Jump to content

User talk:Wtmitchell/Archive 15 (2021)

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

Why’d you revert my ‘incomplete short citation’ tag on the seventeenth amendment page?

[edit]

The problem still exists on that page (you didn’t fix the problem of there being no full citation to the Bybee source in that page’s references.) Your edit comes across as unwelcoming to a new contributor, as you undid my contribution and retuned to the previous problem without the tag I had added. Why did you do this? GlacierRinger (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the edited article, and the cite to Bybee (1997) that you marked with {{Incomplete short citation}} and that I unmarked after editing it now links to this full citation along with a bunch of other cites in that article that previously named that as a source and that now also link to that full citation. I don't understand your problem with that; could you explain that a little to me? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks okay actually. I didn’t realize that Wikipedia had a citation style of “footnotes (primarily short cites) followed by bibliography (containing long citations)” I was confused by some of the footnotes containing full citations. Do you know how to determine which full cites appear in the footnotes vs which go in the bibliography? Thanks! GlacierRinger (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't gone back and taken a second look to refresh my memory about this -- too many other things on my mind just now. To your question, the short answer is "no". A number of different citation styles are found in WP articles; more info can be seen in Wikipedia:Citing sources. It is considered good practice for individual articles to stick to one citation style, but this good practice is often ignored in favor of whatever styles individual editors feel comfortable with. I flouted that good practice myself in my edit by enhancing the citations related to the one cite which brought this up by adding links between the shortened footnotes and the full citations without similarly enhancing all the similar cites in the article and without discussion on the article talk page. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any sockmasters/LTAs that hate you?

[edit]

See [1]. Any idea who it is, they don't seem to have any previous interactions with you? Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 11:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I lack sockfinding skills or the ambition to acquire them. I patrol filtered edits with WP:Huggle and consider edits I see there one-by-one, mostly without any research about the articles or the editors. I'm guessing that this was a reaction to a reversion and warning I issued from there. I didn't see it when it appeared on my talk page -- by the time I responded to the notification of its appearance there another editor had removed it.. Soch stuff appears on my talk page from time to time; other editors remove it before I see it most of the time. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for blocking that IP, by the way - they came out of nowhere. Pahunkat (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Bill

[edit]

It is me the Great King Monty Mole/Great King Monty Molee/King Great Monty Mole/Montymole007. I am sincerely sorry for my personal attack, I snapped at you for no good reason. Sorry. On behalf of the Monty Clan I apologize to all I have hurt. Sincerely, --Monty is Sorry Bill (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not personally angry with you about this; consider the apology for this single incident as having been accepted. However, please read and follow the Wikipedia community standards and applicable Wikipedia policies.Among the applicable policies would be those prohibiting personal attacks and regarding restrictions on the use of of multiple user accounts by one person (please note that this policy includes a section prohibiting sharing of accounts by multiple persons). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
  • Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Good job Bill. You are a great admin. King monty II (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is much appreciated. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anar Alizade

[edit]

Anar Alizade is a fraudster he is not a businessman There is a lot of compr material on the Internet about Anar Aliyev — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elshadabdullayev1954 (talk • contribs) 13:16, January 9, 2021 (UTC)

I've moved this from the top of this talk page, where it was incorrectly placed.
This apparently concerns this revert. I see that the revert has been undone, and I have re-reverted that here with an edit summary saying, Reverted good faith edits by Elshadabdullayev1954 (talk): See WP:BLP. I'm not sure whether or not Anar Alizade should be considered a public figure in this regard -- I'm erring on the side of caution. If includable, this info should be better presented, and probably not in the article lead. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How much did Anar Alizade give to Ali Kemal Celikten for betrayal to Mubariz Mansimov?https://socarcorruption.wordpress.com/2020/12/14/how-much-did-anar-alizade-give-to-ali-kemal-celikten-for-betrayal-to-mubariz-mansimov/ 17 Black money trail leads to Switzerland, with links to Azerbaijanhttps://socarcorruption.wordpress.com/2020/12/08/17-black-money-trail-leads-to-switzerland-with-links-to-azerbaijan/ Making millions from Socar:the mysterious Anar Aliyev https://socarcorruption.wordpress.com/2020/09/23/making-millions-from-socarthe-mysterious-anar-aliyev/ So who is Anar Aliyev? Global Witness found that a man named Anar Aliyev has been involved in some capacity with companies that have struck at least 48 deals with Socar, covering all facets of the supply chain of the oil industry and several auxiliary functions. He even held a stake through one of his companies in partnership with Socar in an Azerbaijani football team, Neftchala FK.40 The extent of these deals makes him a key figure in the oil industry of Azerbaijan, even though he appears to be a relative newcomer: nearly all the Aliyev-linked companies in partnership with Socar were set up after 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elshadabdullayev1954 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that another admin has reverted some changes by this user to the article at issue since my revert and has blocked this user for a short period. I don't know anything about the article topic, and I don't intend any further action on this unless I happen to stumble across more problems in future. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crixus

[edit]

I added the part to Crixus from Mike Duncan's "A History of Rome" podcast. Episode 036, "I am Spartacus!", covers it. A relevant source can be found here: https://www.livius.org/sources/content/appian/appian-spartacus/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinfoilhat24 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I undid my revert here, citing the source you suggested. I made this revert from WP:Huggle, and I was apparently too quick on the trigger based on too little; my apologies. I am (clearly) outside of my expertise here, but I wonder that other editors might nitpick the citation with {{Better source needed}}. I don't want to screw up further edits here, but I might look for sourcing support e.g., here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

[edit]

I use Wikipedia exclusively as a reference tool and have not made any contributions or edits to any of its pages in well over a decade, nor do I intend to in the future. If any edits appear from this IP address in the future that need to be removed, feel free to exclude me from the the process entirely and I assure you I'll be none the wiser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.91.139 (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell by a quick look, this is in response to a message I left on this IP's talk page concerning a change I reverted on on 8 May 2019. I don't recall the particulars of that and have not tried to track down the details. I'm content to let sleeping dogs lie. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About the information i posted its a reliable source i just forgot to write it, it comes from imdb, this time i will put it there along with other sites to confirm it, thanks. John boomer knight (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked back at the edit, but see the info on IMDB at WP:RSP -- it's classified "generally unreliable" there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning One Piece Tv show information

[edit]

Yes I apologize for not adding a source. I will add my source then continue to add the information I inputted. I apologize again. Have a wonderful day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UhiahaUlumbnai1 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello i disagree with one of your changes to the page titanoboa

[edit]

i stated that viktor is teit and i shared a vital piece of information that i believe everyone should know. i do not regret my actions, frankly i will keep doing it until you allow the changes to stay up.


my best regards, signed Viktorerhomosexuell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viktorerhomosexuell (talk • contribs) 11:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This apparently relates to this revert. On checking, I see that the inserted text viktor er teit translates to viktor is stupid in English I stand by my revert. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

[edit]

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine 1907 Flag Law

[edit]

