Not sure if you noticed - but there is a similar question already posted here... just not sure if you wanted to double up. Thanks. 7 03:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The Panama Canal Zone doesnt even exist as a separate entity anymore, let alone an independent country. So I stand by that edit. I also stand by the others, especially the reorganisation of the leading paragraph to group together the arguments being made, and requested under the Jefferson quote. I'd appreciate a little more effort to explain such a sweeping reversal than a link to the page which proves my edit is correct! Mdw0 ( talk) 05:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Content
(I originally posted this in the Spanish-American War talk page; but, since I’m waiting for your reply before I make additional edits, I thought I would repost it again here. Please excuse the redundancy.)
Dear Wtmitchell,
Thanks for your comments and your edits. I’ve received far too little feedback to date. So, it is with some pleasure that I welcome yours. I would, however, like to make my ideas on the context and organization of the article a little clearer.
When I constructed the revision, I debated how to best introduce the concept of US Expansionism. I believe it’s important to ground historical events in their proper context. Since popular attitudes toward expansion in turn-of-the-century America exerted enormous influence over policy makers, it would be absurd to avoid mentioning the concept in an explanation of the 1898 war with Spain. And, while I can understand the natural sensitivity to the subject of US expansion (a mere euphemism for US empire building), I don’t see how this could be construed as inveighing the “evils of American expansionism.” I believe I worked very hard to explain US expansionism in the most concise and neutral way possible. Stating that expansion was quite popular in turn-of-the-century US discourse is demonstrably true. Associating expansion with “evil,” as you seem to do, is a value judgment based on your own understanding of expansion (or empire) that is in no way implied in the text. If you believe there are any negative qualifiers in the explanation that could be purged, I’d welcome your edits.
As for the Monroe Doctrine, you are quite right. In fact, I’ll do you one better. Neither the Monroe Doctrine nor Roosevelt’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine exerted much influence on US attitudes toward Cuba in 1898. This was precisely the idea that I was attempting to convey. I debated whether or not to mention the Monroe Doctrine at all. I came to the conclusion, however, that, because the Monroe Doctrine has become such large part of how Americans continue to popularly understand US expansion, I could not ignore it entirely. This is why I chose to explain that Roosevelt’s Corollary (which I accurately noted was “a policy he developed years after the campaign in Cuba”) is what made the Monroe Doctrine “an effective vehicle for U.S. expansion and international intervention.” This does not mean, as you say, that the corollary is “irrelevant to the history of the Spanish-American War.” Rather, they are intimately related. The process of causation, however, runs from war to corollary, not corollary to war. I think we could work together to make this relationship more clear in the article.
Don’t get me wrong; I understand your edit. And, I understand why you would want to remove (or at least put in a footnote) mention of Roosevelt’s corollary. I took on rewriting this article primarily because it had degenerated into a list of autonomous statements that gave the article an awkward flow. I fear that your edit, in the way it currently stands, constitutes a return to that sad tradition. I humbly propose that we either collaborate on how to make the transition from the Monroe Doctrine to western expansion a little smoother or simply remove mention of it all together. I’ll respectfully wait for your response before I make any changes to these ends.
As for your fear that this article has a “substantial POV thrust,” I must emphatically agree. All history has a point of view. To paraphrase the late historian E. H. Carr,
To say this another way—and I don’t intend to be condescending, but this is something that’s commonly misunderstood about history—there are an infinite number of historical facts. The process of selecting facts as well as the order you place them in are both parts of the interpretive process. If you think any of the statements I’ve made are false, by all means you should correct them. But simply noting that there is a point of view is not something that should alone warrant alarm.
As I wrote above, I’ll patiently wait for your response before I make any edits. -- JCWBB ( talk) 21:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you reverted my edits to Glenn Beck, and I understand why. Would it be acceptable for me to change "low debt" to "low debt"? this seems clearer to me, as "low debt" could be understood to be personal debt, or some other kind, and the text should still line up with the reference. Thank you, Efcmagnew ( talk) 17:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to ask your opinion if you think comfort women during world war two for the Japanese military should be included in the article on human trafficking in the Philippines? kind regards Susanbryce ( talk) 04:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
|
Congratulations in becoming a contestant in the
Unreferenced Biographies of You will be given further instructions soon. Questions? Good luck! | |||||||||||||||||||
I was just botted, the unbooted. Although I created this project, I think my continuation maybe hampering its growth. So I am asking others to take the reigns and run with this project. You have good suggestions. I suggest you take a greater role, and boldly make some of the changes you suggest. Okip BLP Contest 01:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The rules of the contest have been changed significantly since you signed up. Please check out the new page and its subpages. Any input as to how to improve any part of it would be greatly welcomed. J04n( talk page) 02:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
i am ashley who r u — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.157.139.58 ( talk • contribs) 02:54, February 25, 2010
RE:
[1]
Thank you for the links you provided, I will look at them later! Your comments were the most useful, I truly appreciate it!
Okip
03:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure what vandalism you thought you were reverting here, but the inclusion of the links to Wiktionary and to German Wikipedia were certainly not vandalism. + An gr 10:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I have been working on a template for nesting references at {{ Refn}}. I just stumbled across a proposal you made some time back on this. I would appreciate if you would take a look at it and respond to comments on the talk page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
*This is an example.{{refn|This is a note.<ref>This is an included reference.</ref>|group=note}} *This is an example.{{refn|This is a note.<ref name=noteabc group=note>This is an included reference named noteabc.</ref>}} ;refs *<ref name=abc>this is a ref named abc</ref> *{{refn|this is a test}} *This is a ref of a named refn{{refn|name=name|this is a named test}} *This is a reused ref of a named refn<ref name=name /> *{{refn|name=ref1|this ref1 includes two notes<!-- -->{{refn|group=note|name=ref1note1|this is ref1note1 and it refs ref1note2<!-- -->{{refn|group=note|name=ref1note2|this is ref1note2}}<!-- -->}} }} *{{refn|name=ref2|this ref2 includes two notes<!-- -->{{refn|group=note|name=ref2note1|this is ref2note1 and it refs ref1note2<!-- -->{{refn|name=ref2note2|group=note|this is ref2note2}}<!-- -->}} }} ;references {{reflist}} ;notes {{reflist|group=note}}
Apoc2400 ( talk) 16:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
See User:Gadget850/dbsearch/cite 2010-Feb-03. About 75 templates and 2500 articles. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 01:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
<cite>...</cite>
is only for titles. With the push towards HTML 5, this is a good reason to clean it up now. You might note that the examples of incorrect usage are from Wikipedia— I would not be surprised if we weren't one of the major violators. We now have a number of templates on the cite list up for TfD (they should go regardless) and are looking at more. I knew I would find more ref templates once I did that search. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
18:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Hi Bill. Is the action plan on this to go though these articles and remove the cite tags? (By replacing them with more conventional Wikipedia techniques to get similar effects?) I doubt there would be any objection. And we should also remove any remaining examples in the guidelines that use them. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 07:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I fixed 100 Greatest African-Americans, and I noticed that you fixed 1900 BCE Near East mass migration. I think it's a bit better to replace this:
<cite id=<anchor name> >{{cite book <citation parameters>}}</cite>
directly with this:
{{cite book | ref=<anchor name> <citation parameters>}}
and avoid the redundant call to Wikicite. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 07:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice work. I've just checked a bunch more, and you've already been there. How far did you get? ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 07:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
<cite>...</cite>
highlighting recently stopped working (see
here). My using that for a {{
Cite book}} cite was a mistake.{{
cite xxx}}
templates. The plan was to quickly follow up those changes by putting changes similar to the Citation changes into {{
Cite book}} and {{
Cite journal}}. Unfortunately, the Citation/core changes had problems (see the talk page there) which, hopefully, are now solved. If no more problems surface in a few days, I'm planning to bring Cite book and Cite Journal up to date re the coauthors parameter in a few days.It seems like the recent change to Citation/core may have broken something in the templates. See this query about dates suddenly showing up twice. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 09:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The first mentioned of the above was a complaint about dates showing up twice, which said to look here to see the problem. I looked, and don't see the problem.
The second complained that editor fields weren't working, saying to look here. I looked, and editor fields seem to be working.
The third also concerned editor fields, pointing to the second example here. I looked, and the editor fields seem to be working.
