User talk:Wtmitchell/Archive 16 (2022)

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

Merchandise giveaway nomination[edit]

A t-shirt!
A token of thanks
Hi Wtmitchell! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~
A snowflake!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; it's appreciated. I've left a thankful comment on the nomination page. Cheers and wishes for a happy New Year. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request from 170.235.201.18[edit]

Please revert my change 🥺 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.235.201.18 (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't give me much to go on there, but see here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users[edit]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of the Paracel Islands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of Saigon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937[edit]

I saw that you edited the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 right after I did. Though I believe the way you worded it is not very accurate. I'm just leaving this message to try and see if we can discuss and potentially come to an agreement.

In my opinion, your wording that a firing requires the "consent of Congress" could lead someone to believe that Congress would have to vote on the issue (such as with judicial appointments requiring "advice and consent of the Senate"). As a result, I don't think that is a very accurate wording. Congress just writes the law and specifies the firing criteria.

Second, per the FEC Act, it permitted the President to dismiss an FTC member only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." These are prescribed in law and was what the court determined to be the only constitutional reason that the president could fire an FTC member. The court did not hold, as you say, "cannot be fired for political reasons".

In light of the above, do you think that we should revert back to the way I worded it? Or we could even come up with a different wording entirely. I'd like to hear your thoughts. 165.234.252.204 (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was in response to what I saw as a disagreement with the Humphrey's Executor v. United States article when I checked your edit against that article. You apparently know more about the topic than I -- perhaps that other article, which appears to be the main article for that topic, needs an edit; I'm not a lawyer and I did not check either article against this or similar sources. I'll defer to your judgement and the judgement of other editors more knowledgeable on the topic than I. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see where the problem arose. Thank you for pointing that out. I went ahead and reworded the opening paragraph of Humphrey's Executor v. United States as it was being too specific and frankly incorrect. Then I went and reverted your edit so they don't contradict themselves. It should be good now. Thank you for your help. 165.234.252.204 (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comfort women[edit]

You've added a subsection to this article, Taiwan, as part of section Memorials/China, which itself could be debated. Now this article has two sections on Taiwan, if you look further down in the article. Not a very encyclopedic way of working. --Robert Kerber (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I merged the two sections. Hopefully that won't set off a storm of POV protests. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wiki/Funcionale[edit]

Hi, essentially there is no prove that company ever really existed beyond a tiny startup in 2011. That page shouldn't even exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanuel1234567890 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely remember making an edit which might relate to this, but don't recall specifics. Can you please let me know what article this concerns? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nevemind; I found it. See this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to page relating to Jurgen Mossack[edit]

Hi, I have tried to make a minor change to my page on Wikipedia relating to my personal life. I am not sure why it is not accepted. I understand that a reliable source is required, In this case the reliable source is myself. Can you please assist? 

J Mossack (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I didn't realize the situation when I reverted your edit, but there are still problems with it; see WP:COI. Also please consider that, while I or other WP editors I have no reason to doubt that you are the person described in the article, WP editors need to comply with WP:V, WP:IRS, WP:BLP, and other WP policies and guidelines. I suggest creating a section at Talk:Jürgen Mossack and describing there the problems you see in the article and your suggested revisions, citing any relevant supporting sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jostens[edit]

I don't think "Jostens creates unique experiences and delivers high quality products, such as; yearbooks, class rings and jewelry, graduation caps and gowns, apparel and accessories, letter jackets, championship rings, diplomas and announcements, school photography, and the Renaissance program that helps students and families to participate in, celebrate and memorialize their once in a lifetime experiences that champion a culture of belonging, achievement and pride." is really appropriate encyclopedia content. DMacks (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. See this edit, Talk:Jostens § Advertising, promotion, conflict of interest, and User talk:Jostens Team § Advertising, promotion, conflict of interest. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick fix! There's some more in a similar TONE, I'll see if I can neutralize it. DMacks (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Discordian Works[edit]

Hi Wtmitchell. I have been trying to edit this article, specifically the subsection titled Early Discordian Works. There has been a new edition of Natural Law released, but if features more discordian-themed content than the previous two publications. I keep attempting to describe this version but it continues to be rejected. It's a key addition to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2B07:EDF1:9D2C:16A8:3EE5:4513 (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I recognized that revert as an apparent error on my part almost immediately after clicking to cause it. I've undone my action here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes of Harald_Riipalu[edit]

I'm not sure how to really use this but I saw that you reverted my changes to Harald Riipalu. He was the leader of the 36th Estonian Police Battalion.