Hi Wtmitchell, regarding your revert a few days ago of my addition of a 1907 Flag Law mention on History of the Philippines (1898–1946), I provided a bit more explanation at Talk:History of the Philippines (1898–1946)#1907 flag law. Would be interested in your thoughts, CMD (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a good answer. I want to say something like "clarification would help" but, from what I can see, support for reasonable clarification is difficult to find. juxtaposing sources which disagree with one another on the details probably only leads to bloat and only illustrates that the sources were written by people who didn't spend much time trying to research what they were writing about. I fall into that category myself, having only looked quickly at a few sources I was able to quickly find online.
  • This is the text of the law -- a primary source. You mentioned that on the talk page.
  • This a secondary source is as vague about the details as the law itself.
  • This source says that the law prohibited the playing of the national anthem. I've seen that elsewhere. I see that the Flag Act (Philippines) article also asserts this (without support). I don't read that in or into the text of the law, though it could be seen there if the anthem is thought of as a "device". Introducing my thoughts would be WP:OR in any case.
  • I see here that a respected Philippine historian asserts that the Governor-General instructed the constabulary that the national tricolor was not banned -- that is just from a snippet, though.
I'm thinking that clarification to the effect that the law was promulgated during the period of hostilities following after the conclusion of general revolutionary hostilities (common knowledge and easily supported by numerous sources) and that the law was enacted to "prohibit the display of flags, banners, emblems, or devices used in the Philippine Islands for the purpose of rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States" (from the text of the law) would help. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That last source seems to mention a symbol of the nacionalista party specifically, although I'm not sure if it is referring to their logo or to some other symbol (this source opens on page 1 with a quote about the close relationship between nacionalista leaders and the Americans, so I can see the Governor granting a clarification for them in that context). The source I used frames the flag law as part of a trend including the 1901 anti-sedition and 1902 brigandage laws, and it mentions 1913 as the end date, but it isn't specific about the continuing hostilities in 1907 exactly. Presumably the ongoing capture and execution of Sakay in 1906-1907 had some bearing on the law, but that is also not currently mentioned in the article. Do you think we can use the Priscelina Patajo-Legasto source you mentioned above? It has a clear POV, but it does cover the relevant reasoning and mention Sakay. CMD (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's this. I don't see support there for an assertion saying, "A Flag Law was put in place in 1907 prohibiting the display of Philippine flags." That covers a lot of flags, depending on how it is read. I think that it would support an assertion saying, e.g., "A Flag Law was put in place in 1907 prohibiting the display of flags whi9ch might incite insurrection or rebellion, including Kati8punan flags.", but that's badly worded and long-winded. On looking at this Ambeth Ocampo source again, I see that it says, "when the [Flag Law] prohibited the display of the Philippine Flag, ...", but also says that the Governor General specified informally that display of the the "nacionalista tricolor" (whatever that might be) was not prohibited. That is what I get from just the snippets of that source which I have seen, though; it might be clearer with more context. In sum, I see some secondary sources interpreting the flag law as asserting that display of the "Philippine Flag" (which I take to be this) was banned, and others interpreting it closer to the words contained in the law, and I'm concerned about WP:BALANCE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation is that the banning of insurrectionist flags included what is now known as the Philippine flag, and I think what you are saying is that the sources are unclear as to whether the Philippine flag was targeted in particular, or whether it just gets more attention in hindsight due to current usage. Is that correct? I am happy with "A 1907 law prohibited the display of flags and other symbols "used during the late insurrection in the Philippine Islands"" or similar, adapted from yours above, perhaps appending "including the official flag of the First Philippine Republic" to reflect modern focus. CMD (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with that. What bothered me was what I took as a specific focus on what nationalists, then and now, see as the flag associated with their nationalism without a cite of a source clearly supporting that focus. I don't read that into the flag law, but that is my observation of what a primary source does not say and my interpretation that it does not mean what it does not say. Others interpret it differently. It may be that others at the time interpreted it differently and applied it so as to prohibit and punish display of the flag -- I don't know whether or not that happened and I haven't seen any reliable sources which would clear that up. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that's an important concern, I've left the second bit out as well pending a more focused source. CMD (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth of the Philippines

[edit]

Hi Wtmitchell, you are quite about the revert. In many languages, the term "commonwealth" used in an Anglophone context is often kept in English in a variety of cases because it is one of those words that do not have an exact and two-way equivalent in other languages. It is sometimes even borrowed and applied to non-Anglophone situations in which it serves as a better descriptor that a native word. Keep Covid-safe! Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note "cited as a supporting source" in my edit summary on that revert. I did not look beyond that. See WP:BURDEN and WP:NOR. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw. It was a mere for-what-it-is-worth. I am a language person, so at times I can't help. ;-) Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PyroFloe and ChipmunkDavis

[edit]

(Note: This is an offshoot of a discussion at Talk:Insular Government of the Philippine Islands#National symbols -- order of precedence)

Please sir these 2 editors are refusing to listen to what I have to say and are bringing up arguments that I have attempted to debunk. However they seem to be tone deaf. You seem to have knowledge on the subject of the Phillipines and American Colonial rule on the islands. Please help me Kanto7 (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to seek help even though you are the one that is not listening to our arguments and labeling our logic as nonsense?[2] Okay then. PyroFloe (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, your argument has flaws. Lets just add the American flag below the Phillipine flag labelled with 1901-1920. Kanto7 (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it is only a territory, not an integral part of the United States. With that argument are you gonna put every version of the United States flag to the United States article and put dates on it? Of course not, one is enough. PyroFloe (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was a territory. So it should have A american flag. Kanto7 (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a territory of the United States and it used the American flag solely from 1901 to 1920. Kanto7 (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What part of our discussion about sovereign state's flags use on the infobox of territories that you don't understand? :@Kanto7 as seen here [3], here [4], and here [5], you have engaged in multiple edit wars with other editors as well, you are still not listening and keep readding and reverting. I think we can safely assume that you are the one that does not listen. And with the hierarchy of disagreements chart above Wtmitchell's talk page, you have clearly crossed the line with this dispute. PyroFloe (talk) 07:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Insular Government was not a Sovergin State Kanto7 (talk) 07:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And The Phillipines was under the Bureau of Insular affairs. All territories under the Bureau of Insular affairs had the American flag as the official flag Kanto7 (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

In the meantime lets just leave this alone Kanto7 (talk) 08:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Untill arbitration by Wtmitchell Kanto7 (talk) 07:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration by me insofar as resolution of the content dispute goes is not going to happen; see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If I had stronger views and good WP:RSes I would have contributed more to the discussion on the article talk page than have. I wish I could contribute more. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
thanks for keeping wiki factual and vandal-free! OmegySock (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C cell

[edit]

If the only problem you had is adding Cell C to the disambiguation page C cell, then why did you rollback the addition of the radio battery c cells? -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My error. I've fixed it here. Thanks for pointing it out. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Bavio the Benighted (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pabico 2006

[edit]

