User talk:Wtmitchell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tbipat (talk | contribs) at 18:58, 18 November 2020 (→‎Tell us about your experiences editing Wikipedia!: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


My local time:
May 2024
Friday
3:43 am 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.

Paul Graham (computer programmer)'s hierarchy of disagreement.
Please try to stay in the top three sections of this pyramid during disputes.
See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

On Gauss-Bonnet-Chern theorem

Hi, there,

Although my expertise is not differential geometry but stochastic differential equaitons, I happen to know quite a bit of differential geometry and the history of the Gauss-Bonnet-Chern theorem (which is how it is generally known in the math community). As for the accuracy of my account of this theorem, you may ask a differential geometer, e.g., Hung-Hsi Wu from UC Berkeley.

I am not sure what your expertise is or how you got the information about this theorem. But I believe you can simply read the papers by Allendoerfer[1], Fenchel[2], Allendoerfor-Weil,[3] and the classic papers [4, 5] by Chern to get this straight. Please let me know your reason to revert my account of the history back to the earlier one. Thank you!

References [1]Allendoerfor, The Euler number of a Riemannian manifold, Amer. J. Math. 62(1940), 243-248 [2]Fenchel, On total curvature of a Riemannian manifolds, J. London Math. Soc. 15(1940), 15-22 [3]Allendoerfer and Weil, The Gauss-Bonnet theorem for Riemannian polyhedra, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 53(1943), 101-129 [4]Chern, A simple intrinsic proof of the Gauss-Bonnet formula for closed Riemannian manifolds, Ann. of Math., 45(1944), 747-752 [5]Chern, On the curvatura integra in a Riemannian manifold, Ann. of Math., 46(1945), 674-684

HUaizhong Ren — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hren8401 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. The impression I got from this is that you are well beyond me here and that I must have made an error. I see that there is an article on Chern–Gauss–Bonnet theorem and that it has an edit by me from WP:Huggle. I don't remember making that edit and, looking at it, don't see any reason I might have made it. I apparently did this with a mis-click -- an error on my part which I didn't notice as I did it while reviewing edits thrown up by the WP:Edit filter. I see that you have corrected my error and I apologize for having made it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

I'm restoring the following personal attack by user:Great King Monty Molee here

== hello Mr. grandmaster editor ==
−
−
Hi, Bill, I'm back. The community despises you, especially me. We are gonna get you.
−
P.S. Thanks 4 the account back.
−
Here is my website Mr. grandmaster editor.
−
website here.

The content restored above was added in these edits and quickly removed by User:Hell in a Bucket in these edits

Advice given at Wikipedia:No personal attacks#First offenses and isolated incidents says in part: "Often the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is to simply ignore it.", and that seems appropriate at this point. Beyond restoring the above material here, I'm ignoring it at this point. 

Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of Article Stub on Lights Out Manufacturing

Hello WT: THanks for your note yesterday. I defer entirely to you on the edit(s) I made to the article. I have no knowledge of the topic; I'm a new volunteer and was just editing the draft language to tighten it up a bit, but understand I may well have overstepped. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto28281 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback of Parent company 2020-04-28

You didn't even **READ** it, did you? Either that, or you have ZERO comprehension of the English language. I fixed the quote from the source because the original WAS NOT EVEN A SENTENCE! It communicated NOTHING until I fixed it. But you in your great "GrandMaster" wisdom are going to prevent me from making beneficial edits. 172.75.72.202 (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I mis-took what you added to be an editorial comment rather than a quote from the cited source. I've undone my edit and tweaked the cite. Apologies. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and sorry for the snark; just frustrated. 172.75.72.202 (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

article W350 Project

Hello, about the W350 Project, you mentioned something about not finding the price in yen in the article 

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/16/plyscraper-city-tokyo-tower-wood-w350

it is there but a bit further inside the article. Anyhow, maybe it is more relevant to write the price in USD? what do you think? Tobbe s 97 (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I missed that. I think USD is more useful in the English Wikipedia, and I think that it is best to use values supported directly by cited sources without applying currency conversions. Sometimes those preferences conflict but, apparently, not in this case. I would go with USD. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions and contribution here would be appreciated

I feel as if the said person deleted too much of the history section of the Philippines especially the Islamic era, even though I agree with him that the article is excessively detailed, I also feel that the said deleted portions were crucial and necessary, can you chime in on this? Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philippines#PH_0447's_deletions_of_many_Islamic_era_history_paragraphs

(edit conflict) I have not looked at individual edits here, and I don't have either great interest in or detailed knowledge of the period of Philippine history in question. Offhand, I agree with you about material re the history of precolonial Islamic cultures, polities and populations in what has become the present-day Philippines being under-represented here in proportion to material re Indians and Chinese. In the Philippines article, I would put that down more to over-coverage of the latter than to under-coverage of the former but, as I say, I don't have much interest or detailed knowledge in that area. Having emphasized that I am not qualified to opine, I will opine that most of the material about all of those, and about more recent Philippine history, which is in the Philippines article belongs instead in more detailed WP:SS articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

locking an article

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governors_of_Pennsylvania I saw you were able to roll back some of the edits. I've been sitting on the page today. People are actively vandalizing his page because of the current situation in the commonwealth. Is it possible to either partially lock or protect the page? Inuyasha8908 (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the edit history and saw apparent vandalism from anons today. I've protected the page for one day to autoconfirmed or confirmed access in order to edit it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I actually had to log back in today, and discovered that my last login was 24 years ago. So I logged in just for this. Inuyasha8908 (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign relations of the Holy See

