User talk:Wtmitchell/Archive 10 (2016)

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

Promoting an organization[edit]

Hi, you just deleted my contribution to the "Reserve Bank of Australia" page and I would like you to leave that alone because I am trying to spread awareness about my Birding Organization and I found it has the same acronym, RBA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.199.118 (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.199.118 (talk • contribs) 03:06, February 4, 2016[reply]

Please read WP:NOT and WP:SPAM. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 13 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to clean it up here, but my changes could still use review by others. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Pinkachu2015/Pokeheroes[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Pinkachu2015/Pokeheroes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from wiki.pokeheroes.com/wiki/Main_Page. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This notice was apparently placed on my user talk page because the edit history of the deleted article lists me as the creator of the deleted page. As mentioned in the edit summary of the initial edit to the deleted page, I had restored it in response to a message on my talk page. That message was from User:Pinkachu2015, and can be seen here. I will place a notice on that user's talk page asking that user to look at this section of my talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube link at PC[edit]

Sorry to be a pain, but I really like to be able to check YouTube for copyvio and I can't check the link you added[1]- I think links should make that possible. Are you sure it's an official site? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug. I wasn't thinking about possible copyright issues when I added that link. I'm no expert on YouTube, but I took a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc (the same link, different content presentaation) and, though that doesn't give a clear indication of the copyright status of that video clip, it does show that this clip has been on YouTube since December 29, 2012. I guess that it boils down to a question of WP's presumptions re copyright status -- whether WP presumes in the absence of indication of copyright status of linked sources that (a) copyright problems exist or (b) copyright problems do not exist. I'm not a copyright maven, and I don't know. I looked at WP:LINKVIO for guidance, and that didn't clear this case up for me. It's a judgement call, and whatever judgement you make is OK with me. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, YouTube doesn't pro-actively act on copyvio, or at least not normally. Ah, I looked at our article, see YouTube#Copyrighted material. So it isn't surprising that YouTube contains a lot of copyvio links. I@ve removed it, thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Perhaps mention of and ref'd link to this snippet quoted on goodreads.com would be better re Carlin on PCness. Carlin has had a lot to say re PCness -- see e.g. [2]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Look at my underwear[edit]

I think you should also do a permanent soft block over the username policy. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 00:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IAW WP:U#Disruptive or offensive usernames as seemingly to you as intended to provoke emotional reaction. I'm not inclined to block on that basis in this case. If he comes back after block expiry with more disruption or harassment, someone will block him based on that behavior. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship Baptist College[edit]

I just put Fellowship Baptist College up for AFD. Its current form looks to be taken straight from a school handbook. It may have been speedied deleted in 2007, and the present article dates to 2008. Given your interest in Philippines topics, do you think this article is in any way salvageable? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've voted for deletion of the article in its present form. I knoow nothing about this organization. The article may be salvageable in a rewritten form, but I am unable to contribute to that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has asked you for your opinion on an article[edit]

View discussion here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moro_conflict#This_article_must_be_reconstructed_from_scratch._Massive_Purge_is_necessary.

Regards,

--Arquenevis (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moro conflict I opined that the article should be redone in summary style. I'm not very well informed in this topical area myself, so I probably will not be contributing much. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly remember to sign your name. Just a heads up. Thanks.
Regards,
--Arquenevis (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've added the sig which I left off earlier. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines v. China[edit]

@Shhhhwwww!!:: Need your help in talk page. Please see International reactions to Philippines v. China. The article needs to be split for readability. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am partially responsible for that, in the growth of the International reactions ... section, and I have been regretting that. I think that it is probably a self-correcting situation, though. The current content of that section will become obsolete once the ICA renders a decision later this year. After that, however, once reactions to the filing of the complaint and reactions to the ICA taking up the complaint become moot, there will be a lot of jawboning about reactions whatever to the ICA decides. This is WP:NOTNEWS in slow motion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines v. China, Part II[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for your recent neutral and methodical edits to the Philippines v. China article. Nihonjoe was right to protect the page and your measured edits in the interim are appreciated. Hammersbach (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines v. China, Awards section[edit]

