User talk:Wtmitchell

My local time:

November 2024

13

Wednesday

5:11 pm PST

Hi.

One way to contact me is to edit this page and add a section at the bottom (click here to do that). If your topic concerns a particular Wikipedia article, please mention the article name. To cause your edit to be signed and timestamped when you save it, please sign it with four tilde characters (like this: ~~~~). If you don't do any of this I'll probably be able to figure it out anyhow, but I would appreciate your trying to avoid making responding to you difficult for me.

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.

Psa 182

I didn't mean to ruin or mess up the psa page Mikes shoes (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This seems to concern this revert. Not a problem. It's fixed now. Feel free to remove the warning from your user talk page per WP:TPG. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 October 2015

I've seen Kurt Zouma in a game praying before please let me keep my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfieozil (talk • contribs) 06:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

This relates to this revert. I did that revert during a WP:Huggle session. At the time of the revert, my concern was that it flouted WP:V. I would also have concerns related to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy. For policy relating to the reasoning you propose for restoring the material, see WP:NOR. If you do restore the material, I will likely not notice that but it would be my guess that some other editor will notice it and will revert for roughly the same reasons I did unless his religion is somehow strongly relevant to other matters covered in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Disputes on forces attending Hue–Da Nang Campaign, Battle of Ban Me Thuot, Battle of Xuan Loc, Battle of Phuoc Long

Hanam190552 (talk)There are not many traits to distinguish between People's Liberation Armed Forces of South Vietnam (PLAF) and People's Army of Vietnam forces. More than a half of People's Liberation Armed Forces of South Vietnam (PLAF) and People's Army of Vietnam soldiers were members of the Labor Party of Vietnam, the old name of the Communist Party of Vietnam. However, People's Liberation Armed Forces of South Vietnam (PLAF) and People's Army of Vietnam forces hold different flags. The PAVN soldiers hold flags of Demcratic Republic of Vietnam. The People's Liberation Armed Forces of South Vietnam (PLAF) hold flags of Viet Cong. The PAVN was under the leadership of Democartic Republic of Vietnam while People's Liberation Armed Forces of South Vietnam (PLAF) was under the leadership of Viet Cong. After the collpase of Saigon regime, the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam army merged into People's Army of Vietnam. The event marked the end of the Vietnam War and the start of a transition period to the formal reunification of Vietnam under the Socialist Republic by the general election in 1976.

Hanam190552 (talk)Flags of North Vietnam: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Flag_of_Vietnam.svg/2000px-Flag_of_Vietnam.svg.png

Hanam190552 (talk)Flags of Viet Cong: http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kdDor2sRn7I/maxresdefault.jpg

Hanam190552 (talk)In official opinion of Vietnam and Vietnamese, the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam or Viet Cong is a politcal organisation in the south of Vietnam. It has its owned army, People's Liberation Armed Forces of South Vietnam (PLAF)

Hanam190552 (talk)In the 1973 Paris Conference on the peace of Vietnam, which started in 1968, the Viet Cong took part in as a government in South Vietnam.

Hanam190552 (talk)The 1973 Conference recognized the equallly legistimate status between the Viet Cong and the Republic of Vietnam or the South Vietnam in American documents.

Hanam190552 (talk)The Viet Cong and the Republic of Vietnam were considered as governments in South Vietnam

Hanam190552 (talk)Accrording to the Article 15(a) of the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam, signed in Paris and entered into force January 17, 1973., The military demarcation line between the two zones at the 17th parallel is only provisional and not a political or territorial boundary, as provided for in paragraph 6 of the Final Declaration of the 1954 Geneva Conference

Hanam190552 (talk)Therefore, Repubic of Viet Nam, Viet Cong and Democratic Republic of Viet Nam are considered as goverments or regimes in Vietnam, not as countries or nations.

Hanam190552 (talk)In conclusion, I think at the "Result" in the box, we let: "Decisive victory of the coalition of Battle of People's Liberation Armed Forces of South Vietnam (PLAF) and People's Army of Vietnam because of difficult distinguish the two armies

Hanam190552 (talk)Thank you —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The above was placed here by these recent edits. I initially thought to move tis to the bottom of the page in conformity with WP:TPG but I have not done so because this seems to be related to the section which follows this one and it seemed to me that moving this material might introduce more confusion than it eliminates.

