User talk:Wtmitchell

My local time:

September 2024

7

Saturday

12:50 am AWDT

16:50 UTC

Hi.

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 and sign your edits with four tilde characters (like this: ~~~~). I will generally respond on this page inside the section which has been added unless you request otherwise. Please watch this page if you leave me a message.

Please click here to leave me a new message.

idk

u remember me. I wuz the one who u kicked off for vandalizimon my last account, enterorespAko. then i wuz talking to u. I told the story of amin slyvake and how he was the first person to pee off a hot air balloon. it was accually a true story except for the antlantis part... and all the stuff about falling down the mountain for 4 in a half hours... yeah and pretty much everything after that about marrying Brad pitt in New york city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enterore (talk • contribs) 23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

• Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
• News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
• WikiProject report: WikiProject China
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

• License update: Licensing vote begins
• News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
• Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 17:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

i helped with dwight howard earlier so can i get a thank you??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oballers4life (talk • contribs) 01:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You reverted my edits?

For what, possible reason? Among the things you decided needed to stay in the article was the patently untrue claim that Sam's last line in the series was "Home sweet home" when it was "Thank you, Mr. President." If you have an issue with an edit, perhaps you should take it to discussion before reverting it. --76.90.29.62 (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

im sorry for doing that page but i dont think wiki. is a very useful site, cause people like me can get on and change the actually information, and people that are doing projects need real information to do there projectd. so i think that you should set up accounts to make sure that people dont change it. sencerly, regann. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.38.149 (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

possessive of Apophis

In Wikipedia, for a word ending in one s, either style is acceptable . Saros136 (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. My check of WP:MOS#Possessives on this was too rushed. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

lightning hopkins and rhcp

the sentence about frusciante is unconstructive! it is an artifact of bias at this particular time of writing that anyone should think that we should be impressed that an overall historically minor musician might have been influenced by an historically major one! my suggestion is for the frusciante reference to be removed, because it is disrepectful to the broader influence of hopkins, the blues, rock, etc! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.15.176 (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

also:

how did you catch that so quickly? are you just constantly at your computer monitoring, or is there an automated system of text analysis.

if you're constantly checking: ludicrous! how do you do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.15.176 (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Re: Message to me

Sorry Bill, but none of the external links on the coboconk page were my doing. I added The Patty House as a landmark, which it most certainly is, but I did not add any external links.

- 70.53.46.85 (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC) (user:Floydian)

Hmmmm.... I'm doing vandalism patrol with WP:Huggle. I found the revert at issue, and recall reverting that thinking that it smelled like an advertisement (also, I notice now, a spelling error; but that wouldn't have prompted me to revert if I had noticed it at the time). Huggle has a drop-down list of reversion reasons, and I picked the entry "spam" off that list. It looks like Huggle's canned messages for the reversion reasons might not match up with the labels on the list. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edit revision

My post that you removed was not unconstructive, rather it needed specification. I am not familar with military terminology but bombardier can mean both a pilot and an archaic term for an infantry man. My post, that you removed was constructive (albeit not totally correct), Alexander Oppenheim was a bombardier, that having a significant, formative impact on him leaving research and the proceedings of his life thereafter. I quote directly from The Gaurdian, "Many were saddened that so brilliant and congenial a colleague should apparently divorce himself from "mainstream" research in number theory, particularly when world events swept him into the Singapore Reserve Army with the rank of lance-bombardier. In 1942, although his wife and young daughter escaped, he was captured by the Japanese." I have included the link below. My specialty is biographies and if you look at my editing history, I provided numerous constructive and relevant information to that particular page, I am just not familiar with military terminology. Instead of reverting my edit, you could have been constructive yourself and simply done research and changed the fact to its more appropriate technical title.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Mitchell M.A., M.S.L.S.
University of Chicago Library
Specialist in Law and Biography

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/obituary-sir-alexander-oppenheim-1289007.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.150.233 (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I have edited the article to restore the previously removed material, supported by a citation of this supporting source. Thanks also for contributing to wikipedia. I encourage you to register a username, which would allow communication on a personal talk page such as this one; communication on the anonymous IP-numbered talk page is typically unreliable, as such talkpages are typically shared among a number of individuals. Cheers. Boracay Bill (talk) 08:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek (film)

huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.56.30 (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted this vandalous, edit. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Women in Engineering

