Jump to content

User talk:Wtmitchell

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 94.66.221.72 (talk) at 14:05, 8 June 2019 (→Do you speak English?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Headline text

My local time:
December 2024
Thursday
9:46 am PST

Hi.

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

I will generally respond on this page inside the section which has been added unless you request otherwise. Please watch this page if you leave me a message.

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

Longfellow

Please see my response to your removal of content I created on the article for Henry Wadsworth Longfellow on that article's talk page. Thank you. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)*[reply]

Ilhan Omar

Hi - I thought you might be the right admin to protect the Ilhan Omar page as you've already been there. Omar is the first Muslim woman in US Congress, (took her seat just this week), and already she is being attacked by alt-right trolls. I made a simple edit for the sake of her safety and it was immediately reversed. I had to make this appeal to the other editor to have my edit accepted. In light of my argument made there, and given the vandalism is already ramping up, would now not be the right time to apply some measure of protection? Thanks. MarkDask 02:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the edits since your edit on 3 January and didn't see a pattern of vandalism which I thought warranted protection. I don't have much experience in the areas of WP:PP and WP:BLP, though. If you disagree with my assessment, I suggest that you bring this up at WP:RPP. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed three Admins, including yourself, with my concerns and left it at that. Since then the page turned into a vicious partizan dogfight with some extreme vandalism, but at least it has since been PCPPed so the trolling has abated. MarkDask 16:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Total Divas cast table.

Hey there, I was just wondering if you were able to assist me on the latest edits on the Total Divas page. There is a user who claims just because there is not a source to provide for recurring and guest characters, it should entirely be removed with all recurring cast members being reverted to guests. This to me is inaccurate, as they are trying to determine a cast members status based on their personal views. Whereas the difference between a recurring and guest are based on the amount of episodes they appeared in, and the amount of involvement they have with the storyline/main cast members. Also, this seems like a bold edit as every other television show on Wikipedia contains these types of tables, determining main, recurring, and guest characters, so I find it rather silly that this user is targeting this one show yet none of the other shows. Anywho, any assist would be beneficial, and I'm not looking for "back up" as I am open to change, but I want it to be for the right reasons and accurate representations. I do not want to engage in an edit war with them, nor cross any boundaries with Wikipedia. Thanks! MSMRHurricane (talk) 06:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked at the article in question but, in my experience generally, most of the WP articles concerning sports teams and concerning TV entertainment programs have severe problems of noncompliance with the WP:V and WP:NOR policies. the "other shows about similar topics are just as bad" argument is a non-starter as justification. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RichardBransonJr

Hi Wtmitchell! I was patrolling through the new user log and noticed that RichardBransonJr was temporarily blocked for vandalism - did you mean to only block this account temporarily? Or did you perhaps mean to block the account indefinitely? I just wanted to message you and let you know about the temporary block in case you meant to do do indefinitely. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked that user during a WP:Huggle session without dropping out of that session to look at a bigger picture. On second look, this does appear to be a WP:VOA. I'm not going to revisit the block length, however. If that account is used for more vandalism, it will incur more blocks and block lengths will escalate. Meanwhile, there is a chance that the account operator will see the error of his ways. See WP:NOPUNISH, WP:BLOCKP. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed this section title in my watchlist and was thinking that the account is also a usernanme violation with respect to Richard Branson. —DoRD (talk)​ 12:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re your revert edits to Baird baronets

FYI see User:83.240.186.98. The sock master is tenacious and will try time and again with different socks to add text over a long period. However the style and content of user's edits are easy to spot once one is aware that these sockpuppets exist. -- PBS (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 533 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

-- Dolotta (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undocumented v. illegal

My purpose for reverting the IP's edit on Anchor baby was to keep the original wording there; indeed, the current version is quite aggressive toward a minority group, which seems contrary to the my fundamental principles as a Wikipedia user. There is no need to use "illegal" when "undocumented" is a just as accurate, if not more accurate, term. Hdjensofjfnen (Can I get a connection? Alternatively, trout me.) 22:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to me to me to be an argument asserting that this is a special case in which the WP:EUPHEMISM guideline should not apply and, it seems to me in this particular case, an argument against the opening paragraph of WP:NOR policy (note "children born in the U.S. of parents in the country illegally" in the supporting source cited in this particular case). Such arguments can be presented on the talk pages there.
Looking at the Anchor baby article again, I see that there are currently three appearances of the term undocumented immigrant. I'll consider opening yet another discussion about that on the talk page of that article, though there are currently two about that currently visible on that talk page and others in the talk page archives. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

added Enterprisey • JJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino American population