This looks like a technical argument regarding which flag ought to be used in WP articles as the national flag of (north) Vietnam or as the battle flag of the military forces of the north in articles relating to battles during the 1975 invasion of the south by the north.

I think that this is simply too technical for me to deal with as I have no technical expertise relating to the points you seem to be arguing. Perhaps you should raise this issue at Talk:Flag of North Vietnam. That is probably not the appropriate discussion venue for these points either, but perhaps editors watching that page can direct you whatever the appropriate venue might be. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Message from user Hanam190552

How can I send messages to u in order to discuss on some article on the Wikipedia http://alphahistory.com/vietnam/fall-of-south-vietnam (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I see that you attempted to edit my user page (which is protected from edits because of past vandalism attempts) before leaving me this message here. I read this message just as I was about to place a level 3 warning on your user talk page about your disruptive editing of articles relating to the Vietnam war. In answer to your question, discuss your edits on the talk pages of the individual articles in which you would like to introduce possibly controversial changes. Do not edit against consensus of other regular editors of those articles. Editing against consensus will eventually result in your being blocked from editing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Please also read WP:EW. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I have reported User:Hanam190552 for edit warring, see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Hanam190552 reported by User:Mztourist Mztourist (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for intervention with User Hanam190552

Requesting your intervention on this as User:Hanam190552 is running amok making these changes without consensus Mztourist (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked this user for two days and placed this message on his talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Reverting "sophisticated" vandalism

You might want to take a closer look at the edits you reverted on Burbank, California, I think you missed one. ;) --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Fall of Saigon - stay behinds

The article you cite [1]is intriguing but not WP:RS. It contains numerous errors/POV, such as "the South Vietnamese dropped an American CBU 55 bomb on civilian Vietnamese, killing everyone and every creature in range that breathed oxygen. The United States also tested agent orange and white phosphorus on the Vietnamese population." and so I don't believe it can be relied on without corroboration. In any event the use of "almost" implies that Americans were unable to be evacuated, when some apparently chose to stay Mztourist (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I don't really have a POV position on this, but I jumped in remembering my time in VN from '64 to '72. I wasn't there for the evacuation in '75 but I know people who were evacuated then. I have heard that one of my former coworkers chose to stay behind, but I don't know whether or not that is true.

OK, that said as background, I think the WP:RS status of the particular source with which you disagree turns not necessarily on your evaluation of particular details in that one article but more on what WP:RS says:"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Admittedly, I do not know what the reputation of the Davis Enterprise newspaper is; admittedly, I had not checked prior to my revert. Apparently it is the town newspaper of Davis, California and has been publishing since 1897. Perhaps they are raving lunitic, perhaps not. However, I don't think that their RS status turns on the judgement of one particular WP editor based on the content of one article. If you know of a source which refutes the claim re the CBU-55 which bothers you, see WP:DUE.

I don't think that the word "almost" contains any implication regarding whether any Americans left behind were left because of a failure of the evacuation effort to achieve a 100.00% evacuation success rate or whether any left behind were left because of their own choosing. I'm open to improvements in the presentational wording.

I'm not normally this grumpy. This hit me at a bad time. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I note that you have added several other sources, however apart from the Straits Times article I don't think any of them are WP:RS as they are either self-published blogs or like the Davis article, an opinion piece which clearly wasn't subject to fact checking. In relation to the CBU-55 there is no evidence that one was ever targetted at civilians. I assume that the writer was referring to the dropping of CBU-55s during the Battle of Xuân Lộc. Its also relevant to consider that the writer of the Davis article was clearly a northern sympathiser and so would have a particular POV on the conduct of the war. Anyway, there do seem to be enough sources, reliable or otherwise, that some Americans chose to stay and so on that basis I'm ok with your recent edits. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

OK. The presentation of my added material could be improved but I think I'll leave that for others, at least for now. I'll just mention that I am physically located on Romblon island in the Philippines. Consequently, my research capability is limited to a slow and unreliable internet connection. I'm guessing that better sources could be turned up in a university library in the U.S.

