An anon user added that restriction to tons of Philippine-related images on Commons, seemingly in response to the copyright infringement actions done by ABS-CBN and other networks that was recently discussed in the Tambayan. TheCoffee had noticed those additions too and mentioned it at the same Tambayan thread. I think someone with rollback rights needs to undo those additions at the Commons. --seav (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, SallyScott. I recall from not too long ago that you put together a very nice sub-page under WP:CITE with info on this. Now I see that WP:CITESHORT doesn't mention that and doesn't contain anywhere near the information which used to be presented on that sub-page. What happened? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a case for referring to /Example edits for different methods in WP:CITE's body text, both in the "Shortened footnotes" section and in the "Citation templates and tools" section, as the idea was not only to further illustrate the different wikilinking methods, but also to allow for comparison of footnote references using citation templates and footnote references written freehand.
Bill, I think the image is of a South Vietnamese Air Force 217th Helicopter Squadron chopper. See http://vnaf.net/photos/huey/uh1h_217_1.html Note the stars on the tail of the bw photo vs the red tail with yellow stars of the color photo. Also US Army aircraft had United States Army in black letters on the sides. For some reason I can not edit the caption. Meyerj (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I've been looking at the history of {{Template:Citation}}, realizing that you are one of the contributors. This template was imported to the spanish wikipedia. You can find it at es:Plantilla:Citación. Unfortunately, we have a problem with it, because it leaves a double line between citations, as you can see in one example at the talk page of this template. We could never thank you enough if you could have a quick look at it and fix it (if possible). Please, I would be grateful if you could anser me at the spanish wikipedia es:Usuario Discusión:Gustavocarra. Thanks again in advance.Gustavocarra (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the citation regularization work. It needs to be proof-read. I left at least one new tag and at least one inline comment in the article. Those should show up in the diffs between versions if you proof-read my changes from them. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Hello. I was interested by your revert of the poem removal on the White Man's Burden article. I am working with poetry project to help fine-tune b-class articles for GAR, and this particular article was on my list. The reason I removed the poem text is because it is not a short poem, and it is on wikisource. Three other editors have suggested the same action with no dissent on the talk page, so it seemed logical that the action be made. If this article were to go under review, it would likely fail based on the fact that the poem's text were present alone. If you have any opinions on the matter, I would love to hear your reasoning on either the article's talk or my own. I do appreciate your imput. Mrathel (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I wasn't aware of the talk page discussion. I see from the talk page that it took place back in Feb and Sep of 2008, and that page may not have been on my watchlist then. If I had been a participant in the discussion, I would probably have favored removal of the text because, from what I've seen, the main impact of requoting the text in the article has been to attract vandals. My problem with what looked to me like an out-of-the-blue removal of the text here was the edit summary, "removed poem text". As I said in the edit summary for my reversion of your removal, "I don't have strong opinions about this, but this unilateral change seems a bit high-handed". You have now explained that the removal wasn't unilateral. Please note the following from Help:Edit_summary:
In addition to a summary of the change itself, the summary field may also contain an explanation of the change; note that if the reason for an edit is not clear, it is more likely to be reverted, especially in the case that some text is deleted. To give a longer explanation, use the Talk page and put in the edit summary "see Talk".
RE: this edit
According to the entry on Wiktionary "hung" is used when the subject is performing the action; "hanged" is used in the passive sense, when the subject is subjected to the action, rather than performing it. The usage you suggest, Wiktionary points out, is not universally accepted (see the usage notes), and "hung" was entirely appropriate in reinforcing the idea that the men did this to themselves. I'm not gung-ho about changing it; I just wanted you to know this wasn't as cut-and-dry as you seemed to suggest. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™talk15:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to chime in, but I just happened to see this debate, and I loved it:) . Hanged is the correct term gramatically, but when one does it to himself...well that is just a case where grammar becomes interesting. I would still probably prefer hanged, but both sides have quite a point. Mrathel (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! English is one of those languages where colloquial usage can overpower "established" rules of grammar to the point that they can lose real meaning with the vast majority of speakers. That's not to say that it's a good thing, but when words' alternative usages make it into dictionaries, it's hard to resist. - CobaltBlueTony™talk16:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that reference [12] in the edited article still says, "... p.198. ...", with a clickable link which still navigates to page 246 in the book preview. Also, there seem to be some square-bracket problems because the square-bracker is a wikitext markup character—e.g., [[[Richard Nixon]]], [KC Johnson Robert|"KC" Johnson], [[[Lyndon B. Johnson|Johnson]]], and [[Eisenhower]’s chief of staff] were probably meant to render respectively as something like (Richard Nixon), Robert "KC" Johnson, (Johnson), and (Eisenhower’s chief of staff). There are other instances of a square-bracket being used to parenthesize things, and it would probably better overall to adopt a consistent convention of using round-parens as parenthesizing punctuation. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note [12] and most square-bracket problems now seem to be resolved. One problem is that there are square-brackets in one of the sources cited (Robert "KC" Johnson) - any input on the conflict between respecting original source material and text convention consistency is welcome. Thanks again. Armando Navarro (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your very well-stated response, here: Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Neutral.3F. I was really wrestling with the urge to say "because unborn children don't read wikipedia", which just would have gotten me in trouble. my (arguably bad) sense of humor is going to be the death of me yet, I swear. --Ludwigs200:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalismonly, and not good faith edits.