Hi Wtmitchell, do you still have access to the Pabico 2006 source "The Exiled Government: The Philippine Commonwealth in the United States During the Second World War" you used in Government in exile of the Commonwealth of the Philippines? On Politics of the Philippines there is a sentence "Exiled leaders of the previous first Commonwealth government, including Quezon and Osmeña, provided limited support to the U.S", which is unsourced. It feels vague, and I was wondering if the Pabico source might support a more informative sentence. Best, CMD (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the sentence which concerns you was added without support by an anon in this 2017 edit. I do stilll have the book and I've added a bit and a supporting cite from that to the article here. I'm a pretty lousy wordsmith, but I hope that is an improvement. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and good find on the history. I've actually recently removed the bit about Laurel not declaring war, as it contradicted a source I found saying Laurel declared war in September 1944. CMD (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That Pabico book says on p.78:

On his inauguration as President of the Japanese-sponsored Philippine Republic, Jose P. Laurel declared the independence of the Philippines, presumably from the United States. The news was both troubling and repugnant to Quezon. Furthermore, Laurel signed the Japanese-Philippine Military Alliance. The pact read, in part, "The Philippines will afford all kinds of facilities for the military action to be undertaken by Japan, and that both Japan and the Philippines will closely cooperate with each other in order to safeguard territorial integrity and the independence of the Philippines."

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's useful information I don't think is on Wikipedia yet. It must have been a interesting time for personal relationships. This book says "Osmeña and Laurel reconciled" but gives no further details. CMD (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Pabico book goes on to quote: "Japan and the Philippine nation now ask America to let us to proceed in the development of our country without placing obstructions in our way. This should not be difficult for the U.S., nor against her wishes, because America always admitted friendly sentiments towards us" from Laurel's inaugural address. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

German submarine U-2337

[edit]

I have changed u2337 I am new and a bad speller if you wat to check it you can — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.197.115.16 (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently re this revert. Thanks for fixing that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added TJMSmith
removed Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

added AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh Music page: need advice

[edit]

Hi

This user Srsseehra keeps editing the Sikh Music page. He keeps removing citations and links to credible sources whilst unable to provide his own. His information is correct and is going by some sect. How do I go about getting this user banned or control his edits? Otherwise I get penalized for getting in an edit war which I don't want to do. Please advise.

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Sikh_music — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amo247 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted one of his edits from WP:Huggle and placed a boilerplate warning on his talk page ([6]). I see that you have been there before me. It looks to me as if this user needs info and counseling re WP:EW, WP:BRD, WP:DE, WP:NPOV, and, particularly, WP:DUE to, perhaps, dissuade him from persisting, and also escalating WP:WARNings, and blocking if he persists in the face of multiple warnings,. I'm too focused on other things right now to get involved with doing this, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Gonçalves

[edit]

Hello there, from Portugal,

maybe page protection is warranted now (i don't mind not being able to edit there for a few weeks), or maybe you can watchlist it for some time if you see it fit. For reasons that elude me (quite probably, they even elude the vandal!), they are relentless in their actions of destroying the article... Started last month, with even accounts being created ("GONZAAL fan", "Carmooooooook" and "Pedro Mitalves", the latter also being active on Twitter with their shenanigans, see here https://www.google.com/search?q=Pedro+Mitalves&oq=Pedro+Mitalves&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8).

Thank you very much for whatever can be provided, happy editing --2001:8A0:7667:5801:A1FC:4397:B722:9FA8 (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism was done in four edits by a single anon, Those are the only four edits from this IP address. I'm guessing that the vandal is an opinionated sports fan -- probably a schoolkid. The vandal probably has a short attention span and will move on to something else, inside or outside of Wikipedia, which catches his interest. I'm not going to protect the page at this point -- other admins might, but I think that it would be a waste of effort. See WP:PP and WP:RPP. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time (and reply), continue the good work. --2001:8A0:7667:5801:9CC2:F805:A6BF:126C (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Or maybe they won't stop, another account created. I'll do my (two) part(s), revert on sight and stop feeding them with my heated summaries (if they read them, they might feed off of that). Let's see if it stops then, i doubt it (i wouldn't be a bit surprised if it's the same vandal that has been doing that to several Sporting CP players with several accounts/IPs. I do not support this team - i do not support any sports team, but what if i did? At least i'm not a vandal!)

Attentively --2001:8A0:7667:5801:4C74:9D7:27C:EEE3 (talk) 05:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

University of Gdańsk edit changes

[edit]

Hello Wtmitchell! This was one of my first edits here on Wikipedia and therefore i missed the source! My bad, me and a group of friends want to cover this topic regarding our Universities scandal, they are trying to hide it and get it removed from the Internet but we will do what we do best, preserve the history by nothing else than Wikipedia! I will be the head of this project and if there is anything else that we are doing wrong please inform me and we will get it fixed! Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.69.188.130 (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I make a lot of edits to WP articles I'm not really familiar with using WP:Huggle, which provides a small porthole into the article being edited. I think that what must have caught my attention about that edit was what looks on re-examination like significant but unsupported and unexplained changes which were probably visible in and near the porthole. I haven't gone back to look at the changes in detail, but I suggest that you read the Help:Edit summary and Wikipedia:Why create an account? project pages. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never edited the page you mentioned "stunna 4"

[edit]

Hello there. I received a message from you about editing "Stunna 4" in an incorrect way, but I've never visited that page. I don't even know what Stunna 4 is.

Thanks, Jesse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.15.152.166 (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jesse. You are editing anonymously from IP address 209.15.152.166. The article Stunna 4 Vegas (not "Stunna 4") was edited by someone using that IP address at 13:18, March 24, 2021‎ UTC; see here. It is entirely possible that more than one person uses that particular IP address. Perhaps you should consider registering for a Wikipedia user ID; see the Wikipedia:Why create an account? project page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick block for date-changing IP?

[edit]

Hi, Bill. Could I persuade you to look at 107.19.24.146? This is a person whose hobby is to visit music articles from, say, 2006, 2008, or so, and change the dates to 2012 or 2013. It's wrong, first of all, and even the refs which still work after their edits point to 2006 or 2008 or whatever. They're currently getting their jollies at Beep (Bobby Valentino song). I reverting as fast as I can... Thanks, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to have stopped for the night just after I dropped you this note. I guess there's nothing for you to do then. Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sultanate of Sulu interwiki moves

[edit]

Hi! Thanks for copying content from North Borneo dispute to Sultanate of Sulu. However, you forgot to add Template:Copied to the references, so I added it for you. If you forgot, that's okay, but just remember that all interwiki copy and paste moves require attribution, or else it's copyvio. Thanks in advance and kind regards, Sennecaster (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like something I might have done, but I can't find a record of having done it. Could you provide a diff? Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added information about football team, added articles, added info about investigations, added a spouse, changes some URLs, added new co-host to Point of Inquiry podcast, etc.

[edit]

I don't understand why you said my edit of my James Underdown page was not constructive.

I added significant updates, replaced obsolete information, and included relevant detail.

