User talk:Wtmitchell/Archive 11 (2017)

I put a source for my edit regarding the Grenache election

but theres' plenty of sources it looks like u don t like my edit and is nothing to do with giving sources.

any way I edited and put the source and I will put it here to.

Obviously in French language you can find more evidence that Macron is loosing support.

http://www.thelocal.fr/20170216/frances-colonisation-of-algeria-was-crime-against-humanity

"Macron causes uproar by saying France's colonisation of Algeria was 'crime against humanity'"

Thank you for your attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariomusic (talk • contribs) 13:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to concern this revert.

I made the revert during a WP:Huggle session. It was based on just what I saw in Huggle's window as the article was displayed, which showed the change from "Polls for the second round of voting suggest either Fillon or Macron would beat Le Pen and that Fillon would defeat Macron." to "Polls for the second round of voting suggest either Fillon or Macron would beat Le Pen and that Macron would defeat Fillon." (emphasis added). Neither the changed-from nor the changed-to version cited a supporting source.

I have now looked at the article history and a more complete diff, which I had not done initially, and I see that the change (and the revert) had more extensive impact than that. I should have noticed that initially, and looked beyond that first unsupported bit and the unsupported change thereto.

I see from the article's edit history that there have been further edits since my revert. Presumably, these have addressed problems with the article content. I am not knowledgeable re the topic of the article, and have not looked at those changes except to observe that the current version of the article says, "[polls suggested that] Fillon would defeat Macron", still without citing a supporting source. Per WP:Burden, that ought to be supported or excised; I don't think that I have enough topical knowledge to confidently do that, though, even after looking at the Opinion polls section of the article and taking a quick look at the Opinion polling for the French presidential election, 2017 WP article. That other WP article (which is not a reliable source) doesn't seem to cite any supporting sources, though I see that there is a hatnote in it complaining about its use of external links.

I think that I had best leave it to others to straighten this out. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wtmitchell's block of AusLondonder. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 4 April 2017‎

Just so it's abundantly clear: The instant you log back in and see this it is imperative that you promptly respond to that thread, per WP:ADMINACCT. Failure to do so is likely to have serious repercussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep--and that message is ArbCom-endorsed. Wtmitchell, please let us know what's going on one way or the other. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the headsups. I've responded at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wtmitchell's block of AusLondonder. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wtmitchell

I have reviewed your response at ANI, and find it unsatisfactory. I posted an 8-point critique of the decision-making process you set out, and would appreciate your thoughts on it when you are back online.

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this reversion of a reversion done by an IP contributor at Japanese occupation of the Philippines. This is not in keeping with WP:BRD and can be seen as instigating an edit war.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I responded at Talk:Japanese occupation of the Philippines#Infobox formatting re placement of Hukbalahap. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tejeros Convention, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Naik. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the links. I don't know how to add them.

https://www.tni.org/en/archives/act/1859

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj4JMlDfYOQ&feature=related — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.123.249 (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Footnotes. Presuming that verifiable support is indisputable from the content there, at minimum you might just surround those URLs with <Ref> and </Ref> tags. If you do that, it is likely that some other editor with an interest in the topic will take the time to prettify the Refs. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the law of South Sudan (the discussion was started some days ago). Indeed, abortion is illegal, except in cases needed to save the life of the pregnant woman. So the map must be changed to red. The discussion is here: Talk:Abortion_law#South_Sudan_again 188.27.67.147 (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've made some changes to the article. See the article talk page for info. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but in this edit you removed a speedy deletion tag from Emilia Fazzalari, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you tell me why you reverted my edits? In particular, I'd be curious to know why you preserved the incorrect # of hours in a year.

Thanks, Sam Sampenrose (talk) 04:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ps would love to get your thoughts on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Price_per_watt#Maybe_simply_redirect_to_.22Cost_of_electricity_by_source.22

That was a bit of a drive-by reversion. It was sparked by the thought that your remark about operation costs and cost of pollution didn't really belong in a section headed Installation costs. Also, your comparison of coal with "renewables" having "low running costs" is unsupported and seems to flout WP:SOAP. Further down, the reversion of the insertion re capacity factor for wind power was an accident; that was a reversion of your just-previous edit, which got reverted along with the one which triggered this. Looking at the Wind subsection now, I see that it says that the U.S. had 74.5 GW of installed wind power capacity in 2015, then it seems to use 60 instead of 74.5 in its calculation of total wind generating capacity and the capacity factor. That seems to need another look. The article also seems to have some organizational issues, among them the lead para of the Capacity factor section discussing capacity factor for solar, and the Solar subsection there re-discussing that and giving a different figure (18% vs. "approximately 20%").