This is being discussed here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Dude, are you aware that you just misspelled a word and uncapitalized the beginning of a sentence with your last edit to Glenn Beck? Just wanted to make sure you know. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 05:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Tolerance = no impirsonments and execution or maltreatment for religious minorities. It was just a type of patience. It was enough to stop the religious genocides, but it was not more! Freedom: when the government declared the equality of religions. The government, the political leaders (royal/imperial advisors) and the leaders of armies contains religious minorities. Religious Freedom or Equality = when your mental constitutions and beliefs doesn't stop your state career or the rise of your career into the highest power-structure of the society. And it didn't exist in most Western European countries until the end of 19th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.251.238 (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Forexample: A catholic PM was unimaginable in Britain in the 19th century. A protestant president was unimaginable in France in the 19th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.251.238 (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Go to the discussion of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.143.25 ( talk • contribs) 17:10, April 6, 2010
Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 03:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Bill, in regards to your recent edit on the Presidency of Barack Obama article that stated you were fixing the quote to reflect the direct quote from the source, removing the portion that stated "The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures of most of the blue chip indexes out there". The quote removed is actually in the cited source video interview. On the page the source directs user to. For reference, if one doesn't want to view the video interview, there is a transcript of the show here. With the portion that you've removed on page 3 of the transcript here. I had this in my archives when I fixed the quote recently when reverting an IP who had altered the section with vandalism. DD2K ( talk) 15:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, so I edited the Timeline of United States Military Operations because it had wrong information. I knew from doing previous research that Al Qaeda chemist/nuclear weapons expert Midhat Mursi was actually not killed in the 2006 US air strike in Pakistan. He was reported dead, but it later turned out that he had not been killed. He was actually killed in 2008 by another US air strike. Here are some links citing this information: (pseudo death 2006) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/specials/terror/omar.html, (pseudo death 2006) http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/profile_pdf/Abu-Khabab.pdf, (post death 2008) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/28/terror/main4301490.shtml, (post death 2008) http://www.ctc.usma.edu/sentinel/CTCSentinel_Vol1Iss9.pdf (page 25)
I do thank you for correcting me though, because I did not cite my information properly. I don't really understand the wikipedia format and when I finished editing the page, only one part of my edit came up. I'll try fixing this, but if I can't, could you please? The death of an Al Qaeda "inner circle" member is an important event that should be presented accurately (especially for students like me!).
Thanks, 67.83.159.218 ( talk) 21:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC) alex
thank you for your help! 67.83.159.218 ( talk)alex
Re your {{
uw-test1}}
on
Treeflu (
talk ·
contribs) - I've since reverted all his other edits because they were clearly vandalism. However, I've not slapped a {{
uw-vandalism2}}
(or higher) on him, since he's not been active since prior to your message. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
09:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I definitely agree with you about this article. I stumbled across it while studying for a U.S. history final and it was in terrible shape! I spent about an hour working with the introduction to at least make the beginning acceptable, although the article itself still has some major problems. Anyways, I'll probably be looking to edit some of the content in the next few days, and I just wanted to stop by and thank you for helping remove some of the poor writing! Xenocide Talk| Contributions 02:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The anon user 203.84.189.136 and his sockpuppets for repeated vandalism and inserting libellous statements and lies in BLP. Thnx
Thank you. Can you also check his IP range and block them? I suspect this guy uses many sockpuppets/anon IP. I see many vandalisms in Philippine related articles esp BLP. anonymous IPs inserting and replacing facts with lies. Thx.
·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
My edit of this page was in good faith. The section I reverted was poorly written and ignored the convention that academic sources are referred to in the present tense, no matter when they were written. Perhaps I could have been bolder, but I'm not sure I deserved to be called "stupid." That's a particularly dangerous word to throw around a user-edited resource like wikipedia. Peccavimus ( talk) 04:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey there Wtmitchell, just dropping by to let you know I've tlx'd the {{
RFCU}} template on your sandbox, as it was causing the page to show up in
Category:SPI requests for pre-CheckUser review, please let me know if there's a problem with this. Also, as a side note the range of the two IPs listed on the page appears to be
122.55.48.0/20 (
block range ·
block log (
global) ·
WHOIS (partial)) (4096 addresses). Kind regards,
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
11:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me Sir, but what is this all about. I did not do anything bad to the Iglesia ni Cristo article. When I reviewed the edit history, the so called "personal commentary" was added by this user: Angrybot and not me. I did not notice it so I edited as I planned without adding any "personal commentary" to the article. IronBreww ( talk) 03:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Would you please explain why
you reverted
these comments of mine on the Sharia talk page with an edit marked as "minor" and an edit summary of "edit copy". As far as I can tell, all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines were well satisfied by my comments, and your reversion of them was neither a minor edit nor an edit copy. On the contrary, it would appear to me to have been a clear violation of
Wikipedia's talk page guidelines.
David Wilson (
talk ·
cont)
23:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Jac16888 Talk 17:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
My apologies for the temper of the remarks on Demographics of the US. The hardcopy did indeed say 41% and labeled that as the highest ever. However, the softcopy, available to you, did not. I assumed, wrongly that it did. I have had mild problems with "mismatched" material before and will mention it on some FOOTnote discussion and see where I get with it. Normally, I copy "box" scores from local papers. I use softcopy ref for credibility but the box score isn't on softcopy, only hard. I mention that in a comment. So this is far from the worst mismatch I've had. Close enough, I suppose. Just startling to me, since I knew what I read (and was copying at the time I wrote it!). Maybe when the link goes dead I can revert it back! :) Thanks for your kindly rejoinder on my page, considering what you were reading and what I was writing! Student7 ( talk) 23:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Please do not bite on newcomers. It says on the very same page, if you have healthy eyes to read of course, that Michelle Malkin was born in the Philippines. Not everything in Wikipedia contains sources and doesn't need to. Do not mislead others into thinking correct information is vandalism. And watch your temper. Fhank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.57.255 ( talk • contribs) 08:53, May 25, 2010
Hi, I'm putting together a template that cites signs (tourist information signs, grave markers, building cornerstones, museum placards, etc), and I need a little help. I've got the basic syntax down, but it isn't parsing correctly, and I'm obviously missing something. Can you take a look at my code and make some suggestions or tweaks? Right now, it is living at User:Noraft/Sandbox/3. By the way, I noticed you live in Boracay. I'm an expat living in Manila. Did you know Wikimedia Philippines just incorporated here in April? Anyway, thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 02:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
{{User:Wtmitchell/Draft1
|title=Cathedral Information
|subject=St. Michael's Cathedral
|date=12 May 1993
|format=Information placard
|site=in the courtyard
|publisher=Roman Catholic Church
|location=Qingdao, China
|viewdate= 21 February 2010}}
Office Name Term President of the Cabinet [1] [2] [3] [2] Apolinario Mabini January 2 – May 7, 1899 [3] Pedro Paterno May 7 – November 13, 1899 [3] [a] Secretary of Foreign Affairs [1] [2] Apolinario Mabini October 1, 1898 – May 7, 1899 [3] Secretary of the Interior [1] [2] Teodoro Sandico January 2 – May 7, 1899 [3] Secretary of Finance [1] [2] Mariano Trías January 2 – May 7, 1899 [3] Hugo Ilagan May 7 – November 13, 1899 [3] [a] Severino de las Alas May 7 – November 13, 1899 [3] [a] Secretary of War and Marine [1] [2] Baldomero Aguinaldo July 15, 1898 – May 7, 1899 [3] Mariano Trías May 7 – November 13, 1899 [3] [a] Secretary of Justice Gregorio Araneta September 2, 1898 – May 7, 1899 [3] Secretary of Welfare [1] [2] [b] Gracio Gonzaga January 2 – May 7, 1899 [3] Felipe Buencamino May 7 – November 13, 1899 [3] [a] Maximo Paterno May 7 – November 13, 1899 [3] [a] Secretary of Agriculture, Industry and Commerce [1] [2] León María Guerrero May 7 – November 13, 1899 [3] [a] Notes:
- ^ a b c d e f g Several sources assert that shortly after installation of the Paterno cabinet, General Antonio Luna arrested Paterno and some or all of the cabinet secretaries. [4] [5] At least one source asserts that the Mabini cabinet was reinstalled after the arrests. [5] Another source asserts that those arrested were released on orders of President Aguinaldo, but does not provide any indication about whether the Mabini or the Paterno cabinet was in office after the release. [4]
- ^ In the Mabini cabinet, the Secretary of Welfare had responsibility for Public Instruction, Communications & Public Works, and Agriculture, Industry & Commerce. [3]
See → User talk:LightAj#Clarifications requested ← for further details. Regards. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 17:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
If you check out User:Noraft/Sandbox you'll see I got most of the parameters working. Only problem is I can't control their order. Well, not the ONLY problem, but the one I'm thinking of right now. Any ideas? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
{{template_name |p1=''This is the text to place in the first-displayed parameter, italicized'' |p3='''{{orange (color)|This is the text to place in the third-displayed parameter, bolded and colored orange}}''' |p2='''This is the text to place in the second-displayed parameter, bolded''' }}
*{{:User:Wtmitchell/Draft1|p1=a|p2=b}}
*{{:User:Wtmitchell/Draft1|p2=a|p1=b|sep=.}}
*{{:User:Wtmitchell/Draft1|p3='''Third param -- bold'''|p1=First param|p2='''''Second param, bold itals'''''|sep={{;}}}}
What's the difference between ISBN-10 and ISBN-13? -- Foofighter20x ( talk) 07:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for my poorly judged intervention. Your edit is perfectly valid and please continue in like vein at this and related articles. Best. RashersTierney ( talk) 00:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I had a problem relating to the use of freehand anchors. There was no link from the (shortened note) to the Reference. I have described the problem at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Further_considerations#No link from Notes to References when using method outlined in Using freehand anchors. Thank you. Vyeh ( talk) 10:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. You undid all of my edits to this page. I'm not sure how to interpret your edit summary. Did you intend to do that? - Richard Cavell ( talk) 23:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
You contributed to Criticism of the New York Times if you have an opinion, come to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 4. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 16:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Please see who made this diff, it's not my bot... http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Governor-General_of_the_Philippines&diff=next&oldid=369735838
Hi there. I am not sure if you are still watching Talk:Dog meat, so I write a quick not here.