2600:1700:9BD1:A620:B4C2:2A2:ECA4:1DB1 (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC) I am James Underdown, incidentally.[reply]

Hi. That revert looke like an error on my part -- I have undone it. I see that I made the revert from WP:Huggle; I'm guessing that it was the result of an unrecognized mis-click there on my part.Please remove the automated message which Huggle will have placed on your talk page. This was error, for which I apologize. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

removed Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
  • Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

  • When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
  • Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dave McCartney

[edit]

Dave McCartney is my GGUncle, he is not related to John McCartney. Dave, full name David Thompson McCartney was born in Cronberry, Ayrshire to Charles McCartney and Susanna Thomson....He did have a brother John, he went to Australia, did not play football. However his other brother William James McCartney did, Barnsley being one club, and John McCartney is in a photo we have of the club, in our possession .....John McCartney was born in Glasgow to William McCartney and Margaret Brown. JintyH (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about any of the McCartneys mentioned here. This appears to be related to this revert. Please read WP:BURDEN and WP:RS. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New to this. Messaged the ones deleting my information! JintyH (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that when I looked a bit deeper with intentions of pointing your comments out after responding above. The cited source says, "His brother John played for Glasgow Rangers, ...". This could get complicated; it may need someone knowledgeable re the details and with access to other sources to work it out. This may involve WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

Wolkite F.C.

[edit]

Hi, you messaged me about Wolkite F.C., a club I did not existed until now. Wrong guy. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.156.77.28 (talk • contribs) 07:37, May 1, 2021 (UTC)

This apparently concerns this revert of an edit done anonymously using IP address 197.156.77.2. See here for the edit history from that IP address. Also, please see Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New article for verification

[edit]

Hello Wtmitchell, it's me Space Chinedu. Please, I want you to check the new article that I created in my sandbox and see if it is up to Wikipedia standards. If there are any problems or anything you would like to add let me know. If the article is okay let me know so that I can paste it as a new article on Wikipedia. The link is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Space_chinedu/sandbox. I really appreciate if you verify the new article I made. Space chinedu (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any glaring deficiencies in that article as a WP:STUB after a quick look except that it lists no WP:Categories; a look at another buttewrfly article should give you an idea of how to address that. I don't know much about butterflies or, truthfully, about the formal article creation process. From what I gather here, you just need to create the new article and it'll be looked at by experienced reviewers. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

removed Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

removed Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

Merger discussion for Hindu views on monotheism

[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hindu views on monotheism —has been proposed for merging with Talk:God in Hinduism#Merge proposal. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. GenoV84 (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I need help

[edit]

A user named Jmc is reverting all the edits in "History of Atheism" and "Criticism of Atheism". I wish if you could help me stop it and come to terms (excuse my english, i'm not english speaking) Armando AZ (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick look at recent edits to the History of atheism article, I decided to stay out of this unless I am dragged back onto it. Your insertion here re atheism during the French Revolution may or may not have merit (I'm no expert in this area), but you cited no support. My edit in reaction was done with too little thought, focusing on the word "Already" rather on the fact that your insertion cited no supporting source. I probably should have reverted your insertion on WP:BURDEN grounds. I don't remember my mention of communists there and don't know where that came from, though the edit history clearly shows that it came from me. I don't know enough about this topic to get into a content dispute -- please refer to WP:DISPUTE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Shout Out to My Ex—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Dawilli Gonga"=George Duke

[edit]

Hi there, the change I made and you reverted was absolutely legit: "Dawilli Gonga" is a name George Duke occasionally used on recordings of other artists. See my referenced addition to the page about George Duke. Hence the link to that page. It would improve the article if you would restore my change. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Black%20Miracle&diff=1014316297 Thanks! Frank — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.102.76 (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone my revert; see here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your MAUD efforts

[edit]

I was very disappointed that hawkeye - who in the past has usually acted as a level-headed editor - has suddenly taken on some sort of ownership POV here - his revert was completely unhelpful - bordering on imbecilic, and needs to be reversed. I'm hoping he's going to let his head clear, and not fight over this. Cheers! 50.111.57.134 (talk) 06:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template dating

[edit]

Please stop dating templates to the day as eg here - it breaks the automatically-generated categories which are only to the nearest month. TIA Le Deluge (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
removed Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion or sourced edit re Marcha Nacional Filipina (Update)

[edit]

I would like to discuss the recent reversion of "Marcha Nacional Filipina" due to the cited reason of unclear renderings of the September 3rd Publication of the source cited which justifies the edit. I would like to share this link which in contrast to the provided image on the talk page, unlike the one posted, this is a clearer render which can also be zoomed as far as I am concerned La Independencia (September 3, 1899) I hope this link better illustrates the image as based on my findings it clearly does show that to be the case. Kindly asking for reconsideration as the reverted text is erroneous. The source (Rappler) used to justify the current version incorrectly claims that "Tierra de amores" was used when national library records and the authoritative source which is the newspaper publication in which it was first featured clearly show that it is "¡Patria de amores!". Asking for thorough reconsideration.

In addition to the link first cited above I would also like to add this Photo taken from Wikicommons of the Marker erected by the National Historical Commission of the Philippines in Pangasinan in honor of the place wherein the poem by Jose Palma, "Filipinas" was written image of marker here This government commissioned marker supports the edit introduced.

Thank you and regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P674FI (talk • contribs) 16:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Great. The source you cite for this certainly seems reliable, and Your latest edit re this ([7]) looks OK for now. we really ought to find a way to support this with a cite of a stable and easily verifiable source, though. That would, I think, reduce the amount of contention to be expected re the change. I've saved a local copy of the more readable image you linked and, though I don't presently have much time, don't do much with images, and don't know my way around for that, I'll try to think of something.
This WP article asserts without support that the Spanish lyrics were the source of the English lyrics. but, according to Google Translate, the English translation of this new initial line for the second stanza is "Homeland of loves!", which does not relate well to the English version in this article. That's a problem which needs to be dealt with.
Also, I see that there are some related items outside of Wikipedia which could use an update -- Wikisource:Lupang Hinirang is one. That article there mentions English translations, but not Spanish. That really ought to be addressed there (and the problem with the disconnect between the now-changed Spanish lyrics and the English ones dealt with). Unfortunately, that Wikisource article uses a template there called {{Translations}} which is completely English-centric. I'm not a regular editor over there and I don't know whether I will have the time to try to pursue that, but I might.
If you can help with either improving the sourcing here or improving the Wikisource article, or can rope someone else in to help, that would be great; I may not get to it and I won't be optimally effective in getting the needed changes made if I do give it a shot.
Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{added) Please continue this discussion at Talk:Lupang Hinirang#Marcha Nacional Filipina (Spanish version). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: There may be other, better suggestions, but here is one which occurred to me -- Retain the current Spanish lyrics and add a Note (the article currently has an empty Notes section) something like the following: "The initial line of the second stanze was reported in 1899 as reading "¡Patria de amores!,"<supporting cite> but other later sources reported it as shown here, and the version shown here was used as the basis for the English version.<supporting cite> Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Hi and I thank for you looking into this matter and I sincerely believe that this ought to be addressed as it perpetuates an erroneous interpretation which misleads the public and has since become manifest as seen in multiple erroneous covers of the said anthem in YouTube wherein cover artist are basing their interpretation on an unsubstantiated claim which lacks authority. With regards to the WP source claiming that the English version was based on the Spanish, I would liken this to other claims made in Tagalog versions which time has shown is not the case "Lupang Hinirang" (Chosen Land) is in no way the same to "Patria de Amores" (Homeland (Land) of Love). "Land dear and holy" which is the English version is also different to "Land of Love" (Tierra de Amores). Therefore, I do not see any issues with translation for the English version translated to Spanish would be "tierra querida y santa" this would also not make any sense.