England ≠ The United Kingdom... unless your name is Éamon de Valera! 194.207.146.167 (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manila Galleons source

Thanks for catching that source. I thought the fact sounded quite off when reading it actually, but I briefly glanced at the source saw it was actually about Philippine-built ships and left it at that. Honestly I'm not sure about a lot of the sources, many seem quite obscure and some almost self-published, but I don't feel confident enough to properly tackle them at the moment. CMD (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks. I'm not knowledgeable re that subtopic, but I checked a bit because that parenthetical observation looked WP:ORish. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too knowledgeable on that particular subtopic either, but in general I have concerns about a lot of what is currently scattered across various Philippine History articles. Speaking of ORish, I was wondering if you had any knowledge of Battle of Manila (1570), Battle of Manila (1574), and Battle of Manila (1896). From the sources I can access, I can't find references to a "Battle of Manila". Nothing is coming up on google either (although the term is swamped by WWII). The 1574 article is especially questionable, and I think should be AfDed as OR. CMD (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an academic. I lived in the Philippines from 1996 to 2018, and developed an interest in the Philippine history while there -- particularly focused on the American half century, with some spillover outside of that range. When I relocated to the U.S., I left all my book sources behind -- donated to a local school -- but I'm sure that I've seen the 1898 and 1899 battles referred to as Battle of Manila in books published by Filipino historians (and see here); probably 1896 as well, though that one fizzled. 1762 comes to mind as well, and also these. Wish I could help more. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, hope your move went well. CMD (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New message from RedRiver660

Hello, Wtmitchell. You have new messages at RedRiver660's talk page.
Message added 14:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

RedRiver660 (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Streets of Rage 2 edit

It states in the "Reception" part that the game is considered one of the best of all time and how critically acclaimed it was. I simply added that to the summary at the top so it gets more recognition. Why change it back when the source is on the same page? You also removed the edit to Max's name... His name IS Max "Thunder" Hatchet officially so that's why I made the edit... Why would you change it back again?

Sounds like you're over censoring edits literally for the sake of it about something you've probably never played or even heard of.

I'm changing it back.

(edit) "Streets of Rage 2 has been considered by many to be one of the best games ever made. In 2004, readers of Retro Gamer magazine voted Streets of Rage 2 as the 64th best retro game of all time,[50] and the staff later included in their top ten lists of Mega Drive, Game Gear, and Nomad games.[54][55][56] It has also been listed as one of the best games ever made by publications such as Stuff,[48][49] and as one of the greatest retro games by sites such as NowGamer[52] and BuzzFeed.[51]"

This is on the same page. Hmmm... Doesn't seem very "below neutral" to add that same line to the top summary when it is stated on the same page. 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.253.157.228 (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That revert was made from WP:Huggle. What I saw was an anonymous edit with no edit summary from an IP with only a few edits which, at a quick read of what was visible via Huggle, looked like biased opinionating, made to a gaming article.; I see lots of anonymous vandalism in gaming, entertainment and sports articles. I have not re-reverted. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query on the Dictatorial Government of the Philippines

In your reversion of the bit on the topic your notes says Cited source appears to have been rendered outdated by its publisher. I have never come across a comment like that before, could you please explain for our edification? Has the publisher come out and said 'this if false' or is it merely out of print? Thanks.Foofbun (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I probably thought that comment was wittily clear when I made it but, looking back at it, it looks not only unclear but also unhelpful and inappropriate. I'll apologize briefly for that here and refer you to a more extensive response I've made at Talk:Dictatorial Government of the Philippines#Hong Kong Junta. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Junta DYK

Hi Wtmitchell, are you considering submitting Hong Kong Junta to WP:DYK? It's a genuinely interesting article, and covers quite and underserved area. (For example, half of the current DYK are related to the United States.) CMD (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I had not considered that.The article is still unfinished, but it seems to have attracted more contributors than just I (in contrast to, say, Government in exile of the Commonwealth of the Philippines). Go ahead with that if and when you think it would be useful. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the DYK rules incentivise the promotion of unfinished articles. Still, I'll look at it over the next couple of days. I'd also be happy to take a look at the Commonwealth article, in time. Maybe the difference in interest is in the name. "Hong Kong Junta" is far more snappy than "Government etc etc etc." CMD (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Up at Template:Did you know nominations/Hong Kong Junta. CMD (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Copyright problem icon Your addition to Hong Kong Junta has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, my understanding is the material in question here was written within the display guidelines of WP:QUOTE. If the issue is WP:LONGQUOTE, then is it necessary to revdel the text immediately rather than calling for a rewrite? CMD (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not remove any of the quotations; I only removed the surrounding prose. Wtmitchell is an experienced editor who has already received multiple warnings a warning for copyright issues and therefore I removed the content and did the revision deletion as soon as I detected the problem. His edit summary indicated that he had a copy of the addition saved offline; or he could always return to the source document and write his addition from that.— Diannaa (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert in the ins and outs of copyright law, but please see the notice at the bottom of page one here. The final sentence reads: "All information contained herein has been approved for release by the NPS Public Affairs Officer." NPS is Naval Postgraduate School, a public graduate school operated by the United States Navy. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The document is a masters thesis written by a student at San Diego State University in 1974. The fact that a copy of the thesis resides in the library of the Naval Postgraduate School does not transfer the copyright to the US Navy. (As a side note, when copying public domain sources, you need to include attribution. This can be done by including {{PD-notice}} as part of your citation. This is so our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim.) — Diannaa (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for commencing a fantastic article of interest to Philippine, US, Spanish and Hong Kong history. You're one of the few who wants to be first and not the one of the myriad who wants to be second...Foofbun (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thanks. I've long seen this as a hole in WP coverage, but I didn't have enough info to fill the hole. The info in the Bell thesis was enough to start doing that. Hopefully, other WP editors will improve the article and fill in its gaps from other sources presently unknown to me. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless revert