Can you please take a little time and read the discussion page and NOT auto-reverting edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.98.178 (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you're right. Apologies. I was doing vandal patrol with WP:Huggle, and apparently going too fast. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Wtmitchell. You have new messages at Template talk:Expand list.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Conscription

Hi, I've reverted your recent edit to Conscription. Please take a look at it, were you tring to do something else? Thanks - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've fixed it. As I recall (perhaps mistakenly), that was a rollback I did with WP:Twinkle. In any case, it clearly got confused somehow—probably my fault, I've done a lot of editing today and I recalled that I rushed this one along as I was headed out the door. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 10:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all :). Tis easy enough to make mistakes like that (I know ;D). Keep up your good work :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Change to Sleep deprivation lead

I am actualy an established editor on Wikipedia. However I discovered quickly that editing the more controversial articles is better to be done with just my IP. That way my Userpage does not get vandlised further. LOL!

Thank you for being very protective against vandals, and thank you for letting the referenced change stand. I was directed to the page from an off site message board that was using the page to make a political point about torture. I immediately noticed the lead was a little slanted. OK that's just my own POV....but there was no reference and it appeared that the lead lacked the true definition of an act of depriving something. It came across as a political POV. I believe this compromise keeps the article factual and still allows the lead to grow with additional information.--69.62.180.178 (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I made the change during vandalism patrol, so it didn't get too much thought at the time. The change reverted your having changed the lead sentence to read

Sleep deprivation is the act of depriving someone of the necessary amount of R. E. M. sleep. This may occur as a result of sleep disorders, active choice or deliberate inducement.

back to its previous version reading

Sleep deprivation is a general lack of the necessary amount of sleep. This may occur as a result of sleep disorders, active choice or deliberate inducement such as in interrogation or for torture.

My thought at the time was that limiting the definition to only "the act of ..." was too limiting, and "a general lack of ...", along with "may occur as a result of" was probably better. I see that the lead sentence now reads

Sleep deprivation is the partial or near partial act of depriving the needed amount of R.E.M. sleep to an individual or organism.

Citing

Kushida, Clete Anthony (2005). Sleep deprivation. Informa Health Care. pp. 1–2. ISBN 0824759494, 9780824759490. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

.

I took a look at the cited source (which I would have cited it with only one isbn and with some additional links, something like).

Kushida, Clete Anthony (2005). Sleep deprivation. Informa Health Care. pp. 1-2. ISBN 9780824759490.).

I see that source cited actually says, on page 1, "The deprivation of sleep is the partial or near-complete removal of sleep in an organism." Several sentences later, on page 2, it says, "... Sleep deprivation may be sleep-state specific, where the subject may be specifically deprived of NREM or REM sleep, or sleep stage specific, where the subject may be deprived of any of the stages of NREM sleep. ...". It looks to me as if the cited supporting source does not support the assertion in support of which it is cited. Since I only came on this article in passing and it is not in one of my interest areas, I'll leave it to you and the other editor more concerned about this article than I to work it out. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well....far be it for me to argue with you but, the over all statement is supported by the citation. The word "Deprivation" is not a general lack of....it is an act of keeping something from....I worded the sentence as short and simply as possible but I believe it is still within the explanation used in Kushida's book.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Nazeer Naji

The page on Nazeer Naji has been edited incorrectly and is based on a roumer spread by Pakistan Taliban against a well liked seasoned pakistani Journalist. The so called Ahmad Noorani is a fanatic cleric and he is instrumental in starting this roumer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.180.8.117 (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've placed {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, and {{expert}} tags in the article. hopefully someone with both Wikipedia editing experience and sone knowledge about the article topic will help out. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You could very easily have a point. Hopefully the tags placed by Boracay Bill help it get some unbiased expert input. However, continually vandalizing the article and the talk page will not help you get your point across. Turgan ^Talk 06:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

my bad i had nothing to do and w i wanted to see my touches on this awesome website! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.83.100 (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

John Paul Jones

You beat me to it, I was looking back to see where that Colbert got added and by the time I found it, you had reverted it. Eighteen months, Yikes! Dan D. Ric (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Re edit to Alex Ferguson (footballer born 1903)

I take it you cant be opinionated on here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.178.84 (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I had reverted this edit. Offering the opinion that "The Man U manager with same name is a right dickhead". Well, that has WP:V and WP:BLP problems, for starters. See WP:Editing policy. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Sir, Please STOP trying to blank out my attempts to remove bias and improve balance in the List of Conspiracy theories article.