As for sourcing, I kindly request assistance on this as I am fairly new to Wikipedia and lack the experience required for coding and sourcing. as for the suggestion you made, I would like to recommend doing it the other way around. Instead of retaining the current lyrics, rather it should be put in notes instead and have the suggested edit in its place as it is more authoritative and better substantiated with documents and government markers which in my humble opinion holds far more weight against an article written without proper source of reference to back it up. Dispute revolving around the Spanish Version serving as the basis for the English, I personally believe this has to be better substantiated for the Spanish language can be translated depending entirely on the people who crafted the English Version. "Patria" whose plain meaning is "Homeland" could have also been erroneously translated or simplified to English as "Land dear and holy".

Hopefully, this helps explain my rationale behind the change and should further assistance be required, I would be happy to assist in the best way I can.

Regards,

P674FI (talk • contribs) 16:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I placed that suggestion above here in error. I meant to put it on the article talk page. I have just copied the suggestion and your response to the relevant section there. Please contijue discussion there, not here. I don't have much time to spend on this. Also, I'm located in the U.S. and pretty much limited to online researching; I suspect that relevant supporting sources re the ranslation of the English version are print-only sources best found in the Philippines,I'll look back at this as I have time and will contribute what I can. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
  • An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

  • IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

message from 193.174.122.76

[edit]

hi

i did provide the citations

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2020212590

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8891530

Why did you remove my contributions?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.174.122.76 (talk • contribs) 08:25, July 20, 2021 (UTC)

I've added a header to this comment. What article does this relate to? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you flag my edit with "not found in citations"?

[edit]

This is concerning my edit to the History of the Philippines: (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Philippines&oldid=1034927631) Why did you flag my edit with "not found in citations". It's not found in page 82 yes, but if you read further into page 86, you would find the answer. I have Screenshot that page so that you would know. (https://imgur.com/1osC4eW) Thank you very much. :D --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I recall having placed a {{fv}} tag in that article re support for minors in Taiwan, but I couldn't find where I did that with a quick look for it. After a second look, I see that it is confirmed by (Yoshimi 2000p116). My error, apparently. Apologies. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok sir. Thanks for putting the time to review. :D --Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: recent edit

[edit]

Hi, I received a message about a non-constructive edit. I don't know exactly how IPs work but I did not make any edits to Wikipedia. Will making an account prevent other people's malicious edits being shown as mine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.74.107.125 (talk • contribs) 14:48, July 27, 2021 (UTC)

Hi. The short answer is "yes, for edits made while signed in." Wikipedia maintains edit histories by individual and by edited page, and identifies signed-in editors by their registered userid amd others by the IP address making the edit.
For some info on dynamic IP address assignment, see here. I notice that the reversion you asked about dates back to October 31, 2019. I'm guessing that the edit I reverted there was made by some other person who happened to have been allocated that IP address at the time by a connectivity provider. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

  • Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]
Sandwich of Exceptional Excellence
A source, or rather, sauce for the sandwich
CJDOS has given you a sandwich (with source sauce) for your assistance with an edit.

Thank you very much for your assistance with the footnotes of Political status of Puerto Rico. Like a sandwich, you made the edit for me rather than making it myself. I will carefully study the changes and learn from them. For performing the edit for me that I should have done myself, I hereby confer upon you a Sandwich of Exceptional Excellence. A source sauce as been provided. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yummy. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Philippines American period

[edit]

Hi Bill, just thought I'd directly message re my post on Talk:History of the Philippines (1898–1946) concerning WP:SS for the early years, as I suspect you are a significant author of the text. I also note your message on the lack of Mindanao. My current thought would be for it to have its own subsection under Insular government, using as a base the Mindanao paragraph I wrote for Political history of the Philippines. Another section for the Cordilleras would probably also be apt. Best, CMD (talk) 10:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You may or may not have noticed that my WP editing has dropped off recently. I've cut back there a lot in order to make room in my life for other things. I'm not an academic, but I spent 2+ decades in the Philippines, developed an interest in Philippine history, did a lot of reading, and started to edit WP, contributing in those areas where I thought I could. I noticed quite a lot of conflict between what I saw in WP articles and in books written by actual historians, and I've tried to straighten things out where I thought they needed straightening. I rarely disagree with your edits and you're a better wordsmith than I. My reading didn't touch much on Mindanao and I don't know much detail about that area; I'll probably defer to your judgement. I'll probably leave a comment on that talk page re merging/rearranging other existing content. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I agree with your prognosis regarding a constant lack of summary style. You may also be right regarding the best way to divide up history, but that's a separate issue and hopefully not as important so long as the articles-however they are divided-are well written. It should probably go without saying that I'm posting here due to the knowledge shown from your contributions, as opposed to any potential degree you may have. Writing here is quite a different skill to academic writing. I hope you're doing well with the other things in your life, CMD (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside vaguely related to this topic, I have come across this quite good paper which focuses on Negros during the shift to American sovereignty, but also touches upon wider aspects of the historical period. Assuming you have not read it before, I thought it might fit in well with your recent article interests. CMD (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: I finally got around to reading that paper -- sorry it took so long. It was interesting. One nitpick in the paper -- there's a cite on page 41 of {Fuentes 1919, 129). I was curious enough about something there to do a little googling and found here that there's an apparent typo in the page number -- it ought to be 179, not 129.
I'm no expert by any stretch of imagination, but I wonder about the following from the paper:

... the U.S. made the demand for the cession of the whole archipelago on 31 October 1898. Spain rejected this demand, for which the Americans were reportedly seen in Europe as brutal aggressors (cf. LeRoy 1914, 354-77). [...] Perceiving the uncertain fate of Negros but relishing the euphoria of the Spanish defeat, six days after the capitulation of Spanish Bacolod [to the Negres on 6 November] the local elites took a gamble by offering itself as a protectorate of the United Statrd." and, continuing without citing support, "The hacenderos of Negros saw their action as influenc ing the power brokerage in Paris. Their message to Europe was two- fold: one, that Spain had been resolutely and irreparably repudiated as a colonial ruler; and, two, that American protection was welcomed in Negros and, by implication, throughout the whole archipelago.

