all the we need to do here is to change the citation from this
Most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation.Nation, Migration, Identity: The Case Puerto Ricans. by Jorge Duany. (University of Puerto Rico, Rıo Piedras, Puerto Rico.) Page 428. As published in Latino Studies vol. 2003, No. 1, (pp. 424–444). 2003. Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan, Ltd. (1476-3435/03) www.palgrave-journals.com/lst.
to this,
Most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation.Nation, Migration, Identity: The Case Puerto Ricans. by Jorge Duany. (University of Puerto Rico, Rıo Piedras, Puerto Rico.) Pages 428, 435-436, and 438, and 462. As published in Latino Studies vol. 2003, No. 1, (pp. 424–444). 2003. Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan, Ltd. (1476-3435/03) www.palgrave-journals.com/lst.
Would you agree? Mercy11 (talk) 03:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
This discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page but, since it is here for now, I'll respond here. If the discussion is to continue, it should continue on the article talk page, perhaps with the discussion text moved there (It'd be OK with me for my talk page to be edited to do that).
First, the assertion as it currently appears in the article reads,
Although Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States classified as a commonwealth, it is considered by many Puerto Ricans a country in and of itself. "Most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation."
That is presented as a statement of fact, but the supporting source cited does not establish it as fact and, IMHO, does not argue that such an assertion is factual. At the very least, it should be presented something like,
Jorge Duany, Chair and Professor of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the University of Puerto Rico, writes that ...
Actually, I don't think that Duany argues that most PRicans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation, except in the limited sense where he does assert this in a nonpolitical context on page 428. On page 437, Duany writes, "Throughout this essay, I have argued that Puerto Ricans on and off the Island assert a strong national, not just ethnic, identity, even though most of them do not support independence for their country. I think it is appropriate to call this sense of peoplehood ‘‘national’’ because it is grounded in a shared past, a territory considered to be the homeland, and a linguistic and cultural heritage that may not be common to all Puerto Ricans on both shores, but continues to be cherished by most."
The topic of the article in question, however, is Political status of Puerto Rico, and the content should speak to that topic. As I understand it, most PRicans do not consider that they are politically independent from the U.S., do not seek political independence from the U.S., and the cited paper acknowledges that. Duany writes on page 426, "Puerto Ricans have increasingly moved away from imagining the Island as a sovereign territory apart from the United States, and yet most continue to cling to the notion that Puerto Rico is a distinct nation with its own territory, language, and culture." He seems to be saying that most PRicans have a conception of distinct nationhood which is culturally centered, and I could buy that in an article on the culture of Puerto Rico, but the article at issue is about PR's political status.
Also, and I just noticed this, using the phrase Most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation as the text of the link to the article doesn't strike me as good practice. the title of the linked article, Nation, Migration, Identity: The Case Puerto Ricans should be used. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I think we first need to clarify that "most PRicans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation" refers strictly to the cultural sphere, not the political area, as the political reality is that neither is Puerto Rico a distict nation, nor do Puerto Ricans consider themselves a distinct nation politically speaking. With that said, I disagree with you that "most PRicans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation" is validated by participation in the Olympics and beauty peagents. Although that may be Duany's point, more generically that concept that "most PRicans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation" permeates thoughout verious writings and is not associated with Olympics and beauty peagents alone, but with the larger, somewhat more abstract, idea that Puerto Ricans share a number of cultural traits that set them apart, culturally, from the nation they belong to politically. And it is this larger scope that, imo, the article should be presenting instead of the narrower validation by Duany. I will provide some sources for this fact. Ragards, Mercy11 (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
As I've said, the topic of the article is the political status of Puerto Rico, and that should be the topic addressed by the content of the article. Also, the assertion
Although Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States classified as a commonwealth, it is considered by many Puerto Ricans a country in and of itself. "Most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation."
supported by the Duany source, characterized as
Most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation.Nation, Migration, Identity: The Case Puerto Ricans. by Jorge Duany. (University of Puerto Rico, Rıo Piedras, Puerto Rico.) Page 428. As published in Latino Studies vol. 2003, No. 1, (pp. 424–444). 2003. Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan, Ltd. (1476-3435/03) www.palgrave-journals.com/lst.
ignores the limited context established in the cited source, which clearly says
Most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong
to a distinct nation — as validated in their participation in such international
displays of nationhood as Olympic and professional sports and beauty pageants.
