Archives
/Archive 1 (2007) /Archive 2 (2008) /Archive 3 (2009) (contains Jan-Aug 2009)

Hi.

One way to contact me is to edit this page and add a section at the bottom. Please Put a section header above added sections. If your topic concerns a particular Wilipedia article, please mention the article name. To cause your edit to be signed and timestamped when you save it, please sign it with four tilde characters (like this: ~~~~).

I will generally respond on this page inside the section which has been added unless you request otherwise. Please watch this page if you leave me a message.

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Contents 1 Tagging MG Regua 2 Wands 3 Reversions of edits by 67.164.61.188 4 Indomie Article by Aireen Deviani Harsoyo 5 edit on atlanta page 6 revert: Surprised to find posts signed with my IP Adress 7 Your revert at WT:Reliable sources 8 The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009 9 Filipino American 10 The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009 11 List of sovereign states by formation date 12 The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009 13 The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009 14 Message from an anonymous vandal 15 The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009 16 I just replied to your question on "Grammatical Number". 17 Further reading 18 The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009 19 Barnstar 20 The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009 21 Question 22 The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009 23 The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009 24 Even handed 25 Request for assistance 26 The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009 27 The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009 28 Congressional Research Service Report RL30527 29 William Vance (disambiguation) 30 The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009 31 Why did you do it? 32 The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009 33 The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009 34 The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

[edit] Tagging MG Regua

Thanks for tagging it as dated material on the List of Filipino Americans article, but can you please remove said tag. There are presently no other flag ranked (O-7 or greater) Filipino Americans presently serving in active or reserve status in the US Armed Forces. CAPT Eleanor Valentin's promotion was held back a year (connected to politics, I think), and she has been renominated for this year. "1-star assignments announced". Navy Times (Army Times Publishing Company). 04 August 2009. http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/08/navy_flagassignments_080409w/. Retrieved 1 September 2009.  --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your concern. The tagging was for potentially dated material. The {{As of}} template implies nothing negative about the article, it is a maintenance aid. The effect of the template is to categorize the article here. The tagged material will become outdated when General Regua retires. If the general is still active in 2010, the tag should be updated (I might do that, or some other editor might). See WP:As of#"As of" categories. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, I rescind my concern about the tagging. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wands

You just accused me of vandalism, my friend has a wand made of quartz. Proving,that wands can be made of stone. 76.187.18.77 (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the vandalism warning. Crystal is a more appropriate description of quartz than stone (the WP article for which, incidentally, is a disambiguation page). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

What about onyx? 76.187.18.77 (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

After looking further (here, here, here), I guess you're right. I saw your edit during vandalism patrolling, looking at hundreds of articles with WP:Huggle for a few seconds per article. This was a mistake on my part. thanks for pointing it out. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reversions of edits by 67.164.61.188

Hey, prove anything that I said is wrong. You know that you can't. What's wrong with you? Why are you taking the only HARD facts out of the entire article? I'm only trying to reveal the truth.

Before the main health effects of cannabis should be discussed, it's important for the reader to realize that there are no proven negative health effects of cannabis. If you can prove that cannabis is in fact harmful to your health, there is a $100,000 cash reward that you should claim from "The Emperor Wears No Clothes". In this book it states that cannabis has no proven negative health effects and it states in the book that if you can prove anything in the book wrong you can claim a $100,000 reward. Do some research on Harry Anslinger and William Randolph Hearst and you should be able to work your way through all the propaganda behind cannabis as they are the root of it all. There has been no documented illness, injury, death, etc. in the history of the world that has been caused by cannabis(This is also stated in "The Emperor Wears No Clothes"). Just take a look at the HARD facts. Almost everything discussed below is propaganda and has obviously not been proven.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.61.188 (talk • contribs) 14:39, September 10, 2009

See WP:SOAP, WP:V, WP:POV, WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE, etc. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Indomie Article by Aireen Deviani Harsoyo

I don't understand, why is adding a link to the manufacturer's at a Wikipedia article is regarded as vandalism? I'm not doing anything wrong or vandalizing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aireen Deviani Harsoyo (talk • contribs) 12:33, September 16, 2009

You're apparently speaking of this revert made a few days ago. I've taken a quick look at itdon't see the reason I did it. It looks to me like a mistake on my part, perhaps a mistaken mouseclick that I didn't notice at the time. The edit summary doesn't mention vandalism and there doesn't seem to be any vandalism warniong message associated with it, so it doesn't look as I had vandalism in mind as a reason for the revert. Sorry. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(followup)I now see that there was an associated vandalism warning, on the talk page of anonymous user 203.126.130.140. I've removed it. That warning would have been generated during vandalism patrolling with WP:Huggle, and this must have come from a mistaken mouseclick while doing that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] edit on atlanta page

it was one word that i changed, an additional turner channel that exists. why revert it back, that seems rather pointless.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.40.70 (talk • contribs) 10:26, September 17, 2009