I would like to say that I am somewhat frustrated with the whole dog meat image thing, but I am writing with a smile. It's hard sometimes to convey an attitude over the Internet, but I am not a meany.
I don't know what { { od } } means. Can you please tell me?
If you look at the diff you refer to in this comment, you will see that I had nothing to do with it.
For the record, could you please comment on this on the dog meat talk page?
Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 10:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Last month, you added a citation to a book from the " Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. [6]). I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. I'm removing a lot of similar references as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name " Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences& Windows 02:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
...for your contibution to the article Dog meat, subsection Ancient Mexico. Chrisrus ( talk) 10:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I request you to please block user User:Conrad940 for repeated vandalism and removal of sourced statements on the Iglesia ni Cristo article. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.68.106.13 ( talk • contribs) 10:28, August 12, 2010
Replied. -- Foofighter20x ( talk) 14:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Wtmitchell. I removed the unsupported descriptions by the source you added to Horse meat. In addition, I don't think it is labeled as Baniku. "Baniku" is rather straightforward even in Japan, so it is unlikely to use for its label. (instead, Sakura niku may be used.) I can't believe in the description "This canned meat is widely sold in convenience stores ("combis") and supermarkets" from my personal experience. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 ( talk) 11:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit because it focuses too much on the Olympics. The citation, in pages 462, 28, 35, 36, and 38, explains that the reason Puerto Ricans consider themselves a distcint nation is because of their common language, the jibaro and Taino heritages, the santos carving folk art, the non denial of Puerto Ricans of PR as their homeland and their common race, and because they share the same territory, language, and culture. In addition, it is not only Duany the one that maintains Puerto Ricand see themselves as a distinct nation. There are other sources, such as de la Garza, Morris, Levinson and Sparrow, plus a long list of prominent exponents who recently paraded thru the UN while the Committee of 24 discussed the case of PR. Regards, Mercy11 ( talk) 06:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Although Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States classified as a commonwealth, it is considered by many Puerto Ricans a country in and of itself. "Most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation."
Most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation – as validated in their participation in such international displays of nationhood as Olympic and professional sports and beauty pageants.
Most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation.Nation, Migration, Identity: The Case Puerto Ricans. by Jorge Duany. (University of Puerto Rico, Rıo Piedras, Puerto Rico.) Page 428. As published in Latino Studies vol. 2003, No. 1, (pp. 424–444). 2003. Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan, Ltd. (1476-3435/03) www.palgrave-journals.com/lst.
Most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation.Nation, Migration, Identity: The Case Puerto Ricans. by Jorge Duany. (University of Puerto Rico, Rıo Piedras, Puerto Rico.) Pages 428, 435-436, and 438, and 462. As published in Latino Studies vol. 2003, No. 1, (pp. 424–444). 2003. Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan, Ltd. (1476-3435/03) www.palgrave-journals.com/lst.
Although Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States classified as a commonwealth, it is considered by many Puerto Ricans a country in and of itself. "Most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation."
Jorge Duany, Chair and Professor of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the University of Puerto Rico, writes that ...
Although Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States classified as a commonwealth, it is considered by many Puerto Ricans a country in and of itself. "Most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation."
Most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation.Nation, Migration, Identity: The Case Puerto Ricans. by Jorge Duany. (University of Puerto Rico, Rıo Piedras, Puerto Rico.) Page 428. As published in Latino Studies vol. 2003, No. 1, (pp. 424–444). 2003. Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan, Ltd. (1476-3435/03) www.palgrave-journals.com/lst.
Most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong
to a distinct nation — as validated in their participation in such international
displays of nationhood as Olympic and professional sports and beauty pageants.
We are in agreement that what we might feel more generically about that concept should not come into play. We are also in agreement that Duany is stating that "most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation" in the limited context of beauty pageants and Olympics. Agreed?
I believe where we disagree is in the goal for the content of that section. You seem to be saying, "beauty pageants and Olympics and let's leave it at that, whereas I am saying "The Duany text is incomplete as far as the reality of how Puerto Ricans see themselves: let's add more citations to show that Most Puerto Ricans now insist they belong to a distinct nation as validated by -- not only beauty pageants and Olympics -- but also by a myriad of other issues." Do you object to that? Mercy11 ( talk) 04:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Mitchell, thanks for bringing that statement to light. I have removed it entirely and replaced with 3 other citations that speak to the issue of the subsection in question ("Distinct National Group > Amongst Puerto Ricans") without involving the matter of Beauty Pageants or Olympic Team which is distracting and which also appeared to be at the center of our discussion. Hopefully the wording in the new citations will sit better with your expectations as well. Regards, Mercy11 ( talk) 01:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
You issued a final warning to this IP today. Its text has been vandalized by the IP. FYI. -- Hordaland ( talk) 07:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Let 4chan do their work. What they are currently doing to Billy Mays is an honorable thing, not a work of vandalism. Look past the stupidity of it all, and you'd see that it is actually something worth keeping. 74.176.180.190 ( talk) 21:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for you edit here. I missed that when I reverted the blanking and should have added it. QuAz GaA 16:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
please respond on my chat/talk.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roflcopter835 ( talk • contribs) 12:12, September 20, 2010
Thank you for correcting some of my clumsy editing on this article, very much appreciated, and apologies for the inconvenience caused. Matthew.hartington ( talk) 07:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to edit a page when another editor stepped in and reverted the page back to its previous condition, stating no one prisoner is more notable than another. It was for a correctional institution. I had added a notable inmates section, which I noticed most other prisons also have. I even provided the editor with a list of some. Then they said it was because of recentism. I stated that the information provided would still be relevant in ten years. What is your take on this? Should I undo their change and keep the section? Thanks, LewisArmistead46 ( talk) 08:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I got a question, if the "Kennedy administration authorized the use of chemicals to destroy rice crops", but it wasn't to starve the people, then what was it for? Was it cause Kennedy hated the taste of rice?-- Propaganda328 ( talk) 07:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
For a short time on the first day of the gulf war I noticed a problem with the navigational gps in my Toyota vehicle. Regardless of what destination I entered, it always used THE WHITE HOUSE as its destination. I haven't yet, found anyone else that noticed a problem like this. I thought that it could have been some form of gps satellite jamming happening. It only lasted for less than an hour. Have you or anyone you know heard about this? My vehicle was in the huntington beach area of southern california. WoofHound ( talk) 20:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me? Care to explain how my edit was unconstructive? I fixed a bad sentence with misplaced spacing and reverted earlier vandalism that removed the language links and replaced then with a random youtube link. ferret ( talk) 12:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
On the recent to the article, I reverted it because that wasn't the problem. The problem is core doesn't support a way to distinquish which author in a multiple part division of an article talks about what. For something that is as contriversial as cultural divisions of RPGs, there needs to be a way to clearly note who is being paraphrased. Since some of those items also come from multiple sources, using "according to XXXX" doesn't work here either.