Thanks for the awards contributions. Are you currently working on expanding the parts related to the philippines and chinese (not directly) arguments filed/at the hearing? If not I am intending to cover that. Also in Awards I think we should have a summary of the decision that brings out the key elements. I would like to do that also if you are not wthe articleking/intend to do it. Rybkovich (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am not currently actively working on expansion of the article. I don't have any plans to do major work on it, but will keep it on my watchlist. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Source needs translation[edit]

Template:Source needs translation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andrew D. (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "Arbitration Request"[edit]

Hello! This is a reply to your message before. You claimed that I misunderstood the content that I have removed. May you clarify it a little bit? As far as I know the meaning of "arbitration request" is to seek a third party to arbitrate a dispute. Acceptance of that request then mean the third party (that is PCA) agrees to arbitrate.

The original sentence from the source states: "According to Koroma, only 16 arbitration requests have been accepted in its 117-year-long history". The context of this sentence clearly means that PCA have only accepted 16 arbitration requests, which is not true.

The addition of the sentence "(the outcome was accepted by the parties involved)" is illogical. The outcome of the arbitration is called arbitration award or ruling, not arbitration request. If the former judge stated that "only 16 arbitration awards have been accepted", then it is clear that the ones accepted the awards are the parties involved.

We can discuss this in the relevant talk page.Hand15 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. I've been trying to follow the continuing discussion on the article talk page, but my internet connectivity has been so bad recently that I've not been able to keep up with what was being discussed and the sources being mentioned. I did look back at the article edit and the supporting source citation which spurred my comment and, at a second look, I don't see the support for the "accepted by the parties" inference which I thought I had seen the first time around. It seems that I misunderstood that myself; I withdraw my claim that you misunderstood it and I do apologize for that. Mea culpa. My internet connectivity is improved at the moment. I may comment there if that improvement lasts for a while and if the article talk page discussion continues. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent Court of Arbitration[edit]

Hello Wmitchell. I recent closed a complaint at WP:AN3 about this article. It's good to see at least one experienced editor (yourself) working there. I'm sure you can report the situation if you think the article needs any further admin action. One option is full protection, but I'll hold off for the moment. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re Permanent Court of Arbitration[edit]

Hello Wtmitchell, I am contacting you because I just read this comment of yours on the User:Hand15's talk page and this revert on the page of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which I actually read after I removed said section. I actually think there is some merit to what Hand15 is saying, as the sentence is highly ambiguous and can be read in multiple ways.

If the word accepting relates to the PCA as the accepting institution, than the sentence should be deleted. While it is of course true that the meaning of the words "accepted x requests" and "had x cases" are not synonymous, I think it is a very artificial argument to make. First of all, it is not clear to what type of cases the 'accepting' part relates. If accepting≠cases, which cases have to be accepted and which don't? And then, why would it be relevant that the Court only accepted 16 cases in its 117-year-long history. Vis-à-vis the 132 cases the PCA administered in 2015 (Annual Report 2015, p. 20), the information that the Court only accepted 16 cases seems to give undue weight to something we can't even asses the true meaning of. To be sure, I would be interested what this accepting actually implies, especially since the Statute of the Permanent Court of Arbitration doesn't mention this special power of it to accept arbitration.

The other meaning would be that the parties accepted only 16 arbitrations within its 117-year-long history. However, this version does also not follow mandatorily from the source. It only provides that 16 cases were accepted. It does not specify by whom. Furthermore, seeing how many awards are only known to the PCA itself, and the article tries its best to show that the ICJ and the PCA have nothing in common and don't know anything about each other, it strikes me as odd how suddenly an ICJ judge is an expert on some very intricate information as acceptance rates of awards. In addition, this interpretation opens up a myriad of questions: by whom is it accepted? Does it mean accepted by one of the parties, or both/all of the parties? The international community? If the criterion is both parties, why would this be relevant? In any case/arbitration there is bound to be a winner and a loser, and thus one side likely not to accept it. Or is this judged by implementation rate? How do you measure implementation of the award? Why is the acceptance/implementation relevant? Especially because we don't have any figures from other international adjudicating bodies. And how can we verify this information further, which only Koroma and no other source seems privy to?