What you or I might feel more generically about that concept should not come into it. Wikipedia's verifiability policy says that it's about what the supporting sources cited do and do not support. AFAICS, the article in its current version in that area goes beyond what the cited supporting source supports. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
We are in agreement that what we might feel more generically about that concept should not come into play. We are also in agreement that Duany is stating that "most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation" in the limited context of beauty pageants and Olympics. Agreed?
I believe where we disagree is in the goal for the content of that section. You seem to be saying, "beauty pageants and Olympics and let's leave it at that, whereas I am saying "The Duany text is incomplete as far as the reality of how Puerto Ricans see themselves: let's add more citations to show that Most Puerto Ricans now insist they belong to a distinct nation as validated by -- not only beauty pageants and Olympics -- but also by a myriad of other issues." Do you object to that? Mercy11 (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Only in that it seems to have little or nothing about the topic of the article -- the political status of Puerto Rico. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
(added) I consider this discussion closed for now and, since it is so long, I've hidden most of it. As you must have gathered, I'm pretty anal about WP:V. Also, I don't think that the current content of the Amongst Puerto Ricans subsection has much, if anything, to do with the article topic. I'm less anal about that second matter, though, and I'm inclined to leave that to editors more involved with this article than I to work out — this article is on my watchlist mostly because edits here sometimes concern other topics where I have a more direct interest. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Mitchell, thanks for bringing that statement to light. I have removed it entirely and replaced with 3 other citations that speak to the issue of the subsection in question ("Distinct National Group > Amongst Puerto Ricans") without involving the matter of Beauty Pageants or Olympic Team which is distracting and which also appeared to be at the center of our discussion. Hopefully the wording in the new citations will sit better with your expectations as well. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Another admin has blocked him in the interim. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Yep, for all of 31 hours. We're kind to these vandals... --Hordaland (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Blocking is a tool to minimize damage to articles, not a tool to punish miscreants. I tend to impose short blocks for offenders with a short record, and blocks of increasing length for offenders with previous blocks. I also tend to take into account the record of frequency of activity -- offenders with a recent history of several edits per week are likely to get a longer block from me than offenders with a record of several edits per day -- in hopes that the offender will encounter the block while it is in effect and think about it before editing again after the block expires. A large problem with blocks is that most offenders are anons, and many offenders are anons with dynamic IP addresses -- a block of an offending IP address used by an anon vandal may not be seen by the vandal in his next edit session with a different dynamically-assigned IP address, and may effect a benign anon who just happens to get a blocked IP address by the luck of the draw in dynamic IP assignment. See WP:BLOCK. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Let 4chan do their work. What they are currently doing to Billy Mays is an honorable thing, not a work of vandalism. Look past the stupidity of it all, and you'd see that it is actually something worth keeping. 74.176.180.190 (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
This apparently concerns my recent vandalism reversions such as this one. That still looks like vandalism to me. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Wtmitchell. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page. Message added 14:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank you for correcting some of my clumsy editing on this article, very much appreciated, and apologies for the inconvenience caused. Matthew.hartington (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Glad to help. See WP:GTL. Welcome to Wikipedia. Cheers, Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to edit a page when another editor stepped in and reverted the page back to its previous condition, stating no one prisoner is more notable than another. It was for a correctional institution. I had added a notable inmates section, which I noticed most other prisons also have. I even provided the editor with a list of some. Then they said it was because of recentism. I stated that the information provided would still be relevant in ten years. What is your take on this? Should I undo their change and keep the section?
Thanks,
LewisArmistead46 (talk) 08:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I've looked at the article and edits in question, and also at the exchange here. In that exchange, the reverting editor mentioned that the issue had come up before, apparently referring to this earlier reversion summarized as "No one single execution is more notable than another". I note that the executions of some persons have been deemed sufficiently notable that articles exist on those specific topics (e.g., Execution of Saddam Hussein) and some article-level redirects exist (e.g., Execution of Timothy McVeigh).