EDIY: Also duplicating the source with a different author would simply be removed as a duplicate source. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
A long time ago you were part of the discussion on the WP:BELIEFS proposal. I went away for a while and I am trying to come back slowly, so I thought I would start with updating that page and reactivating the conversation. Please join in if you still would like to be part of that discussion. Low Sea ( talk) 20:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The way it was states previously is correct. Retirement, voluntary or involuntary, of four-star officers is a bit complex. Retirement is covered under multiple subsections of Title 10 of the U.S. Code. Please look under "Retirement" in the List of active duty United States four-star officers for a more detailed explaination and example on four-star retirement. Use see, four-stars are forced to retire and not revert back to their permanent grades due to promotion mobility of junior officers. While the law does allow for an former four-star to stay on active duty at his or her permanent two-star rank until statutory limit, this has not been exercised since World War II. Neovu79 ( talk) 21:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Wtmitchell.
As you are 'No 1 editor' (by editcount) on
Citizenship I wanted to let you know that I have restored 2 large sections, "Commonwealth citizenship" and "European Union (EU) citizenship". These were deleted by IP editors, one as long ago as 17 April 2009 the other on 24 August 2010. There was no edit summary given or any obvious reason for their removal.
The article is probably a bit messed up or out of rational order now. Perhaps you can have a look?
ps. Are you aware of admin.
HJ Mitchell (
talk ·
contribs)? -
220.101
talk
\Contribs
09:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Wtmitchell, your edit of Template:Refref deleted the page's documentation. Could you explain? -- Bsherr ( talk) 15:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I recently joined the wikiproject citation cleanup and wanted to know if this is good enough to remove the tag citation style, or if it needs more work. (See here for the diff [7].) If there is anything more that needs work, please let me know. Thanks! Reaper Eternal ( talk) 02:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
This edit is an excellent piece of work. I'm imagining it took you quite some time to dig up and summarize all that information. Victor Victoria ( talk) 01:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the copypaste tag (and providing the source too!) on that article. Basically, the content I removed was copied from http://www.army.mil.ph/About_the_army/army/history/history.html. As you are currently an administrator at the moment if you can revdelete the revisions that have the copyrighted text it would be great. Minima c ( talk) 17:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
You're most certainly welcome Wtmitchell. I think that's something we all do at least once or twice. Thanks for your note of appreciation! -- WikHead ( talk) 02:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Do you remember when you went through and eliminated <cite> spans throughout Wikipedia? I have two questions:
Thanks Bill. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 16:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
XHTML is a family of current and future document types and modules that reproduce, subset, and extend HTML 4
The cite element now solely represents the title of a work (e.g. a book, a paper, an essay, a poem, a score, a song, a script, a film, a TV show, a game, a sculpture, a painting, a theatre production, a play, an opera, a musical, an exhibition, a legal case report, etc). Specifically the example in HTML4 where it is used to mark up the name of a person is no longer considered conforming.
Please do not
delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at
Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be
vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
24.177.121.39 (
talk)
08:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Wtmitchell, Boracay Bill, I appreciate your contributions very much regarding secondary sources on the Earl Killian article. Clearly you have researching and computer skills that few people have. Salamat sa inyo. Ako ay ipinanganak sa Chicago masyadong. :) -- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 23:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated History of the Philippines for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer ( talk) 02:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not a huge deal for me, either. I just don't see the need to repeat. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if by chance you had an alternate account by the name of "HJMitchell" it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! -- Monterey Bay ( talk) 07:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate a piss off or screw you and your article before you just erase it and give me no explanation but and I quote "not useful without link and with link MIGHT be considered SPAM. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Then I express my self for comment on the talk board and you just erase it to so I receive NO FEEDBACK ------------WTF? I can see the reviews below about you are true. Your like the Gestapo of boracay article. Next time, try dropping a email to the poster or a message why you felt it needed to be erased then give your help to fix the segment. For you to just erase someones writing makes you an asshole. If you don't see my point than you are really negligent to the article. What I wrote was valid and perfect for topic and ON TOPIC. Half the stuff in the Boracay article is rubbish and you just erase something pertinent --------- I don't get it.
Ok, lets examine what you said: not useful without links - ok, 1. I could create a page in Wikipedia about boracay live cameras then link it to that page. correct --(thats 1 option) 2. I could have a link put on it to live cameras with a no follow on it so it is not benefiting the commercial sites for popularity. -- (thats another option) 3. I could paste the link static next to the article ( thats another option)
See, I have given you three options to fix the article, but no you just erase! That is messed up!
The kicker is that you have a external link to street maps and Google Videos and your concerned that a link to live cameras is SPAM when these two external links are SPAM and as you said NOT USEFUL without a link.
I like this article I wrote so lets figure out a way to incorporate it - Just erasing it, well that just means your the owner of the article and nobody can contribute ---- then I will go make my own somewhere else. WHAT'S THE USE IF YOU ERASE EVERYTHING ADDED !!!!!!!!!!! Maybe I am wrong, I would like some feedback from other writers.
As you can see - I AM PISSED!
-
- Boracay Island visualization can only go so far through pictures. See an array of Boracay Beach Cameras to actually see what Boracay looks like and to actually see the weather, what to expect and more. Live Boracay cameras boost tourism and promotes Filipino pride. See the beauty that is Boracay, Philippines in your own eyes.
- -
-
-
I've just reported him to WP:AIV. Your 31 hour block made absolutely no difference. I think we have a POV vandal here. Dragonfire X ( talk) 10:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your article and for the recent edit. As a parent of half Filipino children I found it useful RWIR ( talk) 22:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't mean to challenge your assertion of expertise, but I wonder about the basis of that assertion. Could you expand on that? How did you become an expert? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
i work for a well known travel agency. I have stayed in almost every resort in boracay, I know almost every GM and Owner and close friends to many, I live there in Boracay about 3-4 months out of the year, I know every resort sales office in Makati were I live. I been doing this for 10-15 years. I fly to Boracay for FREE with my influences. I know every airlines management team. I know all routes to boracay, I know all politics in Boracay from how the police operate to the Mayor, I know of all environmental bullshit, vendors association, I even video typed the last major fire on Oct. 27, 2010. I have probably meet you when you had your resort. Trust me ---- I am an expert! I probably know more stuff about Boracay than you and you live there. I say that just because i am in the stream of it all from resorts to politics. If I told you my name, You would know me. Just like if I wanted to find you, I just ask around and in less than an hour I would know were you live ----IF you still live in Boracay. All that from your personal page info and giving the name of the resort you owned and your wifes name, DOB, ect. I know all the old timers in Boracay personally! I am sure you meet me! Anyways, you dont like my addition - thats cool - nevermind. I hope you took my advise and took a good look at your boracay page. It's just copied, rubbish with no meat. The only reason it is number 2 in search engine is because wikipedia has so many pages which equal hits -- SEO 101. Just my observation that it is just to generalized. To each there own. The beach cameras is something totally new to Boracay. I will give you an example of my expertise in Boracay. The beach camera of Nigi Nigi too which is owned by my friend Jason. He runs a cable about 50 meters to the beach and in a wooden box he has a logitec cpu camera for indoors that cost $25 using basic internet. This is why the image suffers but you can atleast see the weather which by the way he owns boracayweather.com . I know crazy shit nobody even thinks about to what everyone thinks about. Anyways, i thought webcam links to live cameras of Boracay would be useful info - I guess you think otherwise ---- so I wish you luck on your article --- I wont change it again!!!!!!