According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945, the battalion took part in the murder of Jews in Novogrudok, Belarus in August 1942.

Citation: Geoffrey P. Megargee (ed.) (2012): The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945: Ghettos in German-Occupied Eastern Europe, Indiana University Press, p. 1249]


The battalion's report under Harald Riipalu's signature confirms the unit's presence in Novogrudok during the killing operations.

Citation: https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/50880123/ee-eestlased-voisid-osaleda-valgevene-massimorvas?

According to the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity, "the 36th Police Battalion participated on August 7, 1942 in the gathering together and shooting of almost all the Jews still surviving in the town of Novogrudok". The Commission's report noted:

In the published records, this unit was described as fighting against partisans at the time. The Commission believes that although there clearly were numerous engagements between police units and partisans, "fighting against partisans" and "guarding prisoner of war camps" were at times ways of describing participation in actions against civilians, including Jews.

Does the citation confirm the assertion I removed? That assertion reads:
Freitag shot himself in the village of St. Andrä on 10 May 1945. He did not want to be extradited to soviet custody for "assisting the Einsatzgruppen in rounding up the Jewish population in the occupied territories."
If so, it could be cited something like:
:{{cite web|url=https://epl.delfi.ee/artikkel/50880123/ee-eestlased-voisid-osaleda-valgevene-massimorvas|title=EE: Eestlased võisid osaleda Valgevene massimõrvas|trans-title=EE: Estonians may have participated in the massacre in Belarus|website=epl.delfi.ee/|accessdate=February 8, 2022|language=et}}
which would render as:
"EE: Eestlased võisid osaleda Valgevene massimõrvas" [EE: Estonians may have participated in the massacre in Belarus]. epl.delfi.ee/ (in Estonian). Retrieved February 8, 2022.
Place that between <ref> and </ref> following the supported material. See WP:V, help:footnotes and {{cite web}}. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(added) Sorry, I read your response too quickly and missed the book citation. I'm looking at that now and will add info here in a few minutes...
(added) That source might be cited something like
{{cite book | last=Megargee | first=G.P. | title=The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945 | publisher=Indiana University Press | page=1249}}
rendering as
Megargee, G.P. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945. Indiana University Press. p. 1249.
I looked for a previewable edition of that in Google Books but could not find one. I did see previewable mentions of Frietag, but no mention of his suicide, in
Mitcham, S.W. (2007). The German Defeat in the East, 1944-45. Stackpole Military History. Stackpole Books. ISBN 978-0-8117-3371-7. Retrieved 2022-02-08.
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you made a mistake on the Viper page[edit]

In fact I did provide a source to the page where Lamborghini developed the Viper engine. Lamborghini didn't build any entry-level sports cars themselves in the 1990s, so it's easier to substitute the Viper as the successor to the Jalpa. The Gallardo officially replaced the Jalpa over a dozen years. 71.94.157.155 (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My error -- that revert removed more than I intended. I've unreverted most of it here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your recent reverts[edit]

Hi,

Some of your edits seem a bit unconstructive, so I took the liberty to revert them. Cheers! 172.58.236.201 (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at this, and what you say seems correct. I see from my edit history that that revert by me came after three successive edits by you and prior to two more in that series, and was done from WP:Huggle. I think what probably happened was that I was attempting to revert this edit -- the second of the series -- because it appeared to be unsupported (and perhaps doubtful) WP:OR but by the time the revert was processed the third edit in the series had been done. I haven't tried to look deeper than that. As I recall, this came about somewhere in the middle of my reverting a bunch of edits which looked like they had been made by high-school kids who had recently been turned on to Wikipedia as an editing playground. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The IP neglected to inform you of the thread. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 17:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana Empire[edit]