The longer I think about it, the more meaningless the statement becomes. It can be interpretated in several ways, it is not clear who exactly accepts what: the PCA, third parties, the international community? Neither is it clear why either of these are relevant or how Koroma is supposed to know. Indeed, at best we should write that 'Koroma said in an article ... that only 16 cases have been accepted'. Generalizing from this fact to a universal truth that '16 cases have been accepted' seems unwarranted to me. However, it seems to me that quoting just one unrelated judge gives undue weight to his position. As such, I think the phrase should be deleted.

I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts, regards Perudotes (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see my response/comment in the #Meaning of "Arbitration Request" section above, which is related to this. Excuse the rushed response, please; my internet connectivity situation continues to be pretty bad, and I am currently writing this on my laptop on battery power with a cellphone internet connection in the ferry port in Odiongan, Romblon while waiting to make a ferryboat connection. Also, it is my current understanding that the PCA basically provides facilities and administrative/bureaucratic support services for arbitral tribunals in actions such as (see [3]). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Wtmitchell, I actually didn't see that post on your talk page, sorry for that! I actually saw your revert and comment on his talk page, after I removed the sentence, hence, I wanted to give an explanation as soon as possible. Hence, I must've skimmed over your reply here. You are quite correct that the PCA only offers support to arbitral tribunals under its auspices, the Court itself only contains a secretariat and a roster of members whom the parties can select. Both the 1899 and 1907 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes (which founded the PCA) provide that "the Arbitrators called upon to form the competent Tribunal to decide this difference, must be chosen from the general list of members of the Court" (art. 24/45). However, ANNEX VII cases aren't mandatorily handled by the PCA, in the Southern Bluefin Tuna case (New Zealand/Australia v. Japan) ICSID was asked to provide registry services. Thus, there are several ways to sollicit the services of the PCA, some treaties make explicit reference to the services of the PCA (for example art. 27(3)(k) Energye Charter Treaty), in others the parties have a choice to which venue they submit their disput (for example UNCLOS Annex VII). Oh, well I got quite carried away. Thank you for your quick reply. Regards, Perudotes (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heather mills[edit]

Hi, here is the source but I dont know how to add the link? Could you help please?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1582023/Heather-Mills-torn-to-shreds-by-Sir-Paul-McCartney-divorce-judge.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.29.211 (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could handle the mechanics of adding the cite, but I'm not familiar with the article and I'm not sure what you think ought to be added. Looking at this, it seems that you intende the source to support the assertion saying, "Before the court case, Mills had employed the accountancy firm Lee and Allen to examine McCartney's publishing company, business assets and properties, saying that she had a tape recording of McCartney admitting his true worth, but the presiding judge, Mr Justice Bennett, turned down numerous requests for information by Lee and Allen." but, at a quick read, I don't find support for that in there. See Help:Footnotes, or just imitate what other people have done in the article to supply supporting citations. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
you're a rare gem for creating/maintaining these articles. thank you sir Kramfs (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electron internal structure[edit]

I don't know how the text of my page got whacked. It clearly wasn't intentional vandalism; I'll be more careful. I trully was trying to make a few constructive edits to address concerns that have recently been brought up.--Pete.delaney (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My error. What I saw in the WP:Huggle window was the edit changing a torodial loop to a toIf this template is removed, do not replace it.rodial. It looked like vandalism. I probably ought to have looked more closely. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Message from user Ryan321java[edit]

I'm a big fan please msg me back 

Ryan321java (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved this down from near the top and added a header. What's up? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wtmitchell[edit]

