Hi, you just deleted my contribution to the "Reserve Bank of Australia" page and I would like you to leave that alone because I am trying to spread awareness about my Birding Organization and I found it has the same acronym, RBA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.199.118 (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.199.118 (talk • contribs) 03:06, February 4, 2016
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on User:Pinkachu2015/Pokeheroes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from wiki.pokeheroes.com/wiki/Main_Page. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pain, but I really like to be able to check YouTube for copyvio and I can't check the link you added[1]- I think links should make that possible. Are you sure it's an official site? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you should also do a permanent soft block over the username policy. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 00:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I just put Fellowship Baptist College up for AFD. Its current form looks to be taken straight from a school handbook. It may have been speedied deleted in 2007, and the present article dates to 2008. Given your interest in Philippines topics, do you think this article is in any way salvageable? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
View discussion here:
Regards,
--Arquenevis (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
@Shhhhwwww!!:: Need your help in talk page. Please see International reactions to Philippines v. China. The article needs to be split for readability. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for your recent neutral and methodical edits to the Philippines v. China article. Nihonjoe was right to protect the page and your measured edits in the interim are appreciated. Hammersbach (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the awards contributions. Are you currently working on expanding the parts related to the philippines and chinese (not directly) arguments filed/at the hearing? If not I am intending to cover that. Also in Awards I think we should have a summary of the decision that brings out the key elements. I would like to do that also if you are not wthe articleking/intend to do it. Rybkovich (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Template:Source needs translation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andrew D. (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello! This is a reply to your message before. You claimed that I misunderstood the content that I have removed. May you clarify it a little bit? As far as I know the meaning of "arbitration request" is to seek a third party to arbitrate a dispute. Acceptance of that request then mean the third party (that is PCA) agrees to arbitrate.
The original sentence from the source states: "According to Koroma, only 16 arbitration requests have been accepted in its 117-year-long history". The context of this sentence clearly means that PCA have only accepted 16 arbitration requests, which is not true.
The addition of the sentence "(the outcome was accepted by the parties involved)" is illogical. The outcome of the arbitration is called arbitration award or ruling, not arbitration request. If the former judge stated that "only 16 arbitration awards have been accepted", then it is clear that the ones accepted the awards are the parties involved.
We can discuss this in the relevant talk page.Hand15 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello Wmitchell. I recent closed a complaint at WP:AN3 about this article. It's good to see at least one experienced editor (yourself) working there. I'm sure you can report the situation if you think the article needs any further admin action. One option is full protection, but I'll hold off for the moment. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello Wtmitchell, I am contacting you because I just read this comment of yours on the User:Hand15's talk page and this revert on the page of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which I actually read after I removed said section. I actually think there is some merit to what Hand15 is saying, as the sentence is highly ambiguous and can be read in multiple ways.
If the word accepting relates to the PCA as the accepting institution, than the sentence should be deleted. While it is of course true that the meaning of the words "accepted x requests" and "had x cases" are not synonymous, I think it is a very artificial argument to make. First of all, it is not clear to what type of cases the 'accepting' part relates. If accepting≠cases, which cases have to be accepted and which don't? And then, why would it be relevant that the Court only accepted 16 cases in its 117-year-long history. Vis-à-vis the 132 cases the PCA administered in 2015 (Annual Report 2015, p. 20), the information that the Court only accepted 16 cases seems to give undue weight to something we can't even asses the true meaning of. To be sure, I would be interested what this accepting actually implies, especially since the Statute of the Permanent Court of Arbitration doesn't mention this special power of it to accept arbitration.
The other meaning would be that the parties accepted only 16 arbitrations within its 117-year-long history. However, this version does also not follow mandatorily from the source. It only provides that 16 cases were accepted. It does not specify by whom. Furthermore, seeing how many awards are only known to the PCA itself, and the article tries its best to show that the ICJ and the PCA have nothing in common and don't know anything about each other, it strikes me as odd how suddenly an ICJ judge is an expert on some very intricate information as acceptance rates of awards. In addition, this interpretation opens up a myriad of questions: by whom is it accepted? Does it mean accepted by one of the parties, or both/all of the parties? The international community? If the criterion is both parties, why would this be relevant? In any case/arbitration there is bound to be a winner and a loser, and thus one side likely not to accept it. Or is this judged by implementation rate? How do you measure implementation of the award? Why is the acceptance/implementation relevant? Especially because we don't have any figures from other international adjudicating bodies. And how can we verify this information further, which only Koroma and no other source seems privy to?
The longer I think about it, the more meaningless the statement becomes. It can be interpretated in several ways, it is not clear who exactly accepts what: the PCA, third parties, the international community? Neither is it clear why either of these are relevant or how Koroma is supposed to know. Indeed, at best we should write that 'Koroma said in an article ... that only 16 cases have been accepted'. Generalizing from this fact to a universal truth that '16 cases have been accepted' seems unwarranted to me. However, it seems to me that quoting just one unrelated judge gives undue weight to his position. As such, I think the phrase should be deleted.