I'm not only no expert but I'm not very knowledgeable of the details. Still, I'm doubtful, given the state of communications in 1898 (I'm wondering who was controlling and operating the Manila end of the cable to Hong Kong at the time -- the U.S., probably, with some access to that available to Aguinaldo) I'm doubtful that that elites in Negros were actually this up-to-the-minute on developments in negotions between the U.S. and Spain in Paris, on the other side of the planet, or confident of their ability to influence those negotiations. My impression, not having read much about the details in Negros, had been that the Negros elites had seen the handwriting on the wall when US forces showed up. It's more complicated than that, and I see that here and in a re-read of the Republic of Negros article. I'll remark separately, having spent 1964-1972 in Vietnam while there was a war going on there, my guess is that the bulk of Negrese (the "little people") didn't give a fig about political matters involving nation states and just wanted to find a way to get on with their day-to-day lives. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My reading regarding the Negros appeal in the face of their perceived uncertain fate was that it was due to the original US position, which was just to request Luzon and Guam. I'm not sure what the author means by "Europe", but an appeal for a protectorate certainly would have been a message to the Americans, presumably intended to push them towards requesting the entire archipelago (or at least Negros as well as Luzon).
I suspect your reading regarding the writing on the wall is correct (speaking of which this in a point where details are currently missing from the narrative surrounding Iloilo/Visayas in the text I copied to Philippine–American War, which goes from a refusal to land in Iloilo to American forces being in Iloilo). The Republic of Negros article seems like it has room for a lot of improvement. Notably it relies on Zaide, while the Aguilar paper is somewhat critical of Zaide's framing of events. (I suspect reading Zaide may provide enlightenment on this, I will have to do so at a later time.)
On your separate remark, I suspect you are right. The majority of people would not be involved in establishing a new Cantonal Repbulic. I hope this does not sound trite, but your statement reminds me of the later Game of Thrones books, which devote some chapters to the ideas of the majority of people being caught up in elite conflicts. I believe the author was also inspired by Vietnam. The suggestion in the Aguilar book you found however, that the common folk mostly gambled time away, feels a touch condescending. CMD (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request

[edit]

Could you protect Cameron Carter-Vickers? I can't tell when the last clean version was. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, it's been protected by another admin ([8]). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was a lot of disruption on that article. I may have made it worse. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Been there, done that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pcbluepunk (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Shirley Franklin

[edit]

Family section of Shirley Franklin, tried to update with a reliable source regarding family and Family.

I did that revert quickly from WP:Huggle. I made that revert quickly, based just on what I saw of one of your edits through the Huggle viewing porthole. Perhaps I ought to have had a closer look but, looking back at my revert {see here, I would make the same revert now. The portion I removed asserts that Franklin had a daughter named Kai who was married to a known associate of a "black mafia" family. I don't recall whether or not I checked the cited supporting source ([9]), but I just looked at it and I don't see support there for any of the assertions that my revert removed. As I said, I did this quickly; I'm also writing this response quickly. I don't have time right now to look at it more closely. Please re-check this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

readded Jake Wartenberg
removed Emperor • Viridian Bovary
renamed Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Milley soapbox

[edit]

Hi. I got your message and went back to revise the offending comment so it's shorter and more on point. I did double-check the policies you linked but I'm not entirely certain what I did wrong. The closest I can think of is the part about personal essays and discussions, though I was mostly just responding to Valjean and agreeing with his assessments regarding how the issue in discussion should be covered in the article, while adding that I think a particular paragraph in the article is unneccessarily long and puts undue emphasis on fringe positions. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was more pushed for time when I made that comment than I am now. My comment related to yours which immediately preceded it and which read, "@Valjean:This. This is the blatantly correct take on the situation". That seemed to refer to an earlier comment by that user which read, "Milley is a hero who protected America (MAGA!) from a domestic threat. He swore an oath to the Constitution, not to Trump, and did what he was supposed to do. 'I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;...' George Takei spoke plainly to Trump: 'As Commander-in-Chief, he is sworn to protect us from threats both foreign and domestic. You, sir, are the latter.[5]'" Both of those editorial comments seem to me to conflict with the guidance I wikilinked in my comment. Looking at the opening comment in this section sent be searching for Normchou here, and that turned up an apparent exchange which I don't want to take the time to review edit-by-edit. The outcome of all of this is hard to predict from presently available info anyhow, and see WP:RECENTISM, WP:CRYSTALBALL., WP:NOTNEWS, etc. IMO, there's too much detail in the article, being updated too frequently, and relying too-much on cherry-picked sources to support different editorial POVs. That situation will eventually work itself out as this fades from the news either with or without having come to a conclusion which might or might not satisfy editors holding some of those POVs, I probably ought to have kept my head down on this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just checking. I just found it odd that I was the one who got the notification. I have a bit of a history so I want to be extra careful about talk page guidelines. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Political history of the Philippines

[edit]
This user helped promote Political history of the Philippines to good article status.

Glad to say the article passed, after I fixed a few copywriting errors. CMD (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

[edit]

Sorry for your inconvenience That change was done by mistake Brothor4791 (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And my revert & warning seems to have been a bit confused -- I did that from WP:Huggle, and went by your edit summary saying, "Deleted everything". Looking back at your edit, I see that you just blanked a section of the article. I should have looked more closely. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Edit on "Siuslaw News" Page

[edit]

Hi. I'm not sure how it happened, but this edit wasn't mine. I read the part about the IP address being shared, but I have no idea who exactly shares my IP, but if it's anyone in my household it may have actually been my mother. Sorry about that. Please inform me of any other edits that may be attributed to my IP. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.168.33 (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your IP address is not necessarily unique to your household. See here for more info about that; see here for a list of edits made from that IP address. Please WP:REGISTER to have your edits properly attributed. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit on https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Morris_Katz

[edit]

On article https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Morris_Katz I corrected a photo caption that misspelled the name of a US President that Morris Katz had done a portrait of.

How does spelling not count, especially of a portrait of a US President's name, especially when in an article about a Holocaust Survivor painter who is in the Guinness Book of World's Record TWICE, one of which knocking Picasso out of a distinction?

Regards,

Handcuffedmonkfish (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit fixed one mis-splling and added one. I've restored your fix. See here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CluebotNG warning

[edit]

I thought I'd let you know that you left a warning on the redirect page for User talk:ClueBot NG. — Hydrogenation (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(smacks self in forehead with heel of hand) Thanks. I see that I did this during a WP:Huggle session. That probably resulted from an edit conflict which I didn't recognize when it occurred. My error. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anuna De Wever

[edit]

You said “It is not clear that the cited sources support this characterization of the statements.”.

My sources are clear on the characterization of the statements. The Belgian State Secretary of Asylum and Immigration even made a statement directly to Anuna De Wever, saying “Can we please stop reducing the opinion of a person to age, skin color, sexual orientation or gender?”.

Source: https://twitter.com/SammyMahdi/status/1439520944029114368?s=20

My first citation link goes directly to the biggest Belgian newspaper’s article, which has the above twitter link included.

I’m kindly requesting your edit to be undone and my edit block to be removed.

Source: https://twitter.com/SammyMahdi/status/1439520944029114368?s=20

JustinPurple (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter? From WP:RSP:

Twitter is a social network. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the tweet is used for an uncontroversial self-description. In most cases, Twitter accounts should only be cited if they are verified accounts or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way. Tweets that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight. Twitter should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons.