Not sure if you noticed - but there is a similar question already posted here... just not sure if you wanted to double up. Thanks. 7 03:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The Panama Canal Zone doesnt even exist as a separate entity anymore, let alone an independent country. So I stand by that edit. I also stand by the others, especially the reorganisation of the leading paragraph to group together the arguments being made, and requested under the Jefferson quote. I'd appreciate a little more effort to explain such a sweeping reversal than a link to the page which proves my edit is correct! Mdw0 ( talk) 05:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Content
(I originally posted this in the Spanish-American War talk page; but, since I’m waiting for your reply before I make additional edits, I thought I would repost it again here. Please excuse the redundancy.)
Dear Wtmitchell,
Thanks for your comments and your edits. I’ve received far too little feedback to date. So, it is with some pleasure that I welcome yours. I would, however, like to make my ideas on the context and organization of the article a little clearer.
When I constructed the revision, I debated how to best introduce the concept of US Expansionism. I believe it’s important to ground historical events in their proper context. Since popular attitudes toward expansion in turn-of-the-century America exerted enormous influence over policy makers, it would be absurd to avoid mentioning the concept in an explanation of the 1898 war with Spain. And, while I can understand the natural sensitivity to the subject of US expansion (a mere euphemism for US empire building), I don’t see how this could be construed as inveighing the “evils of American expansionism.” I believe I worked very hard to explain US expansionism in the most concise and neutral way possible. Stating that expansion was quite popular in turn-of-the-century US discourse is demonstrably true. Associating expansion with “evil,” as you seem to do, is a value judgment based on your own understanding of expansion (or empire) that is in no way implied in the text. If you believe there are any negative qualifiers in the explanation that could be purged, I’d welcome your edits.
As for the Monroe Doctrine, you are quite right. In fact, I’ll do you one better. Neither the Monroe Doctrine nor Roosevelt’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine exerted much influence on US attitudes toward Cuba in 1898. This was precisely the idea that I was attempting to convey. I debated whether or not to mention the Monroe Doctrine at all. I came to the conclusion, however, that, because the Monroe Doctrine has become such large part of how Americans continue to popularly understand US expansion, I could not ignore it entirely. This is why I chose to explain that Roosevelt’s Corollary (which I accurately noted was “a policy he developed years after the campaign in Cuba”) is what made the Monroe Doctrine “an effective vehicle for U.S. expansion and international intervention.” This does not mean, as you say, that the corollary is “irrelevant to the history of the Spanish-American War.” Rather, they are intimately related. The process of causation, however, runs from war to corollary, not corollary to war. I think we could work together to make this relationship more clear in the article.
Don’t get me wrong; I understand your edit. And, I understand why you would want to remove (or at least put in a footnote) mention of Roosevelt’s corollary. I took on rewriting this article primarily because it had degenerated into a list of autonomous statements that gave the article an awkward flow. I fear that your edit, in the way it currently stands, constitutes a return to that sad tradition. I humbly propose that we either collaborate on how to make the transition from the Monroe Doctrine to western expansion a little smoother or simply remove mention of it all together. I’ll respectfully wait for your response before I make any changes to these ends.
As for your fear that this article has a “substantial POV thrust,” I must emphatically agree. All history has a point of view. To paraphrase the late historian E. H. Carr,
To say this another way—and I don’t intend to be condescending, but this is something that’s commonly misunderstood about history—there are an infinite number of historical facts. The process of selecting facts as well as the order you place them in are both parts of the interpretive process. If you think any of the statements I’ve made are false, by all means you should correct them. But simply noting that there is a point of view is not something that should alone warrant alarm.
As I wrote above, I’ll patiently wait for your response before I make any edits. -- JCWBB ( talk) 21:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you reverted my edits to Glenn Beck, and I understand why. Would it be acceptable for me to change "low debt" to "low debt"? this seems clearer to me, as "low debt" could be understood to be personal debt, or some other kind, and the text should still line up with the reference. Thank you, Efcmagnew ( talk) 17:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to ask your opinion if you think comfort women during world war two for the Japanese military should be included in the article on human trafficking in the Philippines? kind regards Susanbryce ( talk) 04:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
|
Congratulations in becoming a contestant in the
Unreferenced Biographies of You will be given further instructions soon. Questions? Good luck! | |||||||||||||||||||
I was just botted, the unbooted. Although I created this project, I think my continuation maybe hampering its growth. So I am asking others to take the reigns and run with this project. You have good suggestions. I suggest you take a greater role, and boldly make some of the changes you suggest. Okip BLP Contest 01:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The rules of the contest have been changed significantly since you signed up. Please check out the new page and its subpages. Any input as to how to improve any part of it would be greatly welcomed. J04n( talk page) 02:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
i am ashley who r u — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.157.139.58 ( talk • contribs) 02:54, February 25, 2010
RE:
[1]
Thank you for the links you provided, I will look at them later! Your comments were the most useful, I truly appreciate it!
Okip
03:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure what vandalism you thought you were reverting here, but the inclusion of the links to Wiktionary and to German Wikipedia were certainly not vandalism. + An gr 10:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I have been working on a template for nesting references at {{ Refn}}. I just stumbled across a proposal you made some time back on this. I would appreciate if you would take a look at it and respond to comments on the talk page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
*This is an example.{{refn|This is a note.<ref>This is an included reference.</ref>|group=note}} *This is an example.{{refn|This is a note.<ref name=noteabc group=note>This is an included reference named noteabc.</ref>}} ;refs *<ref name=abc>this is a ref named abc</ref> *{{refn|this is a test}} *This is a ref of a named refn{{refn|name=name|this is a named test}} *This is a reused ref of a named refn<ref name=name /> *{{refn|name=ref1|this ref1 includes two notes<!-- -->{{refn|group=note|name=ref1note1|this is ref1note1 and it refs ref1note2<!-- -->{{refn|group=note|name=ref1note2|this is ref1note2}}<!-- -->}} }} *{{refn|name=ref2|this ref2 includes two notes<!-- -->{{refn|group=note|name=ref2note1|this is ref2note1 and it refs ref1note2<!-- -->{{refn|name=ref2note2|group=note|this is ref2note2}}<!-- -->}} }} ;references {{reflist}} ;notes {{reflist|group=note}}
Apoc2400 ( talk) 16:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
See User:Gadget850/dbsearch/cite 2010-Feb-03. About 75 templates and 2500 articles. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 01:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
<cite>...</cite>
is only for titles. With the push towards HTML 5, this is a good reason to clean it up now. You might note that the examples of incorrect usage are from Wikipedia— I would not be surprised if we weren't one of the major violators. We now have a number of templates on the cite list up for TfD (they should go regardless) and are looking at more. I knew I would find more ref templates once I did that search. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
18:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Hi Bill. Is the action plan on this to go though these articles and remove the cite tags? (By replacing them with more conventional Wikipedia techniques to get similar effects?) I doubt there would be any objection. And we should also remove any remaining examples in the guidelines that use them. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 07:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I fixed 100 Greatest African-Americans, and I noticed that you fixed 1900 BCE Near East mass migration. I think it's a bit better to replace this:
<cite id=<anchor name> >{{cite book <citation parameters>}}</cite>
directly with this:
{{cite book | ref=<anchor name> <citation parameters>}}
and avoid the redundant call to Wikicite. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 07:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice work. I've just checked a bunch more, and you've already been there. How far did you get? ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 07:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
<cite>...</cite>
highlighting recently stopped working (see
here). My using that for a {{
Cite book}} cite was a mistake.{{
cite xxx}}
templates. The plan was to quickly follow up those changes by putting changes similar to the Citation changes into {{
Cite book}} and {{
Cite journal}}. Unfortunately, the Citation/core changes had problems (see the talk page there) which, hopefully, are now solved. If no more problems surface in a few days, I'm planning to bring Cite book and Cite Journal up to date re the coauthors parameter in a few days.It seems like the recent change to Citation/core may have broken something in the templates. See this query about dates suddenly showing up twice. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 09:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The first mentioned of the above was a complaint about dates showing up twice, which said to look here to see the problem. I looked, and don't see the problem.
The second complained that editor fields weren't working, saying to look here. I looked, and editor fields seem to be working.
The third also concerned editor fields, pointing to the second example here. I looked, and the editor fields seem to be working.