Notability considerations apply at the article level. The related consideration which applies at the article content level is due weight.
WP:DUE, a section of the WP:NPOV core content policy, says that neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight", and also says that undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints; that an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.
IMO, your additions would pass on due weight considerations -- that leaves the question of appropriate significance to the article topic. Regarding that, I take your point that articles about other correctional institutions contain Notable inmates sections. I don't recall a guideline on this, but it is generally considered a good thing for articles in a given topic area be somewhat consistent — which can be taken as an argument in favor of their topical significance.
Having said all of that, I'll also say that the above is my opinion as an editor. I'm an admin, but I don't see anything here which requires administrator intervention -- certainly nothing which would move me to intervene. My advice would be to read WP:BRD, then take this to the article talk page for discussion.
Since this exchange involves the reverting editor, I'm going to leave a note on his talk page to let him know that we've had it. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I got a question, if the "Kennedy administration authorized the use of chemicals to destroy rice crops", but it wasn't to starve the people, then what was it for? Was it cause Kennedy hated the taste of rice?--Propaganda328 (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The article explains that a bit when it says, "... Another purpose of of herbicide use was to drive civilian populations into RVN-controlled areas." (emphasis added) The "another purpose" bit is very clumsy, since it does not follow a previous explanation of a purpose which it suggests that it follows -- my guess is that this is an artifact of prior ham-handed changes. A supporting source is cited -- "Anatomy of a War by Gabriel Kolko, ISBN1-56584-218-9 pp. 144–145" -- but that source is not viewable online and I am not familiar with it. I am somewhat familiar with the events discussed, having spent the years 1964 through 1972 in Vietnam. No, people did not sit down around a table and decide among themselves to starve the Vietnamese people -- that is the stuff of demented fantasy. People did sit around tables and observe that the VC and NVA were recruiting cadres from portions of the country not under RVN control, and decisions were taken to create an environment such that populations of those areas would be motivated to move into areas which were under RVN control; I wasn't personally a part of such decisionmaking, but I can imagine that one tactic adopted might have been destroying food crops in areas not under RVN control in order to motivate populations there to relocate to areas under RVN control where food crops were not being destroyed. The observation, "War is hell" has been made, and anyone who has seen war up close and personal will attest to that observation being fairly accurate. Of course, I am speaking here from personal experience, and experience which is not directly related to the events in question -- that is called "original research" in the Wikipedia community, and would not be acceptable in support of an article assertion. You did not cite any support for your article assertion which I removed -- I'm presuming that it was an invention of your own. Perhaps I am wrong in that -- if you have a reliable supporting source, please cite it. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
U.S. Public GPS problems at start of gulf war[edit]
For a short time on the first day of the gulf war I noticed a problem with the navigational gps in my Toyota vehicle. Regardless of what destination I entered, it always used THE WHITE HOUSE as its destination. I haven't yet, found anyone else that noticed a problem like this. I thought that it could have been some form of gps satellite jamming happening. It only lasted for less than an hour. Have you or anyone you know heard about this? My vehicle was in the huntington beach area of southern california.
WoofHound (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
AFAICS, it is impossible to cause that to happen by twiddling the signals which your GPS unit receives from the GPS satellites. Nothing is sent from the satellites which identifies any location by name or, in fact, which identifies any location in any way at all. See GPS#Communication.
Hello, Wtmitchell. You have new messages at Talk:Passport. Message added 00:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks. I responded there. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
And thank you for addressing issue. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me? Care to explain how my edit was unconstructive? I fixed a bad sentence with misplaced spacing and reverted earlier vandalism that removed the language links and replaced then with a random youtube link. ferret (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
My mistake. Apologies. I've been blitzing through a vandalism storm with WP:HUGGLE, and apparently screwed that one up. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
No problem, maybe I hit the one you really wanted to fix just before you did and it got mine instead. Sorry, just got a little excited "WHY DID I GET REVERTED" ferret (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
On the recent edit to the article, I reverted it because that wasn't the problem. The problem is core doesn't support a way to distinquish which author in a multiple part division of an article talks about what. For something that is as contriversial as cultural divisions of RPGs, there needs to be a way to clearly note who is being paraphrased. Since some of those items also come from multiple sources, using "according to XXXX" doesn't work here either.
