User talk:Wtmitchell
|
Archive 1 (2007) |
|
This page has [[/Archive 7 (2013)|archives]]. |
Hi.
One way to contact me is to edit this page and add a section at the bottom. Please Put a section header above added sections. If your topic concerns a particular Wilipedia article, please mention the article name. To cause your edit to be signed and timestamped when you save it, please sign it with four tilde characters (like this: ~~~~).
I will generally respond on this page inside the section which has been added unless you request otherwise. Please watch this page if you leave me a message.
Cook Islands
Hi Bill. Thanks for restoring the link in Cook Islands - (your diff).
I acknowledge that the source states that the original people of the Cook Islands migrated from "Tahiti, to the southeast." The source is ambiguous because it doesn't clarify whether the people left Tahiti traveling in a southeasterly direction, or whether Tahiti lies to the southeast of the Cook Islands. Either way it is incorrect. Wikipedia states that Tahiti is at 17°S, 149°W, and the Cook Islands are at 21°S, 159°W. I calculate a heading of 249 True (reciprocal 069 True) from Tahiti to Cook. That means the Cook Islands are WSW from Tahiti, and Tahiti is ENE from Cook Islands. The great circle distance is 623 NM (1154 km).
I have tweaked the article to correctly show that Tahiti is northeast of Cook Islands - see my diff. Regards. Dolphin (t) 00:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the improvement. I had done the revert hurriedly, after seeing the content change and checking against the cited source which had not changed. I didn't pick up on the wording ambiguity in the source. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Boracay Page - Live Camera
Discussion: I would like to have added information to the Boracay Page and or a link to boracaylive.com/boracay-beach-live-camera/ . This is a live camera that streams "LIVE" video and sound of Boracay Beach 24 hours a day. The camera will soon have the capability/availability to see live day shots at night time. The camera is owned and operated by TravelOnline and is positioned infront of Red Coconut Boracay Resort. I have interesting history about the live camera BUT I think for the page being informational that this would provide special interest information along with visual association not to mention weather report. I can see many outgoing external links that are existing on the Boracay Page. Maybe this can be added to the section at the bottom called External links or in the information section. I have noticed that there is 3 links there (External Links) (outgoing) :
1. Boracay travel guide from Wikivoyage this is a good informational link and it does allow Boracay Live Camera section.
2. Boracay Official Tourism Website - This is nothing more than a travel agency selling rooms and advertisement. (boracayisland.org) This site is NOT the Official Boracay Tourism website. This is an Association of hotels marketing their rooms and advertising. It is not even close to being any OFFICIAL Boracay Travel Tourism Website. [Comparison] That would be like me saying Boracay Official Tourism Website and linking to TravelOnline.ph Now, if that is acceptable, then I would like to have a similar link going to TravelOnline in the external links. This is the official Boracay Tourism Website by DOT : itsmorefuninthephilippines.com/boracay/
3. Boracay Travel Information and Travel Guide (Lonely Planet)- This is to lonelyplanet.com/philippines/the-visayas/boracay - which is basically lonelyplanet.com which sells rooms, travel and advertsises on it.
Now with that said: Can I put under external links with the words "Boracay Beach Live Camera (TravelOnline)" going to boracaylive.com or directly to the live camera page: boracaylive.com/boracay-beach-live-camera/ thus being exact structure of Lonely Planet --- Boracay Travel Information and Travel Guide (Lonely Planet)-----There not a Travel Information and Travel Guide of Boracay --- They are a travel agency selling rooms, cars, packages, activities and so on. The real Boracay information site OFFICIAL is the DOT site - itsmorefuninthephilippines.com/boracay/
I would like permission from the administrator or editor incharge or discuss how we can put this in print. This camera has been in place running for many years. It has become a landmark. The facebook of this camera is 540,000 fans and growing every day.