This is being discussed here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Dude, are you aware that you just misspelled a word and uncapitalized the beginning of a sentence with your last edit to Glenn Beck? Just wanted to make sure you know. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 05:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Tolerance = no impirsonments and execution or maltreatment for religious minorities. It was just a type of patience. It was enough to stop the religious genocides, but it was not more! Freedom: when the government declared the equality of religions. The government, the political leaders (royal/imperial advisors) and the leaders of armies contains religious minorities. Religious Freedom or Equality = when your mental constitutions and beliefs doesn't stop your state career or the rise of your career into the highest power-structure of the society. And it didn't exist in most Western European countries until the end of 19th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.251.238 (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Forexample: A catholic PM was unimaginable in Britain in the 19th century. A protestant president was unimaginable in France in the 19th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.251.238 (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Go to the discussion of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.143.25 ( talk • contribs) 17:10, April 6, 2010
Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 03:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Bill, in regards to your recent edit on the Presidency of Barack Obama article that stated you were fixing the quote to reflect the direct quote from the source, removing the portion that stated "The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures of most of the blue chip indexes out there". The quote removed is actually in the cited source video interview. On the page the source directs user to. For reference, if one doesn't want to view the video interview, there is a transcript of the show here. With the portion that you've removed on page 3 of the transcript here. I had this in my archives when I fixed the quote recently when reverting an IP who had altered the section with vandalism. DD2K ( talk) 15:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, so I edited the Timeline of United States Military Operations because it had wrong information. I knew from doing previous research that Al Qaeda chemist/nuclear weapons expert Midhat Mursi was actually not killed in the 2006 US air strike in Pakistan. He was reported dead, but it later turned out that he had not been killed. He was actually killed in 2008 by another US air strike. Here are some links citing this information: (pseudo death 2006) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/specials/terror/omar.html, (pseudo death 2006) http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/profile_pdf/Abu-Khabab.pdf, (post death 2008) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/28/terror/main4301490.shtml, (post death 2008) http://www.ctc.usma.edu/sentinel/CTCSentinel_Vol1Iss9.pdf (page 25)
I do thank you for correcting me though, because I did not cite my information properly. I don't really understand the wikipedia format and when I finished editing the page, only one part of my edit came up. I'll try fixing this, but if I can't, could you please? The death of an Al Qaeda "inner circle" member is an important event that should be presented accurately (especially for students like me!).
Thanks, 67.83.159.218 ( talk) 21:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC) alex
thank you for your help! 67.83.159.218 ( talk)alex
Re your {{
uw-test1}}
on
Treeflu (
talk ·
contribs) - I've since reverted all his other edits because they were clearly vandalism. However, I've not slapped a {{
uw-vandalism2}}
(or higher) on him, since he's not been active since prior to your message. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
09:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I definitely agree with you about this article. I stumbled across it while studying for a U.S. history final and it was in terrible shape! I spent about an hour working with the introduction to at least make the beginning acceptable, although the article itself still has some major problems. Anyways, I'll probably be looking to edit some of the content in the next few days, and I just wanted to stop by and thank you for helping remove some of the poor writing! Xenocide Talk| Contributions 02:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The anon user 203.84.189.136 and his sockpuppets for repeated vandalism and inserting libellous statements and lies in BLP. Thnx
Thank you. Can you also check his IP range and block them? I suspect this guy uses many sockpuppets/anon IP. I see many vandalisms in Philippine related articles esp BLP. anonymous IPs inserting and replacing facts with lies. Thx.
·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
My edit of this page was in good faith. The section I reverted was poorly written and ignored the convention that academic sources are referred to in the present tense, no matter when they were written. Perhaps I could have been bolder, but I'm not sure I deserved to be called "stupid." That's a particularly dangerous word to throw around a user-edited resource like wikipedia. Peccavimus ( talk) 04:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey there Wtmitchell, just dropping by to let you know I've tlx'd the {{
RFCU}} template on your sandbox, as it was causing the page to show up in
Category:SPI requests for pre-CheckUser review, please let me know if there's a problem with this. Also, as a side note the range of the two IPs listed on the page appears to be
122.55.48.0/20 (
block range ·
block log (
global) ·
WHOIS (partial)) (4096 addresses). Kind regards,
Spitfire
Tally-ho!
11:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me Sir, but what is this all about. I did not do anything bad to the Iglesia ni Cristo article. When I reviewed the edit history, the so called "personal commentary" was added by this user: Angrybot and not me. I did not notice it so I edited as I planned without adding any "personal commentary" to the article. IronBreww ( talk) 03:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Would you please explain why
you reverted
these comments of mine on the Sharia talk page with an edit marked as "minor" and an edit summary of "edit copy". As far as I can tell, all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines were well satisfied by my comments, and your reversion of them was neither a minor edit nor an edit copy. On the contrary, it would appear to me to have been a clear violation of
Wikipedia's talk page guidelines.
David Wilson (
talk ·
cont)
23:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Jac16888 Talk 17:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
My apologies for the temper of the remarks on Demographics of the US. The hardcopy did indeed say 41% and labeled that as the highest ever. However, the softcopy, available to you, did not. I assumed, wrongly that it did. I have had mild problems with "mismatched" material before and will mention it on some FOOTnote discussion and see where I get with it. Normally, I copy "box" scores from local papers. I use softcopy ref for credibility but the box score isn't on softcopy, only hard. I mention that in a comment. So this is far from the worst mismatch I've had. Close enough, I suppose. Just startling to me, since I knew what I read (and was copying at the time I wrote it!). Maybe when the link goes dead I can revert it back! :) Thanks for your kindly rejoinder on my page, considering what you were reading and what I was writing! Student7 ( talk) 23:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Please do not bite on newcomers. It says on the very same page, if you have healthy eyes to read of course, that Michelle Malkin was born in the Philippines. Not everything in Wikipedia contains sources and doesn't need to. Do not mislead others into thinking correct information is vandalism. And watch your temper. Fhank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.57.255 ( talk • contribs) 08:53, May 25, 2010
Hi, I'm putting together a template that cites signs (tourist information signs, grave markers, building cornerstones, museum placards, etc), and I need a little help. I've got the basic syntax down, but it isn't parsing correctly, and I'm obviously missing something. Can you take a look at my code and make some suggestions or tweaks? Right now, it is living at User:Noraft/Sandbox/3. By the way, I noticed you live in Boracay. I'm an expat living in Manila. Did you know Wikimedia Philippines just incorporated here in April? Anyway, thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 02:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
{{User:Wtmitchell/Draft1
|title=Cathedral Information
|subject=St. Michael's Cathedral
|date=12 May 1993
|format=Information placard
|site=in the courtyard
|publisher=Roman Catholic Church
|location=Qingdao, China
|viewdate= 21 February 2010}}
Office Name Term President of the Cabinet [1] [2] [3] [2] Apolinario Mabini January 2 – May 7, 1899 [3] Pedro Paterno May 7 – November 13, 1899 [3] [a] Secretary of Foreign Affairs [1] [2] Apolinario Mabini October 1, 1898 – May 7, 1899 [3] Secretary of the Interior [1] [2] Teodoro Sandico January 2 – May 7, 1899 [3] Secretary of Finance [1] [2] Mariano Trías January 2 – May 7, 1899 [3] Hugo Ilagan May 7 – November 13, 1899 [3] [a] Severino de las Alas May 7 – November 13, 1899 [3] [a] Secretary of War and Marine [1] [2] Baldomero Aguinaldo July 15, 1898 – May 7, 1899 [3] Mariano Trías May 7 – November 13, 1899 [3] [a] Secretary of Justice Gregorio Araneta September 2, 1898 – May 7, 1899 [3] Secretary of Welfare [1] [2] [b] Gracio Gonzaga January 2 – May 7, 1899 [3] Felipe Buencamino May 7 – November 13, 1899 [3] [a] Maximo Paterno May 7 – November 13, 1899 [3] [a] Secretary of Agriculture, Industry and Commerce [1] [2] León María Guerrero May 7 – November 13, 1899 [3] [a] Notes:
- ^ a b c d e f g Several sources assert that shortly after installation of the Paterno cabinet, General Antonio Luna arrested Paterno and some or all of the cabinet secretaries. [4] [5] At least one source asserts that the Mabini cabinet was reinstalled after the arrests. [5] Another source asserts that those arrested were released on orders of President Aguinaldo, but does not provide any indication about whether the Mabini or the Paterno cabinet was in office after the release. [4]
- ^ In the Mabini cabinet, the Secretary of Welfare had responsibility for Public Instruction, Communications & Public Works, and Agriculture, Industry & Commerce. [3]
See → User talk:LightAj#Clarifications requested ← for further details. Regards. -- Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 17:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
If you check out User:Noraft/Sandbox you'll see I got most of the parameters working. Only problem is I can't control their order. Well, not the ONLY problem, but the one I'm thinking of right now. Any ideas? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
{{template_name |p1=''This is the text to place in the first-displayed parameter, italicized'' |p3='''{{orange (color)|This is the text to place in the third-displayed parameter, bolded and colored orange}}''' |p2='''This is the text to place in the second-displayed parameter, bolded''' }}
*{{:User:Wtmitchell/Draft1|p1=a|p2=b}}
*{{:User:Wtmitchell/Draft1|p2=a|p1=b|sep=.}}
*{{:User:Wtmitchell/Draft1|p3='''Third param -- bold'''|p1=First param|p2='''''Second param, bold itals'''''|sep={{;}}}}
What's the difference between ISBN-10 and ISBN-13? -- Foofighter20x ( talk) 07:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for my poorly judged intervention. Your edit is perfectly valid and please continue in like vein at this and related articles. Best. RashersTierney ( talk) 00:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I had a problem relating to the use of freehand anchors. There was no link from the (shortened note) to the Reference. I have described the problem at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Further_considerations#No link from Notes to References when using method outlined in Using freehand anchors. Thank you. Vyeh ( talk) 10:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. You undid all of my edits to this page. I'm not sure how to interpret your edit summary. Did you intend to do that? - Richard Cavell ( talk) 23:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
You contributed to Criticism of the New York Times if you have an opinion, come to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 4. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 16:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Please see who made this diff, it's not my bot... http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Governor-General_of_the_Philippines&diff=next&oldid=369735838
Hi there. I am not sure if you are still watching Talk:Dog meat, so I write a quick not here.