I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts, regards Perudotes (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, here is the source but I dont know how to add the link? Could you help please?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1582023/Heather-Mills-torn-to-shreds-by-Sir-Paul-McCartney-divorce-judge.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.29.211 (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
you're a rare gem for creating/maintaining these articles. thank you sir Kramfs (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how the text of my page got whacked. It clearly wasn't intentional vandalism; I'll be more careful. I trully was trying to make a few constructive edits to address concerns that have recently been brought up.--Pete.delaney (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm a big fan please msg me back
Ryan321java (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
THANKS
it,s by mistake <sorry>,it,s my 1st edit.
It is starting that,s why i don,t now more about editing . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.185.236.92 (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Just an FYI: You blocked Hotelsuites (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 31 hours. Hotelsuites appears to be spam-only, leaving links to oystergroup.in such as
I reported Hotelsuites to WP:UAA, but the bot removed it immediately. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Mercey Hot Springs, California, a page you created, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is obvious advertising or promotional material.
You are welcome to contribute content that complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content, or remove the speedy deletion tag from the page. You can contest the deletion by clicking the "Contest this speedy deletion" button inside the speedy deletion tag. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.
Thank you. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
See my Talk page for concise explanation of changes made, as clearly indicated in edit summary.71.233.84.208 (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I have the above article to a non-promotional condition about a location in the US, which removed the speedy deletion tag you had put on. Hope that you are OK with this. Velella Velella Talk 10:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Moved here from the top of this page:
For your action regarding MatthewTardiff. I hope I didn't violate 3RR, if so it was unintentional. CrashUnderride 01:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
BNG05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Looks to me that everything is BNG05 did is quite dubious or outright vandalism. Was scrambling templates such as Template:List of writing systems Cheers Jim1138 (talk)
Dear Wtmitchell:
The exact meaning of both Article The First and Article The Second is easily drawn from the text of THE BILL of RIGHTS.
I did not restore my edit that Congress has been violating the 27th Amendment since 1992 with cost of living raises as the exact meaning of Article The Second explicitly limits a single pay raise per re-election. Perhaps that is what you meant by "not constructive ?"
I think I restored all my other edits verbatim.
Where is it "constructive to inform Wiki readers of how Congress is violating the letter of our highest law, THE CONSTITUTION as Amended ?
Larry Carter Center "At Larry Accomplish"— Preceding unsigned comment added by At Larry Accomplish (talk • contribs) Revision as of 17:51, September 1, 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, it appears that my auto-biography of many years ago has been deleted. Do I have to employ a biographer to keep Wiki readers informed of my historic US Sup Ct case, my political career and my vital statistics ? Wiki seems to hint to me that I am not allowed to post my own autobiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by At Larry Accomplish (talk • contribs) 17:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I've moved the following here from the top of this talk page:
The page I'm editing is about me. Respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakeeyre (talk • contribs) 23:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Really dude? Vandalism? Checkout wwe.com's profile on Big Cass. I've seen people post total bullcrap and it wasn't called vandalism so whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.36.218 (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Sources for "original article" which was not removed are not reliable sources. They are just from the news paper — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kip Dia (talk • contribs) 04:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello Wtmitchell, I'm not sure what are you referring here. I know it is bit late response but I have not been around recently. Thanks.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 15:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey there! i just wanted to tell you that most of the external links may be real but, have false information, it would be a great pleasure to remove the links regarding hezbollah drug usage and fundings, Now about the drug usage '(sorry to say this) ITS ALL FALSE, iam lebanese myself and there was no sign Hezbollah sending drugs to mexico internationally or immigrants but, I'll tell you the truth about the pics of the drugs and where they came from! Al- Nusra , ISIS , and Al- Qaeda the terrorist organisations where responsible for this massive drug trade. One proof goes by a Hezbollah militant showing that they found a truck that belongs to ISIS and filled with drugs that enough for around 14,000 TERRORISTS, now thats a shock! Here's a link to the video on YouTube. and this link was made by a trusted News Channel called VICE news, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvil3E3QgMY Sorry for not telling about the editing i made im still amateur at editing, please remove any negative/false information about Hezbollah for its a great movement who protect Muslims Christians and Jews alike, but not Zionists. One last thing Cannibus in Lebanon is legal for harvest and spread to countries that LEGALISE cannibus such as Netherlands but, its not legal to use in Lebanon. Thank You Friend — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo Flamez (talk • contribs) 23:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Leo Flamez
Hello, Wtmitchell. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I'm responding to the edit on my edit re: separation of powers. Why do you find it necessary to edit people's edits. I added to it. I didn't edit anything out. Wait, maybe I edited out the 1 or 2 sentences that would enable people to enter into the long standing controversy holding the population of America in everlasting ignorance as we suffer, confused by the reality of our government not matching what it is supposed to be. Somehow we have gone on for some hundred years without getting it right. I just want to put a message out there that not only is closer to the truth than anything published and available on the subject, but also one that has a message of positive growth and hope for a better future for us. With Southern California cities with around 20% of the people living at or below the poverty line (based on cost of living) it would be cruel to do anything to not support any endeavor to bring clarity and at the same time possibly fix the problem. Anyway, you do what you think you need to do. I am just happy I was able to contribute, even if you tried to sabotage my efforts. -MichelleLispi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.146.212.7 (talk) 06:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Did you mean to only block ThisistheTRUTH for 31 hours? They're a clear VOA.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
as there is presently a real storm of vandalism. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I'm ashamed to say I let my temper get the better of me when I made that edit. Thanks for being so reasonable.LeQui (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello this is concerning the Bands of America page. Alot of band kids are now messing with this page and I feel like it should probably stop. Can you lock it so they will stop? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd110600 (talk • contribs) 04:40, November 15, 2016 (UTC)
Hi Wtmitchell.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Dont know who the hell you are but the changes i made are accurate and factual... Mind your own business or show me where I was wrong.64.183.108.182 (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I like to give out kewt kittehs, especially to helpful contributors such as yourself. Nice efforts to combat vandalism.
