Jump to content

User talk:Wtmitchell/Archive 5 (2011)

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

Not Existing

[edit]

Please just bold those LINK in your articles that doesn't exist and also it is so ambarrasing to see that you have so many awards but doesn't have the time to make some of your article more clean of non-existing page and also much organize type of article.Manager0916 (talk) 06:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this recent comment from the top of the page down here to the bottom, per WP:TPG.
Thanks for trying to format all of those articles into a coherent style but, barring good reason to the contrary, style guidelines in WP:MOS should be followed. A revert of one of the articles by another editor came up on my watchlist, and that resulted in the message I placed on your talk page at User talk:Manager0916#Bolding asking you to stop reformatting articles contrary to guidelines in MOS:BOLD.
Today, I started looking at the articles you had re-styled and trying to bring them into compliance with MOS:BOLD and some other guidelines. I've also tried to better format one or two of them (notably the Departures section in the Montenegro Lines article, which I've just edited). Most of the affected articles I've looked at need more work. Many of them flout the guidance in WP:EL that "[external links] should not normally be used in the body of an article."
Re "making articles clean of non-existing pages", please see WP:REDDEAL, which begins: "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there exists no candidate article, or article section, under any name."
Re organization of the affected articles, regularization of section naming and organization would be a plus. However, when I came on these articles as described above they already had established internal organizations and section names. The only significant reorganization I've done was in the aforementioned Departures section in the Montenegro Lines article, where I recast a list as a table.
I apologize for jumping so abruptly into this but, having seen that other revert I mentioned here, and having seen all the MOS:BOLD styling problems, it seemed to me that these articles needed to be pointed back in the direction of WP:MOS observance.
When you posted the message above, I was more than ready to take a breather anyhow. I'd suggest getting together on the talk page of one of the affected articles, along with any other interested editors, and working towards some article layout and formatting conventions which are both compliant with wikipedia guidelines and useful for the affected articles. How about Talk:Montenegro Lines? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving my edit

[edit]

Thanks for your improvements here. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

[edit]

talkback

[edit]
Hello, Wtmitchell. You have new messages at Hmains's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

[edit]

Accident or no??

[edit]

[1] is this an accident? --Addihockey10 e-mail 00:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It was my error. I inadvertently blocked the vandalism reverter instead of the reverted vandal. I had already unblocked him, and I've just done it again (Response: "Block #2270700 has been removed"). Perhaps there's some server lag in applting the ubloock. I'll apologize on the user's talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He`s still autoblocked apparently. Oh the wonder of the misclick ;) --Addihockey10 e-mail 01:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also apparently 2270702 is his blockID --Addihockey10 e-mail 01:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocked by Soap - sorry for the mass ZOMG U HAZ NEW MSGS!!! Cya around ;) --Addihockey10 e-mail 01:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Madagascar: Correcting the map of countries with English as an official language

[edit]

Dear User Wtmitchell,

As it is already written on that map's discussion page, Madagascar should be immediatelly removed as English was the third official language there only from 2007 to 2010. Furthermore, as GB or the USA are green without having it as their official language on a federal level (but most states have and both governments use it in their communication), this at least implies to put the province of Quebec in light green, as it is part of Canada but explicitly cites French only as the official language.

Thank you very much for your attention and keep contributing to this great source of knowledge.

Greetings from Germany

Harry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.148.163.172 (talk • contribs) 17:24, January 24, 2011

If you're watching, Harry, can you please let me know what particular map and/or what particular article you're referring to here? I don't recall having made any edits related to this recently.
took a quick look at Madagascar, List of countries by English-speaking population, and Image:DensityOfNativeEnglishSpeakersWorldwideLogScaleNoBorders.png, and don't see any applicability there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Wtmitchell,
The article I am referring to is "List of countries where English is an official language" respectively the embedded map within.
Thanks again for your attention.
Take care,
Harry 84.148.163.172 (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I apparently uploaded File:English-as-Official-Language Map.png on February 8, 2010; I don't remember doing that, but I guess I must have. From my comment on uploading it, it looks like it came from an earlier image I found in a 16 March 2006 version of the article. The image history shows a recent change to the image description saying that English was dropped by Madagascar as an official language in 2010, but the image still showed Madagascar colored green. I see that the 1992 Constitution of Madagascar makes no mention of official languages (and I see that a new constitution was approved in 2010 but I haven't been able to find a copy of it -- I noted that in the WP article). I don't do a lot of image editing, but I have boldly downloaded this one, edited to color Madagascar grey, and uploaded the edited file. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's perfect ^^
Thanks and take care,
Harry 84.148.175.132 (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

[edit]
[edit]
Thank you in the past for assisting in articles that have interested me. This cookie is long overdue.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yummy!! Thanks, it's appreciated. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

[edit]

SocCulFLIP

[edit]

heard through the rumor mill that you started SocCulFLIP many decades ago.

Facebook Alex Fabros

I didn't start it. I researched that once, but I've lost the details I put together about that. I was a prolific contributor and sometime irritant there for a couple of decades beginning sometime in the early '90s. I still glance at s.c.f and the s.c.p (philippines) spinoff from time to time, but rarely post there. Both groups went rapidly downhill after the advent of the web popularized the internet.
I could credit myself for being in at the start of the debian linux distribution, though. I was one of the original half-dozen or so people who got together on the internet in '93 or so to talk about pipe-dreams of putting together a decent linux-based OS distribution back when the linux kernel was still in a pre-release state; and who eventually did do just that. There were a few ad-hoc distributions floating around at that time, Slackware probably being the most popular, but nothing with a comprehensive set of open-source support tools and utilities. The credit for putting the group together, though, goes to Ian Murdock -- I and, AFAIK, everyone else was in on it at the start acknowledges that. Debian is named after Ian M. and his then-girlfriend, later-to-be-wife Debra. As I recall, Ian M. left the project sometime before the release of Debian 1.0. I left the project in 1996, and might have been the last of the original core-group members to leave. Cheers Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re s.c.f, take a look at this. I don't have the time right now to dig out anything earlier than that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

[edit]

Establishment Clause

[edit]

I have seen the cluase written several ways and then decided to journey into fidning the real truth. This link shows that it is actually "an" and not "the". I was wrong. You can view the actual document in a high resolution image.

Hawarren (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_downloads.html

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

[edit]

United Nations Commission on Human Rights

[edit]

Thanks for fixing the mistake on this page. If you look back at my edit, you'll notice I actually added a legitimate template to the bottom, but I must have accidentally clicked the table tool button somehow. At any rate, I appreciate that you noticed it (when so many others did not) and removed it from the article. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

[edit]

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

[edit]

Hi Bill. I see you live in the Philippines. I too have lived there as a missionary brat back in the '50s. We lived at Mountain View College, Malaybalay, Bukidnon, Mindanao. I started school there (1st and 2nd grades) and remember those days of my childhood with pleasure. I would love to revisit the Philippines some day.