Please advise what I can do? (My request based on existing links) Glade22 —Preceding undated comment added 16:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Is there any status on my request? Please advise what I can do? (My request based on existing links) Glade221/7/2014 —Preceding undated comment added 13:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Due to still no response by editor, I made the link under external links and after 24 hours --- It was removed. However, I received no reason why or an answer to my questions about meaningful external links and adding the live camera link to the page. Can anyone give me information on how to contact the person BoracayBill reports too? I wish to discuss the total disregard of Boracay information to only editors taste/feelings and the allowing of external links that violate policy. There must be a higher power here than a dictatorship of ones Obvious personal bias feelings. Glade22 (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Glade22 - 1/8/2014
- I've moved this recently added section here from the top of the talk page. See WP:TPG. Without making a judgement about your attempted addition, I'll suggest that you read WP:ELNO and WP:COI. Personally, I think that links to live webcams would be a useful addition to this article, but I don't want to become embroiled in a discussion about that. Re your request for "information on how to contact the person BoracayBill reports too[sic]", I presume that you're referring to me (and I'm not sure why), but that's not how WP works; see the info I've added to User talk:Glade22. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- ***Discussion: I have read WP:ELNO and WP:COI. And understand both. I created a link under “External Links” which was Boracay Beach Live TravelOnline Camera This action is completely legal under WP:ELNO and WP:COI. WP:ELNO says: This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. It also goes on to say: Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. THE KEY PHRASE: External links should not normally be used in the body of an article.[1] Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable. The link that I have suggested provides unique resources beyond what the article contains, does not mislead the reader, 100% accurate, contains NO Malware or viruses, does not require payment, no copyright or infringements, NOT a social website, No Redirects, and already featured on https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Boracay.
Now, as for WP:COI: There is no conflict of interest with my link added. I do however see conflict of interest as far as not allowing my camera link but rather adding other links on the page. About 5-6 years ago I tried to add the LIVE CAMERA LINK but was shot down and in a ridicule manner. Long ago, when it was shot down there was NO EXTERNAL LINKS ALOUD – PERIOD! I thought it was very foolish not to have a link to a live camera that streams live so people could actually see Boracay and get a weather report or just see their friends on the beach. BoracayBill was so adamant about it that he would not even write in the article of its existence even without a link. At that time, I gave him even 2 other camera references that where running on sites I did not even own. I GAVE UP! NOW, if we are talking POLICY: There is many “External Links” on the Boracay Page TODAY that are just purely advertising. They are totally going against the guidelines BUT in the end it is always up to the editor. (SUPERSIDES POLICY) Let’s take a look at the links in the “External Links” Section ONLY: Link 1: Boracay travel guide from Wikivoyage – this link is understandable since I believe it’s owned by Wikipedia. Link 2: Boracay Official Tourism Website – This link goes to boracayisland.org which is owned by a PRIVATE person (Filipino) who lives on Boracay island. He made this site for a small Hotel/Resorts Association for the sole purpose of making money. He gets a commission of all sales from the site. Basically, a kick back from all hotels listed. Those hotels have to pay him to be listed and join the ASSOCIATION of hotels. This site is nowhere close to being the Boracay Official Tourism Website. It’s not even DOT certified. The official and ONLY official site is the DOT (Department of Tourism) site itsmorefuninthephilippines.com/boracay/ I know this for FACT because TravelOnline use to host boracayisland.org on our server. TravelOnline even use to receive all BORACAY inquires from that site. The owner has now gone solo. He is using .org site for commercial reasons. Why is this link even there. The site is NOT OFFICIAL but is rather a made up term by the owner and it provides nothing to the article but Travel Services that can be found on 100’s of sites. Link 3: Boracay Travel Information and Travel Guide (Lonely Planet) – This link goes to http://www.lonelyplanet.com/philippines/the-visayas/boracay the corporation involved here is © 2014 Lonely Planet. All rights. Lonely planet is a travel agency/blogger site. You can buy room nights, tours in boracay , read stories, all sorts of stuff. This breaks ALL policies of external links because it adds NOTHING to the article but a travel agency/site advertisement. I at least provide a live camera streaming the Beach. I provide something that NO SITE can provide. Lonely planet provides nothing that 100 different sites could not provide. The Link 1 provides more than Lonely Planet. There even so bold as to put their name in the text to boot for name recognition. My Proposal: I propose the link in the “External Links” Section Boracay Beach Live TravelOnline Camera Or Boracay Beach Live Camera – TravelOnline