THANKS 

it,s by mistake <sorry>,it,s my 1st edit.
It is starting that,s why i don,t now more about editing .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.185.236.92 (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Wikipedia:Tutorial/Editing and Help:Editing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hotelsuites[edit]

Just an FYI: You blocked Hotelsuites (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 31 hours. Hotelsuites appears to be spam-only, leaving links to oystergroup.in such as

I reported Hotelsuites to WP:UAA, but the bot removed it immediately. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked at the details of that, and I understand getting at. This came up in the context of a quick revert/warning from me via WP:Huggle. I'm an admin, but I've never been much of an activist. Based pn what I've seen here, I pretty much agree with what I believe you're thinking, but I'm not going to act on it. I generally warn vandals, spammers, etc., and block repeat abusers. If what you and I see as abuse continues, it will be addressed by myself or by others. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. We shall see what happens! If it repeats and I notice it, I'll also report be oystergroup.in to the spam blacklist. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy deletion nomination of "Mercey Hot Springs, California"[edit]

Mercey Hot Springs, California, a page you created, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is obvious advertising or promotional material.

You are welcome to contribute content that complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content, or remove the speedy deletion tag from the page. You can contest the deletion by clicking the "Contest this speedy deletion" button inside the speedy deletion tag. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admonition on inadequate edit summary on my Talk page[edit]

See my Talk page for concise explanation of changes made, as clearly indicated in edit summary.71.233.84.208 (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like my error. Responded on your talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Wtmitchell. Thank you for the acknowledgment there and here. However, I need your administrative help, badly. I've laid out the case at my Talk page. Yours, 71.233.84.208 (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mercey Hot Springs, California[edit]

I have the above article to a non-promotional condition about a location in the US, which removed the speedy deletion tag you had put on. Hope that you are OK with this.  Velella  Velella Talk   10:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal with me. As I recall, I saw something needing correction during a WP:Huggle session, went to correct that, saw a really poor article which looked promotional, and tagged that. If the poor article is being upgraded, that's a good thing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my response 11:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC) to yours, and my request for your help as administrator, at my Talk page. Thank you. 71.233.84.208 (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I responded om your talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Threat[edit]

Moved here from the top of this page:

Why the fuck did you block my friend you bitch! Unblock her or I'll delete your whole page— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.180.79.89 (talk • contribs) 01:21, August 23, 2016 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

For your action regarding MatthewTardiff. I hope I didn't violate 3RR, if so it was unintentional. CrashUnderride 01:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) WP:3RR says, "There are certain exemptions to 3RR, such as reverting vandalism ...". That applies here, IMO. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this user, I've started an SPI for MatthewTardiff involving User:Wrestlinginsider. CrashUnderride 02:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I just wanted to make sure. Because the he created a new account and did the edit again under the new sock account, however, I've left it alone for fear or being blocked. lol. CrashUnderride 02:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BNG05[edit]

BNG05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Looks to me that everything is BNG05 did is quite dubious or outright vandalism. Was scrambling templates such as Template:List of writing systems Cheers Jim1138 (talk)

Looks that way to me too. He's only been active under that username for a few days. My guess is that he is a sockpupper, and that the block will just cause him continue his vandalism under another sockpuppet ID. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

correcting your mistake with my edit today[edit]

Dear Wtmitchell: 