I see you removed all the wikilinks from the quote. I don't disagree, since that's according to our guidelines. I have a question about that guideline. You've been here a bit longer than I have, so maybe you know the answer. Has there been much discussion about this practice? I know that it can be gamed by using wikilinks that point to the "wrong POV" article, but generally I'd think it only increases the value of the article, just as adding wikilinks to the rest of the article does. What's the history on this matter? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I haven't been here all that much longer than you, nor done all that many more edits. I tend try to edit in accordance with my understanding of WP policies and guidelines pretty strictly, and to bring what I see as nonconforming content into conformance with policies and content guidelines. I tend to look at quotes a bit closer than I look at general article prose. What caused me to look in this case was the change from "moonlanding" to "moon landing" within a quote.
The MOS is a style guide, not a content guideline, but I keep its guidance on quotations in mind. WP:MOS#Quotations has a subsection about "Minimal change" which applies here. With that in mind, I started the edit to just change back to "moonlanding", which is what the quoted source says, and noticed the wikilinks while doing that. WP:MOS#Linking does say, "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader.", and WP:LINK#General_points_on_linking_style does say, "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the 'See also' section of the article." I happen to agree with that guidance, but I would pay attention to it even if I did not. If I had s strong disagreement with it, I might argue for a change on the talk pages for those MOS pages.
There is WP:IAR, of course, but I think that's best left for special cases.
I must have been going through my watchlist pretty quickly when I made that change, as I see that I changed the quote at issue and left the one above it, which also has wikilinks, unmolested. I won't edit war about it if you want to reinsert the wikilinks.
Re the Philippines, I've been an asiaphile since assignment to Korea as a teenaged USAF enlistee, and I've taken every chance I saw to get back to Asia since then. I made the decision that I would retire somewhere in Asia at age 18. When I got a chance to retire (a bit early at age 53), having a Filipina wife pretty much made it a given that I'd retire in the Philippines. I've been here since 1996, been back to the US once (to Los Angeles, for a month, in 2003), and will be going back again (to Florida, for at least a month) around the end of March. I live on Boracay, and don't get off the island much. The life here is atypical for the Philippines generally, but it suits me.
Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I don't disagree with your edit since it's within policy. My question was about the history behind that guideline, and I was wondering if you knew anything about it. That's all. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. No, I don't. I came across it at some point in pretty much its present state, thought that it made sense, and internalized it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks by user at IP 69.127.64.87

[edit]

Creatonism

Dear Editor,

I take insult that my attempts to elevate the level of discourse on creationism was meet with such oppression. A respected and widely recognized source of knowledge, such as Wikipedia, should continue in the enterprise of uncovering the truth. As such, the edits made to the pages in question are to be reinstated and permanently incorporated in the article. To do otherwise, would be to deny what is supported by an overwhelming amount of data and evidence.

Love

01:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.64.87 (talk • contribs) 09:20, March 16, 2011

That was apparently provoked by this revert.
Wikipedia doesn't look at its role as being an uncoverer of truth. Please see WP:V.
Also, considering the content of the reverted edit, please see WP:NPOV.
Also, I've reverted this bit of apparent POV vandalism committed subsequent to the edit which I mentioned reverting above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

[edit]

Remedios Varo

[edit]

My change was constructive, I know that she died of apple poisoning because I AM HER SON, SIR. thank you, god bless

You're speaking about this reversion, I presume.
Please see WP:V and WP:DUE.
I don't know anything about her, but some quick checking turned up
  • [2], which says that she died from excessive tension and an addiction to cigarretes. [sic. - sp.]
  • [3], which says that she died of a heart attack.
I didn't dig further than that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May need your assistance

[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Asian American Femininity. An edit war may have begun. I have asked for all parties to stop editing the section that is in dispute, and to civilly discuss the content on the talk page. I would like you to be aware of this discussion, in case the active editors of the article cannot reach a consensus and an administrator is needed. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})[reply]

I'm an admin in the sense that I have a set of keys to the janitorial mop closet and access to the tools in there. I try to use those tools only to perform tasks which I judge myself competent to handle. This is outside of my competence — dispute resolution is not something which I am good at. I suggest that you take a look at Wikipedia:DR#Resolving content disputes — you'll get better help there than I would be able to offer. If there's an edit war in progress and you need help getting that under control so as to be able to come to a resolution of the the content dispute, look at Wikipedia:AN/EW. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Chernobyl edit

[edit]

I was reviewing the recent edit history of Chernobyl and noticed this edit which reverted the page back to a version from 5 months ago. Did you mean to do this? — RockMFR 05:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. No, I don't think I meant to do that. I looked back, and here's what I see:
  • The tempo and makeup of my edits surrounding the subject edit are consistent with the subject edit having been made during review of changes to watchlisted articles. I don't currently have that article watchlisted, but it's not an article I would normally watchlist. Articles which I would normally not watchlist tend to get watchlisted during WP:Huggle sessions. That may have happened here, with me unwatching the article when it came up during review of changes to watchlisted articles.
  • During review of changes to watchlisted articles, I commonly revert apparent vandalism using WP:Twinkle. According to the automatic edit summary, this was such a revert.
  • In connection with this, I placed this warning on the talk page of the anon who had made the edit prior to mine.
  • The warning contains a link to the reverted edit, which I would have cut&pasted from my browser's navigation toolbar.
  • Looking at the reverted edit, both from the link in the warning and in the edit history of the reverted article, I see nothing which would have induced me to make a vandalism revert.
  • If I did make a vandalism revert, I would have clicked Twinkle's "[rollback (VANDAL)]" choice, let Twinkle do the revert, and moved on without reviewing what Twinkle had done.
My best guess is that Twinkle showed me a diff other than the diff between the edited revision and the one preceding it, and that Twinkle edited the page to revert it much further back than to the last edit prior to that. It's difficult for me to envision Twinkle confusing things that badly, but I can't imagine myself confusing things badly enough to do this on my own if Twinkle had showed me what it ought to have shown me and had done what it should have done to make a revert. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just put something up on this on the talk page of Chernobyl disaster: Talk:Chernobyl disaster#Gigantic revert. Don't you agree it would be better to go back now to the revision as of 01:33, February 15, 2011 and proceed from there?  --Lambiam 07:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

[edit]

The Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team Wants You!

[edit]

Hi Wtmitchell, I saw some of your contributions on an article that falls within the scope of Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creationism

[edit]

Dear Editor,

I take insult that my attempts to elevate the level of discourse on creationism was meet with such oppression. A respected and widely recognized source of knowledge, such as Wikipedia, should continue in the enterprise of uncovering the truth. As such, the edits made to the pages in question are to be reinstated and permanently incorporated in the article. To do otherwise, would be to deny what is supported by an overwhelming amount of data and evidence.

Love

01:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


Why you hating so hard?

Not hating, simply reverting vandalism. See my earlier response here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico

[edit]

Amid all the criticisms you probably get, I did want to express my thanks for your very good corrections to my recent edits regarding the White House Task Force's recent report. I appreciate them. Pr4ever (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Service award level

[edit]

There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.

Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.

Herostratus (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I didn't update your page - I can't, so you'll have to do it yourself. You're actually eligible to jump two levels, to Master Editor. Congratulations, and thank you for your many contributions! Herostratus (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I protected my user page to avoid vandalism, which had become a problem at one point. As I figure it, the new definitions make me a SE-III, and I've updated my user page to say that. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

[edit]

Banana equivalent dose and Lulu

[edit]

Hi, I haven't checked whether lulu.com is on our spam blacklist, but I wouldn't be too surprised. However, that's not a valid argument for removing sources that rely on information from an expert who happens to have published a book with Lulu. The situation is not unlike that with arXiv, except that Lulu probably has a higher proportion of cranks and self-promoters. But for the reliability or otherwise of Meggitt's book, WP:SPS applies, which is not concerned about our spam blacklist. And it's not all that relevant for whether we can use the Boingboing piece, either.

