Jump to content

User talk:Wtmitchell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


My local time:
23:34:40
Wednesday
July 2025

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.

Paul Graham (computer programmer)'s hierarchy of disagreement.
Please try to stay in the top three sections of this pyramid during disputes.
See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

added Sennecaster
readded
removed

CheckUser changes

added
readded Worm That Turned
removed Ferret

Guideline and policy news

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

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Potamic River thingy

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).

Administrator changes

readded
removed Euryalus

CheckUser changes

removed

Oversighter changes

removed

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

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of North Coast Computer Project for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article North Coast Computer Project is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Nccp-logo web.png

[edit]
⚠
⚠

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)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2025).

Administrator changes

removed

CheckUser changes

removed

Oversighter changes

removed AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

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

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Verification template

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2025).

Administrator changes

added
readded Dennis Brown
removed

Bureaucrat changes

added Barkeep49

CheckUser changes

added 0xDeadbeef

Oversighter changes

removed GB fan
readded Moneytrees

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2025).

Administrator changes

added Rusalkii
readded NaomiAmethyst (overlooked last month)
removed

Interface administrator changes

removed Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish–American War Re-Edits

[edit]

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)[reply]

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.
  1. 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.
  2. forcefully acquired reverted to gained
    Similar to (1) above, and see WP:BOLD. Re the nearby changes
  3. 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.
  4. '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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)

Formation of Liberals clique

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Help with vandalism

[edit]

Can you help with an editor seemingly vandalising several war articles? They are just deleting sourced content without explanation. First they used their IP: 2600:8802:2A06:BA00:A0BB:C59E:2BE0:76A2. You reverted them at the Spanish-American War but they reverted you and they made several similar unexplained deletions at other pages and even created an account to edit war United States invasion of Panama, making the same disruptive edits as with their IP: TheIceman8910. Thanks 102.17.120.97 (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't think I can be of any real help to you here. I'm an admin, but by far most of my WP activity has been as an ordinary editor and the admin actions I have taken have been limited to uncomplicated ones only needing someone with access to the tools in the janitorial closet to accomplish them. What you describe involves sockpuppetry, which can bring about an indefinite block for all IPs and accounts involved. Your next step might be to request a sockpuppet investigation. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more of an issue of vandalism/edit warring since they are just using the account now. They did the same thing again twice on those pages with unexplained deletions including at the Spanish-American War. On the Invasion of Panama, they have been reverted five times by me and others at least. I guess it's something to keep an eye on. Thank you 102.17.119.8 (talk) 03:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. My SPI suggestion was probably premature. I see the pattern. The edits done from IP 2600:8802:2A06:BA00:A0BB:C59E:2BE0:76A2 were to three articles, all done, reverted, redone, re-reverted, etc. on 27 and 28 June. Years ago, I did a lot of watching for and reverting vandalism using WP:Huggle. I remember seeing a lot of this pattern from IPs around the beginning of the summer school break. I've got a guess about what this might be, but it is pure guesswork on my part and I won't try to describe it here except to say that it could be someone discovering WP editing by making mistakes. Anyhow, there's a good chance he will either stop editing WP pretty quickly or create an account (you mentioned that he may have done that) and continue to contribute and develop as a regular editor. Once he is registered, user talk page exchanges can speed his development. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2025).

Administrator changes

removed NuclearWarfare

Interface administrator changes

added L235

Guideline and policy news

Miscellaneous

  • The 2025 Developing Countries WikiContest will run from 1 July to 30 September. Sign up now!
  • Administrator elections will take place this month. Administrator elections are an alternative to RFA that is a gentler process for candidates due to secret voting and multiple people running together. The call for candidates is July 9–15, the discussion phase is July 18–22, and the voting phase is July 23–29. Get ready to submit your candidacy, or (with their consent) to nominate a talented candidate!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I reverted an edit on a talk page as it contained what I evaluated to be close paraphrasing, a form of copyright violation. In the edit summary I listed two sources I found to have been closely paraphrased from. You undid this reversion and pointed me to WP:TPO, where one of the examples of appropriately editing other's comments is "Removing prohibited material such as ... violations of copyright". I'd like provide specific passages I found to be too closely paraphrased and explain what I believe caused it:

collapsed comparison

Talk: On July 12, 2016, a significant ruling was issued by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague regarding the South China Sea dispute, largely favoring the Philippines in its case against China. The tribunal invalidated China's expansive "nine-dash line" claim, determining it had no legal basis under international law
—
Site: The 2016 Arbitral Award, issued by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, reinforced the Philippines’ sovereign rights in the West Philippine Sea and dismissed Beijing’s “nine-dash line” claim as having no legal basis under international law.

collapsed comparison

Talk: found that none of the sea features claimed by China were capable of generating an exclusive economic zone (EEZ)
—
Site: found that none of the features claimed by China was capable of generating an exclusive economic zone

collapsed comparison

Talk: China was found to have breached the Philippines' sovereign rights by interfering in fishing and oil exploration, constructing artificial islands, and failing to stop Chinese fishermen from fishing in the zone.
—
Site: the Tribunal found that China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone by (a) interfering with Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration, (b) constructing artificial islands and (c) failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing in the zone.

collapsed comparison

Talk: the tribunal finding China had caused "severe harm" to coral reefs and violated its obligation to preserve fragile ecosystems, including through large-scale killing of endangered species by Chinese fishermen.
—
Site: The Tribunal ... found that China had caused severe harm to the coral reef environment and violated its obligation to preserve and protect fragile ecosystems

collapsed comparison

Talk: the importance of upholding international law and the freedoms of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea.
—
Site: South China Sea and for the freedom of navigation and overflight based on the principles of international law

It seems that the editor asked an LLM to generate a summary, and what is cautioned about in WP:Large language models#Copyright violations occurred: Generated text may include verbatim snippets from non-free content or be a derivative work. In addition, using LLMs to summarize copyrighted content (like news articles) may produce excessively close paraphrases. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have lots to get done off-wiki on a trip beginning tonight and don't want to get involved in a back&forth exchange. I don't remember thinking about copyvio considerations in re this revert and, AGF, I concede your point. Sorry to be short here. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, thank you for responding and have a good trip! fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quote in birthright citizenship edit

[edit]

In this edit you added the quote

the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction

I have verified this quote is present in the 9th Circuit decision but I can't read the AP article because the AP site is not compatible with my browser's protection settings. Is the quote present in the AP article? If not, I believe the 9th Circuit decision should also be cited. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The full para in the apnews.com web page containing the quoted excerpt reads:

“We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief,” Judge Michael Hawkins and Ronald Gould, both appointed by President Bill Clinton, wrote.

I have no objection to citing the decision itself as well, but some editors resist over-citing and others resist citing primary sources when secondary sources are available. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:12, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wtmitchell&oldid=1302352992"