   The exact meaning of both Article The First and Article The Second is easily drawn from the text of THE BILL of RIGHTS.  
   I did not restore my edit that Congress has been violating the 27th Amendment since 1992 with cost of living raises as the exact meaning of Article The Second explicitly limits a single pay raise per re-election.  Perhaps that is what you meant by "not constructive ?"
   I think I restored all my other edits verbatim.
   Where is it "constructive to inform Wiki readers of how Congress is violating the letter of our highest law, THE CONSTITUTION as Amended ?  
   Larry Carter Center "At Larry Accomplish"— Preceding unsigned comment added by At Larry Accomplish (talk • contribs) Revision as of 17:51, September 1, 2016 (UTC)
My edit which prompted this was this, made during a WP:Huggle session. As I recall, I saw your unsupported addition re 50 thousand persons per Congressional District, thought about reverting it, decided that reversion would not be appropriate from Huggle, and was about to leave consideration of that to regular maintainers of the article when I scrolled down in the view of the article from Huggle and saw your WP:SHOUTed addition re "... A SINGLE PAY RAISE AFTER A RE-ELECTION ..." and decided that merited a reversion from Huggle. I see that you have undid my reveersion, and that another editor has re-reverted that. Before you edit the article further, please read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
   Additionally, it appears that my auto-biography of many years ago has been deleted.
   Do I have to employ a biographer to keep Wiki readers informed of my historic US Sup Ct case, my political career and my vital statistics ?
   Wiki seems to hint to me that I am not allowed to post my own autobiography.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by At Larry Accomplish (talk • contribs) 17:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Autobiography and take a look at WP:GNG. I looked at your user contributions and did not see any activity re-adding that autobiography. If you added it anonymously or using a different username, please read WP:SOCK. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by user Lakeeyre[edit]

I've moved the following here from the top of this talk page:

The page I'm editing is about me. Respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakeeyre (talk • contribs) 23:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

This regards my reversion of edits to an article named Kevin Buzzacott . Pledase read WP:Autobiography and WP:Ownership of content. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Cassady[edit]

Really dude? Vandalism? Checkout wwe.com's profile on Big Cass. I've seen people post total bullcrap and it wasn't called vandalism so whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.36.218 (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this has to do with this revert. Plewase read Wikipedia:Vandalism and {{Infobox professional wrestler}}. In the latter, pay particular attention to the documentation regarding the name, birth_name, and names parameters. Please note that my revert was made from WP:Huggle; that tool provides very limited flexibility in specifying what message is to be placed on the user talk page of the user who made the edit(s) being reverted. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: change to an article, Stanley James Tippett[edit]

Sources for "original article" which was not removed are not reliable sources. They are just from the news paper — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kip Dia (talk • contribs) 04:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers tend to be regarded as WP:RS' on Wikipedia. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 04:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If you're going to add information such as you did on the article, they need to be sourced. If not, they will most likely get removed. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 04:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had made this revert from WP:Huggle because of lack of support and because of concerns about possible WP:BLP problems. I had only seen a small portion of the article through Huggle's window into it, and I hadn't looked more closely. I've now taken a look at the article and see that, without checking sources cited elsewhere in the article myself, the BLP concerns don't seem to be warrented. The point made above re newspaper sources is a good one. I had intended to make that point myself and to link to WP:IRS, but Crash_Underride (talk · contribs) beat me to it. I would note, however, that the content I removed had been added to the article in an inappropriate location and, if re-added in a more appropriate location, would need to cite a supporting source or to re-cite one cited elsewhere in the article. See WP:CITE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: January 2015[edit]

Hello Wtmitchell, I'm not sure what are you referring here. I know it is bit late response but I have not been around recently. Thanks.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 15:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It looks like I confused this. This looks like it concerns this revert, which harkened back to this earlier edit. On this second look, I see that I was completely in error here. I apparently focused in on Ref parameter name="6KillerApps" and what I took to be its incongruity in the context of an article on the topic Muslim world. I completely missed the fact that the cited source was a ted.com talk with a trendy title. This was my error, for which I apologize. I've undone the edit here. Thanks for pointing this out to me. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guessed something like that. Thanks & Cheers.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 04:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah Funding[edit]