I also propose that it should be considered to have a webcam section under “MEDIA” below Local Radio Stations and Local Channel because this is a form of MEDIA and it is local. Honestly, what makes a radio station more special than a live camera? Media is Media! I provide something that is pertinent to the article that no other source in the world can provide. The other links in the External Links provide NOTHING that you could not find in any travel agency site. Think about it? If that is there than why can’t I have a page linking to TravelOnline as a Boracay Travel Reference? Makes no sense? I should be able to have my link there just based on the above and advertising sites already existing. What’s good for some – Must be good for all! Glade22 (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Glade22 - 1/8/2014
TravelOnline Facebook with about 550,000 Fans. The Live camera I have been promoting and paying for since 2002. The camera cost about $15,000 dollars not to mention Bandwidth, router, fiber optic adaptors and I have a fiber optic internet line to the camera straight from Kalibo Cable. Popularity of the camera climbs every year and just recently EarthCam announced that my camera is the most popular camera in the world. The link, it's not really that important. I already own the number 1 spot for boracay camera or anything related to that in ALL search engines. I JUST WANT PEOPLE TO SEE BORACAY! I spent so much to promote Boracay. I took this project and paid for it because the DOT could not afford. YES, I proposed this to the DOT and they loved it and had NO BUDGET. I PAID FOR EVERYTHING! Now, the reason for the link. I like Wikipedia!!!! It is in the number 1 position for the key word "BORACAY". This means people open it first and maybe they will find my camera on that page causing more viewers and more interest in Boracay. The whole purpose!!! More interest means more clients which means MORE Philippines Tourism. Thus, the camera will get people excited about Boracay then they will search the web for Boracay Packages and hopefully find me. (THIS GOES FOR ALL TOPICS on the Boracay page = read = excitement = they want to go there! I am number 1 in ALL search engines for the key word "Boracay Packages". Anyways, the goal of DOT and I was to get people to the Philippines and your link or special NOTATIONS or its own section would be helpful in that matter. This is Truly a notable addition to your page!!! This is better than a thousand pictures on a encyclopedia page. This is real time action! Real time weather! Real time sound! I will even be installing a memory disk in the camera soon that will allow people to watch day time action at night when its dark so that USA and other countries can enjoy the view of the beach too. Please put some thought into this! Thank You (Glade22 (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC))Glade22
- :As I said at Talk:Boracay#Live Webcams in Boracay, I don't want to become embroiled in a discussion about this. Please note, however that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia -- not a travel promotion site. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- ***Ok, you do not wish to discuss this WHY? Let us examine your exact words: Please note, however that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia -- not a travel promotion site. NOW, if that is the case, then why are you promoting many travel agencies on the page? MANY! Going against policy of wikipedia using the exact policy references you gave me. The live camera at its bare minimum is considered MEDIA. However, you choose not to even mention its existence at all even without a link. This is unbelievable and unacceptable.
Can you please give me the name or email of who you report too for further unbiased discussions. It is clearly obvious that there is favoritism on this Boracay page as you being a local at Boracay and editor. I can name many boracay travel agencies that you are linking to on this page that are Island based. I too have been here for 20 years and know everyone and every company in Boracay. I am sure I even know you. I definitely know I can find you to discuss this in person if you like. I dont mind having a coffee there at DMall or Starbucks to understand your views. I dont understand why you hate the camera and are so against it. Like I said, it does not make sense. Glade22 (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Glade22
- ****Does anyone know how to contact a higher authority than Wtmitchell AKA Boracay Bill or how I can report misconduct of an editor? I have opened a discussion on the topic "Boracay Live WebCams" and he refuses to discuss this infront of everyone and says, "Please note, however that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia -- not a travel promotion site". However, it is clear to see in the Boracay Page that he is contradicting himself because there are so many links to travel agencies up and down the page. It seems that it is not OK to have a camera under say MEDIA with a link to the camera that actually shows boracay beach live and with live sound but ok to have links to travel agencies, radio station and TV stations. This to me is inconceivable? He says one thing and does another! What kind of editor is he?
- What does Lonely planet (Travel Agency) have to do with Boracay. Its a travel agency! What does Lonely Planet sales and room packages have to do with encyclopedia? (there are more than 2 links to that)I found another 35. ^ "Philippines : Weather". Lonely Planet (travel guidebook). There is 2 links here Philippines : Weather link going to http://www.lonelyplanet.com/philippines/weather where their selling rooms and airfare. The link next to it "Lonely Planet" link too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonely_Planet which links back to Lonely Planet which again is selling rooms and airfare. They have many links on this page which would lead people to see a connection/association with the editor.