Hi, I was just curious about your edit to Ghana Empire at Special:Diff/1075242205. Isn't it customary to list the article title first in the lead sentence, as opposed to listing an alternate name first? In other words, if you want the article to start Wagadou, commonly known as the Ghana Empire, shouldn't the article be moved to Wagadou first? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I self-reverted that edit after seeing that it was apparently an error on my part during a WP:Huggle session. I agree with you about the ordering -- that's what I understand from WP:LEAD. However, having made one error, I don't want to fumble around further in that article knowing so little about the topic. During that recent bout of fumbling, though, I came across something that looked as if it might be useful in the article; see Mudimbe, V.Y.; Mudimbé, V.Y. (1992). The Surreptitious Speech: Presence Africaine and the Politics of Otherness 1947-1987. University of Chicago Press. p. 139. ISBN 978-0-226-54507-3. Retrieved 2022-03-04. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timoto-Cuica edit[edit]

Hey, I did leave an edit summary when removing the content of the invention of the arepa. What more could I have done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6074:E10:4178:9EA6:F96D:1247 (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My error. Sorry. I don't know how that happened, but I suspect that it was a mis-click on my part during a WP:Huggle session. I see that you have already fixed this; thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO[edit]

YOU ARE NO FUN WHY WOULD YOU GET RID OF MY CONTRIBUTION. HAVE FUN BEING A LONELY WET BLANKET. TESSFC1 OUT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tessfc1 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Macclesfield[edit]

Hi Wtmitchell, re the naming of Macclesfield Bank. I can find no support for the idea that there was an HMS Macclesfield that ran aground on the shoals there in 1804. First, there is no evidence that there was ever an HMS Macclesfield. As your most recent source acknowledges, no vessel by that name appears in Colledge & Warlow. No vessel by that name appears in Winfield's book on RN ships between 1707 and 1792, or in his book on RN ships between 1793 and 1817. A Macclesfield does appear in the National Maritime Museum's now closed database on RN ships, but this one is a hired armed ship that served in the Irish Sea between 1756 and 1757. Your source suggests that Macclesfield may have been an East India Company vessel hired by the Royal Navy. Unfortunately, Hackman's book on the EIC ships, the most complete source on them, has no suitable candidate. It does have two Macclesfields, one a galley that the EIC hired between 1699 and 1708, and an East Indiaman that served between 1720 and 1732. Bulley's book on the Bombay country ships between 1800 and 1815 makes no mention of any Macclesfield; neither does Phipp's book of ships built in Calcutta between c.1800 and 1839. There is no Macclesfield registered in India and listed in the East-India Register and Directory for 1803. Lloyd's Register for 1804 has a Macclesfield launched at Lancaster in 1803. However, she was a slave ship in the triangular trade that between 1804 and 1807 made three slave trading voyages; she may have been lost in 1809. In any case, she did not go anywhere near SEAsia. Lloyd's List has no mention of any Macclesfield being lost in 1804. One was lost in 1757 that may have been the hired armed ship. Another was lost in 1809, which was probably the hired armed ship. So, net-net, no confirming for any 1804 Macclesfield, RN or not, in the area. However, the 1699 Macclesfield was in the area in 1701. Horsburgh's sailing directions has inconsistent evidence. He puts her, with John Hurle, master, in the Gaspar Strait in March 1702, but in the Macclesfield Banks in 1801, and attributes the name to her. The British Library's database on EIC voyages has Macclesfield, Hurle, master, in the relevant area in early 1701, but not in 1702, though there is a glimmer of a possibility that he might have been. Do you have any idea where your sources got their information? I just can't find any confirmation in any of my usual sources. Please ping me when you reply. Thanks and regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Hepper's book on RH warship losses between 1650 and 1859 has no Royal Navy ship being lost in SEAsia in 1804. Acad Ronin (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly know more about this than I and have been more thorough in researching it that I. I'm not disputing any of that. However, it is not the mission of Wikipedia in cases of disconnects between outside sources to ascertain which sources are correct and which are incorrect. I softened the assertion from a supported statement asserting fact about the visit to a supported statement describing how the naming had been reported. It looks to me as if WP:DUE is the relevant policy here, with the differing viewpoints summarized and cited either inline or in a footnote (or, perhaps, in an invisible footnote explaining things and mentioning support as you have done above, in hopes that will be sufficient to deter future editors coming across one of the sources saying "HMS Macclesfield" from adding that into the article). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge[edit]