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino Americans#Population . RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Siege of Baler

Hi! Thank you for your edit. I normally always make it a point to provide an edit summary, must have been dozing off, sorry and thanks for the reminder. Regarding my edits: I didn't mean to remove the entire cite ref, I only meant to add the text "seven". But I did insert back the cite reference.

But you are correct, the film Baler is a film, a historical account of real events, using fictional characters for the love story. The 57 was the film's poetic license, but there may have been only 50. I haven't had the chance to read the book referenced. My mistake for mixing up the film and history. Thanks again.Pipamidalton (talk)

Siege of Baler edits

Hi! Thank you for your edit. I normally always make it a point to provide an edit summary, must have been dozing off, sorry and thanks for the reminder. Regarding my edits: I didn't really remove the entire cite ref, I only meant to add the text "seven". But I did insert back the cite reference if you note the edits.

But you are correct about fact and fiction, the film Baler is a film, a historical account of real events, using fictional characters for the love story. The "57" Cazadores was the film's poetic license, but there may have been only 50. I haven't had the chance to read the book referenced. My mistake for mixing up the film and history. Thanks again.Pipamidalton (talk)

I haven't seen the book or the film. I have not rechecked this but my recollection is that the book is not available online either in full text or in selected previews. I don't know if the book (the supporting source cited in the article) says 50 or 57; I just looked quickly at the article and don't see either figure in it, though I remember (I think) mentioning it to you earlier. I've been assuming good faith by whomever inserted the figure of 50 (which I've just failed to find in the article) and cited the book.
I'm really busy outside of WP at present, and can't take the time right now to do anything further re this.
Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I note that our Philippines-based correspondent has once again taken up an interest in the dog-related articles. Thanks for your recent edit corrections; I get so close to the content that I cannot see the forest for the trees! Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not constructive?

Why not constructive? Did you follow the link? If هدهد happens to be an non-constructive link in that place of "Eurasian hoopoe", then you should consider to delete as well the reference to "hudhud" (eventually less accurate than my link, by the way, as it's only a transcription). In my opinion, though, erasing either would be no good idea, anyway. Kind regards. --188.76.243.18 (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My error, apparently. Apologies. See [1], and please remove my warning from your talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --188.76.243.18 (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted my change

Source? I attended the school for 5 years. I think I know what I am talking about. Please put back what you erroneously removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This apparently concerns this revert. Please read WP:V. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z152[reply]

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z83[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting valid edits to pages

You are clearly violating Wikipedia’s standards, terms of service and conduct. Stop deleting valid and legally, according to the terms of service of Wikipedia, entries and additions. Ninth Centurion (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, you already did it again. I have recorded all your actions and will be consulting my layer to take Civil action against you. Ninth Centurion (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've looked at my editing history, and this appears to relate to this edit. As suggested in my edit summary there, please see MOS:NOTED; it looks to me like some rewording of the content you inserted is needed. I take layer above to be intended as lawyer, and I interpret that as a WP:legal threat. I'll report that WP:INCIDENT so that it can be looked at by an uninvolved administrator. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit page

Hi, I got your message about the page I edited. I'm editing it for the artist. I'm new to Wiki as you can probably tell. I thought putting a citation at the beginning saying something like 'directly from the person' would suffice. I'm not sure how else to put a citation in when it is directly from the person. If you can help but also put my edit back up that would be great. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. However, info obtained from the subject of the article is generally not usable to directly support assertions made in the article. The details of that get a bit complicated; for starters, see WP:V and WP:RS. For info on citations in general, see WP:CITE. For the mechanics of placing citations in an article, see HELP:Footnotes. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

I responded to your entry on my talk page just incase it didn't show up in your alerts. Thank you for being willing to discuss my extensive edits to that page with me, and I hope we can further discuss how to improve and greatly expand the page in a way that is fully properly sourced, and I hope at least some of the sources I added and existing sources I cited could be of at least some use. Thank you for your time, help, and guidance. I look forward to improving the article in the future and continuing to learn the ropes as a rookie Wikipedia editor. Titanoboa Constrictor (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for drawing my attention to this. I have responded on your talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wt : Compulsory Voting.