You undid an edit I made, only one minute after I made it, claiming that "it did not appear constructive". Please describe exactly what you found unconstructive about it. Specifically which policies or guidelines do you think I did not follow? 82.132.222.241 (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did that revert from WP:Huggle after seeing the unsupported addition of "a group noted for the extreme nature of the homophobia and antisemitism propounded in its doctrines and campaigns." through the huggle porthole into the change I reverted. You unreverted, and I re-edited the article to add a {{cn}}. As I said in my edit summary there, I don't believe that WP:BLUE applies here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have confirmed what I suspected, which is that you did not bother to properly read the edit before undoing it. I did not add that text. Even if I had, your attitude was still disruptive; you should have explained the reason for your revert in the edit summary, and then you had another opportunity that you squandered by leaving an unhelpful template on my talk page. Have the courtesy to understand what an edit did before undoing it in the future. 82.132.222.241 (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN. As I said, I don't believe that WP:BLUE applies here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing. Not only were you rude enough to undo my edit without bothering to understand, you are now rude enough to ignore entirely what I just told you: I did not add that text. Got that? 82.132.222.241 (talk) 10:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably my last response here. I see here that you've added some support; thanks for that. I had looked at that main article, but decided that it would be better to leave the judgement about how much of the big citation there needed repeating in the other article up to editors more familiar with this. Re citations in the lead, see MOS:LEADCITE -- it's an editorial judgement call, and different editors make different judgements. As a general guideline, cites in the lead are sometimes omitted when the point in question is clarified and supported in the article body. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your response bears no relation to the problem that I raised. You undid my edit because you claimed that I had added text which I did not add. Are you unable to comprehend that, or just too childish to own up to your error? 82.132.222.241 (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I see what you're upset about. What I saw from WP:Huggle, looking at your edit which had tripped the edit filters as a possible problem, looked in the diff presented in the porthole something like the following:
Megan Phelps-Roper (born January 31, 1986) is a former member and former official spokesperson of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), Megan Phelps-Roper (born January 31, 1986) is a former member and official spokesperson of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC),

a group noted for the extreme nature of the homophobia and antisemitism propounded in its doctrines and campaigns. Her mother is WBC spokesperson Shirley Phelps-Roper,<ref name="at_5_she_protested_2019_10_08_nytimes_com" /><ref name=guardian2015/> and her grandfather was the church's founder [[Fred Phelps]].<ref name="at_5_she_protested_2019_10_08_nytimes_com" /><ref name="megan_phelps_roper_2019_10_24_kcstar_com" /><ref>{{cite web|title = Why Fred Phelps’ granddaughter left Westboro Baptist Church|url = http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/mar/30/phelps-roper/?|website = LasVegasSun.com|accessdate = November 16, 2015|last = Burns|first = Sarah|date = March 30, 2015}}</ref>

Actually, it was a bit starker than that in the Huggle porthole; what looked like a bolded added assertion there really stood out, and it would have been necessary to scroll down to see as much of it as I have shown above. That's what caused me to hit the "revert & warn" button. The message on your talk page was a standard warning generated by Huggle. If I had dropped out of Huggle and examined a regular diff of your edit it wouldn't have looked anything like that, and if I had examined the edits leading up to yours I would have seen that you had not made that addition. I didn't do that, though; I reacted to the diff as I saw it in the Huggle porthole. Apologies for that and, again, thanks for citing the support. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So it required me to write, in bold text, three times, the problem with your behaviour before you understood it. I'm afraid I find you to be grossly incompetent. If you are here to build an encyclopaedia, then you must a) have the courtesy to understand edits before you undo them; b) have the courtesy to read what people have written when they leave you messages; c) not use a tool which you are not competent to use; and d) if you decide that you are still competent to undo other people's work, then explain your reasons for doing so when you do. I hope I will never again see such a lazy and disruptive approach from you. 82.132.222.241 (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is an obvious sock of WP:LTA/BKFIP, now range-blocked. Favonian (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm no good at chasing socks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expunge from the record?