Hi Wtmitchell, I'd like to let you know that I have boldly added Hong Kong Junta to Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge attached to your name. Please let me know if you'd like it to be removed, or add other articles you have worked on that may be relevant! Best, CMD (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my user page lists articles I've created and those I remember working on a lot, including that one, the following ones relate to Asia somewhow, some more strongly than others -- most of them relating to the Philippines. All of the ones listed here are still around, I think.
Created:
Worked on a lot
I wasn't aware of the challenge. Thanks for the notification and attention to such articles. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:LSE London[edit]

Hello, Wtmitchell,

Just FYI, if you restore a draft that has been deleted as a stale draft, CSD G13, you have to make a minor edit to the page after draft restoration or it shows up as eligible for speedy deletion again because it's been more than 6 months since the last edit to the page. The system doesn't take into account page restoration as an edit. So, a minor edit will restart the clock for another 6 months.

This situation is specific to G13 deletions/restorations and isn't widely known among admins except for those who patrol WP:REFUND because most of those page restorations there are either contested PRODs or stale draft restoration requests. Thanks and I hope you're having a good weekend! Liz Read! Talk! 00:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that info and thanks for making that needed edit which I did not make. As you correctly concluded, I wasn't aware of that. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Hermeus Halcyon depiction.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Hermeus Halcyon depiction.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New administrator activity requirement[edit]

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Source[edit]

Here is what you're looking for.

https://archive.org/details/philippinewar1890000linn/page/56/mode/2up Dabberoni15 (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked that out for the allowed hour and searched for Harrison Elwell Otis (the search function seems to treat that as Harrison OR Elwell OR Otis) in it. I don't see clear mentions of Harrison Otis there, vs. Elwell Otis, who is mentioned on pages 11 and 31. I'm not historian enough to nitpick but, unless the presently-cited Linn source does support that (and, though I can't conveniently check that now, I don't remember it), this needs to be better clarified and supported. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I see here that was the Linn source. In that case, it is not at all clear to me from that source that Harrison was involved in this decision to delay at all or, for that matter, what his involvement was. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've made a change there, but I think that more changes are needed. I don't think you and I have a dispure about this, but I do think that it might benefit from and probably ought to have wider input. Accordingly, I've opened this discussion section on the article talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 26[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hypersonic flight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halcyon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henley & Partners[edit]

Hi Wtmitchell. My name is Sarah and I work for Henley & Partners, a citizenship by investment firm. I saw that you've contributed significantly to the Citizenship article and other related subjects, so I wanted to know if you wouldn't mind weighing in on a content dispute at Talk:Henley & Partners#Major changes made without consensus.