Hey there! i just wanted to tell you that most of the external links may be real but, have false information, it would be a great pleasure to remove the links regarding hezbollah drug usage and fundings, Now about the drug usage '(sorry to say this) ITS ALL FALSE, iam lebanese myself and there was no sign Hezbollah sending drugs to mexico internationally or immigrants but, I'll tell you the truth about the pics of the drugs and where they came from! Al- Nusra , ISIS , and Al- Qaeda the terrorist organisations where responsible for this massive drug trade. One proof goes by a Hezbollah militant showing that they found a truck that belongs to ISIS and filled with drugs that enough for around 14,000 TERRORISTS, now thats a shock! Here's a link to the video on YouTube. and this link was made by a trusted News Channel called VICE news, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvil3E3QgMY Sorry for not telling about the editing i made im still amateur at editing, please remove any negative/false information about Hezbollah for its a great movement who protect Muslims Christians and Jews alike, but not Zionists. One last thing Cannibus in Lebanon is legal for harvest and spread to countries that LEGALISE cannibus such as Netherlands but, its not legal to use in Lebanon. Thank You Friend — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo Flamez (talk • contribs) 23:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Leo Flamez[reply]

I've moved this down from the middle of this talk page where it was inserted. That appears to be in reaction to this revert. I stand by the revert. Please read WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. If you do have sources supporting the changes I reverted, pay particulaqr attention to WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Hello, Wtmitchell. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Another comment[edit]

Hi. I'm responding to the edit on my edit re: separation of powers. Why do you find it necessary to edit people's edits. I added to it. I didn't edit anything out. Wait, maybe I edited out the 1 or 2 sentences that would enable people to enter into the long standing controversy holding the population of America in everlasting ignorance as we suffer, confused by the reality of our government not matching what it is supposed to be. Somehow we have gone on for some hundred years without getting it right. I just want to put a message out there that not only is closer to the truth than anything published and available on the subject, but also one that has a message of positive growth and hope for a better future for us. With Southern California cities with around 20% of the people living at or below the poverty line (based on cost of living) it would be cruel to do anything to not support any endeavor to bring clarity and at the same time possibly fix the problem. Anyway, you do what you think you need to do. I am just happy I was able to contribute, even if you tried to sabotage my efforts. -MichelleLispi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.146.212.7 (talk) 06:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SOAP. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question[edit]

Did you mean to only block ThisistheTRUTH for 31 hours? They're a clear VOA.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Today I have been reverting and blocking like crazy from WP:Huggle. I tend to start at 31 hours or, if there is a prior block history, to escalate block duration. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even for clear vandalism-only accounts targetting BLPs? That's not really standard as you're just kicking the ball down the road. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS Not that it's a big deal, I just edit-conflicted with you on the block and was curious as to why you didn't indef. I've never seen an admin block such a clear VOA account for 31 hours, that time is usually the standard for IPs.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC):I've changed it to an indefinite block. I think the time this took would have been better spent catching vandalism as it happens in Huggle -- especially[reply]

as there is presently a real storm of vandalism. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer ‎[edit]

Hi. I'm ashamed to say I let my temper get the better of me when I made that edit. Thanks for being so reasonable.LeQui (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bands of America[edit]

Hello this is concerning the Bands of America page. Alot of band kids are now messing with this page and I feel like it should probably stop. Can you lock it so they will stop? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd110600 (talk • contribs) 04:40, November 15, 2016 (UTC)

I've moved this down from where you inserted it, added the section heading, and supplied the omitted signature. Please read WP:Protection policy. Request page protection at WP:Requests for page protection. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Wtmitchell.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Chive[edit]

Dont know who the hell you are but the changes i made are accurate and factual... Mind your own business or show me where I was wrong.64.183.108.182 (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the section heading here which you omitted. Re your complaint, which appears to concern this revert, please read WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NOT. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A kitteh for you![edit]

I like to give out kewt kittehs, especially to helpful contributors such as yourself. Nice efforts to combat vandalism.