EDIY: Also duplicating the source with a different author would simply be removed as a duplicate source.陣内Jinnai 20:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I see that you've reverted my edit. I won't argue, but I would like to point out the following:
Your addition of "[Turner]", superscripted, to the list of supporting sources cited is contrary to the established citation style of the article.
The only previously existing citation of a work by an author named Turner is <ref name=EastvWest>{{citation | url=http://www.gamespy.com/articles/489/489047p1.html | title=Spy/Counterspy Case File 07: RPGs - East vs. West | author1=Turner, Benjamin | author2=Nutt, Christian | publisher=[[GameSpy]] | date=2003-07-29 | accessdate=2006-08-14 }}</ref>
As explained at WP:FOOT#Re-use of reference(s) from another section, the way to re-use this reference at points in the article in addition to the point where it is detailed is as follows: <ref name=EastvWest />
Such citations already exist at the two points where you've inserted "[Turner]", superscripted.
Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
A long time ago you were part of the discussion on the WP:BELIEFS proposal. I went away for a while and I am trying to come back slowly, so I thought I would start with updating that page and reactivating the conversation. Please join in if you still would like to be part of that discussion. Low Sea (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
My edit re 60 day limit, involuntary retirement, three and four star rank[edit]
The way it was states previously is correct. Retirement, voluntary or involuntary, of four-star officers is a bit complex. Retirement is covered under multiple subsections of Title 10 of the U.S. Code. Please look under "Retirement" in the List of active duty United States four-star officers for a more detailed explaination and example on four-star retirement. Use see, four-stars are forced to retire and not revert back to their permanent grades due to promotion mobility of junior officers. While the law does allow for an former four-star to stay on active duty at his or her permanent two-star rank until statutory limit, this has not been exercised since World War II. Neovu79 (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Wtmitchell.
As you are 'No 1 editor' (by editcount) on Citizenship I wanted to let you know that I have restored 2 large sections, "Commonwealth citizenship" and "European Union (EU) citizenship". These were deleted by IP editors, one as long ago as 17 April 2009 the other on 24 August 2010. There was no edit summary given or any obvious reason for their removal.
The article is probably a bit messed up or out of rational order now. Perhaps you can have a look? ps. Are you aware of admin. HJ Mitchell (talk·contribs)? - 220.101talk\Contribs 09:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm a bit stunned by that. That article is on my watchlist, among a lot of others, and falls in one of my interest areas, but it is not a big deal with me. Without checking, I would guess that most of my edits there were reactive and didn't amount to much. Thanks for the heads-up, though. I'll take a look at the article and may try to improve whatever looks like it needs improving, but I imagine that others will contribute more there than I. Cheers, Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
Wtmitchell, your edit of Template:Refref deleted the page's documentation. Could you explain? --Bsherr (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
This grew out of this edit request. A quick check showed that the link at issue labeled "(quick guide)" from articles tagged with {{Ibid}} (i.e., this partial list of articles--only the first 500 shown) did not link to this (the desireable behavior which my edit restored), but instead linked to this (the behavior prior to my edit). My edit restored what I believe to be the desired behavior. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Joined Wikiproject Citation Cleanup & have a question[edit]
I recently joined the wikiproject citation cleanup and wanted to know if this is good enough to remove the tag citation style, or if it needs more work. (See here for the diff [7].) If there is anything more that needs work, please let me know. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me; much improved. If I had done that cleanup, I would remove the tag. Thanks & Cheers. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
This edit is an excellent piece of work. I'm imagining it took you quite some time to dig up and summarize all that information. Victor Victoria (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Not too much. This talk page edit came up on my watchlist and, after reading the relevant article section and looking at the cited sources, googling for more info about the court martial turned up the Seattle PI article. I rewrote the footnote a few times before saving the edit. Thanks for the good words. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the copypaste tag (and providing the source too!) on that article. Basically, the content I removed was copied from http://www.army.mil.ph/About_the_army/army/history/history.html. As you are currently an administrator at the moment if you can revdelete the revisions that have the copyrighted text it would be great. Minimac (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
You're most certainly welcome Wtmitchell. I think that's something we all do at least once or twice. Thanks for your note of appreciation! -- WikHead (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The situation re standards restriction on usage of the CITE tag and deprecation within WP growing out of that is messy. My understanding is that the deprecation of which you speak is not (yet?) a fact. The little bit of work I did was in anticipation of such deprecation may become a fact.