The discussion ended prematurely a few weeks ago, when User:15 indicated they were planning to take action in response to my original post, but they appear to be on an extended break from editing, so I was hoping to find another editor with an interest in the subject matter who could continue the conversation and help establish consensus. Thanks in advance! Sarah Nicklin (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah. Another editor, 15 (talk · contribs), responded to this on the article talk page before I got around to this. I agree with that editor's response. I think that response is better than mine would have been, as that user is a pending changes reviewer. If you think it's useful, you might suggest specific changes on the article talk page, citing supporting sources. You might do that if you think that the article needs tweaking in re WP:DUE. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Since 15 appears to be on a prolonged wikibreak (their most recent edit was Apr. 5), I was hoping you would consider carrying out the reversions that 15 had intended to do, since you've said you agree with their assessment. The outcome that I think is most appropriate, at least as a first step, is the reversion of the three problematic edits from March 19-22: 1, 2, 3. The WP:ONUS for including those controversial changes should be on the editor who seeks to include them, not on the editors who seek to preserve the established consensus. But I'm happy to hear your thoughts on this if you think otherwise, or if you think there are certain parts of those changes that should not be reverted. Best, Sarah Nicklin (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken another quick look, and I would need to take a closer look than I want to spend the time on to figure out the content and the editorial subtleties re the disagreement over that content. My understanding is that you have a COI because of an affiliation with Henley & Partners; you've disclosed the COI and are asking that other editors make an edit re that disagreement on your behalf, contending that the source (OOCRP) supporting the assertions with which you disagree, though an RS, is biased. This appears to involve WP:DUE, which describes how sources with conflicting POVs should be handled. It looks to me as if you need to suggest a specific edit, in line with DUE, which contrasts the OOCRP POV with an alternative from a source of comparable reliability, citing the assertion of that POV by that other source (either as a WP:PRIMARY source or, preferably, from a topically weighty WP:SECONDARY source reporting that or, even better, reporting that difference in viewpoints). That's messy and complicated to do second-hand, which you need to do because of WP policies re editors with COIs, but that's the way it looks to me. I don't want to do more than offer an opinion on this, because I'm talking about the content of an article on a topic I'm not familiar with and a conflict of viewpoints between sources I don't know anything about. Sorry; it's a procedural difficulty involving a dispute over content, and I don't think I have enough of a handle on the content to be confident in doing anything here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The missing pieces here are WP:ONUS and WP:CAREFUL. I could certainly (painstakingly) go through each unexplained removal/change made by that editor on March 19-22 and demonstrate why those changes were inappropriate. For one of many examples, a sentence was removed wholesale from the lead without explanation which noted that the company is "as of 2020, the world's largest investment migration consultancy" (sourced to Quartz, a consensus RS).
The onus should not be on me to make those arguments, though, but on the other editor to explain the rationale for those changes on the Talk page and establish consensus first before making controversial changes to a stable article. That's why 15 had planned to revert all those unexplained removals and changes, particularly wrt the lead--barring an explanation before they went on a break, and that's why I'm looking for someone else to carry out 15's intended action in their absence.
If, despite all that, you would still insist that I be required to mount a challenge to the current non-consensus version of the article, instead of the other editor being required to challenge the previous version of the article (the "status quo ante bellum"), I hope you won't mind if I ping you to weigh in on that discussion. Thanks again, Sarah Nicklin (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the missing part of this discussion section above from my talk page archive where, thinking it was done, I had moved it.
Sarah, I sort-of recognize your points above but, as I remember, I got dragged into this because of a passing comment I made on the article talk page. I'm busy on other things in real life which concern me a lot more than this does. As I remember this (I have not re-read either the content above or relevant content on the article talk page), You want what you belie3ve to be a simple, probably uncontroversial, change made in the article but you cannot make it yourself because you have a COI. Another editor (15) had indicated willingness to make those changes but went on a wikibreak before doing so, and you are looking for someone to make those changes in your and in his stead. That seems to me to be a matter related to article content which does not need administrator intervention. If I've got that approximately right (or, for that matter, if I've got it wrong), I suggest that you ask for suggestions for an easy way to proceed from here at WP:Teahouse. Sorry, but I have other fish which need frying. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, understood. Thanks for your advice and for your patience. Sarah Nicklin (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle[edit]