If you are motivated out of passion for a particular state in the Middle East or hatred for a particular religion or ethnicity, please take your beliefs elsewhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.155.175.2 (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You must have left that remark in response to two reverts here and here. I went back and looked at the diffs, and the reverted material still looks like POV character assasination and vandalism to me. I havd no idea in the world who he was at the time, but I've now looked at the Daniel Pipes article, and a couple of pieces about the Campuswatch organization vilified in the text I reverted (here and here). It still looks to me as if you are trying to bend this Wikipedia article to your own Point of View. Please read Wikipedia's three core-content policies, WP:POV, WP:NOR, and WP:V, as well as WP:Editing policy and WP:BLP. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I am trying to turn a very inflammatory and one-sided section to something more neutral; Pipes is _not_ an unbiased source and the current article reads as though everything he claims is factual (something that is widely rejected by a great many people, in academia, journalism, etc); the way I found the article, it was promoting a very decidedly partisan and very non-neutral opinion, based on claims by someone who's considered a liar and propagndost by many (as well as himself a conspiracy monger). BTW, here's an Arab-American civil rights group on CampusWatch: http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=1142 68.155.175.2 (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have very strong views on the subject. I urge you to carefully read the policies and guidelines which I mentioned above. The lead paragraph of one in particular of Wikipedia's three Wikipedia's core content policies, WP:V, reads:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

.

Also please note the lead paragraph of the WP:BLP policy:

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially:

• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
  
• Verifiability
  
• No original research
  

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Please abide by these policies.

Notes

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Australian article

I think (I could be wrong) the ip ed is trying to get some order in the article - have been watching doesnt seem an issue SatuSuro 06:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I took a second look, and you're probably right. Converting complete sentences into incomplete sentences isn't a very good way to go about that, but it's probably not vandalism. I think I've been at this too long today—I'll take a wikibreak now, probably until tomorrow morrow morning local time. Cheers. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hewll man ive been on too long myself this weekend - its a long weekend here in oz and im feeling it - thanks for your reply it is always reassuring to have replies like that I'll revert your revert and see if i can get the person to continue if poss :( SatuSuro 07:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Btw - I have hammered a few arts and cats in the indonesian project in my time - what are you like the borders of the phillipines? SatuSuro 07:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Muro Bot

Hi, thanks for giving me the error. The edition itself was correct, because Harry Cole was a redirect to Harry A. Cole, which was redirecting to Pine-Sol on 22 October 2008, when the bot did that edition. Muro de Aguas (write me) 14:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I guessed that was probably the case, but thought you might like to know about it. Cheers. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

RC Patrol

Hi Bill. Please can you tell me which tools you are using to counter vandalism? I'm stuck using very outdated tools, and though I'd like to think I'm still being very quick, you are beating me to ever revert I attempt! Nice one! C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 08:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've used WP:Twinkle for quite a while. Last month I started using WP:Huggle. In order to use Huggle, you need to be authorized for WP:Rollback. See Wikipedia:Rollback#How_to_apply_for_rollback. Cheers. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

01:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)01:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)01:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)72.92.102.29 (talk)

2009 swine flu outbreak in the United States

There was a 2 cases found in (Philly) They are negative, whats the problem it was on the news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.102.29 (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted this edit, removing inserted text which read: "De is on the list on the top right why is it not listed, I am in Pa, there was 2 cases found they were negative." Please read WP:MOS. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I found it on the news and in the newspaper.

Geography of Uruguay

yea it seems like the entire uruguay page was copied from the us gov site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.120.191 (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I pointed this situation up at Talk:Geography of Uruguay#Plagiarism. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Fictitious Entry

Thanks for the welcome. My edit to the article "Fictitious Entry" was not unconstructive, but was rather removing information that was clearly factually incorrect based on the sources given and an additional source which I listed on the talk page. My edit was fully explained on the talk page for the article. The edit summary for my edit clearly explained the edit, and also pointed to the talk page for further explanation: 'Eliminated incorrect refs to court decisions; see talk page under "Feist vs Rural")'. I would advise you to read the edit summary and associated talk page discussions before assuming that an edit is unconstructive and reverting it. Specifically, it might help you to check out the "When to Revert" section in Help:Reverting. Thanks.