You seem to have some topical expertise, and I acknowledge that mine is minimal. If you want to clean some of this up, I'll try not to nitpick your edits. I think I saw your edit which bothered me during a WP:Huggle section and then dropped out of Huggle to consider reverting. My reversion caused the article to be added to my witchlist, and I'll remove it now. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. What about my observation on the talk page that the entire article appears to be fiction? Note that the original author did not cite sources and does not include energy among his many areas of interest: ^[1] Shall we just redirect it to the page I suggested, which does discuss a real term of art?Sampenrose (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I have little topical expertise. Merge or redirect? Whatever consensus develops on the article talk page is OK with me. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your fast work and feedback. You decided that my edit was not helpful. I am not sure if you meant is was not factual or it was a mistake or that it was a new fashion and not well known?

I actually am finding web pages such as at Nuwear swimwear and underwear that are now marketing and selling the Cover Male brand as both swimwear and underwear. The swimwear section has thongs, g strings and jockstraps. The jockstrap swimwear is on about page 6,7 or 8 and has numerous colors and is current and a new trend.

The same is true of the Joe Synder Brand. Listings are found at the Australian site, Deal by Ethan and in the product description of the web pages at Male Basics Usa, Joe Synder USA and England. The include swim briefs, swim thong swim g string and swim jockstraps for men. They can easily be verified as current and up to date in 2017. Icker Sea men's swimwear has a design brief jockstrap swimsuit can be bought today. N2N sold from 2011 to 2013 (approximately) a swimbrief with a jockstrap back as a swimwear-suit, not underwear. (This is a historical reference) Also a one sided or asymmetrical swim thong came out a few years ago in France and is still currently marketed. The issue of public use may or may not be a different subject. I thought this would be of interest to those looking for more choices in men's swimwear fashion in year 2017? So I leave the decision to you about updating Men's styles. Thanks for reading my suggestions for updating based on current online swimwear manufactures web pages. I do not know how to cite the http information or web site address but it is all on line! I will be watching for your potential updates! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cenkboy (talk • contribs) 05:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To my surprise, it appears that you are right and I am wrong here. I see lots of ads for jockstraps which are not only intended to to be worn by swimming (which didn't surprise me), but which are intended to be worn without a swimsuit (which did surprise me). I wasn't able to find a supporting source which was not an advertisement, though. My mistake. Feel free to delete my warning from your user talk page and, as far as I am concerned, to restore the edit which I removed. Sorry for the error. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wtmitchell. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Nick Levinovsky".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You gave no explanation for your reversion of my edits on Abortion in Chile. I have thus reverted you. I expect more from an administrator. Cheers. Pristino (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I edited that article to copy a portion of it to the Abortion law article in this edit. I did not intend to make any changes to that article and do not recall doing so. Clearly, though, I did revert your edits. The revert was unintended; I don't know how I managed to do that without noticing it; perhaps I managed somehow to make multiple inadvertent misclicks. I apologize. Thanks for correcting my mistake here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) And, thanks for your response. Pristino (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the SS Havanna leads to an article about a different ship of the same name. The article says that the USS Comfort (formerly the SS Havanna) was a US Navy hospital ship that served in WWII. This means that it is not the ship referenced in the article about the Harbour, which says the Havanna sank in 1906. I was unable to find a link the the proper ship, so I deleted the link, leaving the text of the article unchanged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.68.64.185 (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This relates to this revert, which I did during a WP:Huggle session. when I saw it there, Havanna looked like a mis-spelling of Havana. Looking at the USS Comfort (AH-3) article, I see that it uses the Havana spelling (with a single n) throughout. Googling around, it seems that most web pages which use the Havanna spelling are in the German language. Looking at German Wikipedia page Havanna, I see that it appears to be about the city which is called Havana on the English wikipedia. That info didn't help much.

I see that the cited supporting source ([1]) is currently a dead link. In 2011, it was live ([2]), and listed a shipwreck with the spelling havana as a salvage vessel lost in 1909. A currently active web page at http://www.bio-oa.ca/halifaxharbour/shipwrecks-eng.php lists that wreck with the name Havana as having been sunk when it was struck amidships by the steamer Strathcona on April 26th, 1906.

For now, I'm going to undo my reversion, change the unwikilinked name to read Havana, and cite that last-mentioned web page as a supporting source. Please improve as needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks for deleting what I put in my user page. I put a lot of thought into that and you call it nonsense? What's wrong with you people? I typed in what I thought was a meaningful description of what I do and what I am determined to do to make Wikipedia better. Next time I type into my user page; leave it alone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MK8 Master (talk • contribs) 02:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was my error. I've restored the page. Apologies. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the other discussion on the Tornado Chaser talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tornado_chaser#Mistake_re:_Frazier_Glenn_Miller) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.19.17 (talk • contribs) 02:08, September 3, 2017 (UTC)

Also, not sure what "constructive" means. This person is a domestic terrorist, per multiple sources, and it is factually incorrect that he is not labeled as one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.19.17 (talk • contribs) 02:09, September 3, 2017 (UTC)

This concerns this revert.

I made that revert after a quick look at the source you cited in support your insertion describing Miller as a domestic terrorist. That cited source does not mention Miller by name, and does not make it clear what individual it is referring to. I see that another editor undid my revert, and that you subsequently replaced your supporting citation with a cite of an alternative source which does support that description. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This post is bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601:602:77F:BCE4:9425:23D5:DEBC:46A9&redirect=no You took away my thing saying that dude's a criminal. The link in the "Controversies" page explains it.