I haven't edited the Atlanta article recently, if ever. I think that you may be speaking of this revert which I did on the Roberto Carretero page, reverting this edit by you. I stand by the revert. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] revert: Surprised to find posts signed with my IP Adress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:194.24.138.2—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.24.138.2 (talk • contribs) 16:33, September 18, 2009

This relates to this revert, I think. Re edits by this IP address, see Special:Contributions/194.24.138.2. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Your revert at WT:Reliable sources

I rolled this back as I saw no good reason for this reversion. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This appears to concern this reversion. I had reverted an edit by User:Serendipodous to a talk page comment signed by User:A Quest For Knowledge which had changed the wikilink to the signer's talk page from User talk:A Quest For Knowledge to User talk:A Quest For Know::ledge (a redlink). That reverted edit seemed to be a possible violation of WP:TPO. I was busy with other things at the time, and took no further action other than to notify the reverted user of the reversion by placing a comment at User_talk:Serendipodous#Revert_notification. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh... it should be obvious that that was a typo, and you should remove the stray characters, not revert. --NE2 08:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed and removing another user's post is inexcusable. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

My abject apologies. That was unentional. Just now, on looking back at my edit after your comment above, I see that the revert resulted in the deletion of some material. I had reacted to the red-hilited portion of the diff showing the change in the link to the talk page, and somehow did not notice that the revert would remove yellow-hilited material. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

[edit] Filipino American

As a previous editor of the Filipino American article, can we get a third opinion to a new discussion regarding recent edits to the population figure in the infobox? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

[edit] List of sovereign states by formation date

I appreciate you reverting the POV filipino, but you've reverted some misspellings and took a valuable section of the lead out. Please have a look at your edit once again. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Chris. The changes outside of the table entry for the Philippines were inadvertent and unintended. I'll fix it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

[edit] Message from an anonymous vandal

listen i dont know who u r but leave me alone i can change wat ever i want—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.142.202 (talk • contribs) 06:28, October 14, 2009

This apparently concerns this reversion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

[edit] I just replied to your question on "Grammatical Number".

You had asked which grammatical number should go with fractional numerals which are positive but less than one. Similar questions arise when the numeral is zero, or negative, or greater than one but less than two. And in languages with more grammatical numbers than just "singular" and "plural", there can be more questions. I have read -- sorry, don't remember where -- that the answers are different for different languages. I am unable at the present to put an answer into the encyclopedia article that would be verifiable, cite reliable sources, and not be "orignal research"; not even just for English. But I believe that can be done (at least, just for English); I encourage you to do so if you can find the time (and encourage speakers of any other language to do so for their own language). So perhaps the answers should be distributed to the articles on grammatical number in each language, and the cross-linguistic "Grammatical Number" article should only mention that that has been done. At any rate I appreciate your starting the discussion. --Eldin raigmore (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Further reading

Your suggestion concerning Further reading on Ferdinand Magellan is a good one. Here is a proposed list of currently available books concerning Ferdinand Magellan, but please proceed as you think fit. --Jaeger Lotno (talk) 07:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Pigafetta, Antonio (1906). Magellan's Voyage around the World. Arthur A. Clark.  (orig. Primer viaje en torno del globo Retrieved on 2009-04-08)
• The First Voyage Round the World, by Magellan, full text, English translation by Lord Stanley of Alderley, London: Hakluyt, [1874] – six contemporary accounts of his voyage
• Bergreen, Laurence (14 October 2003). Over the Edge of the World: Magellan's Terrifying Circumnavigation of the Globe. William Morrow. ISBN 9780066211732, ISBN 006093638X. Lay summary. 
• Joyner, Tim (1992). Magellan. Camden, Me.: International Marine Publishing. ISBN 9780070331280. 