By the way, I would appreciate it if we could establish whether the Boingboing piece is right about this issue or not, and then make an editorial decision to use it or not, depending on the outcome. If we can't come to a sensible conclusion it would appear that we just don't have sufficient reliable sources to write an article about the topic. In that case we will have to reduce it to a sentence or two in a related article, turn the article into a redirect, and wait for better sources. Hans Adler 10:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've just commented on the article talk page -- see that comment for more info. If the supporting source is boingboing yammering on about Meggitt's book, boingboing should have been cited as the source, not Meggitt. I don't know whether the editor(s?) adding the cite(s?) looked at the Meggitt book or relied on boingboing. That's it for me and WP for tonight. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I now see that you used the same edit summary for two consecutive edits. My comment was really about the second. [4] Not a big thing. I just hope that the article is going to calm down a bit. Hans Adler 14:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This morning, I'm unable to locate my article talk page comment which I mentioned above. It's not listed at Special:Contributions/Wtmitchell, so I presume that I fumbled saving it last night. That leaves me with having not responded to a request for discussion. I'll redo my talk page response to that request.
I didn't use the same edit summary for two edits, but the two were similar and the edits did involve similar issues, Both edit summaries were fumblefingered and garbled I've reclarified that on the article talk page (and verified that my talk page edit was saved OK this time :). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asian American article scope

[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#South Asian Americans are not considered Asian Americans. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})[reply]

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

[edit]
[edit]

It looks like this is possible. I responded at Template talk:collapsible list. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I've updated the infobox in the Languages of the United States article accordingly. See this edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

Status Recommendations

[edit]

Status Recommendations, I had a lot of work the last weeks, this is the reason of the delay answer. The recommendations are on the report, pages 23 and 30 and on the executive sumary on pages 3 and 4! Recommendation # 1: The Task Force recommends that all relevant parties—the President, Congress, and the leadership and people of Puerto Rico—work to ensure that Puerto Ricans are able to express their will about status options and have that will acted upon by the end of 2012 or soon thereafter.

Recommendation # 7: If efforts on the Island do not provide a clear result in the short term, the President should support, and Congress should enact, self-executing legislation that specifies in advance for the people of Puerto Rico a set of acceptable status options that the United States is politically committed to fulfilling. This legislation should commit the United States to honor the choice of the people of Puerto Rico (provided it is one of the status options specified in the legislation) and should specify the means by which such a choice would be made. The Task Force recommends that, by the end of 2012, the Administration develop, draft, and work with Congress to enact the proposed legislation.

P.D. And although there are a number of economic actions that should be taken immediately or in the short term, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the status question, identifying the most effective means of assisting the Puerto Rican economy depends on resolving the ultimate question of status. Page 33 --Seablade (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC) , P.E.[reply]

I'm not sure what the point here is. Clearly, this relates to Puerto Rico, and I'm guessing that it relates to some past edit or discussion involving me. Could you put it in context a bit? How does it relate to me? What's your point? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

It was related to answer this: Reverted good faith edits by Seablade (talk); I don't see that in the report. If it's editorial opinion, it's not allowed. If it's in the 122 page report somewhere, please say what)--Seablade (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see that the material has been added back in. I've edited it a bit here to clarify that those recommendations about what should be done come from the report and not from WP editorialization. I think that must have been what put me off, and that I apparently didn't look into it closely enough to figure it out the last time around. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just though that this could be interesting for you: http://www.prd.uscourts.gov/CourtWeb/pdf/GAG/InsularCases.pdf A historical study of the Insular cases by a United States District Judge --Seablade (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

[edit]

Jayjay Helterbrand

[edit]
Hello, Wtmitchell. You have new messages at Talk:Jayjay Helterbrand.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asian American article Undue template discussion

[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Undue tag. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})[reply]

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

[edit]

Philippine Debut

[edit]

I suspect that this article, created by a single purpose editor,[5] exists to promote a movie. It's linked to from articles on similar topics, though, and I suppose the topic, if real, might be significant. But I get the feeling that if it were PRODded no one would object, especially given the old tags. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  10:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just spotted that it was created as a class project for a college communications class. [6]   Will Beback  talk  10:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other. When I saw the article name, I thought that you must be asking me about it because I edited it at some time. I can't find any edits by me in the article history, but I suspect that I've looked at the article. I've funded two such debuts, and the article would have attracted my attention because of that. Googling around, I see Jason Skog (2008). Teens in the Philippines. Compass Point Books. pp. 29. ISBN 9780756538538. Then, there's The Debut in the Internet Movie Database, and Jose B. Capino (2010). Dream Factories of a Former Colony: American Fantasies, Philippine Cinema. U of Minnesota Press. pp. 139–149. ISBN 9780816669721. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
Thanks for that research. I came to you because you're so familiar with the topic. I know nothing about the subject myself, but since there are no sources listed I get the feeling that the author based it on her personal experience, or on watching that movie. It seems very detailed and specific. If you've funded two I assume you've attended a couple of them. Does the article reasonably describe the practice? Unfortunately the two printed sources don't say much about the parties themselves. A small matter, should it perhaps be at "Philippine debut" instead?   Will Beback  talk  19:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Attend? Not a chance. I wasn't even in country. These were for my two stepdaughters; my wife and I were in the U.S., and these parties in the Philippines were scheduled pretty much concurrently with the girls' graduations from secondary school in the RP. I wrote a check in the U.S. to cover costs, my wife traveled to the Philippines to make it happen, and I saw pictures of the events when she came back. These were done pretty much as the daughters wanted them to come off -- one involved renting a hall, hiring musicians, purchasing lots of custom-made once-worn clothes, etc.; The other (thankfully) was a blowout house party with casual dress. this might be helpful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Thanks for that book link. Unfortunately it's not in my local library (odd - they have many other books in the 'Culture Shock" series). However in the Google snippet view the book doesn't appear to support the elaborate ceremony described in the article. "Candle", "court", "Cotillion", "Father and Daughter Dance", and "roses" do not appear in the book in relation to the debut party. Since it's unsourced material, maybe we should stub it by removing the more detailed assertions.   Will Beback  talk  23:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a source which speaks of the philippine Debut in a wider context [7]. Here's one which gives a bit of detail, and speaks of an "eighteen roses ceremony" [8]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. The Encyclopedia of Asian American Folklore and Folklife gives important details on the 18 roses and the court, etc. With sources like these we can make the article verifiable.   Will Beback  talk  20:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

[edit]

Correct information

[edit]