I noted your remark about the change(s)/ deletion I made. I don't have an official publication to refer to or to ascribe this to but I will justify my actions by explaining that I have lived in Belgium for 40 years as a British citizen and legally registered resident. However, I do not have a vote in Belgium (apart from only the local council elections if I specifically register myself for those). I cannot have a national vote unless I become a Belgian citizen. In that way, I can demonstrate that the process of compulsory voting ONLY applies to Belgian citizens and not to foreign nationals (not even EU nationals or to registered residents and taxpayers).

As far as the change about fining non-voters, there was an article in today's newspaper in Dutch which explains why the non-voters will not be fined (records of non-voters are destroyed within six months and do not have time to arrive at the Courts)

https://www.hln.be/nieuws/binnenland/geen-sanctie-voor-wie-niet-stemt~adcc7525/?utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_medium=email&rcid=&utm_source=hln&utm_content=regio&ctm_ctid=c884725147a86faf605bc7a4e6d59e8c

The English translation of the Dutch text is as follows: Don't feel like voting on May 26? You don't have to fear a sanction: the no-show lists are never sent to the public prosecutors' offices and even destroyed after 6 months. Absent invigilators will be prosecuted. In the most recent municipal elections, 358,896 (7.4%) of the almost 4.9 million people obliged to attend did not show up. Those no-shows break the law and risk a fine of 40 to 80 euros. Repeat offenders even risk a fine of up to 200 euros. If you consistently - four times in 15 years - continue to refuse to vote, you will be "punished" with a ... ban on voting. Only: it never comes to a sanction.{{cite news|url=|title=Geen sanctie voor wie niet stemt

“The invigilators of the polling stations send the lists of the absent voters to the civil courts. They keep them for six months and then destroy them according to the guidelines of the national archivist, "the FPS Justice explains. “The lists of absent voters are therefore not submitted to the public prosecutors' offices. Within the Public Prosecution Service the directive applies to prosecute only the absent invigilators of the voting and counting offices. "

Hope all that context more comprehensively and correctly explains the changes I made and that Wikipedia can be adjusted to correctly reflect the actual practice in Belgium.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:1810:c86:4100:44e7:e514:1fc:2fab (talk • contribs) 22:26, May 14, 2019 (UTC)

That appears to concern this revert I made during a WP:Huggle session to an article I don't normally edit, concerning a topic on which I have no expertise. assuming good faith, I have made this further edit to the article. Considering my lack of familiarity with the topic, please check to see that what I have done is reasonable. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

La Croix Water

Hello, It was not a test and I have done research and it is true



Thanks Hyun Soo-Choo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.34.213 (talk • contribs) 15:38, May 16, 2019 (UTC)

This appears to concern this revert. No comment. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

50.198.150.137, persistent vandal

Hi, Bill, I notice you were the last to warn User:50.198.150.137 of the consequence of their persistent vandalism. I am afraid it is continuing and perhaps there is a need to prove that you mean what you say! Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. See here and here. I try to follow an orderly process in my warnings and blocking, generally in line with WP:WARN, though I rarely use the templates found there directly, and in line with WP:BLOCK. I looked at this anonymous user's contributions (eight edits spaced over five months) and page history and do see a past pattern of occasional but persistent vandalism. I think the informal warning I've placed on the IP talk page might be more effective at this point than a block. If not, persistent vandalism will eventually result in escalating blocks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dlete my edits

YOU DIELETED MY USEFUL EDITS on Bhadase Maraj. They were Good edits and i thought they weeere useful becaus you have to provide proof i smart and red wikipedia guidlaines i know you have to and they did not so i dleted them because i helped the wikipedia. YOU DO NOT POST ON TALK pAGES ITH OTU PERMISSIONS FROM ME!!!!!!!!! you ARe abusing your power and i could report you luckiy im nice...! Bisbambleboozertimeass (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANSWER NOW

