User talk:Wtmitchell
|
My local time:
|
Hi.
One way to contact me is to edit this page and add a section at the bottom (click here to do that). If your topic concerns a particular Wikipedia article, please mention the article name. If you are commenting about a particular edit of mine, please try to clearly indicate which edit.Including a link to that edit, like this, works well for that.
To cause your edit to be signed and timestamped when you save it, please sign it with four tilde characters (like this: ~~~~). If you don't do any of this I'll probably be able to figure it out anyhow, but I would appreciate your trying to avoid making responding to you difficult for me.
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.
The following is not to be edited by others. It is a convenience for myself to track items I need to pay some attentio[n to without being prompted by my watchlist.
{{hidden|header=other items -- all closed|content=
|
Please try to stay in the top three sections of this pyramid during disputes.
See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).
Administrator changes
.png?lang=en){kind=link}
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RFC, Wikipedia:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
- A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
Technical news
- The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
Arbitration
- Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.
Miscellaneous
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!
Hii, in answer to your response at Talk:2025 Potomac River mid-air collision, thought of coming here first but wanted a response to exist where the problem lay in the hope that it might reduce the problem. I think it may have a bit. I avoid taking new editors to the drama boards, the other option. I also assumed that you hadn't read the entire TP. I'm not sure what you say that I have posted ten times...
Wasn't talking about you. Was talking about plumber and the quote about ten times is what another editor stated about plumber's again and again repetition of sources suggesting that unqualified folks (as per DEI meaning females, non-straights, non-Christians, and minorities) were somehow at fault for all these deaths despite a complete lack of evidence. I have a habit of attempting to remove any suggestions of bigotry from WP. Having said that, I am always happy to see admins appear in CTOPs and hope you stick around. CTOPs have always been problematic and many admins appear to avoid them (understandable). The last few months have seen a huge uptick in non-EC editors, not helping. I believe the problems will increase for quite some time. Regards, O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment and the info in it. I'm not very active as an admin nowadays -- I'm mostly a content editor. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Technical news
- Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
- A '
Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Coast Computer Project until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.LibStar (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Nccp-logo web.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2025).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment is open to discuss whether AI-generated images (meaning those wholly created by generative AI, not human-created images modified with AI tools) should be banned from use in articles.
- A series of 22 mini-RFCs that double-checked consensus on some aspects and improved certain parts of the administrator elections process has been closed (see the summary of the changes).
- A request for comment is open to gain consensus on whether future administrator elections should be held.
Technical news
- A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
- Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378
Miscellaneous
- The 2025 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, Arcticocean, Ameisenigel, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, Galahad, Nehaoua, Renvoy, Revi C., RoySmith, Teles and Zafer as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
- Following the 2025 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: 1234qwer1234qwer4, AramilFeraxa, Daniuu, KonstantinaG07, MdsShakil and XXBlackburnXx.
Hello, I removed your recent verification needed after I verified the source supports the paragraph. Did I close it correctly by just removing the template? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Potomac_River_mid-air_collision&oldid=1279068504 Dw31415 (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. What first caught my eye here was this edit. I had a quibble with the wording in either case there and wanted to take a look at the cited source to see what I could do to improve the article wording. The sentence prior to the one changed there, also relying on that same source, introduces content about "including former Biden transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg for inclusivity rules that he said had reduced air safety", and it is those rules that I take the follow-on sentence changed there to be discussing. It seems to me that the rules being discussed are rules that came into play during the Biden administration, probably rules concerning DEI, not rules that were in play prior to and were continued by the first Trump administration. This article is on my watchlist because the topic interests me, but it is not in one of my focus areas; that, and my location in the Philippines with only online access to US sources and the particular source cited here being limited to NY Times subscribers, made verification difficult for me. As you have access to the source, I'll rely on you to insure that it supports the content of the paragraph citing it. If you do edit the article again, you might insert "authorlink=David E. Sanger" into the cite. Thanks again. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- I revised to more closely match the source. There’s some duplication with the following bullets that might be improved. Dw31415 (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- I few more edits to remove duplication and add the authorlink. Feel free to ping me again a few times for NYT review. Dw31415 (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2025).
