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)
Thanks for your improvements here. -- Brangifer ( talk) 01:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
[1] is this an accident? -- Addi hockey 10 e-mail 00:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
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
-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 04:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
heard through the rumor mill that you started SocCulFLIP many decades ago.
Facebook Alex Fabros
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)
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_downloads.html
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)
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)
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
My change was constructive, I know that she died of apple poisoning because I AM HER SON, SIR. thank you, god bless
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}})
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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}})
It looks like this is possible. I responded at Template talk:collapsible list. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Undue tag. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC) (Using {{ pls}})
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Autonomic "Letter" or Autonomic "Charter"? Pr4ever ( talk) 11:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Done! I am waiting the second look! Thanks, -- Seablade ( talk) 07:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC) (This also been placed at User talk:Elockid)
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 )
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.
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)
Hello Wtmitchell! I hope you enjoy this brownie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 07:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC) |
At this revert summary. Indeed! :-) Graham 87 13:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
-- Seablade ( talk) 02:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
Salute! Sofialamberto ( talk) 08:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC) |
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Please explain the reason that you revert my last edit on that page. AlreadyDone ( talk) 04:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Seablade ( talk) 06:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
- 59.95.25.234 ( talk) 20:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
Thanks for your improvements here. -- Brangifer ( talk) 01:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
[1] is this an accident? -- Addi hockey 10 e-mail 00:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
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
-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 04:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
heard through the rumor mill that you started SocCulFLIP many decades ago.
Facebook Alex Fabros
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)
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_downloads.html
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)
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)
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
My change was constructive, I know that she died of apple poisoning because I AM HER SON, SIR. thank you, god bless
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}})
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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}})
It looks like this is possible. I responded at Template talk:collapsible list. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian American#Undue tag. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC) (Using {{ pls}})
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Autonomic "Letter" or Autonomic "Charter"? Pr4ever ( talk) 11:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Done! I am waiting the second look! Thanks, -- Seablade ( talk) 07:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 22:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC) (This also been placed at User talk:Elockid)
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 )
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.
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)
Hello Wtmitchell! I hope you enjoy this brownie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 07:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC) |
At this revert summary. Indeed! :-) Graham 87 13:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
-- Seablade ( talk) 02:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
Salute! Sofialamberto ( talk) 08:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC) |
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Please explain the reason that you revert my last edit on that page. AlreadyDone ( talk) 04:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Seablade ( talk) 06:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
- 59.95.25.234 ( talk) 20:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
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)