Thanks for the nudge. I've edited the page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you got duped by yet another User:General Tojo sock. Wknight94 ^talk 03:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you're right. It seems that I'm WP:AGFing too much. I don't think my edits to the Ferdinand Magellan article made in response to this did any harm, though. Feel free to revert of edit further if you disagree. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

[edit] Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Please accept this barnstar in recognition of your great work on articles concerning the Philippines Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. It is appreciated. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

[edit] Question

Hi. I was interested in your note that it was strongly suggested during your RFA that you should abolish the sig you had used for years and that admins should use raw usernames. What was the thinking behind that, if you know? And is that an unwritten (or written) rule for admins? And do you think it makes sense? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I got the impression that it's an unwritten rule. It makes some sense in that it removes one possible source of complication/confusioon for a someone trying to contact an admin based on information in his sig. I ended up creating a doppelganger account at User:Boracay Bill named after my previous sig which I do not use for editing, but which prevents anyone else from creating that account and causing confusion re edits I had signed with that sig and/or with editors who knew me by that handle. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the explanation.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

[edit] Even handed

Thank you for pointing that out to me. I completely missed that particular addition. I really do appreciate your attentiveness and shall endeavor to be more diplomatic. Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. Just picking nits. (note: this regards this edit) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely.. That would be an excellent example of a bad faith revert. Learn a little everyday. Cheers - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request for assistance

I am presently having a dispute regarding template usage on an article's talk page. The other editors has stopped assuming good faith regarding my efforts and has ceased being civil. I have sought a third opinion, however, the template asking for one on the article page, which is an option per third opinion, has been removed with comment by the other editor. If I am wrong, I can accept that, am but a fallible person. However, I don't believe I am, and am looking for a neutral party who can resolve the present dispute. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not very experienced with Wikipedia dispute resolution. I suggest that you seek assistance through the Wikipedia:Editor assistance page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

[edit] Congressional Research Service Report RL30527

Congressional Research Service Report RL30527

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), known as "Congress's think tank", is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.

Reports by the Congressional Research Service, usually referred to as CRS Reports, are the encyclopedic, public domain research reports written to clearly define issues in a legislative context. Over 700 new CRS reports are produced each year; almost 4,000 are currently in existence.

As you can see on the following CRS Report for Congress on the Report RL30527 of April 17, 2000, title Presidential Elections in the United States: A Primer adressed the Natural Born Citizens definition.

You can find this Report on the following WikiLeaks Document Release Web Address http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL30527 of February 2, 2009.

On the Abstract of the report indicate the following:

This report describes the four stages of the presidential election process: the pre-nomination primaries and caucuses for selecting delegates to the national conventions; the national nominating conventions; the general election; and voting by members of the electoral college to choose the President and Vice President. The report will be updated again for the 2004 presidential election.

Qualifications for the Office of President (Page 6 - 7)

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution specifies that, to be President or Vice President, a person must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.1 Most constitutional scholars interpret this language as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the “natural born” requirement.2 Under the 22nd Amendment, no one may serve more than two full terms, although a Vice President who succeeds to the Presidency and serves less than two full years of the prior incumbent’s term may seek election to two additional terms.

Footnote (Page 6-7)

1 Defined as including the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

2 Citizens born in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as “natural born” citizens, and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President, provided they meet qualifications of age and 14 years residence within the United States. Residence in Puerto Rico and U.S. territories and possessions does not qualify as residence within the United States for these purposes. [U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, U.S. Insular Areas and Their Political Development, by Andorra Bruno and Garrine P. Laney, CRS Report 96-578GOV (Washington: Jun. 17, 1996), pp. 9, 21, 33]. I. Presidential Candidates Qualifications for the Office of President Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution specifies that, to be President or Vice President, a person must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.1 Most constitutional scholars interpret this language as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the “natural born” requirement.2 Under the 22nd Amendment, no one may serve more than two full terms, although a Vice President who succeeds to the Presidency and serves less than two full years of the prior incumbent’s term may seek election to two additional terms.'

Congressional Research Service reports

Reports by the Congressional Research Service, usually referred to as CRS Reports, are the encyclopedic, public domain research reports written to clearly define issues in a legislative context. Over 700 new CRS reports are produced each year; almost 4,000 are currently in existence.

--74.213.91.69 (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: The foregoing is apparently related to my prior participation in a discussion thread at Talk:Natural born citizen of the United States#The Insular Cases, and also relates to the discussion threads at Talk:Natural born citizen of the United States#Natural-born in U.S. territories? and Talk:Natural born citizen of the United States#Congressional Research Service Report RL30527. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] William Vance (disambiguation)

Hello. Just to let you know, this dab has been nominated for deletion, using Template:db-disambig. If you have any questions about this, please let me know. Best wishes, Boleyn3 (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

[edit] Why did you do it?

Why did you remove my post here? The sandbox deserved a level 4 warning.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 06:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm using the Wikipedia sandbox to test vandalism warnings. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

But the sandbox will get confused ;)--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 07:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

My warning was removed by you again.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 07:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

[edit] The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009