MgWd (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Wtmitchell. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Majority[edit]

Why was my edit on the Silent Majority page, in your opinion, not impartial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.252.187.102 (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the section header above. I made that revert during a WP:Huggle session. Huggle does not support free-form edit summaries on reverts made from that tool, only offering a choice from a menu of canned explanations. The choices offered include Not adhering to NPOV and Failure to cite a supporting source. I dithered between those two choices for that revert. Perhaps the other choice would have been better. Your edit appeared to me to be WP:Original research expressing a non-neutral POV in Wikipedia's editorial voice. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

block[edit]

FYI... A few weeks back you blocked 124.106.255.144 for vandalism/disruption on date articles. I just blocked 124.106.250.251 for the same thing. Both IPs come from the same ISP in the Philippines. Bgwhite (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this comment down here from the top of this talk page. 124.106.255.144 made a bunch of edits between October 28 and November 14 (see [4]) and 124.106.250.251 made a bunch of edits between November 18 and 25 (see [5]). I've looked at a few of the edits other than the ones warned about, and the ones I looked at looked legit. Both IPs are currently blocked, though it looks to me as if the edits made from those IPs were probably well intentioned. Even if these edits were all vandalism, which does not look to be the case, I don't see what might be done about it as a practical matter. IP 124.106.255.144was blocked by me, and I'm going to unblock it. IP 124.106.250.251 was blocked by another admin, and I'm going to leave a message on his talk page suggesting that he take another look at that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Hello; In reference to [6] I think your bots don't understand comedy; I added sketches to the synopsis of episodes - small sentence edits - to increase the recognition of Key \& Peele episodes - i.e. there are lots of Obama episodes. This wasn't vandalism at all. I sat and watched 100 stored episodes and in the process just amended the information to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.235.150 (talk • contribs) 13:58, November 25, 2016 (UTC)

Your original comment was badly placed, and I've moved it down here where it belongs. The bots are pretty robotic, and it is true that they don't understand comedy. I'm not a bot, but I made that reverrsion from WP:Huggle, an anti-vandalism tool from which edits are often made without a lot of thoughtful edit-by-edit analysis, and That was the case with this reversion. However, I've gone back and taken a second look at this reverted edit, and it still looks like vandalism to me. If it's not vandalism, and accepting your explanation above, it would be WP:original research, which is disallowed in WP articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet anon??[edit]

Hey, I see you reverted this edit. You might want to have a look at some of the other edits by the that ip user, they are all quite similar. - theWOLFchild 03:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not expert in this topical area but I took a quick look at some of his recent edits. I added some tags here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive IP[edit]

124.106.250.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is currently blocked for 3 months by @Bgwhite:. Won't you please consider blocking 124.106.255.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for block evasion preventively, and consult with Bgwhite about a possible rangeblock? Elizium23 (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to block mostly from WP:Huggle sessions, either with an initial short block or with an increasing block duration following on a previous block. I see that 124.106.255.144 made a series of edits on 14 Nov, that I blocked that IP for 2 weeks on that date and that, on reconsideration, I removed the block on 25 November (I don't recall the details involved in that). That IP has not edited since 14 Nov, so I don't think a preventative block is indicated. I do see that 124.106.250.251 has a similar editing pattern. I don't want to get into a range block, but follow that wikilink for some info about that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It'll either be here or in the 2016 archive for this talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I not able to reference my own contribution work and related materials assigned to this id?[edit]

This not right----

THIS IS A WIKIPEDIANS BOOK BOOKPUBLICATION PediaPress

Information Theory : Last Chapter Meme — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealUpHuman (talk • contribs) 01:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of a user talk page[edit]

I see that you deleted User talk:RealUpHuman, with the deletion log reason given as "G8. Page dependent on a non-existent or deleted page". I assume this was a mistake, as user talk pages are not normally deleted, it was not "dependent on a non-existent or deleted page" as far as I can see, and I can't see anything in the history of the page which would justify deletion. I shall therefore restore the page, but please let me know if it was not a mistake, and there was some legitimate reason for deletion which I have missed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since posting the above message, I have found a number of other user talk pages which you have deleted using Huggle when deleting the corresponding user page. While in most namespaces it is almost always right to delete the talk page connected to another page which is deleted, deletion of a user page does not make the corresponding talk page redundant, so you should watch out when using Huggle, to make sure that mistake doesn't happen again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I have in fact done this, it was certaily screwups on my part. Presuming that you've got this right, thanks for pointing it out and taking corrective action. I don't have time to look back at this just now, but I will do that. If I have screwed up repeatedly, as you describe, I will try to figure out how that happened and avoid such screwups in future. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at my logged deletions, and I see that this deletion does seem to have been an error on my part. I have restored that user page. Thanks for calling this to my attention. I see one other logged deletion of a user page User:Callgirl439, which I deleted on August 20, 2015. That was a deletion of a page which had been blanked by another editor as spam. I have not restored that one. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl of Lao Tzu[edit]