Hello there - saw your post on the Huggle talk page. I will try my best to help; by "stuck at 24", do you mean it's greyed-out, or you try and save the changes but it then reverts back to 24? Patient Zerotalk 03:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm probably doing something boneheaded -- I don't think I was ever able to get the font to work as expected, but the way it is stuck now makes it unusable. Options and Interface are pop-ups which are sized too big to fit on the screen -- that's since the switch to Win11. I've re-sized them as small as they will go; the working areas are visible on the screen now and the resize persists thru a Huggle restart. The Font area says 24 (printer points, I guess that is supposed to mean), not grayed-out, and that can be edited. I see no "save changes" or suchlike, and closing the "Interface" popup with the top-right "X" after I've changed that to 10 and then opening that tab again brings it up as 24 again. Huggle doesn't react to the Windows ctrl-plus, ctrl-minus, ctrl-roll-mouse-wheel to change sizes in the currently-selected window, but I've noticed other ways in which Huggle doesn't play as well with Windows as other installed programs ("apps" nowadays) do. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Ah, instead of "save changes", it says "OK" on the bottom left (and "close without saving" on the bottom right) - are you able to see that when you resize the options/interface window? Personally, I'm on Linux nowadays, but I noticed the same as you - that doesn't work on Huggle for me, either. Patient Zerotalk 10:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. My setup here isn't plain-vanilla, and that may have something to do with this. That may or may not be of interest to you -- I'll try to keep digressions to a minimum.
  • Dell laptop with an additional HDMI monitor arranged to the left of the laptop. The displays are set up as what Msoft calls "extended" (not one display echoing the other), and the HDMI screen is set as the "System" screen.
  • After seeing your response above, I slid the Huggle "Interface" popup back and forth between the screens. I can get it so that I can grab the window in the upper-part on the left-hand HDMI screen and slide it partway onto the laptop screen on the right so that I can see the bottom of the window there. That lets me see the two buttons on the bottom which I didn't see previously because they were off the bottom of the HDMI screen I was using. I can change the font size to 10, save changes, and the change survives a Huggle restart. However, I see no changes in the font size -- the Diff part of the main Huggle display still has too-big text. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now that sounds like a rather awesome setup. :-) That also does sound like it might be what's causing the issues - I assume you're dragging the Huggle window back to your main screen after saving the changes and then the font is getting larger again (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm not sure why it's not saving the font size as 10, however... I'll ping Petrb here, and see if he knows. Patient Zerotalk 14:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The setup isn't that awesome, it's just an HDMI cable connecting the laptop HDMI port to one of the HDMI ports on a flatscreen TV, and selecting that HDMI port as Input on the TV box when I want to use it as the computer display, with a keyboard and mouse in front of it connected to USB ports on the laptop. It's just that I don't see very well and I spend a lot of time sitting in front of a computer. Also, I apparently did not make myself clear above.
  • The size of the characters on the screen remained unchanged throughout all of this, in the popup windows and in the main Huggle window after the popups are closed.
  • what clicking the "OK" button did was save the change from the pre-save number 24 to the post-set&save number 10 om the font size box on the Interface popup. That's all that changed -- the fact that the edited number persists through closing the popup and through a Huggle restart. I don't notice a change in the size of displayed text characters anywhere.
I just fired up Huggle and reconfirmed all of that. I also changed the Win11 setup options back to just the single laptop display and reconfirmed it that way. On just the laptop display, the Huggle Interface popup is too big to fit on the display even if sized to minimum with the corner handles, and I can never get to see the OK and No-Save (or whatever it says) boxes on the bottom margin because that is below the bottom of the display screen. I'm going to WP:Publish this edit and reboot the laptop which is now set up to use only the laptop display and see what it looks like after that. <interlude> OK, I did that. I didn't just restart -- after changing the Win11 settings and unplugging the HDMI cable, I did a power-down and restart. After that, on just the laptop, I saw no changes from what I described above, though I couldn't test it all because the "OK" button at the bottom left of the Interface popup is off the bottom of the display and inaccessible even with that window sized as small as its resize handles will let me resize it. I'm back on the two-display setup now for ease of editing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the slow response - I can understand your reasoning behind choosing such a setup, as someone with eyesight problems myself. I understand now; apologies for the misunderstanding earlier - so whilst the number indicating the font size has changed, the font size itself actually hasn't... I think you may be right about it being a Windows 11 compatibility issue, although I'm wondering if there's some way you can "recalibrate" the screen to show more without it causing any accessibility-related interference? Patient Zerotalk 17:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying to help. I used to be up to the bleeding edge on tech stuff, but that was several decades ago and I am now far out of date. I have a few other Win11 issues I'm hoping for MSoft to address -- on this particular issue, I'll hope that a future Win11 update will fix it and, in the meantime, I'll look thru the Win11 Setup every now and then hoping to find a relevant setting I've missed or one which appears after an update. In the meantime, I'll find something other than Huggle to do with otherwise dead time in front of the computer. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
  • The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines and History of the Philippines (1565–1898) articles[edit]

This morning, I ran across a citation of Cavite Chabacano Philippine Creole Spanish: Description and Typology in the History of the Philippines (1565–1898) article that bothered me. It's currently #46 there. It includes a long quote which cites upstream sources in harvard format without providing full cites.