Hello "Boracay Bill" - it has been a long time between drinks. You reverted this blather, but is there any way of removing this from the record completely? ‎ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_Genocide&action=history Regards, William Harristalk 09:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to commence a process to remove the article, just that one editor's unruly and threatening "edit summary" comment. William Harristalk 12:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I did that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you Bill, much more civilised. (-: William Harristalk 10:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re first amendment short description

Thanks for your modification. I jumped into this based upon a small number of modifications to some of the other amendment's short descriptions yesterday by a new user. I liked the formalization of the introductory wording, and it seems to me that having all the short descriptions conform at least to a clear format would be desireable. I also always try to hammer home the concept of 'enumeration', as far too many people misinterpret the constitution and amendments as "guarantees" of rights. I realize it's an arguable matter. That said, rigid formalization is not always an improvement over readability, particularly with 'short descriptions'! So, thanks for your modification. I certainly don't want to overturn the apple cart and start a whole discussion about the precise wording of 'short descriptions'. it would seem a counterintuitive path to take. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that response here; 'enumeration' just didn't strike me as the best way of putting that here. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Dower Blumlein

Hello

I'm Alan Blumlein - Grandson of Alan Dower Blumlein. I was in the Alan Dower Blumlein Wikipedia Page adding two images and descriptions of the memorial stone to remember the crash of Halifax V9977 on 7th June 1942. The memorial stone is located at the fateful crash site just on the Welsh Bicknor side of the River Wye in Ross on Wye. https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/17736341.garth-lawsons-walk-welsh-bicknor/

Just as I had finished editing the page, I received a conflict message. When I clicked on the conflict I received the following:

Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. An edit you recently made to Alan Blumlein seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Please could you let me know what gives you the right to interfere with my editing of a Wikipedia page dedicated to my grandfather and especially when I'm adding information of importance to the page!!

Thank you - Alan Blumlein - [email address elided - wtm]

AlanBlumlein (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. There are several points of concern in there.
For the one which prompted by edit, see Help:Whitespace#Images. I see now that you had made three edits in a row and I reacted to only the third of the three which I saw while I was using WP:Huggle to patrol for problems. I've subsequently looked at the other two and see what you were trying to do. The Help page I just linked ought to help; the editing template {{clear}} might also be useful (see Help:A quick guide to templates).
As for the "what gives you the right" question, see WP:OWN, WP:COI and Wikipedia:Collaboration_first#Collaborative_editing -- all of which come into play here, probably among other relevant project pages.
I'm sure that you mean well and are trying to contribute useful content, but you don't seem to have a grasp yet on how Wikipedia works. You might drop in at WP:Teahouse. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Wtmitchell - I appreciate your reply and hopefully now you will realise that when I go back into redo the edits that I was trying to do you will not object even if my editing skills are not up to par, I still have valid content to contribute. I hope also that you clicked onto the link I provided above and actually the memorial stones that I was attempting to insert remembers the loss of 11 men all striving to develop air to surface radar during WWII. The invention they were testing H2S made an enormous contribution and was still in use into the 1980's.
I hope that helps to clear up any concerns you have.
Alan Blumlein

AlanBlumlein (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Lives Matter

Hello, just to let you know that I have reverted your change to the lede section of Black Lives Matter as it both encyclopedic and was directly copied from the BLM website which fails WP:COPYVIO, WP:PLAG and WP:RS. Please be more careful in future. Many thanks, Ed6767 talk! 15:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're referring to this edit. IMO, it's a stretch to say that quoting what the BLM website says about BLM on its ABOUT page, with attribution by citing that page as a supporting source, is COPYVIO or PLAG. Re RS, See WP:ABOUTSELF. I'm not going to argue about it, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you...

...really mean to warn another admin for vandalism? Just curious, but thought it might be accidental. - BilCat (talk) 07:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look. That warning was intentional, though I was not aware at the time that the object of the warning was to another admin who is a very experienced editor. If this edit I reverted which brought about the warning was intentional, and presuming that I am not badly mis-perceiving something here, the warning stands. I have added a comment to the boilerplate warning which was placed on the user talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see here that another experienced editor has re-undone my revert. I also see on having taken a third look that this was indeed the result of mis-perception on my part. I committed the erronious revert, issued the erronious warning, and doubled down on that during an insomnia break around 3AM my time and it's now nearly 7AM, which explains this somewhat but does not excuse it. Many thanks to those who rubbed my nose in the mess I made and then cleaned it up when I did not do so. Apologies to the community for my bone-headedness here. I'll apologize separately to the editor who was the object of these errors. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly wasn't trying to rub your nose in anything, just in case you thought I was. It looked like a genuine mistake, and I thought bringing it to your attention was the best thing to do, rather than trying to revert an admin without knowing what was going on. I make plenty of boneheaded edits on Wikipedia, especially as I suffer from insomnia also, so I'm the last one to jump your case for that. If you'd prefer to receive such notices privately, I can email you if there ever is a next time, if you'd prefer that. I know I don't always want everyone seeing my mistakes before I have a chance to correct them first. - BilCat (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I appreciate having my nose rubbed in my errors, and having that done in public doesn't bother me. I just didn't see the error at 3AM but did in my 6AM session after having a few more hours of sleep. It was inattention from 3AM wooziness which I should not have let happen but did. Thanks and cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hong Kong Junta