I had entered the probate case # for Victor Barbish which had the Pearl of Lao Tzu as the only asset listed. Mr. Barbish passed away here in Bradenton Florida (Manatee County) in January 2008. He had over six million in claims against his probate. The executor of the probate was one of his sons by the name of Mario Barbish who lives in Colorado. The Probate was just closed several months ago due to no apparent reason. With all the attorney costs through the years I would have thought the first thing would be to authenticate the pearl. Is it still in a lockbox in Denver Colorado? Victor Barbish is my wife's uncle who portrayed himself as her father. It wasn't till his death that we learned of his narcissistic side. He used the Pearl throughout the years as a tool to con both friends and family our of a lot of money. I had known Barbish myself for just over a year prior to his passing (when I met my wife). He was such a good con man that even retired Brigadier General Kenneth Allery (from the Desert Storm conflict in Iraq), had a one and a half million dollar claim against the probate. He had been commissioned by Barbish to sell the Pearl, but when a buyer appeared Barbish turned down the $40 million offer because he thought it was too low. The General sued the probate for his lost commission. The claim was denied due to a court technicality. The whereabouts and any further knowledge of the pearl is presumably now lost. FlaRiptide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.215.250.41 (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is sort of interesting but, unless documented in verifiable reliable sources is of no interest in Wikipedia. I've edited the Pearl of Lao Tzu article a number of times, most recently here, but I have no special interest in the pearl or in the events surrounding it. I probably initially became interested in the article because I live in the Philippines and have visited Palawan a few times. Coincidentally, I live on Boracay island some of the time and, as I understand it, a pearl said to be larger than the pearl of Lao Tzu is on display here (I have never bothered to go look at it). If you wish to contact me again re the pearl generally rather than re the wikipedia article on the pearl, I can be reached via email using this wikipedia tool; just specify Wtmitchell as the target username. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine–American War[edit]

Mabuhay! I believe we have some of the same interests, as we both frequently edit the same articles. Among these is the article on the Philippine–American War. This important conflict—largely unknown to most Americans and even Filipinos—is among my favorite subjects, and I know you are largely responsible for getting this article up to its current B-class rating on the quality scale. I have recently begun an extensive review and reformatting of the sources for this article. When you get around to it, I would very much appreciate if you would take a look at what I have done thus far. I would like to see this article get to GA-Class in the not-too-distant future, and I wish to collaborate with you in this endeavor. Magandang araw sa iyo! DiverDave (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to do that as I have time available and as my slow and flakey internet access permits. I did take a quick look at some of your changes here (there are older changes which I did not include there), and I see that pageno information was lost in some of your edits to cites (sometimes that lost info was not explicit in the rendered article, but was buried in a cited URL and was lost in your consolidation of cites of particular works). I have not checked the GA criteria, but I see this as a problem. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Wtmitchell. You have new messages at DiverDave's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Merry, merry![edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks. Have a happy. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National hero of the Philippines[edit]

You added a partial, broken reference. I'm not sure what your intentions were. I've deleted it, but could you take a look. diff Bgwhite (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for calling this to my attention. I clearly garbled that supporting cite when I added it and failed to notice that when I saved my changes. I also garbled the cite at the end of that paragraph.This diff shows the effect of two edits I just made to correct those cites. Thanks again, and Happy New Year. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wtmitchell/Archive_10_(2016)&oldid=1079536547"