IF yoau do not answer i WIll report you for bBusing your power becaus thats what you did i can get you banned i know hackers very smart hackers can hack any RobLOX account. you don't want that to hapen do oyu? didnt thing so! SO RESPOND OR ELSE. Bisbambleboozertimeass (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently in response to this reversion, which I made after seeing this edit, the final edit in a series of four edits; my reversion reverted all four edits. I stand by the reversion. I suggest that you read WP:THREATEN. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 126.209.22.197 problematic editing. Jayjg (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Candace Gingrich

This is the second time I have been told off for an edit that was purely technical and non-vandalizing. Candace Gingrich prefers they/them pronouns and it is the policy of Wikipedia to refer to people by the pronouns they prefer. The only other edit I did was change a reference to their first name to their last name, which is also in accordance with the policy I believe, but I could be mistaken. Please respond on my talkpage or respond here but notify me on my talkpage. 108.245.173.217 (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My revert changed more than I intended. I've redone it to revert only the change from "her senior" to "their senior". You changed an assertion saying that Newt Gingrich "is more than 20 years her senior" to one saying that he is "is more than 20 years their senior". The word "they" in your version would refer to the couple, Newt and Candice, and the meaning of the sentence after your change would be that Newt is more than 20 years older than that couple, of which he, Newt, is one of the two members. That is nonsensical. Apologies for the first too-broad revert and thanks for calling it to my attention. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) 108.245.173.217 (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I fixed the dead link for the source cited in support of the assertion in the article saying that Candice "uses they/them pronouns" and, as I could not find support for that assertion in there, I added a {{fv}} tag at that point in the article. I googled around a bit and found this source which has some seemingly relevant information, but which does not quite support the assertion as it appears in the article. At this point, I have not further edited the article beyond placing the tag. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I see this, which says that Candice says that "using preferred gender pronouns is less about extending courtesy than of practicing basic human dignity." That article, however, does not detail what Candice's pronoun preferences might be for others to use in referring to Candice as a person (or to Candice and Newt, which is the point of all of this). The article does contain a list of some additional options for expressing gender neutrality in the use of pronouns, but does not say whether Candice prefers to have others use the pronouns on that list. That article I linked here earlier The article at the repaired HRC link quotes Candice as having said, “You should respect how someone wants to be referred to” but, though that article does contain some information abut Candice's preferences when referring to Bradley Manning (now Chelsea), I don't find any information in there about Candice's preferences regarding pronoun use by others in referring to Candice. I'm wondering how much WP:original research there is here abut that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The HRC link is dead. I just saw in the article itself that Gingrich prefers they/them pronouns and Gingrich is genderqueer, which usually (but not always!) means they/them pronouns. Honestly, I am just going to leave the article alone. I am writing something for a course I'm taking and my DSPD-riddled brain will probably call me to sleep soon. 108.245.173.217 (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see that this edit, which introduced the assertion regarding Candice's preferences re the use of gender-specific pronouns, was made back in 2017 by @TheOneWithTheBoringUsername:. That editor does not have an active talk page and has not been an active editor since 2017. I've {{ping}}ed that editor here, and am hoping for a response. If I see no response, I may re-edit the Candace Gingrich article to remove all this insufficiently supported confusion re preferences about gender-specific pronoun use. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Candace Gingrich#Preference re gender-specific pronoun use. Please make any further comment regarding this there, not here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of Filipino Americans

Hi, why did you restore this cite? [| DOFA ] Did you check the result of your work? Neils51 (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see that my edit changed more than I intended. The removed cite wasn't a dead link, though I just mistakenly said that it was in an edit summary -- it went to this page, which I thought fit the "invalid link" description in the edited version which had removed that cite. I looked at the oldest saved version of that URL at archive.org, and found what looked like the source intended to be cited, and I bolixed up the edit to restore the removed cite with a link going to that old version of the page. I've just bolixed up a fix for that several times, but I think I've finally got it right. My errors all around, and I thank you for rubbing my nose in them. I'll try to be less hurried and more careful in future. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

uuuhhhhhh, why did you do that.