On 16 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hong Kong Junta, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that money Spain provided to the Hong Kong Junta as part of a peace deal was used to buy weapons to fight Spain? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hong Kong Junta. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hong Kong Junta), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Guerillero | Parlez Moi 12:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jstor article

Hi Wtmitchell, I noted you checked a Jstor source in the Religion in the Philippines page. The text on bangkas on the main Philippines page is a bit of a mess (none of the sources seem to spell it bangka for a start). I've pulled out the information that seemed to come from the sources I could access that weren't dead, but don't have access to [6]. If you have access, would you mind taking a look? Thanks, CMD (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That seems to concern this July 15 edit. I don't really remember that edit, though it was only a few days ago; "how many muslims" does ring a bell slightly, but not "bangka". I looked at the JSTOR article (which says in its second paragraph: "Difficulties in getting accurate numbers are compounded in some Muslim areas of the Philippines because of the hostility of the inhabitants to government personnel.") but don't see "bangka" there, or in the WP article. I do see Bangka (boat)#Etymology and the Bangka and Banka disambiguation pages, for whatever use those might be. In any case, I think this was probably something which caught my eye in passing, not something of real concern to me.
This happened to come up as you and I were exchanging edits here, following on a change to that article having caught my eye in passing. I was idly googling for a better source than travel.state.gov or the suspected circular ADB cite and had just found the Overview section under Government and Politics here. It strikes me, though, that if I were Filipino I would consider how the U.S. government characterizes the organizational makeup of the Philippines government to be a bit U.S.-centric on the English Wikipedia. That's pretty nitpicky, though, and I'll no doubt find other nits to pick. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, regarding bangkas I was referring to Philippines. Currently it cites this jstor source, and as I cannot see what it says myself I can't verify the text in the article. I was wondering if you could access it and see.
Regarding the LoC source, I agree we shouldn't rely on an overabundance of US government sources, but quite frankly that's low on the priority list given the state of much of the article. CMD (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Re Bangka, there's four occurrences of "bangka":
  • p.111: The study focuses on small and medium-sized, wooden hulled boats such as the baroto or bangka, pumpboats, and sailboats.
  • p.112: Baroto or bangka is a generic term that may loosely be applied to nearly every type of Western Visayan boat.
  • p.112: Like most Filipinos, the Ilonggos (Hiligaynon-speakers) have satisfied their protein requirements by subsistence fishing from outriggered bangkas within the lagoons and along the edges of reefs surrounding their islands.
  • p.115: For ordinary purposes such as fishing and travelling from one island to another, there was the boat which the Ilonggos called, as already stated, baroto, bangka or baloto. [goes on with some detail about baroto and some other boat types but does not mention bangka]
I also see the WP Bangka (boat) article which has an Etymology section citing sources. I have not looked at the sources. My wife is from Isabela and speaks Banga language Ibanag language (my error -- wtm), Ilocano language and Tagalog language; she tells me that all those spell it Bangka.
Re the other, it was a passing item only of casual interest to me.
Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have adjusted the text in response. CMD (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About Latin Americans in the Philippines.

In this subsection of the Philippines talk page, you removed my source supporting the historical Latin American immigration to the Philippines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Philippines#Latin_American_settlers

And, in restrospect I think I was mistaken indeed, so may I ask if this alternative source is more fitting for that statement? Stephanie J. Mawson's: "Convicts or Conquistadores ? Spanish Soldiers in the Seventeenth-Century Pacific"

https://academic.oup.com/past/article/232/1/87/1752419

Table 1 in particular outlined the amount of Mexican soldiers shipped to the Philippines anually. Is this a more fitting source for the statement you removed? And if so, do I have permission to restore the content, albeit modified, with the newer source instead of the one you deleted? Thank you. --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have commented similarly at Talk:Philippines#Latin American settlers. Please work to reach a consensus regarding this there. I may or may not participate in that discussion but, if I do, my participation there will have no more weight than other participating editors. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unnumbered pages

Thanks for the help at Draft:War guilt question. Regarding the hidden comment about page numbering in this edit, this is normal for eFiles, no need to flag it. If a book is a print book, then Google (or internet archive, or whoever) scans the physical page, OCRs it, and then the book has printed page numbers that appear in Inside View, and show up in the url as well. If something is a digital file, then the "page" is kind of artificial. There is still a "page number", but you'll notice that in the result page snippets in Google results, if the boxed matter says, "See Inside - page 99" then it's a print book, and if it just says, "See Inside", then it's a computer file, and will appear to be "unnumbered". There are still the artificial numbers, and you can retrieve them out of the url; they look like this: &pg=PT99. A "real" book will have &pg=PA99. In the case of the Draft, I didn't leave the page number out because there are "no page numbers", but because I translated the article from French, and that's how they had it. If I get the time, I'll go look up the passage and add it, but I'm over-extended as it is.