If this is about referemces, then i apologize. I'm new.2601:602:77F:BCE4:9425:23D5:DEBC:46A9 (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for asking for clarification. I took another look at this, and I stand by the removal. Please read WP:BLP, particularly the People accused of crime section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Thanks for contributing to The Star of Kazan! =) TheSeso (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thought, but I can't find any record of having made such a contribution. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"lease do not add unsourced or original content" - Literally everything was cited.

The sources used:

• https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/ohiou1307121254/inline
• https://www.academia.edu/11688947/Morgan_le_Fay_Empress_of_the_Wilderness_A_Newly_Recovered_Arthurian_Text_in_London_BL_Royal_12.C.ix
• http://d.lib.rochester.edu/teams/text/benson-and-foster-king-arthurs-death-stanzaic-morte-arthur-part-iii
• https://repositori.udl.cat/handle/10459.1/59590
• http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/25th-january-1896/6/huon-of-bordeaux
• http://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9781137340252 (review: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/585903 by https://www.buffalo.edu/cas/english/faculty/faculty_directory/randy-schiff.html)
• https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Ogier_the_Dane

Revert yourself. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe first take "a closer look" next time, before frustrating anyone else for no reason at all. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that the edit I was reverting was the most recent in a series of edits you had made, and that the whole series had gotten reverted instead of just the edit which had caught my eye. I've now taken a second look at that, and see that I was mistaken. Apologies. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now apparently thanks to you I'm being randomly reported as a "vandal" on this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=805909417

--94.246.150.68 (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One action you can take which will probably help would be for you to remove or archive warnings on your user talk page which you have read and acted appropriately in response to. See Personal talk page cleanup under WP:OWNTALK for more info. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Wacom123. You recently removed a part of the article of Pokemon universe. I certify that the parts you removed are reliable as they come from the official Pokedex and bulbapedia. Please re-contact me if you have any disagreements.Wacom123 (talk) 05:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Signed, Wacom123[reply]

Actually, due to a misclick on my part, that revert removed more than I intended and gave a reason other than intended. I originally intended to revert just this edit, giving WP:SPAM (actually, WP:LINKSPAM) as the reason. I decided to let the revert stand as it had been done after looking at it. Re your certification here that the parts you added are reliable, please see WP:V. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes to the Marcia Barrett article because it featured many mistakes which also didn't provide a source. In this case I am the source since I am involved with the entire project Boney M. and owner Frank Farian and record label Sony Music.

What do I have to do to have my corrections back again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casjan0206 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My revert was in reaction to one edit which I saw. In actioning my revert, the tool which I used reverted a string of your edits. The tool which I was using is intended as an anti-vandalism tool, and your edits do not appear to have been vandalism. I have undone my reversion with the following edit summary: "Undid my revert. Much or all of this appears to be unsupported WP:original research, but it does not appear to be WP:vandalism. Please read WP:V and cite reliable supporting sources. See WP:BURDEN." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you welcome ClueBot NG using Huggle [3]? (Just curious. Sorry if that sounded blunter than it was meant) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly an error on my part; sorry. It was probably a mis-click. I've just updated Huggle and I'm noticing some differences in behavior from versions I've used earlier. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Thanks for the quick reply. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just attempting to make a joke. I just realized how difficult our language can be for foreigners, so I tried to make a light-hearted note about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.251.191.30 (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and thanks for the acknowledgement. MOS:NOTED would probably be the most directly relevant style guideline. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know where the Bryan comes from, tried to correct it through Dundee United at one point. It is def Baigrie. I am not great at this sort of thing so was just trying to correct errors once and for all Fifefootballfan (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This revert of yours reverses a change made after considerable discussion and a reasonable degree of consensus at the talk page. In addition, the convention is that we only revert vandalism without giving an edit summary, and the changes by Johnuniq were certainly not vandalism. --RexxS (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. SmCandish reverted that edit. I am on s smartphone at present, and will thank him when better able. That does not look likE a change I would have made, and I do not recall having made it. I have changed my password. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And where is it not fundamented? It's in the text and its sources. 62.28.64.102 (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This apparently concerns this revert. I reverted because the unsupported addition seemed doubtful to me. For some refuting sources, see results of this google search. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 62.28.64.102 (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SHUT UP OLD MAN.

WP:BLOCK you very much. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Media:Example.ogg[reply]

Hi, I see you've just indeffed the creator of the article above. When he did try to make himself useful on WP he made a very bad job of it, and I subsequently created an alternative at The Crab and the Fox. Though I've been editing since 2010, I had to create a new avatar this year and so don't have the authority to delete redundant articles. Could you do that to The Fox and the Crab please? Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've recast The Fox and the Crab as a redirect to The Crab and the Fox. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was the neatest way! I hope the bad weather out there isn't affecting you. Sweetpool50 (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spanish–American War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laguna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]