- Boracayisland.org link claiming to be the OFFICIAL Boracay Tourism Site. say what? The only official Boracay Tourism site is DOT Department of Tourism. Boracayisland.org is an association of Resorts and Hotels with one goal on the site----sell rooms/advertise Rooms----Now what does advertising rooms have to do with encyclopedia?
---another Boracayisland link slipped onto the page slick like 26. History & Geography | Boracay Island | Boracay's Official Tourism SiteBoracay Island | Boracay's Official Tourism Site -- going to who else: http://www.boracayisland.org/?page_id=18 What does a travel agency have to do with encyclopedia? Boracayisland.org is hiding many links on the page. Why? well, He is a island local and Wtmitchell AKA Boracay Bill is an island local. (in cahoots I would think)
- http://www.exploreiloilo.com/guide/boracay-philippines/ there is a anchor link "Boracay Philippines" that goes to a ililo travel agency website selling rooms and packages for Boracay. What does that have to do with encyclopedia?
Anyway, just a few contradictions - there is more.
I propose Live Cameras be added under MEDIA with radio stations and cable providers. They dont even have Kalibo cable there as a huge cable provider on the island. THE VERY LEAST - "External Links" Yes, TravelOnline is a Travel Agency (just like the other links on the Boracay Page) TravelOnline provides first hand LIVE viewing of Boracay Beach with sound. The other travel agency pages just provide rooms and airfare on their links from this Boracay page------atleast I offer MEDIA of Boracay. (ACTUAL)I say to the editor of this page - what is more encyclopedia than actual live footage. This page is about BORACaY!!! What is more Boracay than a joint effort between DOT and TravelOnline creating a LIVE Camera to increase tourism and awareness of BORACAY! Wtmitchell AKA Boracay Bill has always been a attacker of TravelOnline and is a hater who is bias which has been reflected many times in the past in his Trip Advisory post where he always attacked TravelOnline. Just my observation and personal view. I am in no way mad or in anyway trying to hurt Wtmitchell AKA Boracay Bill. I just think that if you are going to be a editor/journalist than be even and fair without contradictions and favoritism. That is why I suggest that there be a LIVE Camera section under media (TravelOnline Camera not being the only one) or remove ALL External links leaving wikipedia Boracay Page to be 100% fair to all and follow policy without question. I dont think an editor should allow some links and not others. It should be 1 way or another ---links or no links! (By the ways, links are allowed under policy but at the discretion of the editor. However, it needs to be fair! The editor is telling me no travel promotion then allowing travel promotion????? (Need Higher Authority) Glade22 (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Glade22
- *** FYI - as the editor you should look at this because your breaking its policies - Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and even Wikipedia:Edit warring - You wont discuss or even consider any way but your own thus breaking the above mentioned policies. You can read in this talk page how people consider you like a tyrant of the page. When someone makes a change you immediately erase it and revert it back to your style and no other style or additions but your own. I have seen you run this page for many years and your style makes this page unappealing with stale information.
- Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring". Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold. A potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed. You opposed my change so you must provide educational reasoning. The Boracay Page must be FREE of contradictions to prove your point/reasoning.
Is this the proper venue to report an issue/Editor? Edit war/3RR noticeboard Glade22 (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Glade22
- Glade, If you want to report me or any other editor, the place to do it is the Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard -- also known as WP:AN.
- You seem to have a problem with some of the edits I've made to the Boracay page. It would probably be better for you and I to discuss the specific edits which concern you before you report me, but feel free to proceed directly to WP:AN if you want. If you want to discuss things first, please let me know which of my edits concern you and what your concerns are. Please try to be succinct in describing your concerns.
- Regarding your questions about who I report to, see Wikipedia#Power structure. I'm a pretty experienced editor and a Wikipedia administrator. My being an administrator should not concern you if you feel that I ought to be reported for violation of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines.