If you enjoy working on Drafts, whether it's adding content, or wiki-gnoming to make sure everything looks okay, have a look also at Draft:French National Committee, which I just did today. You probably have already seen Draft:Liberation of France. You may find lots of non-standard stuff while it's still in draft, like instructions to self, little gray bullet lists to remind us to cover something, foreign language links in {{Further}} links to make sure we've adequately covered the original, and so on. Those will all come out pre-launch, so please don't take that stuff out. Use your own judgment; any kind of help would be great. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am busy with other work at present and don't have time to spend on this. I don't recall details, but my guess is that I ran across this during a WP:Huggle session and dropped out of that to make that comment without noticing that it was a draft article. I should have noticed that and, if I had, I would have avoided interfering with the ongoing effort of whomever was working on the draft. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU! TVaughanSoCal (talk)TVaughanSoCal

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TVaughanSoCal (talk • contribs) 23:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

La Paloma ("No More")

(moved here from the top of the page, where it originally appeared)

"No More" is a special version created for the film "Blue Hawaii", in which Elvis sang it. It maybe that it is because of that, that so many believe, that it is called "No More" in English. But the song is far older (even in the English versions) than the film - and then it is called "The Dove", which btw corresponds to the Spanish title (paloma = dove). You need just go to YouTube and search "La Paloma English". Dean Martin sings a translation of the Spanish original, and many other sing it with some other text - burt none is called "No More" apart from the one, Elvis sings. 213.112.90.205 (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This concerns this revert, and thanks for calling it to my attention. It looks like I fixated on your having made a change to the lead sentence without citing a supporting source and somehow, despite what it says and despite your edit summary, had the idea that you were changing this the other way around. I think that, despite the fact that I know little Spanish, I must have unconsciously translated La Paloma to The Dove in my mind and, despite what I saw in the diff, presumed that the article had been correct and you were making an error. I apologize for that.
I've fixed my revert error and added some info re the No More version to the article here. I have no expertise in this area, so please improve what I've done if it needs improving. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sama-bajau

HI you reverted an edit I'd made on the page for Sama-bajau and mentioned on my talk page it didn't seem constructive-- I responded on my talk page but wasn't sure if you had seen it--- I edited with the intent to say the text below but slipped up and messed up the reference, and one of the times I published, and then went back into fix my reference. Will be better about using the sandbox- thank you for the reminder!

I've since figured out how to correctly make the edit-- I wanted to clarify which was the part that didn't seem constructive though so I don't just go in and revert the revert if I misunderstood

I'd made that was " gypsy (is a slur and shouldn't be used regularly but is left for historical linguistic context)"

Thank you very much for your time! Kizemet (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)kizemet[reply]

I think that the degree of political correctness which you personally expect on Wikipedia probably differs from what other editors expect. I don't think this is addressed specifically in WP:MOS or in Category:Wikipedia content guidelines project pages, though I believe that WP:CENSOR and WP:EUPH give some indication. I don't intend to discuss this further here or elsewhere. If you wish more clarity, WP:Teahouse might be a good place to ask. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(added) See Wikipedia:BOWDLERIZE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Navarro, Drillon, Wallace - MAP 2014.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Navarro, Drillon, Wallace - MAP 2014.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 15:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:Navarro, Drillon, Wallace - MAP 2014.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Navarro, Drillon, Wallace - MAP 2014.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 20:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

re animated gif

It's different picture, it's not merely "a version where it animates". That my gif doesn't animate due to technical restrictions is no excuse to include an inferior product. --Golbez (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have just looked at this in passing, but if it's not an animated gif, please change the caption so as not to describe it as an animated gif. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you! Thanks for adding citations to the Philippines article.

The Citation Barnstar The Citation Barnstar
Thanks for helping us put full citations in the Philippines article, in our quest to have it upgraded to Featured Article Status. I also noticed that you are a top editor in the Philippines Wikipedia in here:https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Philippines so to thank you for your tireless contributions to our article let me award you with the citations barnstar! Keep onf fighting the good fight and doing the good work! Regards! Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's appreciated. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amr Zaid.

Amr is a regular on English left wing Facebook pages, posting antisemitic hatred. 78.137.223.168 (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.137.223.168 (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this has to do with an edit I made recently, but it doesn't ring a bell with me. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

adit

why did you delete because i stay there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazatshisa (talk • contribs) 12:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
hello Gazatshisa (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dog whistle (politics)

@Wtmitchell:Your recent edit restored material currently under discussion and since the edit was quite close to mine and the rationale is seemingly unrelated, I wanted to check whether this was your intention? Thanks, ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 12:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If I stepped on something you did, it was unintentional. Feel free to undo any conflicts between you and I which I have introduced and/or to improve on what I've done. What I was trying to achieve with my edit is explained towards the end of the current discussion in the "Food stamps, verification, and the 2014 United States Senate election in Mississippi article" section on the talk page. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion of my recent edit

Dear Mr. Mitchell;

Thanks for your constructive criticism and the help with my editing. I like reading much and just want to contribute to this website, i am still learning the procedures, the operation mechanism here. I am very sorry if my edit enraged, upsetted or caused misinformation on other users. I am just curious, if i were to provide the source of information as a reference in the article as well, would my edit be eligible for the article? Thansk for your very valuable time!

(p.s: Also, i did not understand why it wasnt constructive, really. I was trying to help construct information.)