MgWd (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Wtmitchell. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Why was my edit on the Silent Majority page, in your opinion, not impartial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.252.187.102 (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
FYI... A few weeks back you blocked 124.106.255.144 for vandalism/disruption on date articles. I just blocked 124.106.250.251 for the same thing. Both IPs come from the same ISP in the Philippines. Bgwhite (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello; In reference to [6] I think your bots don't understand comedy; I added sketches to the synopsis of episodes - small sentence edits - to increase the recognition of Key \& Peele episodes - i.e. there are lots of Obama episodes. This wasn't vandalism at all. I sat and watched 100 stored episodes and in the process just amended the information to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.235.150 (talk • contribs) 13:58, November 25, 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I see you reverted this edit. You might want to have a look at some of the other edits by the that ip user, they are all quite similar. - theWOLFchild 03:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
124.106.250.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is currently blocked for 3 months by @Bgwhite:. Won't you please consider blocking 124.106.255.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for block evasion preventively, and consult with Bgwhite about a possible rangeblock? Elizium23 (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
This not right----
THIS IS A WIKIPEDIANS BOOK BOOKPUBLICATION PediaPress
Information Theory : Last Chapter Meme — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealUpHuman (talk • contribs) 01:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I see that you deleted User talk:RealUpHuman, with the deletion log reason given as "G8. Page dependent on a non-existent or deleted page". I assume this was a mistake, as user talk pages are not normally deleted, it was not "dependent on a non-existent or deleted page" as far as I can see, and I can't see anything in the history of the page which would justify deletion. I shall therefore restore the page, but please let me know if it was not a mistake, and there was some legitimate reason for deletion which I have missed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Since posting the above message, I have found a number of other user talk pages which you have deleted using Huggle when deleting the corresponding user page. While in most namespaces it is almost always right to delete the talk page connected to another page which is deleted, deletion of a user page does not make the corresponding talk page redundant, so you should watch out when using Huggle, to make sure that mistake doesn't happen again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I had entered the probate case # for Victor Barbish which had the Pearl of Lao Tzu as the only asset listed. Mr. Barbish passed away here in Bradenton Florida (Manatee County) in January 2008. He had over six million in claims against his probate. The executor of the probate was one of his sons by the name of Mario Barbish who lives in Colorado. The Probate was just closed several months ago due to no apparent reason. With all the attorney costs through the years I would have thought the first thing would be to authenticate the pearl. Is it still in a lockbox in Denver Colorado? Victor Barbish is my wife's uncle who portrayed himself as her father. It wasn't till his death that we learned of his narcissistic side. He used the Pearl throughout the years as a tool to con both friends and family our of a lot of money. I had known Barbish myself for just over a year prior to his passing (when I met my wife). He was such a good con man that even retired Brigadier General Kenneth Allery (from the Desert Storm conflict in Iraq), had a one and a half million dollar claim against the probate. He had been commissioned by Barbish to sell the Pearl, but when a buyer appeared Barbish turned down the $40 million offer because he thought it was too low. The General sued the probate for his lost commission. The claim was denied due to a court technicality. The whereabouts and any further knowledge of the pearl is presumably now lost. FlaRiptide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.215.250.41 (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Mabuhay! I believe we have some of the same interests, as we both frequently edit the same articles. Among these is the article on the Philippine–American War. This important conflict—largely unknown to most Americans and even Filipinos—is among my favorite subjects, and I know you are largely responsible for getting this article up to its current B-class rating on the quality scale. I have recently begun an extensive review and reformatting of the sources for this article. When you get around to it, I would very much appreciate if you would take a look at what I have done thus far. I would like to see this article get to GA-Class in the not-too-distant future, and I wish to collaborate with you in this endeavor. Magandang araw sa iyo! DiverDave (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
You added a partial, broken reference. I'm not sure what your intentions were. I've deleted it, but could you take a look. diff Bgwhite (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)