After Emilio Aguinaldo proclaimed the Philippine Independence, he transfer the seat of government from Kawit, Cavite to Angeles, Pampanga, there he celebrate the first anniversary of Philippine Independence, in Pamintuan Mansion his Official residence in Angeles, Pampanga. Please revert my edit because I have enough sources...<:ref>http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/264024/the-historic-pamintuan-mansion</ref> -121.54.2.91 (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have edited the talk page for the IP address which you are using (here) to remove the warnings I had placed there, since it appears that these were good-faith edits.
I am presently traveling, and I don't have my reference books handy, but I did do some online research and was not able to find Angeles mentioned as an official seat of Aguinaldo's government. I see that Kalaw, Maximo Manguiat (1927), The Development of Philippine Politics, Oriental commercial, p. 184 says that Aguinaldo moved the capital from Malolos to San Fernando, and thence to San Isidro, Nuevo Ecija, and Tarlac. The International year book. Dodd, Mead & Company. 1900. pp. 816–817. agrees with that, and adds the information that the seat of government moved from Tarlac to Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya. I'm not sure what happened between that move and Aguinaldo's capture in March of 1901 at Palanan, Isabela.
That last-mentioned source also says that US forces occupied Angeles on August 16, 1899, so Aguinaldo could have celebrated the anniversary in Angeles on June 12 as you say.
As I get time, I'll try to dig further into this. I'll also probably cite some supporting sources for the location of Aguinaldo's seat of government to the Capital of the Philippines and First Philippine Republic articles. Your contributions are welcome as well, but please do cite supporting sources. Please see WP:V Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have stricken "1899" above. Aguinaldo's government didn't declare war on the US until June 2, 1899, and I see that The Chicago Daily News Almanac and Year-Book. The Chicago Daily News Co. 1900. pp. 218––238. chronicles these events — so I presume we're talking about dates in 1900 here, except for the anniversary date which would have been just ten days after the declaration of war. I'll have to read through that chronicle when i get the time, but I see from skimming quickly through it
  • US forces entered Malolos on March 31, 1900, finding that Aguinaldo's government had burned the buildings they had occupied there and moved to San Fernando
  • US forces captured San Fernando on May 6
  • US forces began an expedition to Angeles on August 9, which apparently took some time to conclude
  • on October 2, a communique from General Otis mentioned "our lines at Angeles"
  • General MacArthur is mentioned as having offices in Angeles on 22 October
  • a move against Tarlac (said to then be the capital) began on November 1
  • Tarlac fell on November 12, Aguinaldo and his government having abandoned it
  • Bayonbong surrendered on November 30, US forces had reports at that time that Aguinaldo had moved his government to Zamboanga
This source has a lot of detail which I haven't previously seen. I'm looking forward to reading it through. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just making a note to myself that there's some more info I'll want to look at at Edward Sylvester Ellis (1900). The history of our country from the discovery of America to the present time: including a comprehensive historical introduction, copious annotations, a list of authorities and references, etc. Jones Bro. Pub. Co. p. 2182. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another note. this source puts most of the dates above in 1899, not 1900. I ought to look into this; perhaps the almanac discussed above, dated 1900, chronicles events which occurred in 1899. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

[edit]

wtf is your problem

[edit]

I revert vandalism on the cuba - usa page and you come and write that on my profile? 1. Get your eyes checked you've obviously confused me with the actual vandal. 2. Apologize and delete your post from my profile.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.185.151 (talk • contribs) 23:59, April 29, 2011

I've removed the mistaken warning. It was clearly my error. Please read WP:CIVIL. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

[edit]

"Controlling Obama's Birth" - Sam Smith

[edit]

Apropos to the issue of media "story" manipulation in which we've both been interested observers and editors, I thought you might find this rather startingly frank (near heretical?) commentary by Sam Smith to be particularly on point and of interest...and from a self-styled "progressive" source no less. Amazing. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. No new info, but a good read.
I'm disappointed that the Tom Rogan piece in The Guardian which Sam Smith relied on gets it so wrong.
  • Perhaps Rogan and Smith both misunderstood the central issue of the United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision, or perhaps Smith was just anxious to accept Rogan's reading which, though incorrect, was closely supportive of Smith's editorial point.
  • Rogan says that 8 U.S.C. § 1401 provides "statutory definition for natural born citizenship", which ("citizen of the United States at birth" and "natural-born citizen" not necessarily being equivalent terms with the same meaning) it clearly does not.
  • Rogan says, "Barack Obama was born in the United States. But even if he had not been (as the birthers believe), he would still be the legitimate President of the United States." If Barack Obama had been born outside of the United States, to a mother who (being a few month shy of her 19th birthday on Obama's certificated birthdate) had not resided in the U.S. for five years subsequent to her 14th birthday, his mother would not have been able to pass her U.S. citizenship on to her foreign-born child under US immigration law as it existed in 1961. (see e.g., Robert James McWhirter (August 2007). The citizenship flowchart. American Bar Association. p. 47 — see the requote of the applicable residence requirement from the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 in item 59 on that page. ISBN 9781590319215.)
  • Rogan says, "For the birthers, the translation of 'natural born citizen' is simply 'those born inside the United States'. To them, anyone born outside the United States is ineligible for the presidency." Here, Rogan makes the usual error of lumping anyone who has any concerns at all relating to this into one well-demonized group -- "the birthers" -- which group, actually, is nonexistent as a group outside of depictions in liberal media. The extreme view which Rogan suggests is no doubt held by some, but it is surely not held by everyone Rogan would categorize as a "birther".
Sam Smith says, "... Eventually, a Senate resolution was unanimously passed declaring McCain to be a natural born citizen. Of course, a Senate resolution cannot validly declare a person (McCain, Obama, or anyone else) to be a natural born citizen; it can only state the sense of the Senate.
I liked the Sam Smith piece from "Somehow, however ..." onwards. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

[edit]

Explain?

[edit]

I won't lie, I've messed around on wikipedia before (there's a page that's heavily vandalised that's gone unnoticed for years now), but that's not my edit. This is the second time that this has happened before too...86.42.200.98 (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. Let's see. That would be this edit you're talking about -- clearly an edit made by some anonymous person using IP address 86.42.200.98. I would guess that perhaps that edit was made by some individual other than yourself — that possibly you are not the only individual editing from IP address 86.42.200.9. On checking, I see here that there is a record of exactly two edits having been made from IP address 86.42.200.9. I suggest that you register for a userid in order to allow your edits to be distinguished from edits made by other individuals using the same IP address which you are using. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

[edit]

PSTS supplement

[edit]

Just a note to say thanks for this and to say that you're welcome to boldly make any further improvements on the page, or to make suggestions on its talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carta Autonómica de 1897 de Puerto Rico - Autonomic Charter of 1897

[edit]

November 25, 1897 The island was allowed to retain its representation in the Spanish Cortes and to have its own bicameral legislature. Supreme Authority and Sovereignty was retained by the Kingdom of Spain.[4]

The following information as added is not part of the Autonomic Letter of 1897 as approved by the Spanish Parliament and the Spanish King. Well on that case the letter was from the Queen of Spain.

The island was allowed to retain its representation in the Spanish Cortes - I do not see this on any section of the decree.

Reference: Carta Autonómica de 1897 de Puerto Rico --Seablade (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This grew out of this edit by me. That edit replaced a cite of an unreliable supporting source (a separate WP article) with a cite of an apparently relevant reliable supporting source I found cited in that separate WP article, plus a note to also see that separate WP article. My edit also modified the supported assertion to reflect information from the newly-cited supporting source. As I understand it, you're saying that the source you link above is a better supporting source than the source which I cited. I'm not a topical expert on this, and I'll acccept that you know better than I regarding this. I will edit the article once again to modify the supported assertion and to cite this new source in support. I'm not really clear on how closely this matches with the info in the WP article formerly cited in support and haven't spent any time trying to figure that out. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Ok, I did not noticed that you replaced the source, well, the Carta Autonomica of 1897 per se does not talk about the representation on the Spanish court, however as your source indicate the information you added must be accurate! --Seablade (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the letter, it is clearly indicated that the 1897 government is a colonial one, one of the greatest misconception said its that Puerto Rico end to be a Spain Colony on November 25, 1897. The current pro colonial forces on Puerto Rico play with the word sovereignty and autonomy, trying to make believe the people that are synonism. --Seablade (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Example of Autonomy vs Sovereignty

In the United States government, autonomy refers to one's own self-governance. One former example of an autonomous jurisdiction into the United States government belong to the Philippine Islands; The Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916 provided the framework for the creation of an autonomous government providing the Filipino people (Filipinos) broader domestic autonomy, though it reserved certain privileges to the United States to protect its sovereign rights and interests. Philippine Autonomy Act (Jones Law) --Seablade (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomic "Letter" or Autonomic "Charter"? Pr4ever (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomic Charter - Reference: The Supreme Court and Puerto Rico: the doctrine of separate and unequal By Juan R. Torruella --Seablade (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: Congressman Pedro R. Pierluisi:

"Indeed, for generations, our sons and daughters have served alongside their fellow citizens from the states on battlefields in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. When patrolling in enemy territory, the differences between them mean nothing; what matters is that the flag on their uniform is the same. I support statehood because I believe the people of Puerto Rico have earned the right, should they choose to exercise it, to become full and equal citizens of the United States.