I would like to say that I am somewhat frustrated with the whole dog meat image thing, but I am writing with a smile. It's hard sometimes to convey an attitude over the Internet, but I am not a meany.
I don't know what { { od } } means. Can you please tell me?
If you look at the diff you refer to in this comment, you will see that I had nothing to do with it.
For the record, could you please comment on this on the dog meat talk page?
Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 10:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Last month, you added a citation to a book from the " Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. [6]). I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. I'm removing a lot of similar references as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name " Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences& Windows 02:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
...for your contibution to the article Dog meat, subsection Ancient Mexico. Chrisrus ( talk) 10:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I request you to please block user User:Conrad940 for repeated vandalism and removal of sourced statements on the Iglesia ni Cristo article. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.68.106.13 ( talk • contribs) 10:28, August 12, 2010
Replied. -- Foofighter20x ( talk) 14:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Wtmitchell. I removed the unsupported descriptions by the source you added to Horse meat. In addition, I don't think it is labeled as Baniku. "Baniku" is rather straightforward even in Japan, so it is unlikely to use for its label. (instead, Sakura niku may be used.) I can't believe in the description "This canned meat is widely sold in convenience stores ("combis") and supermarkets" from my personal experience. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 ( talk) 11:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit because it focuses too much on the Olympics. The citation, in pages 462, 28, 35, 36, and 38, explains that the reason Puerto Ricans consider themselves a distcint nation is because of their common language, the jibaro and Taino heritages, the santos carving folk art, the non denial of Puerto Ricans of PR as their homeland and their common race, and because they share the same territory, language, and culture. In addition, it is not only Duany the one that maintains Puerto Ricand see themselves as a distinct nation. There are other sources, such as de la Garza, Morris, Levinson and Sparrow, plus a long list of prominent exponents who recently paraded thru the UN while the Committee of 24 discussed the case of PR. Regards, Mercy11 ( talk) 06:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Although Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States classified as a commonwealth, it is considered by many Puerto Ricans a country in and of itself. "Most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation."
Most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation – as validated in their participation in such international displays of nationhood as Olympic and professional sports and beauty pageants.
Most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation.Nation, Migration, Identity: The Case Puerto Ricans. by Jorge Duany. (University of Puerto Rico, Rıo Piedras, Puerto Rico.) Page 428. As published in Latino Studies vol. 2003, No. 1, (pp. 424–444). 2003. Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan, Ltd. (1476-3435/03) www.palgrave-journals.com/lst.
Most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation.Nation, Migration, Identity: The Case Puerto Ricans. by Jorge Duany. (University of Puerto Rico, Rıo Piedras, Puerto Rico.) Pages 428, 435-436, and 438, and 462. As published in Latino Studies vol. 2003, No. 1, (pp. 424–444). 2003. Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan, Ltd. (1476-3435/03) www.palgrave-journals.com/lst.
Although Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States classified as a commonwealth, it is considered by many Puerto Ricans a country in and of itself. "Most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation."
Jorge Duany, Chair and Professor of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the University of Puerto Rico, writes that ...
Although Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States classified as a commonwealth, it is considered by many Puerto Ricans a country in and of itself. "Most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation."
Most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation.Nation, Migration, Identity: The Case Puerto Ricans. by Jorge Duany. (University of Puerto Rico, Rıo Piedras, Puerto Rico.) Page 428. As published in Latino Studies vol. 2003, No. 1, (pp. 424–444). 2003. Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan, Ltd. (1476-3435/03) www.palgrave-journals.com/lst.
Most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong
to a distinct nation — as validated in their participation in such international
displays of nationhood as Olympic and professional sports and beauty pageants.
We are in agreement that what we might feel more generically about that concept should not come into play. We are also in agreement that Duany is stating that "most Puerto Ricans now insist that they belong to a distinct nation" in the limited context of beauty pageants and Olympics. Agreed?
I believe where we disagree is in the goal for the content of that section. You seem to be saying, "beauty pageants and Olympics and let's leave it at that, whereas I am saying "The Duany text is incomplete as far as the reality of how Puerto Ricans see themselves: let's add more citations to show that Most Puerto Ricans now insist they belong to a distinct nation as validated by -- not only beauty pageants and Olympics -- but also by a myriad of other issues." Do you object to that? Mercy11 ( talk) 04:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Mitchell, thanks for bringing that statement to light. I have removed it entirely and replaced with 3 other citations that speak to the issue of the subsection in question ("Distinct National Group > Amongst Puerto Ricans") without involving the matter of Beauty Pageants or Olympic Team which is distracting and which also appeared to be at the center of our discussion. Hopefully the wording in the new citations will sit better with your expectations as well. Regards, Mercy11 ( talk) 01:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
You issued a final warning to this IP today. Its text has been vandalized by the IP. FYI. -- Hordaland ( talk) 07:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Let 4chan do their work. What they are currently doing to Billy Mays is an honorable thing, not a work of vandalism. Look past the stupidity of it all, and you'd see that it is actually something worth keeping. 74.176.180.190 ( talk) 21:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for you edit here. I missed that when I reverted the blanking and should have added it. QuAz GaA 16:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
please respond on my chat/talk.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roflcopter835 ( talk • contribs) 12:12, September 20, 2010
Thank you for correcting some of my clumsy editing on this article, very much appreciated, and apologies for the inconvenience caused. Matthew.hartington ( talk) 07:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to edit a page when another editor stepped in and reverted the page back to its previous condition, stating no one prisoner is more notable than another. It was for a correctional institution. I had added a notable inmates section, which I noticed most other prisons also have. I even provided the editor with a list of some. Then they said it was because of recentism. I stated that the information provided would still be relevant in ten years. What is your take on this? Should I undo their change and keep the section? Thanks, LewisArmistead46 ( talk) 08:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I got a question, if the "Kennedy administration authorized the use of chemicals to destroy rice crops", but it wasn't to starve the people, then what was it for? Was it cause Kennedy hated the taste of rice?-- Propaganda328 ( talk) 07:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
For a short time on the first day of the gulf war I noticed a problem with the navigational gps in my Toyota vehicle. Regardless of what destination I entered, it always used THE WHITE HOUSE as its destination. I haven't yet, found anyone else that noticed a problem like this. I thought that it could have been some form of gps satellite jamming happening. It only lasted for less than an hour. Have you or anyone you know heard about this? My vehicle was in the huntington beach area of southern california. WoofHound ( talk) 20:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me? Care to explain how my edit was unconstructive? I fixed a bad sentence with misplaced spacing and reverted earlier vandalism that removed the language links and replaced then with a random youtube link. ferret ( talk) 12:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
On the recent to the article, I reverted it because that wasn't the problem. The problem is core doesn't support a way to distinquish which author in a multiple part division of an article talks about what. For something that is as contriversial as cultural divisions of RPGs, there needs to be a way to clearly note who is being paraphrased. Since some of those items also come from multiple sources, using "according to XXXX" doesn't work here either.