Some digging turned up its appearance in this 2021 edit by @Chipmunkdavis:, the edit summary of which says that it was among content shifted from the Philippines article. A look at the Philippines article found the same cite with the long quote still present there. Further digging there led me to this 2021 edit by @Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.:, which added the cite there apparently in response to a {{fcn}} tag which had been placed on a cite of Garcia de los Arcos, Forzados, 238. (it's just a wild guess on my part, but I'm thinking that cite might refer to this)

I have not dug deeper than that, but it occurs to me to wonder whether the extensive cite with the long quote that bothered me is still needed in either or both of these articles and, if it is, whether it can be shortened and/or the upstream sources it mentions clarified. I'm not very knowledgeable of the details of the Spanish colonial period in the Philippines, so I thought I would ping the two of you to ask you to take second looka at this.

Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is needed given it is a PhD thesis that doesn't seem to cover the information any better than the Abinales source does. I note the Abinales source calls it a "social hierarchy" rather than a "racial caste" system, although it does imply it the hierarchy was at least partially racial. CMD (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paracel Islands webpage[edit]

I would like to warn all esteemed readers who read the webpage Paracel Islands that they have to keep cautious about every claim in regard to this archipelago's sovereignty. Despite the recalcitrant claims of China mainland about these islands by showing off proofs based mostly on its old geographical maps, often badly drawn and unfounded, "since very long time" according to chinese words, but, many regional countries have also very long historical pasts, for millenium BC such as Champa or Vietnam too, subsequently, they could also claim the sovereignty over these islands, not only China. So, it's a very disputed legacy! Moreover, those countries underwent during their long historical pasts many events which eevry time change the sovereignty's situation (Note otherwise that never during our long historical past, the chinese openly dared to claim their sovereignty over those islands, till the reign of Gia Long(1802-1820), Nguyễn Ánh (his true name) made his official visit overthere and gave the name of Quần đảo Hoàng Sa. When the french occupied the Viêtnam in 1858 French Indochina, it sovereignty moved to France. When the japanese overthrew France on March 09,1945, paracel Islands's sovereignty passed to Japan and when Japan surrended the USA, it once again went to Washington Treaty of San Franciscoin 1951. Until the Richard Nixon official voyage to Beijing 1972 visit by Richard Nixon to China which was followed by the Paris Peace Accords on Vietnam war signed on January 27th,1973 formalizing the American withdraw of Vietnam, Beijing profited this occasion to launch a vast offensice towards Paracel Islands on January 1974 and occupied them since). So it's the Pacel Islands's history.QUOBSERVER (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)QUOBSERVER--QUOBSERVER (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Quốc Anh Nguyên— Preceding unsigned comment added by QUOBSERVER (talk • contribs) 01:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get into an exchange abut this, but try to look at it from a WP:NPOV viewpoint. Most of the above is historical. I haven't checked this against what is in the historical sections of the article but, if it is supportable and it is not in the article, that may be an issue to be discussed on the article talk page. As far as the current situation goes, it is improper for WP to make a judgement about the rights and wrongs, based on interpretation of history or based on anything else. See WP:NOT and WP:TPG. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soberanias Exitosas[edit]

Hi Mitchell, and thanks for your observation here. We certainly would not want incorrect information listed! I looked into this a bit and was getting ready to perform an actual field verification when I noticed that Worldcat lists 3 editions of this book. Do you know which edition you consulted? I could probably get one edition or the other but perhaps not both, which would be ideal. Assuming good faith in favor of the editor who added the content on 01:31, 4 November 2009, I would suspect the pages refer to the 1st edition (2008), but since the edit was done late in 2009, it could reasonably also refer to the 2nd edition (2009). The 3rd edition wasn't published until 2010. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to check this quickly while looking at items on my watchlist and, though I recall trying to verify this, I do not recall details and I was not able to quickly locate the Spanish language source I looked at online. I did find this, but it is not previewable online there. Searching quickly for other sources, I found this: Collado-Schwartz, Angel (2012). "Singapore". Decolonozation models for America's Last Colony: Puerto Rico. Syracruz University Press. ISBN 978-0-8156-0963-6. That presents an interview with Juan Lara that appears to confirm your cite. I've removed that {{tl}fv}} tag and added the source I found as a second supporting cite. I am no expert on this; if you can improve on what I have done, please do so. Cheers. 10:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
Hi Mitchell, Just to clarify, it wasn't "my cite" but that of an anon IP on "01:31, 4 November 2009" as I had noted above. IAE, I am with you that any sources that cannot be verified (i.e., that we have verified to the contrary) need to be either marked FV or removed altogether. You chose the first, but the second is a fair option in many cases, imo. I am OK with your removal, but because -at a minimum- it needed to be modified bc the reason you gave was partly based on a link you provided that went to a website related to food, not to politics; I am sure not what you intended! Thanks for your thoughts, Mercy11 (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm really busy on other stuff right now, so I'll leave it as is for now. Perhaps other editors will improve it. Withoug rechecking, I remember that the English language cite I added looked like it might be a translation of or closely related to the earlier cited Spanish language source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Wilkins Coffee[edit]