But I was elected to represent all of the people of Puerto Rico, including those whose vision for the Island’s future differs from my own. Those who support the current status, independence or free association are as entitled to their views as I am to mine. I respect their right to advocate for the particular status option they prefer.

What I do not respect are efforts by individuals or groups to obstruct the self-determination process because they fear that process will reveal the public’s support for a status option other than the one they favor. For the sake of the people of Puerto Rico, four million proud and strong, these anti-democratic forces must not be allowed to prevail.

They must be defeated". --Seablade (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

[edit]

Timeline of the Philippines-American war

[edit]

Hello Wtmitchell, my edit in that article was very minor, I'm not familiar with the subject at all, sorry. Moongateclimber (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

[edit]

Bambifan

[edit]
I guess that you're saying that you suspect WP:SOCK activity here. I never developed any competence at recognizing that. You might try WP:SPI. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

[edit]

Dog meat

[edit]

I do have a POV regarding dog meat, although it's actually the opposite of the one you imply (I'm completely in favor of people eating almost anything they want, barring things like endangered species); however, I do my best to ensure that I edit this (and all other) article(s) per NPOV. As Anna pointed out in the edit summary of her revert of you, we shouldn't be describing something as "exceptional", anywhere on Wikipedia (except occasionally in quotations, and then only when DUE), even if we think it is exceptional. If there is some useful info in that reference, then I have no problem including that ref attached to some other statement; I just don't see why we need a sentence that says "Koreans breed an awesome special breed specifically for eating," especially since the article already says, "The primary dog breed raised for meat, the Nureongi (누렁이), or Hwangu (황구); which is a kind of mix-breed dog, differs from those breeds raised for pets which Koreans keep in their homes." I hope that clarifies my removal. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responded here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, "Legal status of Texas" and another, "Republic of Texas (group) has been proposed for a merge with Texas Secession Movement. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Otr500 (talk) 11:29 pm, Today (UTC−5)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

[edit]

Fixing serious problems with Stereotypes of East Asians in the Western world

[edit]

This article makes the statement For brevity and readability the article will focus, define and henceforth use the term Asian[s], albeit incorrectly, to specifically and exclusively refer to East Asians. (I only just added the albeit incorrectly). This inaccurate usage of terms needs to be fixed, as it reinforces the narrow-minded (racist) notion that Asian = East Asian. I will soon begin to work on fixing this. I was wondering if you would be interested in helping.

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like something well worth working on. I normally would probably pitch in, but serion\us real world pressures currently have me cutting back on my wiki activity. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I began some work on the fixes, but they mostly amount to adding necessary "East"s. Take a look if you get a chance. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

[edit]

Your edits on History of the Philippines

[edit]

Hi, I see you reverted me on History of the Philippines. I'm not sure what you were trying to do - fill in some link titles, I think - but what you actually did was fill in a few link titles and then blank most of the article. This is probably a Reflinks bug, but nonetheless, you removed 80k of a 100k article, which I undid and you just redid. Would you mind undoing your edit and re-doing whatever link/ref fixing you're trying to do by hand, instead? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for rubbing my nose in this. I clicked Revert based on what I saw in the initial screenfull of diffs, not noticing that I was reverting more than I had intended. On the bit I reverted, the title in the link matches the title in the <TITLE> element of the linked web page and the title in the textual header on that linked page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I figured it was just one of those things where the tool messed up and it was hard to tell that from the diffs as you used it. :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen B.

[edit]

I AM the ghost-writer in question, which is why I added that. But ok, have it your way.82.230.140.138 (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not contesting that, just saying that the assertion needs to cite a supporting source, even if the WP editor making the assertion knows it to be true. Quoting a snippet from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political Status of Puerto Rico

[edit]

Please review my changes to the Political Status of Puerto Rico for accuracy, reliable sources and neutrality point of view.

Thanks in advance,

--Seablade (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flattered by the request. The PR articles aren't hot-button items for me, but I have contributed there from time to time. I'm no expert on the topic, but I'm probably better informed about it than the average Joe on the street. I see from the article history that you've recently made a series of 15 or so edits to the article. I tried to look at the diffs one by one, oldest first, but that didn't work well. Instead, I'll look at the overall diff ([9]), and comment starting at the top. I can't afford to spend a lot of time on this, so my comments will not be comprehensive.
  • "Thus, plebiscite results (not authorized by the Congress), ..." is clumsy. I suggest rewording something like, "Results of plebiscites, whether or not authorized by Congress, ...".
  • You excised the words "recalcitrant subjects" from "the oldest strategy for governing recalcitrant subjects". However, the passage is supported by a cited source ([10]) which speaks explicitly of governing recalcitrant subjects. Removing that generalizes the assertion beyond what the cited source supports.
  • Added section: Definition of Status Options
  • Several paragraphs and subsections are set off with boldface headers. I think the subsection headers violate MOS:HEAD; they should probably be introduced by level-4 headers with subsection names in envelopes delimited by ====. Alternatively, it might be acceptable to introduce subsection headers with a semicolon rather than explicitly bolding them.
  • The only supporting source cited is http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32933.pdf -- cited at the end of the section intro.
  • Early in the section intro, I see "... the definitions or, more specifically, the lack of definitions of the political status options for Puerto Rico, compound the complexity of the debate". This sounds like a POV statement of dissatisfaction regarding the quality of status option definitions. Since that statement doesn't seem to be supported by the cited source, I presume that it is a statement of your own personal editorial opinion. Such statements of editorial opinion should not be made in WP articles, as making such statements implies that this is the editorial position held by Wikipedia.
  • The section intro says, in part, "In particular, the lack of a clear and stable legal definition for the term “commonwealth” complicates the debate." However, the cited supporting source seems to give a pretty good explanation of that term in this context on its pages 26-27.
  • The Commonwealth subsection cries out for supporting sources, as does this new section generally. In particular, I'm struck by "... many contend that the Puerto Rican identity reflects a degree of autonomy that enables the island to remain somewhat separate from, but part of, the United States." Two things about that strike me particularly
  • "many contend ..." needs support. If the position described is indeed contended by many, supporting sources should be easy to find.
  • "somewhat separate from, but part of, the United States" bothers me. This is presented as a contention made by many rather than as a fact but, as I understand it, PR's status as an unincorporated territory means that it has never been incorporated into -- never made an (indivisible) part of -- the United States.
  • I haven't read the rest of the diff for this added section in detail.
That's it for a quick offhand review by a non-expert. While looking at this, I spotted a problem or two apparently not related to your changes. I'll take a second look at those. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review!

I completely agree on items 1-5, and 7.

Please see my comments on point 6 and 8, and tell me your opinion.

6. The statement is from the page 26 of the CRS report. Definitions or, more specifically, the lack of definitions of the political status options for Puerto Rico, compound the complexity of the debate. Agreement on standard definitions of the terms may be elusive, even if the terms are initially accepted as defined.

8. Information is from the Page 26 of the CRS report, Commonwealth section on the following sentence:

Under current federal law, residents of Puerto Rico enjoy U.S. citizenship, but many contend that the Puerto Rican identity reflects a degree of autonomy that enables the island to remain somewhat separate from, but part of, the United States.103

Thank you very much for your time and review!