Because i don't believe as well because i'm trying to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.33.99.251 (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit busy at the moment and also trying to do some WP:Huggle work on the side. I'm editing a lot of articles. Could you please give me a bit more of a clue what you are asking about? Perhaps the name of the article of concern? Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts for countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 09:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ceiling Fan

Re: Ceiling fans. My source is from several manufactures instructions & my personal experience. I am a registered electrical contractor in Australia (REC 11756) & a licensed A grade electrician (Victoria)- 27918. I have 30 years experience in my trade. I have installed a few thousand sweep/ceiling fans (ianmason1971@gmail.com or elphin.electrics@gmail.com). Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.168.255.111 (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article "United States Army uniforms in World War II" extremely inaccurate.

Tried to fix a bad article.

This article has extensive inaccuracies. I added sourced edits in the first chapter since there were many inaccuracies and there were of course no sources for that section at all.

The other chapters are also heavily inaccurate and either need massive revision or should be eliminated altogether.

I largely wrote the uniform section in Wikipedia "United States Army Air Forces".

To illustrate the point I will list the inaccuracies of the "Class B" section alone. Except for the first chapter which is now corrected the rest of the chapters are just as bad.

The A,B,C,D uniforms in the article are just totally made up. The fact A and B are modern terms is stated but there wasn't then or now a C or D in the U.S. Army. What is given does not even correspond with USMC A B C D uniforms.

1. The campaign hat could be worn with any uniform.

2. Spread Collar refers to a very wide opening for the tie. The Army shirt was not a spread collar type.

3. Rank was not worn on officer's shirt shoulder straps to "prevent snipers". Prior to 1942 the U.S. pin was worn on the right shirt collar and the branch insignia on the left with rank on the shoulder straps if the shirt was being worn as an outer garment. In 1942 this was changed so the rank was removed from the shoulder straps and the U.S. was replaced by the rank on the right collar point.

4. Enlisted personnel did not wear insignia disks on their shirts in WWII. That was a post war development.

5. Enlisted branch of service disks were not worn on the garrison "overseas" cap.

6. Enlisted service stripes were indeed authorized on service shirt sleeves.


The photo of Donald Prell, while I'm sure chosen to honor a WWII veteran shows a blue infantry cord which was not created until the Korean War era. It is also being worn with armored branch insignia which would not be authorized at any time in the U.S. Army. Although I sympathize with the desire to use a WWII vet's photo it's not an accurate WWII uniform example for the purpose of this article.

I could go on but you get the point. This is but one small section. Most of these are easily sourced in the U.S. Army WWII uniform regulations. I am willing to fix the errors but the edit will be very extensive virtually eliminating whole chapters and adding others.

Please give me feedback if you think an administrator will allow me to correct this with well sourced material or at least put in a disputed notice.

Thank you very much, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfhound63 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see that this was probably prompted by this edit of mine, which I made in haste earlier tonight. Haste usually leads to brusqueness, and did in this case. Apologies if that caused offense.
Before looking at the background, I was about to suggest that you discuss this on the article's talk page. Looking at the article and talk page histories, I see that you've done that. The lack of a talk page discussion to support the {{disputed}} tag you placed in the article was probably the reason I reverted that placement (I'm guessing there -- I don't really remember). The talk page discussion should produce results, and will provide a forum for you to propose intended action and ask for comments or objections. I don't know much about the article topic, but I'll try to take a look at the article tomorrow and may comment in the discussion. Your edit history suggests that you are new to Wikipedia, and I've placed a welcome message on your talk page which contains a number of links which ought to be helpful. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you speak English?

Do you perceive serious quality in this?

Now the Mount is the object of the International program «7 Summits» (climbing the highest tops of all continents). Elbrus is especially lucky nowadays — in spite it is the part of Caucasus, one can reach its bottom without special frontier guard's permit, the way along Baksan valley is comfortable and safe. Hotels in Terskol, Bochki huts, Priut 11 and the new modern hut some meters higher than Priut — do Elbrus climbs more and more comfortable, and from day to day a lot of groups go to their dream — Elbrus tops. But, except some events — all of these climbs are of «tourist class». But 15–20 years ago those slopes were the place for serious mountaineers ambitions battles!

Presumably, you do, as you put it back into an article after I removed it. What level of English do you speak? What do you understand an encyclopaedia to be? 94.66.221.72 (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wtmitchell&oldid=900924185"