Information icon Hello, Wtmitchell. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Wilkins Coffee, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Technical news

  • user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edit[edit]

It’s my option we can have freedom of speech ILoveSims12345 (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thias apparently relates to this revert. On Wikipedia, editors are obliged to consider, and usually to follow, WP:Policy. Those unwilling to do so ought to edit somewhere else. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

readded Valereee
removed Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant thanks for input[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Central_Intelligence_Agency#Human_Rights_used_as_a_weapon_in_the_current_Russo-Ukrainian_War_%3F Tulsipres (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

better cite needed for PSA-supported items in wikidata[edit]

I happened to notice that the supporting cite for the poverty incidence in Odiongan is "PSA Releases the 2018 Municipal and City Level Poverty Estimates". Philippine Statistics Authority. 15 December 2021. Retrieved 22 January 2022. This source does not support the item it is cited to support; the item it announces presumably does. I'm guessing that this is generally true for wikidata items citing this source. This cite needs to be reworked. I'm not familiar with editing wikidata, but I'm guessing someone here is and might be interested in doing this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then Colonel Medardo Geslani[edit]

I just want to ask, if Medardo Geslani who was later promoted to the rank of a brigadier general would be "notable enough" to have an own article in the English wikipedia? 49.146.34.248 (talk) 08:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The quick answer is "see WP:N". the general guideline is WP:GNG. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you look into Draft:Medardo Geslani? When the child has been good (talk) 10:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I provided 3 independent news sources. When the child has been good (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick look at that draft article with WP:N in mind. It strikes me as failing point 1 for presumption of merit and being excludable under point 2 as WP:SOAP. Re point 2 and WP:NPOV, I note especially the lack of mention that one of the sources cited there says, "[A Philippine Army spokesman] said investigators from the military and the Ombudsman had cleared Geslani of any accountability" re the Maguindanao massacre. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for your judgement. I appreciate you took time. When the child has been good (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Balangiga[edit]

Hello, I wanted to query your reversion of my edit to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Balangiga&oldid=prev&diff=1080939762

Firstly just to say, I have no connection to Ms Apostol, nor to any of her publishers, I merely read her book and found it interesting, especially about a period of history I was quite ignorant of.

But my main point is that there seem to be very many wikipedia articles which have a section called "cultural references" or something similar, and that lists novels, films, songs etc. that deal with the historical events or people in question. I find this useful. I particularly enjoy reading novels about historical events or people. Is there necessarily a problem with this? Is it considered to be advertising if the work in question is not very well known? That would seem to be unfair, and would be entirely subjective. Spinach charm (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was an editorial judgement call on my part. I don't mind having my judgement questioned. . As I recall, it was more the presentation as authorname's novel rather than as a book cite that made it look like an advert for that author's works to me. I'm not used to seeing Cultural references sections and there's no mention of them in WP:GTL, but I'll take your word on that. I'll re-add that section in the location where you placed it with a redone citation of the book. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

s:Translation:Lupang_Hinirang#Other_historical_lyrics[edit]

What's the source for the Pre-Commonwealth English version, there did not seem to be an actual reference provided when you added them on Wikisource? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that was added by me -- I don't do much editing on WS, I don't see an edit by me in that edit history there, and I see it having been added here by IP 203.87.133.134. Some quick googling for a line quoted from the lyrics turned up this and this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings[edit]

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}} [reply]

Donner60 (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wtmitchell/Archive_16_(2022)&oldid=1130812988"