Best regards, --Seablade (talk) 05:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done! I am waiting the second look! Thanks, --Seablade (talk) 07:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Separately from the concerns at issue above, I see a problem with what you call No. 6. See WP:INTEXT and Wikipedia:Plagiarism#How to avoid inadvertent plagiarism. I'm guessing that if such problems appear at this point in the article, they may appear elsewhere. I think that clear attribution, perhaps page-numbered attribution, would provide enough clarification to solve the problem I worried about above with No. 6.
No. 8 is similar, I think. The article text at that point is unsupported, and I took it as unsupported editorial assertions. I now see that it is unattributed close paraphrasing from the CRS report. I stand by the issue I raised re unincorporated vs. incorporated territories as regards being a "part of" the U.S. -- see Territories of the United States#Incorporated and unincorporated territories. I see that the CRS report uses the "somewhat separate from, but part of" phraseology, and I can see at least two possible explanations for the apparent conflict there: (1) the CRS report might have been using the "part of" phraseology very informally, without consideration of the somewhat technical issue of unincorporated vs. incorporated status; (2) I see that the CRS report clarifies things a bit in its footnote number 103, and the article doesn't include that clarification. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glancing at the CRS report again, I see re No. 8 that the report says, "but many contend that the Puerto Rican identity reflects a degree of autonomy that enables the island to remain somewhat separate from, but part of, the United States." So, this isn't the view of the CRS we're talking about here, it's the characterization by the CRS of what that unidentified "many" contend (however well or however badly that "many" may be informed). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate it is how badly that "many" may be informed. There is also an educational spin-off of tremendous value. It is important to consider that the People of Puerto Rico have been led to believe that in the Act of U.S. Public Law 600 of 1950, a "new political status was created" in which Puerto Rico ceased to be a territory of the United States. The term "commonwealth" was substituted by the Spanish phrase "Estado Libre Asociado," which translates in English to "Free Associated State." This new name helped to emphasize the "new political status," as separate from the United States, though in association with "them" through common U.S. citizenship, common defense, common market and common currency, even though these conditions had been with us prior to 1952 as citizens of the U S. The notion of a “new political status” was evident in Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465, 472 (1979):

“Puerto Rico then asks us to recognize an "intermediate border" between the Commonwealth and the rest of the United States. In support of this proposal it points to its unique political status, and to the fact that its borders as an island are in fact international borders with respect to all countries except the United States. Finally, Puerto Rico urges that because of the seriousness of the problems created by an influx of weapons and narcotics, it should have the same freedom to search persons crossing its "intermediate border" as does the United States with respect to incoming international travelers.”

From 1952 on, the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act disappeared from public discussion and all talks centered on the new constitution. The provisions of the Federal Relations Act as codified on the U.S. Code Title 48, Chapter 4 shall apply to the island of Puerto Rico and to the adjacent islands belonging to the United States and waters of those islands; and the name Puerto Rico, as used in the chapter, shall be held to include not only the island of that name, but all the adjacent islands as aforesaid. --Seablade (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the above, my point (from memory -- without going back to re-read all this stuff in detail) was that the CRS report cited in support of "somewhat separate from, but part of, the United States" (in roughly this old version of the article -- I haven't looked to see if that has been changed) actually did not support that assertion. Rather, it was attributing that assertion to an unidentified group which that report characterized as "many". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This could be (or could be not) an interesting reading for you! The Insular Cases: A comparative Historical Study of Puerto Rico, Hawai'i, and the Philippines --Seablade (talk) 03:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read it. I only have a passing interest in the topic, and it was to me interesting to that limited extent. Judge Gelpí, the author, is clearly a much better authority re legal matters than I. Still, I found it difficult to swallow his point on P.24 (p.3 of the pdf) that, "In light of the preceding discussion, it is unfathomable to understand how, in 2011, U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico (as well as in the territories) still cannot vote for their President ...". I fathom the reason for that as being that the light of that previous discussion did not provide any illumination regarding the U.S. constitutional provisions re federal enfranchisement. Judge Gelpí apparently believes that the U.S. constitution should be seen as reading in this respect differently than it does read. Perhaps it should read differently, but it does not. A mechanism does exist for amending that constitution. In the absence of a constitutional amendment in this regard, it appears to me that the path available to Puerto Rico (and other U.S. territories) for acquiring U.S. federal enfranchisement for its citizens is via U.S. statehood. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

[edit]

MOS talk page comments

[edit]

Hi Wtmitchell, I've restored the comment I added on the MOS talk page that you reverted. It doesn't seem to have anything wrong with it and it didn't look like it was breaking anything. Was there a reason you reverted my comment? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. My guess is that it was an unrecognized mis-click on my part. It wasn't an intentional edit, and I don't remember making it. Clearly my error. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking semiprotection for South Asia

[edit]

I have used the RFPP page twice [11][12] to try to get South Asia protected given the excessive IP vandalism that barrages it. In both cases, User:Fastily (unfairly) rejected my plea. I wanted to get a second opinion on getting this page semiprotected. I do not understand how one can say that there isn't enough vandalism on the page, given that the overwhelming majority of recent edits are either vandalism or reversion of vandalism.

Here is the text I placed on the RFPP page

Semi-protect. There has been long-term rampant IP vandalism on this page. Something needs to be done about this vandalism. I made a request back on June 24th [13] to get this page semiprotected, but I was denied saying there was not enough vandalism (which is absurdly untrue). Here is a diff between June 1st and present. Pretty much every edit during this time interval was vandalism or reversion of vandalism. [14]. This heavy barrage on vandalism is not good for the health of the page. A long-term semi-protect is needed to help remedy this problem. Editors can't efficiently contribute to this article given that both childish vandals and POV-pushing vandals have historically chosen this page as a target of choice. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC) (This also been placed at User talk:Elockid)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

[edit]

Vandal User:Metalman59

[edit]

There is another vandal who keeps trying to remove Afghanistan and Iran from South Asia and Afghanistan from Indian subcontinent. I approached them about their behavior on their talk page and they ignored me. They even made some uncivil/racist comments on Talk:South Asia.

Here is some of their badly formatted OR they put on South Asia [15] Here is what they did to Indian Subcontinent [16] Here are their uncivil comments on the talk page [17]

Please block this user Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC) (This is also posted at User talk:Elockid )[reply]

recent edit of "The Wire"

[edit]

Hello,

I made a small change a few minutes ago of "The Wire" where I changed the character who kills Bodie Broadus from "O-Dog" to "Michael." This is in fact what happens in the show. When I edited the page, there was a note saying "DO NOT EDIT IT WAS O-DOG" with a cited source. However, that very source confirms it was Michael. Nevertheless, I just found out that you reverted my edit. The Wire is my favorite TV show and I am very puzzled by this insistence on an mistaken fact that is easily checked with some research (or by watching the show). Telling me that my comment is "not constructive" on an easily checked fact is very discouraging.

Thank you, and please send me any comments.

recent edit of "The Wire"

[edit]

Hello,

I made a small change a few minutes ago of "The Wire" where I changed the character who kills Bodie Broadus from "O-Dog" to "Michael." This is in fact what happens in the show. When I edited the page, there was a note saying "DO NOT EDIT IT WAS O-DOG" with a cited source. However, that very source confirms it was Michael. Nevertheless, I just found out that you reverted my edit. The Wire is my favorite TV show and I am very puzzled by this insistence on an mistaken fact that is easily checked with some research (or by watching the show). Telling me that my comment is "not constructive" on an easily checked fact is very discouraging.

Thank you, and please send me any comments.