Looking at the headers currently seen on WP pages, I see
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
XHTML is a family of current and future document types and modules that reproduce, subset, and extend HTML 4
Looking at CITE in HTML 4.01 Specification, W3C Recommendation 24 December 1999, I see that usage restrictions are pretty loose.
However, HTML 5 is coming down the pike. At some point, I anticipate that at some point WP documents will need to be HTML5 compliant. HTML 5 draft specifications tighten up restrictions on CITE tag usage. http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-html5-diff-20101019/#changed-elements says,
The cite element now solely represents the title of a work (e.g. a book, a paper, an essay, a poem, a score, a song, a script, a film, a TV show, a game, a sculpture, a painting, a theatre production, a play, an opera, a musical, an exhibition, a legal case report, etc). Specifically the example in HTML4 where it is used to mark up the name of a person is no longer considered conforming.
Say what???? That edit inserted an {{anchor}} and added some commentary which, at one point, linked to the inserted anchor. 24.177.121.3, are you a legitimate anonymous editor or are you an established WP editor posting as an anonymous sockpuppet? Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
You stuck your opinion in an anchor and stuck it between the ':'s and my first sentence; that's definitely constitutes editing another user's comment, and is totally inapprops. You have been warned; next time I shall be forced to use {{uw-tpv3}}.24.177.121.39 (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah... I see what you mean now. I missed seeing your edit here—probably masked on my watchlist by a later edit.
In truth, It never occurred to me that someone might take such a literalist view about their talk page edits being sacrosanct from even invisible edits such as the insertion of anchors, but I do see your point and might have agreed with you if this had come up in a discussion where I was a third party. I think that an argument could be made that it's not a TPG violation, but were I a third party in a discussion about that I might have been supportive of your position. I did mean no harm and don't think that I introduced a change of meaning. I was thinking of inserting the anchor in question in the same way as I would think of inserting an anchor in an article header, and I was using a mnemonic ID for the anchor in the same way that I use mnemonic names in <Ref> tags. I could have placed the anchor just preceding your comment and, since you've removed it, I've replaced it at that point to provide a target for the link which uses the anchor (it doesn't work quite as nicely in that location, but it works well enough). I've also changed the anchor ID to something more innocuous. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Wtmitchell, Boracay Bill, I appreciate your contributions very much regarding secondary sources on the Earl Killian article. Clearly you have researching and computer skills that few people have. Salamat sa inyo. Ako ay ipinanganak sa Chicago masyadong. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated History of the Philippines for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if by chance you had an alternate account by the name of "HJMitchell" it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Monterey Bay (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Nope. That's not me. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate a piss off or screw you and your article before you just erase it and give me no explanation but and I quote "not useful without link and with link MIGHT be considered SPAM. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Then I express my self for comment on the talk board and you just erase it to so I receive NO FEEDBACK ------------WTF? I can see the reviews below about you are true. Your like the Gestapo of boracay article. Next time, try dropping a email to the poster or a message why you felt it needed to be erased then give your help to fix the segment. For you to just erase someones writing makes you an asshole. If you don't see my point than you are really negligent to the article. What I wrote was valid and perfect for topic and ON TOPIC. Half the stuff in the Boracay article is rubbish and you just erase something pertinent --------- I don't get it.
Ok, lets examine what you said: not useful without links - ok,
1. I could create a page in Wikipedia about boracay live cameras then link it to that page. correct --(thats 1 option)
2. I could have a link put on it to live cameras with a no follow on it so it is not benefiting the commercial sites for popularity. -- (thats another option)
3. I could paste the link static next to the article ( thats another option)
See, I have given you three options to fix the article, but no you just erase! That is messed up!
The kicker is that you have a external link to street maps and Google Videos and your concerned that a link to live cameras is SPAM when these two external links are SPAM and as you said NOT USEFUL without a link.