-Aupetram Aupetram (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about this myself. My revert was because the content you added looked likely to be controversial and did not observe WP:BURDEN. I took a look at the Kurdistan Workers' Party article after seeing your message expecting that I might find some supporting sources there, but I see that that characterization is not made there and this assertedly related triple murder incident is not mentioed there. I do not intend to pursue this myself but, if I were to do that, I would first identify citeable verifiable amd reliable sources supporting the information I intended to add, and then would add that information into both articles I have mentioned here and, possibly, also into other related articles, citing the supporting sources which I had identified.. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC) As far as your characterization of the organization goes, that should probably appear in the article on the organization before being mentioned here and, in light of what I see in that article presently, and considering WP:DUE, you should be prepared to defend such an addition on the talk page of that article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shango

Sango is neither the correct spelling in English (which would be Shango) nor a correct transliteration of the Yoruba word. It is simply an incorrect version of Ṣàngó (as used throughout the page) which inexplicably omits the diacritics. Moreover, how is making the spelling of the same word consistent from one sentence to the next, as in my second edit which you reverted, unconstructive? — 69.120.64.15 (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to concern this revert. I took a second look at that, and it appears to have been a mis-click by me from WP:Huggle. I've undone the revert. Thanks for calling this to my attention; please remove the associated notification from your user talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. — 69.120.64.15 (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The information listed was inaccurate and out of date.

Hi, please advise me--there is a wikipedia page about me that was made without my knowledge or consent, that I did not contribute to. The information in it is inaccurate. I would like the entire page deleted and am trying to figure out how to make that happen. In the meantime, I myself tried to edit the page so that it at least reflected correct information--information that was 100% accurate as I did the editing myself and the page is about me. I now see that the edits I made have been deleted by you (calling them not constructive) and the original, incorrect, inaccurate content has been restored. Who can I chat/correspond with about this? Again, my goal is to have the page completely deleted--I have no idea who made it, and it was done without my input or consent, and the information in it is inaccurate at best, and completely untrue at worst. In the meantime, while the page remains as I try to get this sorted out, I would like to edit it so that it contains correct information (and who would know better than me?) without someone who does not know me at all undoing my edits to a page that is about me. Can you please advise me what my next step should be? Thank you Thinkonthesethings153 (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLPSELF -- particularly the second paragraph there. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit

HI

A while back I made an edit on this page (I mentioned that 'gypsy' is a racial slur). I cited incorrectly and clicked publish too quickly and then went back into fix it-- you mentioned that you reverted it because it wasn't constructive but didn't say if it was referring to my poor citation or if it was the content. I wanted to fix my citation and readdress it since its really important but wanted to confirm that it was the citation that was the issue and I'm not over stepping. I've tried reaching out to you a few times but haven't heard back, not sure if my messages didn't go through.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sama-Bajau

Kizemet (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)kizemet[reply]

I didn't really remember that, but it seems to refer to this edit of mine. That revert was made from WP:Huggle, probably with only about a second of thought. Looking at it again, I'm guessing that the only thing which struck me when I looked at it is that the reverted insertion looked like it belonged in a discussion on the talk page, if anywhere, and not as a parenthetical note in the article. The comment in the message about the revert would have been a canned message from Huggle and not a comment by me. If this were to be in a comment on the article talk page, and if I happened to see it there and commented, I would probably say that I saw that as a comment which was off-topic there and which seemed to be trying to sraise a racial disparagement issue where no disparagement was intended. Sorry to be a grump -- I have not had my morning coffee yet. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Self-block?

Really? :) BilCat (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to unblock yourself since you imposed it, but ping me/email me if you can't, and I can unblock you. Or, if this is a more serious issue, email me or Arbcom ASAP please. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to consider unblocking, but I'm going to need to see a very convincing unblock request first... GeneralNotability (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think Bill needs more coffee. - BilCat (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad he realizes that admins should be held to the same standards as other editors and could use a block every once in a while. We probably just haven't found his vandalism yet. ;) Natureium (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys (er. ... persons) (I almost changed that to "fellow admins", but had second thoughs about "fellow". The "new normal" is a bitch -- and I don't know how to de-genderize that). I just got back to the computer and saw this. This came about as a screwed-up reaction to this, which I saw during a WP:Huggle session. I think I dropped out of Huggle to look at it, reverted, went back into Huggle and tried to block from there. Apparently, I screwed that up -- there may or may not have been an unrecognized edit conflict involved, I'm not sure. In the immortal words of Charlie Brown, AAUGH![7][8] Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-admin, thanks. We all make mistakes, and you're not the first admin to do it. They even have a list of bad admin blocks somewhere that includes self-blocks. Thanks for accepting the good-natured ribbing. It's part of what makes editing Wikipedia fun. And we need all the fun we can get here at times! BilCat (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I vote we take TonyBallioni to arbcom for wheel-warring! GeneralNotability (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as the putative aggrieved party. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CAN I GET A WITNESS

hi
JESUS LOVES YOU PuppyLover251 (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

added Ajpolino • LuK3
readded Jackmcbarn
removed Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
renamed There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Information icon Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Ruddy Awah—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for making a mistake in the 2000 presidential election just wanted the make my self have a laugh, I would've changed it back anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wow240670786 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino Americans