71.88.101.116 (talk) 03:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. My error. I've reverted my edit and removed the warning from your talk page. I missed seeing that the stuff in caps was inside of an html comment. I have not checked/verified the content you and another editor were arguing about. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC) TC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

[edit]
Hello Wtmitchell! I hope you enjoy this brownie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 07:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

[edit]

At this revert summary. Indeed! :-) Graham87 13:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

[edit]

Kirby (series)

[edit]

Hey there. Why did you undo your edit on Kirby (series) even though your previous edit had undone a great deal of vandalism? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. After a second look, I see that I should not have. I was reviewing edits with WP:Huggle, and looking very quickly at individual edits. My guess is that I reverted based on my initial look at the first screenfull of the diff, where I saw the addition of "and also says hi very annoyingly", keying off of "very annoyingly", and then unreverted based on reconsideration about the article's topic as it seemed on reconsideration that addition might be straight description rather than a POV editorial comment. I see your point -- I ought to have looked beyond the first screenfull of the diff. I was over-huggleized at that point, though, and was flying through articles faster than I should have been. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's my IP address, but I didn't edit anything.

[edit]

Hi Wtmitchell, I'am Hamham31 I owned this IP address (180.94.29.186) but I didn't edit anything, even the article about Battle of Manila (1899), because I don't know about that article. Plus, I have already created my own account last August, If you want to ask me about this matter just go to my user talk. I hope for your kind consideration, and thank you. Hamham31 (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The two edits to the Battle of Manila (1899) article which I reverted were by 180.194.250.81 and 180.194.29.186. Your IP address is similar to the second one of those, but not the same. AFAICS, I haven't recently reverted any of your edits. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

[edit]

Emilio Aguinaldo

[edit]
Hello, Wtmitchell. You have new messages at Talk:Emilio Aguinaldo#Independence Proclamation, Dictatorship and Revolutionary Government.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

[edit]

Elective Governors Act

[edit]
Hello, Wtmitchell. You have new messages at Talk:Political status of Puerto Rico.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Seablade (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP vandalizer to Todd Akin

[edit]

Hi Wt, I'd like to request you strongly consider blocking IP 97.91.181.105 temporarily for repeated and grievous vandalism to the Todd Akin Wiki. They have warned repeatedly, including a final warning issued by you on September 9, with apparently no effect. Twice today (September 15) they were at it again, in fact even escalating the level of vandalism. I realize that since this is an institutional IP there are special circumstance, but I really feel that a temporary block (or perhaps semi-protecting the Wiki ?) is the only way to stop the vandal. Much thanks! Sector001 (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the history for that Ip and see this bit of vandalism subsequent to my final warning. I've blocked that IP for 48 hours. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

[edit]

A cup of coffee for you!

[edit]
Salute! Sofialamberto (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2011

[edit]


Pulsa diNura

[edit]

not sure where to leave the message. but, regarding pulsa dinura. there is no issue in the torah with placing curses upon gentiles, only jews. also, regarding actual killing, the killing of gentiles is rabbinic, and only applies to those who keep the 7 noachide laws, but surely there is no issue with using a kabbalistic incantation against a gentile, even within rabbinic spheres — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.217.16 (talk • contribs) 13:01, October 3, 2011

I've unreverted my revert. This was my mistake during a WP:Huggle session reviewing articles. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

[edit]

Please review this blocks

[edit]

There was a bug in MediaWiki 1.18 that caused blocks made via the API to have talk page access disabled when it should have been enabled. This also affected scripts such as User:Animum/easyblock.js. Please review the following block to make sure that you really intended talk page access to be disabled, and reblock if necessary.

  1. 140.32.16.101 (talk · block log · block user) by Wtmitchell at 2011-10-06T04:44:32Z, expires 2011-10-20T04:44:32Z: {{anonblock}}

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to post at User talk:Anomie#Allowusertalk issue. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 02:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. There was a note here that an admin at the IP at issue had taken corrective action, so I did not reblock. I haven't reviewed the blocking of talk page access -- that may have been an error on my part as I don't recall doing that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

[edit]

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

[edit]

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

[edit]

National Atheist Party

[edit]

I have speedily deleted National Atheist Party, which you appear to have created, per WP:G4 as a re-creation of an article deleted per a deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Atheist Party). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I saw a reference to it somewhere on WP and was working on creation of the article when I saw that it had been previously deleted. I thought I had abandoned creation of the article, but discovered today that I must have mistakenly saved it. Looking at the article, I saw that it had been edited by others and still had some errors remaining from my abandoned creation attempt, so I edited the article to correct that. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about whether or not the article meets WP:GNG or other relevant guidelines. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent block of Cuchullain

[edit]

Did you intend to block Cuchullain for vandalism this morning? His talk page is on my watch list, and that shocking update popped up just now. He's a long-time administrator (and a very good one at that) and I don't see anything anywhere that indicates that he's been involved in something out of character, so I can only surmise that his blocking was an accidental slip of the mouse.

(This is really none of my business, I'll admit, but it's so strange that I had to ask...) Zeng8r (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking into unblocking him, as I came across his block when patrolling CAT:UNB. I can literally find nothing wrong with his edits, and am inclined to believe him when he says you inadvertantly may have blocked the wrong user. Could you comment? --Jayron32 13:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that he has been unblocked. This was a screwup on my part. I've apologized at user talk:Cuchullain|Cuchullain#Unblock?

Troltrolly666

[edit]

Seeing that you blocked Troltrolly666, is there a chance you could address my request at the Bad Image List talk page regarding the image? Thanks. Calabe1992 (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not something I have experience with but, AFAICT, the image does not fit the description "normally been used for widespread vandalism ...". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

[edit]

Revising

[edit]

Hey Got no problem with that at all. I think you did it better than me. I think I should clarify my userpage - I meant to imly that religion and science are seperate things, not edit war materials. Spasibo bolshoe! TheLittlestTerrorist (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 November2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

[edit]

IP Vandalism

[edit]

Hi, I just reverted vandalism by this user and saw that you were previously involved in blocking this IP, and also mentioned that they might need to be indeffed if they returned to vandalism after the block expired. Didn't know where else to go with this, so just letting you know. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 18:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address is apparently used by the Santa Clara County Office of Education. It has been blocked a number of times for periods ranging up to a year. Yes, vandalism resumed soon after expiration of the most recent block. I've placed yet another warning on the talk page about that. Continued vandalism will result in yet another long block. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why you fuckin with me, bro?

[edit]

You're threatening to ban me from Wikipedia is a little too much, you see my edits as vandalism yet I see them as necessary works of art. Not every article has to be one hundred percent accurate, a little humor goes a long way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.245.199 (talk • contribs) 12:08, November 19, 2011‎

See Wikipedia:Vandalism and your edits listed at Special:Contributions/68.209.245.199. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Localization of a Ring

[edit]

Please explain the reason that you revert my last edit on that page. AlreadyDone (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry -- I took a second look and it looks like my error during vandal patrol. I've unreverted and removed the warning from your talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2008 case, Why is undue weight?

[edit]
Hello, Wtmitchell. You have new messages at Talk:Puerto Rico.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Seablade (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

[edit]

Why you accusing me of an edit I didn't make?