EDIY: Also duplicating the source with a different author would simply be removed as a duplicate source. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
A long time ago you were part of the discussion on the WP:BELIEFS proposal. I went away for a while and I am trying to come back slowly, so I thought I would start with updating that page and reactivating the conversation. Please join in if you still would like to be part of that discussion. Low Sea ( talk) 20:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The way it was states previously is correct. Retirement, voluntary or involuntary, of four-star officers is a bit complex. Retirement is covered under multiple subsections of Title 10 of the U.S. Code. Please look under "Retirement" in the List of active duty United States four-star officers for a more detailed explaination and example on four-star retirement. Use see, four-stars are forced to retire and not revert back to their permanent grades due to promotion mobility of junior officers. While the law does allow for an former four-star to stay on active duty at his or her permanent two-star rank until statutory limit, this has not been exercised since World War II. Neovu79 ( talk) 21:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Wtmitchell.
As you are 'No 1 editor' (by editcount) on
Citizenship I wanted to let you know that I have restored 2 large sections, "Commonwealth citizenship" and "European Union (EU) citizenship". These were deleted by IP editors, one as long ago as 17 April 2009 the other on 24 August 2010. There was no edit summary given or any obvious reason for their removal.
The article is probably a bit messed up or out of rational order now. Perhaps you can have a look?
ps. Are you aware of admin.
HJ Mitchell (
talk ·
contribs)? -
220.101
talk
\Contribs
09:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Wtmitchell, your edit of Template:Refref deleted the page's documentation. Could you explain? -- Bsherr ( talk) 15:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I recently joined the wikiproject citation cleanup and wanted to know if this is good enough to remove the tag citation style, or if it needs more work. (See here for the diff [7].) If there is anything more that needs work, please let me know. Thanks! Reaper Eternal ( talk) 02:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
This edit is an excellent piece of work. I'm imagining it took you quite some time to dig up and summarize all that information. Victor Victoria ( talk) 01:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the copypaste tag (and providing the source too!) on that article. Basically, the content I removed was copied from http://www.army.mil.ph/About_the_army/army/history/history.html. As you are currently an administrator at the moment if you can revdelete the revisions that have the copyrighted text it would be great. Minima c ( talk) 17:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
You're most certainly welcome Wtmitchell. I think that's something we all do at least once or twice. Thanks for your note of appreciation! -- WikHead ( talk) 02:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Do you remember when you went through and eliminated <cite> spans throughout Wikipedia? I have two questions:
Thanks Bill. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 16:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
XHTML is a family of current and future document types and modules that reproduce, subset, and extend HTML 4
The cite element now solely represents the title of a work (e.g. a book, a paper, an essay, a poem, a score, a song, a script, a film, a TV show, a game, a sculpture, a painting, a theatre production, a play, an opera, a musical, an exhibition, a legal case report, etc). Specifically the example in HTML4 where it is used to mark up the name of a person is no longer considered conforming.
Please do not
delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at
Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be
vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
24.177.121.39 (
talk)
08:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Wtmitchell, Boracay Bill, I appreciate your contributions very much regarding secondary sources on the Earl Killian article. Clearly you have researching and computer skills that few people have. Salamat sa inyo. Ako ay ipinanganak sa Chicago masyadong. :) -- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 23:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated History of the Philippines for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer ( talk) 02:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not a huge deal for me, either. I just don't see the need to repeat. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if by chance you had an alternate account by the name of "HJMitchell" it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! -- Monterey Bay ( talk) 07:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate a piss off or screw you and your article before you just erase it and give me no explanation but and I quote "not useful without link and with link MIGHT be considered SPAM. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Then I express my self for comment on the talk board and you just erase it to so I receive NO FEEDBACK ------------WTF? I can see the reviews below about you are true. Your like the Gestapo of boracay article. Next time, try dropping a email to the poster or a message why you felt it needed to be erased then give your help to fix the segment. For you to just erase someones writing makes you an asshole. If you don't see my point than you are really negligent to the article. What I wrote was valid and perfect for topic and ON TOPIC. Half the stuff in the Boracay article is rubbish and you just erase something pertinent --------- I don't get it.
Ok, lets examine what you said: not useful without links - ok, 1. I could create a page in Wikipedia about boracay live cameras then link it to that page. correct --(thats 1 option) 2. I could have a link put on it to live cameras with a no follow on it so it is not benefiting the commercial sites for popularity. -- (thats another option) 3. I could paste the link static next to the article ( thats another option)
See, I have given you three options to fix the article, but no you just erase! That is messed up!
The kicker is that you have a external link to street maps and Google Videos and your concerned that a link to live cameras is SPAM when these two external links are SPAM and as you said NOT USEFUL without a link.
I like this article I wrote so lets figure out a way to incorporate it - Just erasing it, well that just means your the owner of the article and nobody can contribute ---- then I will go make my own somewhere else. WHAT'S THE USE IF YOU ERASE EVERYTHING ADDED !!!!!!!!!!! Maybe I am wrong, I would like some feedback from other writers.
As you can see - I AM PISSED!
-
- Boracay Island visualization can only go so far through pictures. See an array of Boracay Beach Cameras to actually see what Boracay looks like and to actually see the weather, what to expect and more. Live Boracay cameras boost tourism and promotes Filipino pride. See the beauty that is Boracay, Philippines in your own eyes.
- -
-
-
I've just reported him to WP:AIV. Your 31 hour block made absolutely no difference. I think we have a POV vandal here. Dragonfire X ( talk) 10:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your article and for the recent edit. As a parent of half Filipino children I found it useful RWIR ( talk) 22:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't mean to challenge your assertion of expertise, but I wonder about the basis of that assertion. Could you expand on that? How did you become an expert? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
i work for a well known travel agency. I have stayed in almost every resort in boracay, I know almost every GM and Owner and close friends to many, I live there in Boracay about 3-4 months out of the year, I know every resort sales office in Makati were I live. I been doing this for 10-15 years. I fly to Boracay for FREE with my influences. I know every airlines management team. I know all routes to boracay, I know all politics in Boracay from how the police operate to the Mayor, I know of all environmental bullshit, vendors association, I even video typed the last major fire on Oct. 27, 2010. I have probably meet you when you had your resort. Trust me ---- I am an expert! I probably know more stuff about Boracay than you and you live there. I say that just because i am in the stream of it all from resorts to politics. If I told you my name, You would know me. Just like if I wanted to find you, I just ask around and in less than an hour I would know were you live ----IF you still live in Boracay. All that from your personal page info and giving the name of the resort you owned and your wifes name, DOB, ect. I know all the old timers in Boracay personally! I am sure you meet me! Anyways, you dont like my addition - thats cool - nevermind. I hope you took my advise and took a good look at your boracay page. It's just copied, rubbish with no meat. The only reason it is number 2 in search engine is because wikipedia has so many pages which equal hits -- SEO 101. Just my observation that it is just to generalized. To each there own. The beach cameras is something totally new to Boracay. I will give you an example of my expertise in Boracay. The beach camera of Nigi Nigi too which is owned by my friend Jason. He runs a cable about 50 meters to the beach and in a wooden box he has a logitec cpu camera for indoors that cost $25 using basic internet. This is why the image suffers but you can atleast see the weather which by the way he owns boracayweather.com . I know crazy shit nobody even thinks about to what everyone thinks about. Anyways, i thought webcam links to live cameras of Boracay would be useful info - I guess you think otherwise ---- so I wish you luck on your article --- I wont change it again!!!!!!