Hello,

Thanks for working with me on the Filipino Americans article. Despite my attempts to achieve consensus on the talk page, Kagoikunai has once again reverted my edit. I'm not sure what the best way forward is given that Kagoikunai does not seem interested in communication. If I revert their latest reversion, I expect they will just revert again. What is your advice? -- Rublov (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone that reversion and explained that action on the article talk page. It was presumptuous of me to have revised your edit without so much as a notification to you, but I thought the revisions I made were useful and their merit clear. I also thought that the reversion of your edits and mine was uncalled-for, and I tried to explain that in my comments on the article talk page. I honestly do think that further discussion on the talk page would lead to better balance in the article, but I don't plan to devote effort to that if I can avoid it. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking action, and no worries about revising my edit - I agree that it is an improvement. -- Rublov (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect article from ex nihilo to creatio ex nihilo

I'm sure that whoever originally created the article ex nihilo (out of nothing, naturally) meant that it should treat creatio ex nihilo as its subject, but the choice of ex nihilo as the article title has meant that the lead and first few paras have to deal with distinguishing between creatio ex nihilo and the ex nihilo nihil fit idea. It would be much easier if the title were simply creatio ex nihilio, which in fact it once was. I've canvassed all authors who have edited this in the last month, (i.e., October 2020) asking for views.Achar Sva (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that. I think it would be an improvement.
As long as I'm commenting re this article, I would like to see this go back in in some form. It came out here, and I think that edit missed the whole from nothing point of the Kraus book cited there (pinging @Achar Sva:). I( didn't argue that, though -- I've got things which interest me more on my plate. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
you was very good Lhd240809 (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thamks. I appreciate it, though I am certainly not a competent graphic designer. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

US Intellectual tradition in political reforms

Hey. Thank you for your considered statements over the last couple weeks at Talk:United States Electoral College. I wanted to expand on a string of Congressional reform addressing state mal-apportionment in federal elections. I noted previously, efforts to curb state majority abuses included three Acts of Congress passing both House and Senate in an effort to shape political communities that resembled the underlying populations geographically, socially, and ideologically (the culturally-related basket of religion, ethnic practice, and politics): contiguity (1842), and compactness (1872), including equal population (1911) (but only for a few sessions at a time, and never enforced).

If we expand the observation from listing Acts of Congress to exploring who was sponsoring them, the topic takes on an interesting aspect of US political intellectual history. The 1842 legislation was sponsored by Jacksonian Democrats, the 1872 by Lincoln Republicans, and the 1911 by Republican and Democratic Progressives. I understand the impulse to the National Popular Vote generally to be aligned with that intellectual tradition. To take another page from the same democratizing impulse, if the states abuse their Constitutional duty to elect US Senators by their legislatures for thirty consecutive years as they did in the Gilded Age, then the American people will pass a Constitutional Amendment taking the abused trust away from the bad actors subverting their democratic republic.

So it is, that if the states do not refrain from the egregious anti-democratic practice of winner-take-all selection of their presidential electors, I expect that in due time the American people will take away the state legislature role in choosing a president, in one way or another. I will regret the loss of political community that might follow uniform standards for redistricting by equal population, contiguous boundaries, compact shapes, and respecting political boundaries aligned with the state geography. But the voting people are sovereign, at the very least, even if the non-voting populations of the voters' neighbors who are immigrants, young, and transients are left out of the national equation the future.

But whenever a persistent political majority takes form of the same opinion, it must be allowed to prevail, or we lose the American experiment that the London Economist last week noted is the political reason that Americans respect themselves and why others around the globe in turn respect them. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit too intellectual and into U.S. historical detail for me. I probably exposed some of my POV on the methodology for choosing U.S. presidents there, but that would not have been because of any serious intent to push my POV. Truth be told, I haven't thought my POV through well, and it's more a collection of half-considered connections between observations than a POV. I'm not happy with the way things are done in practice; I also think that the way things are structured to be done in the constitution are not appropriate to a political envitonment strongly influenced by political parties -- and certainly not to a political environment dominated by exactly two political parties. Lately, I've been thinking that the Democrat and Republican parties are to the U.S. citizenry as the Crips and the Bloods are to the citizens of Los Angeles -- that postulated equivalency is not an exact fit by a long ways, but I think that it is not a total mis-fit either. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tell us about your experiences editing Wikipedia!

Hi Wtmitchell!

I am conducting an interview study about how Wikipedia editors collaborate in the English edition of Wikipedia. The project description is on the WMF meta wiki: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Collaboration_Models_in_the_EN,_FR_and_ES_Language_Editions_of_Wikipedia.

This research study is part of a larger project where we are trying to understand how editors collaborate in different language editions of Wikipedia. I was looking through our team’s prior dataset and came across conversations that you have had on the American Imperialism article talk page. I am interested in learning more about those conversations.

Would you be willing to participate in a 1 hour interview about your experience? The interview will take place virtually over Skype, Hangout, Zoom or phone.

Our research team will make our best efforts to keep your participation confidential. Participation in our study is voluntary. If you are willing to participate in this interview, or if you have additional questions please email me. Or, if you are concerned about direct email you can contact me through Wikipedia’s mail feature.

If you are interested or have any other questions, please let us know.

via Email: tbipat@uw.edu or English Wikipedia: tbipat Tbipat (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wtmitchell&oldid=989395560"