OK -- I presumed that the tweeter apparently claiming to be Sammy Mahdi is actually who he claims to be; let's call those reliable sources for purposes of this exchange here. However, they appear to be written in German -- a language I don't understand.
What actually prompted my revert, though, is that the titles and the online content of the sources you cited and linked is in unclarified German, and this is the English Wikipedia, and I (for one) do not read German. I couldn't read the content of the linked sources (even in German) because they came up obscured by what appears to be a request (in German) for me to click either "Akkord" or "Instellen", and I didn't understand those options or the three paragraphs in German introducing them -- The header includes the word "cookies", so I'm guessing that the click options are asking whether or not I agree to that website leaving cookies on my computer. I'd say "probably not", and I'm guessing that "Akkord" indicates agreement and that I'm being offered the option of declining by clicking "Instellen", but I didn't think it was worth the risk to click that. Perhaps what is needed here is some clarification in English. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's in Dutch, not in German :-) . What Mahdi said was "Onverdraagzaamheid verschijnt in vele gedaanten. Kunnen we stoppen met de mening van een persoon te herleiden tot leeftijd, huidskleur, geaardheid en geslacht? Is dat zo moeilijk?”, meaning "Intolerance comes in many guises. Can we stop reducing the opinion of a person to age, skin color, sexual orientation and gender? Is that so hard?". Basically, De Wever made a stupid tweet, attacking Gert Verhulst not on what he said, but on what he is. This got some backlash, end of story. A one day flash in the pan, with no newspapers actually declaring that "She is known for her racist, misandrist, heterophobic and age-discriminatory statements.", asJustinPurple first tried to describe it in the lead of her biography. Simply stating what she said is the neutral solution (assuming such a one-day incident deserves to be included), giving it negative labels or extreme prominence is not. Fram (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I don't understand Dutch either; I suspect that most readers of the English Wikipedia do not.. I am not reducing the opinion of a person to age, skin color, sexual orientation and gender -- I don't know any of those details about any of the persons involved here except for myself. Regarding your characterization of (I'm guessing without looking at the article again) events that you characterized in the article, You would need WP:RS support for that characterization, and it would either need to be in English or, at minimum, from a source you paraphrased in the article in English. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a talk page, which goes to the heart of the matter, to discuss this further. Feel free to provide your feedback. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Anuna_De_Wever JustinPurple (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern, potential WP:PROMOTION

[edit]

I finally got around to that edit you had mentioned at Demographics of Filipino Americans. Thanks for letting me know, and sorry for my lack of editing recently.
I wanted to bring up the semi-active Crishazzard (talk · contribs) directly, rather than make a big deal about in WP:ANI. A lot of his edits appear to add links to [HikingGuy.com his website], and thus can be seen as promoting his own personal page. I first noticed his edits when looking at the history of an article which I brought up to GA Goat Canyon Trestle. Then looking at his editing history, I saw this was not the first or last time he linked to his website as a source for his edits. Should I manually remove all these, or is this not PROMOTION?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There's been a lot going on in my life outside of Wikipedia, and that has blunted my focus on WP. I'm afraid that none of the above rings a bell with me. I did a quick text search for "wtm" in the edits currently displayed at Talk:Demographics of Filipino Americans and at User talk:RightCowLeftCoast, and also for "Demographics of Filipino Americans" in my last 500 contributions. I got no hits with any of that.
Specifics of the above aside, re Crishazzard (talk · contribs) and WP:PROMOTION, the self-promotion portion there in WP:NOT says, re "writing about [...] projects in which you have a strong personal involvement[, ...] the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other[, including] the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view." I do see here that WP has plenty of mentions of hikingguy.com. Without looking at those individually, it seems to me that they should be considered individually on their merits. PROMOTION goes on to say, specifically, "Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources, such as your résumé or curriculum vitae, is unacceptable.", and I don't think this falls within that. Bottom line: I don't see what I took a quick look at as a problem. You took a closer look and may have seen things I did not and/or you may have a different take on the thrust of that policy page than I saw here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Demographics of FilAms, the edit you mentioned was here and I took care of it here.
Regarding additions of links to HikingGuy.com by Crishazzard, which on it landing page reads "Hi, I’m Cris Hazzard, aka Hiking Guy, a professional hiking guide.", and use of it as a a reliable source, the reason why I think it is PROMOTION is because it appears that the editor, based on their user name, is the same as the person who claims to run the website. Therefore, for the editor it is a primary source and thus, is promotion of a self created source.
If I am wrong, I will stop barking up this tree, and move on to more fruitful endeavors.
Thanks for your tutelage for all these years, it has been reassuring.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 16:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thus is the addition to self created source into multiple articles a form of citation spamming?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 16:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My bringing up Demographics of Filipino Americans on your user talk page was done in passing, without much thought. Thanks for putting more thought into it than I did and taking appropriate action. Your thoughts on the promotion issue above seem reasonable to me. Thanks for your remark re tutelage, but I certainly don't think of it that way. I've noticed your work at improving WP while running through my watchlist and have generally been impressed. Re your closing question above, it seems to me that's a case-by-case matter and I don't feel qualified to give an opinion on this particular case. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have elevated the concern up to ANI, and have begun the discussion here, and made a notice to Crishazzard here.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Filipino Americans § Infobox image

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino Americans § Infobox image. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UGC objects

[edit]
Help keep this category in order, modify [[Category:UGC objects]] to [[Category:UGC objects|######]], dropping the UGC prefix, using only the number, on pages that categorize here. To ensure proper sorting, pad the number with leading zeros up to five digits.
— Category:UGC objects

I think there's some misunderstandings. There's a notice in 'Category:UGC objects' and I just followed it. I have no intention of doing vandalism. Thanks. — best regards, Blue-auth 14:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just know my mistake. — best regards, Blue-auth 14:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CATEGORY. There may be something unusual about that specific category but, if there is, I'm not aware of that. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gatekeeping Wikipedia

[edit]

Why would you remove my edits? I'm literally trying to contribute to this community with constructive content that literally has a basis in society. It makes zero sense why you are removing my addition to the capocollo article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.150.203 (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for pointing out this error on my part. Your insertion was a bit opaque to me when I saw it in passing, and was unsupported. I probably ought to have added a {{citation needed}} tag, perhaps along with an {{elaborate}} tag, instead of reverting your addition. I made that revert during a WP:Huggle session, though, where it's easy to revert but not easy to add tags -- I think that I may have considered dropping out of Huggle to do that when I saw this and wondered about it, but instead reverted your addition withoot enough explanation as to why. Please do elaborate this, and do cite one or more supporting sources per WP:V. One source you might start with, which I found by googling, is this one I see that there are lots of other relevant sources out there (e.g., this]). Apologies for the error. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

error on Hank Patterson page

[edit]

The top photo on the Hank Patterson (actor) page does not feature Patterson.

In the photo, the actor EDDY WALLER is misidentified as Patterson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barttarttits (talk • contribs) 15:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have responsed here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of the Philippines

[edit]
This user helped promote Politics of the Philippines to good article status.