Re the CBU-55 use, Ms. Krick's characterization about that admittedly came 40 years after the fact and was probably not based on first-hand knowledge of that event even at the time of the event. Her characterization does seem colored by political leanings. She says that that the bomb was dropped "on civilian Vietnamese" (implying that those civilians were intentionally targeted), and that characterization differs from what other sources say. This source says that it was dropped "virtually on top of" an NVA divisional command post located just outside of Xuan Loc. I would not rule out what is euphemistically called "collateral damage" these days, and would guess that not every one of the 250 or so persons killed were NVA regulars, but that's WP:OR on my part. Battle of Xuân_Lộc#Defense and fall of Xuan Loc says that "about 200 civilians and North Vietnamese soldiers" were killed, and cites a supporting source. You say above that there is no evidence that a CBU-55 was ever targeted at civilians, and I don't doubt that, but the distinction between "targeted at" and "dropped on" tends to be academic as far as the impacted civilians are concerned. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the report of "about 200 civilians and North Vietnamese soldiers" were killed" comes from a North Vietnamese source and so is of dubious reliability anyway, while the bombing of the 341st Division (Vietnam) HQ is verified. Romblon must be nice... Mztourist (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

History of the Philippines

It's not denigrating anyone to say that we should have an archaeological source for an archaeological statement. In fact it seems fairly obvious. And are you really happy with "was said"? What does that even mean? Unnamed people used to say? How is that acceptable? Doug Weller (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You're right re denigration; I screwed up there. You're also right re the wording, I think. I've added another (probably better) supporting citation but I haven't changed the wording. Feel free to improve this further, and apologies for my misuse of the word "denigration". I've also responded on the article talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Donny Pauling edits

Sorry, I clicked the update button before I added the final reference source that time. I assure you that if you examine the sources cited -- ABC news, the local newspaper, and the only adult news source that has consistently and faithfully covered Pauling's saga,you will see that this is not a case of vandalism or anything of the sort. Pauline was a leader in anti-porn advocacy. My additions on his page take no stance on his position, but merely report the facts, and cite the most complete and up-to-date references.

Thank u

Ari Bass aribass@mac.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.32.169 (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm WP:AGFing on this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean to get all conspiracy theory on you all - but if you are indeed the Ari Bass in the public eye, AKA Michael Whiteacre, who has been opposed to anti-porn activists for years, you should consider familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to James Henderson Blount may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• He also served as special representative of the U.S. State Department to [[Santo Domingo]] in 1914).<ref name=SNAC-Blount>{{cite web|url=http://socialarchive.iath.virginia.edu/ark:/99166/w6223j37|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Indefinite?

Hello there.. Saw a block of yours (this one). I've never seen an IP indefinitely blocked. Wanted to confirm with you. Was it intentional? Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 12:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I apparently placed that block during a WP:Huggle session. I don't recall it specifically, but I've taken a second look. The blocked user is an IP with a history of persistent vandalism, warnings, and blocks of escalating durations going up to multiple years. My recent practice re block durations has been to start at 31 hours for a user with no history of blocks and to escalate from the most recent block duration if there is a history. This user's most recent block prior to mine had a duration of three years. I've rolled the block duration back to three years, which is the maximum standard duration offered at Special:Block. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

5 Million: We celebrate your contribution

	We couldn't have done it without you
	Well, maybe. Eventually. But the encyclopedia would not be as good. Celebrate 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Trump vandal

The user vandalizing the Trump page announced it beforehand. See User:ARandomGuyInYourHouse/sandbox. Sounds unlike to be interested in improving WP. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 03:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

RE: Safe Spaces ie. places for pussies to curl up in a ball and cry.

Leave my edits alone!

Freaking Liberals, soon, real soon, they'll learn their place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.44.67 (talk) 03:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

BTW "Wtmitchell"? Really? "Liberal Douchebag" would be a more appropriate screen name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.44.67 (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC) 05:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

He'll probably resume the childishness once the current block expires, quickly reach an indefinite block, and continue as a WP:SOCK until he gets bored. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

Hello, Wtmitchell. I'm so sorry for the edit on Edith's page. I got confused. :|