[edit]

Hi Wtmitchell. I own this IP address (71.238.204.174) but I didn't edit the article Bruin, because I don't even know about that article. I would appriciate not being falsely accused of an improper edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.204.174 (talk • contribs) 04:43, November 25, 2011‎

(talk page stalker) The edit was made from your ip address, as you can see in the logs. The edit was made in 2009 though, so it is very likely that the IP has since been reassigned to another person, which, in this case, is you. In these cases you can safely ignore warnings as they are outdated. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I responded here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit removed

[edit]

I've deleted a potentially libelous edit a new user posted on your talk page. The edit wasn't about you, but it did seriously violate our BLP policies. I'd explain further, but as an admin, you can view the edit if you wish, and I think it's sufficiently obvious. Rklawton (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

[edit]
[edit]

A user is claiming Copyrighted text in a paragraph at Khazars , I have reverted his edit , but am confused as regards what to do with the paragraph, Should it be deleted ? Bentogoa (talk) 09:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm.... I'm no expert in any of this, and I have no idea about the veracity of the anon's claims. Assuming good faith about that, however, let's accept that the anon is Kevin Alan Brook, that the web page at http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-history.html (which asserts copyright over the text at issue) was authored by him in 1997. The article text at issue was added by this May 2011 edit, without a supporting cite for the paragraph where the text appears. The editor adding the text at issue was User:Dontbesogullible. What I would do would be to move the paragraph at issue to a new section at Talk:Khazars for discussion, possibly replacing it with other bridging text if needed, explain the situation there, and place a comment in a new section at User talk:Dontbesogullible asking that editor to comment on that article talk page. If the text at issue was in fact lifted from the web page, it should be replaced with text compliant with the WP:Plagarism guideline. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(added) A useful cite supporting some of this (possibly reworded) might be page 13 onwards of Kevin Alan Brook (2009). The Jews of Khazaria. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-4982-1. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

[edit]

List of U.S. cities with large African American populations

[edit]

Hey there,

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-06.pdf

Please refer to page 14, table 6.

If the author wishes to exclude those who are Black or African American in combination with some other race from the "African American" category, they should mention so. The figures shown on the table on that page correspond to the figures reported for individuals who are "Black or African American alone".

Some other issues:

1)Houston, TX (African American Alone Population: 498,466) somehow failed to make it onto that table despite having a higher African American population than Memphis, TN which is in fact on that table. Houston is actually almost exactly 23.7% African American Alone according to the 2010 Census numbers. 498,466/2,099,451 = 0.2374 = 23.74% > 23.7%. Regardless, the term "at least" implies that a figure need only be greater than or equal to it to qualify.

2)Let's even forget that for a second. Let's look at Dallas, TX. Total Population: 1,197,816. African American Alone Population: 298,993. Composition = 298993/1197816 = 0.2496, or 24.96%. Clearly above 23.7%. Yet no mention in the table.

3)Table lists Boston, MA with an African American population of 193,551. 2010 Census Brief says 150,437.

4)Indianapolis, IN: 829,718 total population, 226,671 individuals who are African American Alone. 226671/829718 = .2732 (rounded), or 27.32%. 27.32 > 23.7. Yet it's not on the table.

5)Columbus, OH: 787,033 total population, 220,241 individuals who are African American Alone. 220241/787033 = .2798 = 27.98%. 27.98 > 23.7. Yet it's not on the table.

There could be many more that I've missed. Unfortunately, I am still young and dumb so I still have an exam to study for and a media plan to finish.

This is why that table is inaccurate and why it probably shouldn't be relied on.

Best,

James

24.13.132.99 (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing vandalism patrol with WP:Huggle and saw your edit of that article with the WP:SHOUTed "NOT". I reverted as vandalism on the strength of that. After doing the revert, I did some checking and, following on that, here I added a section to the article citing, as it happens, the source you mention above in support of the figures in that added section (the cited source presented that info in a nice neat table which was easy to incorporate into the article). As I get time (and I'm pretty busy with other things) I'll try to revisit this and either confirm or refute the figures you objected to above, adding supporting cites as needed. You might pitch in and do some of that too. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(added) See Talk:List of U.S. cities with large African American populations#Dubious section: Cities whose population is at least 23.7 % African American. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Foreign relations of the Philippines

[edit]

I am just trying to copyedit so I can take the Maintenance Tag off - nearly finished. I have no problem with your edits. Best wishes --Greenmaven (talk) 09:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. I apologize for barging in in the middle of your maintenance updates; your edit which prompted mine popped up in my watchlist and I didn't notice the tag. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

[edit]
[edit]

Hi, I noticed you created Template:Copyvio link. It seems the template's use is restricted to cases where the site referenced is itself violating a copyright, not for Wikipedia text that's a copyright violation. At the same time, there doesn't appear to be an inline copyvio template to mark just a single passage or a small portion of text. All there is is a large banner. I think an inline copyvio tag would be useful, like the inline tag for Template:Verify credibility.—Biosketch (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial, mysterious change at Multiple citizenship

[edit]

Hi, Bill — I noticed that a whole bunch of IP edits to Multiple citizenship were reverted in one fell swoop today, by an IP who gave no reason except that he had "Restored User:Wtmitchell's version as of 18 November 2011". Any idea what might be going on? — Richwales (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I saw that change on my watchlist, but I didn't have any involvement in making it. I had taken a look a look at just the South Korea part of the change, and that sent me over to Korean nationality law, where I perceived some problems and made some changes. After making those changes, pressure of other matters stopped me from trying to take a second look at the Multiple citizenship article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Girlfriend and Prostitute

[edit]

You undid my statement many months ago. [[18]] Look, there is no difference in the principle! When you go to a prostitute, you pay her for enjoyment. She also gets enjoyment (plus money). If you don't want to pay, "get out". What about a girlfriend.? Ok, there is "romance", "love", etc. Is that real love? Or is it lust? It is lust. "I lust for yiu and you lust for me", that is: "I "love" your body and you "love" my body, not "I love you and you love me." No one (may be very, very few) "loves" another for what they are but what they have (e.g. sex appeal) or own (money, cars etc.). Do you understand? This is the harsh reality. Learn to face it. You pamper the girlfriend with goodies and riches to continue the relationship or else get rejected! You call this original research? In your country, you say "girlfriend", in our country we say "prostitute". That's all! -59.95.25.234 (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-59.95.25.234 (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you are talking about this edit, which was made by User:Wknight94, not by User:Wtmitchell. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ya right, you didnt edit... you posted a message on the talk page59.95.11.197 (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

edit article "Cold Fusion" Nine Refefences to Pathological Science Should Be Moved to Historical Footnotes

[edit]

To improve the article:

1) Wiki needs to view it as science.

2) Wiki needs to recognize which scientific journals are utilized and sourced by scientists in this field of physics.

I predict a tremendous increase in the readability of the article.

Query to the scientific community: To the Directors of Physics Departments,

LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and Widom Larson Theory, aka Condensed Matter Nuclear or Lattice Enabled Nuclear; historically misnamed "Cold Fusion"

1) Is this science or pathological science?

2) Do you offer a class in this discipline? If so, please provide information.

3) Are you developing a curriculum of this science? If so, when will you offer it?

4) What peer review journals do you utilize or source in this field?

Wtmitchell sir, P>S> 1) Any suggestions or criticisms before I move forward with this? 2) Is this direction of query able to yield opinions the Wikipedia forum on Cold Fusion may value? Thank you for your time, Gregory Goble gbgoble@gmail.com (415) 724-6702--Gregory Goble (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gregory. I'm afraid that I cannot be of much help to you on this, I presently have too many other axes which need grinding. It seems to me, though, that you have a POV which you believe WP should push in the Cold Fusion article. WP is not into pushing POVs -- see WP:NPOV. You'll run into a lot of opposition if you try to push a POV -- whatever the POV might be. WP is into accurately reporting significant viewpoints regarding an article topic which have been published by reliable sources (See WP:DUE).
An article related to your topic of interest which is currently seeing a lot of activity is the Energy Catalyzer article -- you might take a look at that article and at the dramas currently playing out on the Talk:Energy Catalyzer page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wtmitchell/Archive_5_(2011)&oldid=1143540952"