I like this article I wrote so lets figure out a way to incorporate it - Just erasing it, well that just means your the owner of the article and nobody can contribute ---- then I will go make my own somewhere else. WHAT'S THE USE IF YOU ERASE EVERYTHING ADDED !!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe I am wrong, I would like some feedback from other writers.
-
Boracay Island visualization can only go so far through pictures. See an array of Boracay Beach Cameras to actually see what Boracay looks like and to actually see the weather, what to expect and more. Live Boracay cameras boost tourism and promotes Filipino pride. See the beauty that is Boracay, Philippines in your own eyes.
-
-
Boracay Beach Live - Boracay Camera located at Red Coconut Beach Front Resort with a 12 Mega Pixel, High Definition, Wide Angle Lens Camera which live streams - no delays 24 hours A day.
-
Ariel's House Boracay Beach Camera - Boracay camera is located at Ariel's Bar which is beach front boat station 1 with a 30 second camera refresh rate.
-
Nigi Nigi Too Boracay Beach Camera. Boracay Camera located at Nigi Nigi Too Beach Front Resort beach front boat station 1 with a refresh rate of approximately every 5 seconds.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherrysim (talk • contribs) 14:32, December 25, 2010
I see that you have only made a total of six edits, including the one above, under this userid. I'll presume that you're still learning about Wikipedia.
I saw your earlier edit at Talk:Boracay. That edit was incorrectly placed at the top of the talk page rather than at the bottom as it should have been, so I moved it to the bottom (as is allowed under WP:TPG) and responded there some hours ago; see Talk:Boracay#Webcams. Merry Christmas. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I've just reported him to WP:AIV. Your 31 hour block made absolutely no difference. I think we have a POV vandal here. Dragonfire X (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your article and for the recent edit. As a parent of half Filipino children I found it usefulRWIR (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
You are very welcome. I'd suggest that you also look for a fuller description in the Citizenship section of the RP Constitution which was in effect on the birthdate of interest. See here. Cheers. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't mean to challenge your assertion of expertise, but I wonder about the basis of that assertion. Could you expand on that? How did you become an expert? Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
i work for a well known travel agency. I have stayed in almost every resort in boracay, I know almost every GM and Owner and close friends to many, I live there in Boracay about 3-4 months out of the year, I know every resort sales office in Makati were I live. I been doing this for 10-15 years. I fly to Boracay for FREE with my influences. I know every airlines management team. I know all routes to boracay, I know all politics in Boracay from how the police operate to the Mayor, I know of all environmental bullshit, vendors association, I even video typed the last major fire on Oct. 27, 2010.
I have probably meet you when you had your resort. Trust me ---- I am an expert! I probably know more stuff about Boracay than you and you live there. I say that just because i am in the stream of it all from resorts to politics. If I told you my name, You would know me. Just like if I wanted to find you, I just ask around and in less than an hour I would know were you live ----IF you still live in Boracay. All that from your personal page info and giving the name of the resort you owned and your wifes name, DOB, ect. I know all the old timers in Boracay personally! I am sure you meet me!
Anyways, you dont like my addition - thats cool - nevermind. I hope you took my advise and took a good look at your boracay page. It's just copied, rubbish with no meat. The only reason it is number 2 in search engine is because wikipedia has so many pages which equal hits -- SEO 101. Just my observation that it is just to generalized. To each there own. The beach cameras is something totally new to Boracay. I will give you an example of my expertise in Boracay. The beach camera of Nigi Nigi too which is owned by my friend Jason. He runs a cable about 50 meters to the beach and in a wooden box he has a logitec cpu camera for indoors that cost $25 using basic internet. This is why the image suffers but you can atleast see the weather which by the way he owns boracayweather.com . I know crazy shit nobody even thinks about to what everyone thinks about.
Anyways, i thought webcam links to live cameras of Boracay would be useful info - I guess you think otherwise ---- so I wish you luck on your article --- I wont change it again!!!!!!
Just to clarify, it's not "my" article. See WP:OWNERSHIP. Cheers. ~~
Thank you for the links you provided, I will look at them later! Your comments were the most useful, I truly appreciate it! Okip 03:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Done I spotted it, and have explained the problem there. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 24.177.121.39 (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}