Administrator changes
Bureaucrat changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Miscellaneous
- Sign up for The Core Contest, a competition running from 15 April to 31 May to improve vital articles.
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2025).
Administrator changes
Rusalkii
NaomiAmethyst (overlooked last month)
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, administrator elections were permanently authorized on a five-month schedule. The next election will be scheduled soon; see Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections for more information. This is an alternate process to the RfA process and does not replace the latter.
- An RfC was closed with consensus to allow editors to opt-out of seeing "sticky decorative elements". Such elements should now be wrapped in {{sticky decoration wrapper}}. Editors who wish to opt out can follow the instructions at WP:STICKYDECO.
- An RfC has resulted in a broad prohibition on the use of AI-generated images in articles. A few common-sense exceptions are recognized.
Miscellaneous
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!
Hi man I'd like to just say that I'm very new to all this and would like to ask why you undid some edits I made to the page on the Spanish–American War. You also said they were not minor edits so like what constitutes minor, just so I don't get that wrong again. Thanks for taking the time to read :) Nano24110 (talk) 09:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for asking instead of edit warring as many editors new to WP would have done. I took a look back, and I think this edit is the one you are asking about and, looking at it, I think I must have garbled it is the process of publishing it as it does not match my edit summary there. I think that I probably made that small stylistic change as an afterthought and, in doing that, somehow lost the changes I had intended to make. I'll detail those changes and my reasons below; some or all of that has been overtaken by subsequent edits and I don't have time right now to take a fresh look at this, so I have not made any changes regarding this -- I may look back at this when I do have time.
- enforcing it's sovereignty reverted back to acquiring sovereignty
The possessive apostrophe should not have been there (see here) but. more substantively The US did not acquire sovereignty until the April 11, 1899 ratification of the treaty that ended the war. Spain held sovereignty during the war. - forcefully acquired reverted to gained
Similar to (1) above, and see WP:BOLD. Re the nearby changes - public American removed
I didn't see support for that in the cited supporting source cited, there seems to be an implication of disapproval there that I don't think is supported by the tone of the supporting source cited ([5]). If POV of a source is reflected or mentioned, WP:DUE should be considered. - 'I noted the addition of 'public American re humanitarian concern and saw support in in the cited source ([6]). I did have misgivings about overwhelming consensus of observers because I saw no cited support for that, but I would not have removed that because it had not been added by your edit.
- Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- Could one make the argument that refering to the US 'gaining' territory is wording that could be contested, it's just that I did so in the wrong way? Using the term gaining could create the implication of a passivity to US forigen policy which down plays or ignores imperial and colonial implications of territorial aquisitions. In apparent passivity could it is actually be renforcing US historical myth-making? Nano24110 (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- I apologize for my slow response -- I have been traveling in areas of poor internet. I have adjusted the indent level of your response above for better readability. I have WP:Boldly edited the article again, changing "gained" back to "acquired", but not to "forcefully acquired". The article topic being Spanish–American War and the secti8on heading being Afdtermath sufficiently establishes that the acquisition involved force, I think.
- I think the first para in the Aftermath in the United States article section covers the notion of the United States as an imperial power as it relates to this article topic, and that further details about that should appear in e.g., US imperialism § 1890s–1900s: New Imperialism and "The White Man's Burden".
- If you think any of this needs further discussion, please openb a discussion section about your concerns on the article talk page. Cheers. 00:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
Hi Wtmitchell, where did you seen the mention of a liberal faction for this edit? It's not something I can find. CMD (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Chip. If you question this, it probably needs correction or improvement. I'm traveling, using a cut-down/clumsy editing setup, and I rushed that edit. Your edit here caught my eye; I didn't notice that you were the editor but I did take a look at the cited source. My addition of Roxas came from the list in parens at the top of p.625 and "led by Roxas" in the following para. Seeing that the added material named parties for Quezon and Osmena I wanted to match that for Roxas but did not see that info handy on that source page. In a rush, I grabbed it from the Manuel Roxas WP article, which I now realize was a mistake. I'm still struggling to edit while traveling and would appreciate your correcting my error -- thanks for noticing and questioning it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)