- Re live webcams, see this comment of mine in reaction to your asking about that at Talk:Boracay. As I said there, I think personally that links to live webcams would be a useful addition to the Boracay article. However, my guess is that anyone adding such links will meet resistance, and I don't want to become embroiled in discussions which would probably ensue. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Chrysler 300
Umm, I was trying to edit Compact executive car, and I was trying to mention the 300 instead of the 200, because the 200 is priced too low to be part of a luxury car. 166.137.191.41 (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- This concerns this revert, I think, which looked like vandalism of a section heading to me. I take your explanation as saying that the edit was not intended as vandalism, but resulted from some sort of mis-click or unintended save while editing the article. OK. If you were editing from a logged-in account I would tell you to feel free to remove the warning associated with this revert from your talk page, per WP:TPG. Since the warned talk page is associated with a (possibly shared) IP address, though, I think that the warning ought to remain. I'll take no action if you remove it, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
It must be an accident. Unfortunately, my phone has a really bad keyboard. 166.137.191.38 (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Regarding the revision of P C CHANG OF REPUBLIC OF CHINA (TAIWAN) TO CHINA WHICH IS INCORRECT.
The Declaration was drafted during the Chinese Civil War. P.C. Chang was appointed as a representative by the Republic of China, then the recognized government of China, but which was driven from mainland China and now administers only Taiwan and nearby islands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_United_Nations#Republic_of_China_in_the_UN_.281945-1971.29
People's Republic of China only joined the UN in 1971 when UN recognized PRC as the only chinese government.
"The United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 2758 on Oct. 25, 1971, recognizing that the People's Republic of China is the only lawful representative of China to the United Nations. As a result, the PRC was able to take over the ROC's membership in the United Nations, and its permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_United_Nations jthomas91 02:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification, and thanks for clarifying it in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Why did you revert the population to the 2010 estimate?
You reverted the Philippine population figure to the 2010 estimate, when the official population clock of the Philippine statistics office:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines#cite_note-census1-6
The government says that the population is officially 99 Million, yet you reverts my updates which acurately reflect the government figure to an estimate done 4 years ago (Outdated) Are you smarter than the government itself to conclude that the government is wrong in its saying that the Philippine population is 99 million? Furthermore, you used an estimate that was for the year 2010, today is 2014! Your edition is illogical, I'm reverting it to the proper population statistics. See you again soon.
Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the problem is that in the source I stated, http://www.popcom.gov.ph/, you just looked at the statistic: "Population as of May 1, 2010 is 92,337,85" but maybe you didn't notice that just below that statistic, (you have to wait for it to load), you find another statistic of the Philippine's total population, which changes every 5 seconds to account for new births, that statistic said the population is 98,997,576 or approximately 99 Million. I hope you now understand why I edited the previous population projection. Thank You
Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- You got that right. My apologies, and thanks for the info and the later fix.
- I'm on Boracay island, and my internet service is generally very bad lately. At the moment, I'm getting just a few kbps. Service is generally worst on weekends -- I made the edit in question on Sunday and it is currently very early Monday morning. Service might improve after people come to work at my local ISP in a few hours -- or it might not. I don't remember specifics of the edit in question, but I'm guessing that I never saw the update you mentioned -- I probably waited a lot longer that five seconds for the page to load initially, and just went with the figure which it eventually presented after initially loading.
- Following on this incident, I've looked at the Demographics of the United States article. In there, I see
As of {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}, the [[United States]] has a total resident population of {{formatnum:{{#expr:{{data United States|poptoday}}round-4}}}},<ref>Estimated by extrapolation. According to [http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html The U.S. Census Bureau's Population Clock].</ref> [...]
- I see that Template:Data Philippines is a redlink. Looking at Template:Data United States, I see that there's a section there on Template:Data United States#Creating new data templates. It seems to me that it would be useful to create {{Data Philippines}} as a centralized repository for standardized values for bits of data about the Philippines (e.g., current population), and also useful to create a family of such templates for other data related to the Philippines (see e.g. {{Dutch municipality population}} and friends).
- It wouldn't be a good idea for a single editor to charge forward on such an undertaking, though. Are you active in the the wikiproject WP:Tambayan Philippines? If so, perhaps you might bring this up at WT:Tambayan Philippines. Otherwise, please let me know and I will do that. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
storm news
no storm yet— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.85.87 (talk • contribs) 06:37, January 21, 2014 (UTC)
- This was in apparent reaction to this revert. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your revert in the topic Muslim. Please tell me a more reliable source for the subject you reverted. My source is http://quran.com/2/255 What is yours regarding the matter.
If you do not have a source, then revert your reverts.
Khawar.nehal (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)