CMD (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

removed A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

[edit]

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

"died in the gas chambers" > "murdered in the gas chambers"

[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to reach out to you about this diff. I don't own any books about her, so I'm using the sources I can find online. The original sentence in the wiki reads:

"Kitty and her mother tried to locate their family members soon after they were liberated but found that everyone else had been killed: her father had been discovered by the Gestapo and shot; her brother was killed in battle; and her grandmother was taken to Belzec concentration camp and died in the gas chambers."

The source cited, The Guardian from 2010, explicitly says (emphasis mine):

"They discovered that they were the only survivors of their family. Kitty's father had been murdered by the Gestapo. Her brother­Robert died fighting at Stalingrad. Her grandmother was murdered in the gas chambers of Bełzec death camp."

I checked the edit history and it looks like a version of this text was added in the very first edit in 2006, and remained untouched until the article was published in The Guardian:

"They discovered they were the only two left. Kitty's father had been discovered by the Gestapo and shot through the head. Robert, her brother, was killed by a sniper's bullet in battle. Her grandmother was taken to Belzec concentration camp and selected for the gas chambers. The large family from Bielsko was reduced to two survivors."

It looks like the reporter leaned a little on Wikipedia for the phrasing and order, although I place a good deal of faith in the fact-checkers at The Guardian, given that the reporter also interviewed her. I would consider naming the perpetrator as the Gestapo to be adequately sourced. Other sources I've found for this material:

I think either "shot by" or "murdered by the Gestapo" are supported by the source for her father. In the case of her grandmother, I think it's absolutely correct to change "died" to "murdered" here, given that 1. Belzec was a camp built and used for industrial-scale, premeditated murder and 2. this is the verb used in the source. I'm happy to make the edit or leave it up to you.-Ich (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not disputing that different sources characterize this differently. My intended point was that the change in the article characterization from "died in" to "murdered in" re her grandmother, though supported by the source currently cited in the article contrasts with the characterization re her father as "had been discovered by the Gestapo and shot" in the article vs. as "had been murdered by the Gestapo" in that same cited source. I just happened to notice the discrepancy there when I looked at the article following its appearance on my watchlist brought about by the edit which I reverted. It was a small point re consistency of presentation and WP:V vs. WP:NOR, and I apparently did not make that point well. I said, "... The sentence should be reworded more extensively." in my edit summary; I was probably thinking about consistency when I wrote that, and probably ought to have mentioned that specifically and pointed out that I didn't see support in the source cited for the details asserted in the article re the circumstances of her father's death. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

Protected edit request on 19 December 2021

[edit]

hi Leeo pard kat (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From your edit history and the warnings on your talk page, I'm guessing that this followed an attempt to vandalize my userr page which failed because of the protection on that page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

[edit]

Hi. I don't understand why you reverted what I thought was a very basic and uncontroversial grammatical edit. The sentence as you reverted it reads: "An analysis of the characteristics and timing of these requests suggest a power interruption in-flight is the most likely culprit." My correction had to do with subject-verb agreement. The subject of a sentence is the "thing" that does the action described in the clause. The subject in the first clause of the sentence is therefore the word "analysis" (and not "requests"). "Analysis" is a singular noun. Hence, the sentence should read "An analysis [...] suggests".

For future reference, if you are unsure which of two words in a clause is the subject, try deleting the text except for the word in question and the verb. The text that remains should still carry the intended meaning.

It's a tiny thing, but it is annoying to spend time reading through texts to improve them, only to see the changes reverted. I am a lawyer by training, but much of my work consists of linguistic revision of political and legal texts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeurocrat (talk • contribs) 09:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I guess this probably concerns this 18 December edit, which I vaguely remember making. My edit summary there doesn't mention the removal of that added template (which probably ought to have been {{update section}}, not an {{update}} template positioned as it was), but the other changes did address the concern exprecced in that added template, and my edit summary did explain those changes. I should have done a better job of this, but I don't see a real problem with what I did.
I wrote the above in knee-jerk reaction to your concerns expressed above, which I hadn't read all the way through and which I now have read. If it's not clear so far from my response here, I'm no grammarian. I do sometimes make grammar tweaks in changes intended to make articles read more smoothly, but those changes are generally pretty ham-handed. The template insertion I reacted to here said, "reason=multiple mentions of 2020 in future tense" snd the edit summary of its insertion said, "tag multiple mentions of 2020 in future tense". My changes tried to fix verb tense problems, and my edit summary tried to explain what I had done. You're probably more of a grammarian than I, and you could probably improve on my han-handed changes. Feel free to do that. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(added) I took a second look at this, and I now see that your concern appears to be re this revert I made back on 4 December. That may be and, if I did screw that up in my ignorance of the find points of English grammar, I apologize. Fixes of anything I screw up in article edits are welcome. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Scott edit

[edit]

Here is the citation, any chance you can add my edit back?

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/nfl/bengals/2021/12/30/bart-scott-joe-burrow-lifetime-career-ass-kicking-baltimore-ravens-espn-get-up-cincinnati-bengals/9060617002/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.102.6 (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit said, "Outside of playing in the NFL he is most famous for calling out overhyped Bengals QB Joe Burrow and quoted as saying Joey'won a lifetime career ass-kicking from the Baltimore Ravens." The cite sort-of supports that as a quote, but it is not quoted accurately. The assertion that this is what Bart Scott is most famous for or that he is "overhyped" appear to be your own unsupported analysis/opinion stated in wikivoice, and the same goes for the reference to Burrow as "Joey" (see WP:NOR). I haven't added it back in minus the editorializing because it appears to be overly colorful for an encyclopedia article and I'm not sure that it has sufficient weight to be included. I won't object if you add that back yourself, citing that source in support. Whether or not it stays in would be up to the consensus of regular editors of that article. (disclaimer -- I don't know anything at all about Joe Burrow or Bart Scott -- never heard on them -- I just happened to run across your edit when WP:Huggle presented it for review) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As long as I'm grumbling about this article, I'll add a more general grumble which it illustrates. In the WP:LEAD, the lead sentence reads: "Bartholomew Edward Scott (born August 18, 1980)[1] is a former American football player and current radio personality." That flouts MOS:DATED by mentioning current (that was added here, in 2019, so I guess that "current" was meant to refer to that timeframe when it was added). The following sentence ("Outside of playing in the NFL, Bart is more recently known for being salty after Joe Burrow tore apart his Ravens'[2]." -- that'll probably get stale soon) compounds that. Articles about sports and entertainment are full of this sort of stuff, which is more suited to a tabloid than to an encyclopedia. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Bart Scott". Pro Football Reference. Archived from the original on December 27, 2010. Retrieved December 27, 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ https://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/nfl/bengals/2021/12/30/bart-scott-joe-burrow-lifetime-career-ass-kicking-baltimore-ravens-espn-get-up-cincinnati-bengals/9060617002/
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wtmitchell/Archive_15_(2021)&oldid=1063765707"