Rollback may be removed at any time.
If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Tiptoetytalk02:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I was blitzing through changes with WP:Huggle and admittedly didn't consider this too much before doing the reversion. I've taken a second look, and I think I would still revert it, based on unencyclopedic tone and little or no relevance to the rest of the article. I'm not familiar with Through the Keyhole, but I took a quick look and saw: [1], [2], [3]. If you feel that this info belongs in the article, I won't argue about it. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, you can clean up User:CarloscomB (an indefinitely blocked user) that created that page, since he has problems with MOS:HEAD, and apparently being from Brazil, needs copyediting for grammar and spelling. Or you can just revert to the bad version, as you have already done. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for correcting problems on that revert. As you've no doubt concluded, I am not an expert in the field of astronomy. That article was among a bunch of recent changes I looked at which WP:Huggle flagged as suspicious. As you've pointed out, the reversion on that particular article was an error on my part. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think content should be translated from there. It's tagged for cleanup and unsourced. It's not an FA now and it's not clear if it ever was one. Also, the Tagalog wikipedia is pretty low-quality as a general matter. Our article should be expanded using reliable sources, not that wiki article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No argument. I can't find right now what article you're talking about (doesn't seem to be P-A War), but I do recall commenting somewhere following on what I took to be a suggestion that the Tagalog ikipedia had a better article than the English one that perhaps the content should be merged. WP:V should always be followed, of course. If the content in the Tagalog Wikipedia is unsourced, merging it with a well-sourced English Wikipedia article might do more damage than good. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you and I just collide in the Beltrán de Cetina article? I reverted what looked like vandalism, using WP:Huggle, and now I see that the text in the article is oinfused. checking the history, I see that i reverted one in a long series of edits. Perhaps this was not vandalism and I disturbed you in the middle of some changes. If that is the case, I apologize. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Tony Hawk, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You put "If you poop on his elbow, he rubs it on his chin. This then causes a brisk breeze which carries the warm smell of shitty poopy ballsacky shit sacks to me." ...XTBoris say something ! 09:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. That would have been this edit, which was a vandalism reversion. That edit, while it did revert one vandalous edit, also inadvertantly restored some past vandalism from a previous edit. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HI I don't think this edit [4] was appropriate. Remember that rollback is only for vandalism. This user was in the process of creating a new article, and the user's edits (even if you did not agree they were necessary) were certainly not vandalism. Remember also, that inappropriate use of rollback can result in the removal of the priviledge. AletaSing14:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thanks. I was going through filtered edits with WP:Huggle, and mistook the snippet of this preceeding edit which Huggle showed me as vandalism -- probably because of the sexual terminology in the inserted text coupled with the absence of an edit summary. I don't make mistakes like that that often, but it does happen. When I do catch myself making such mistakes, I'll normally self-revert the edit and, if a warning was issued, edit the talk page of the user involved to replace the warning with a message about the revert and self-revert. In this particular case, I apparently failed to recognize my error. Apologies. I'll put a message about this on User talk:Tgurlcandi. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see where you've apologized to Tgurlcandi now, which ends the matter as far as I'm concerned. We all goof up from time to time (myself definitely included!). Thanks, AletaSing03:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The so-called vandalism of this article is without discussion and extensive, but in my view this article needs massive reworking. There is no need to include every single song she's ever released, especially not if a good portion of them haven't gained notability through the charts or reviewers. Also the portions that aren't straight song listings reads precisely as an advert for her. If you have familiarity with the subject I'd recommend you start with some trimming, but otherwise I'll get to work on it myself later.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would help if I could, but I'm afraid that I know nothing about the article topic. I happened to nitice that a vandal had removed the References section and material following it from the article, causing problems. I reported that as vandalism and restored the material which had been removed. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Palaris Revolt, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.pangasinan.gov.ph/towns/palaris.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Palaris Revolt requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. 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 as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — 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 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 that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Riotrocket8676You gotta problem with that?03:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the article again for speedy deletion, your rationale does not satisfy the requirements for government works according to Philippine copyright law; the article text is not of a "legislative, administrative, or judicial nature". --Aeon17x (talk) 12:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the inaugural holder of the President of the Philippines should be Emilio Aguinaldo. The Philippine government consider him to be the first president. It is taught in school and universities that he is the first president and rightful inaugural holder of the president of the Philippines. It is inappropriate to disregard the 10 presidents before Corazon Aquino. Even the presidents in the Philippines are under diifferent constitutions, the line of the presidents is continuous. Example under the Malolos Consititution: Aguinaldo; under the 1935 constitution: Quezon, Osmeña, Roxas, Quirino, Magsaysay, Garcia, Macapagal and Marcos; under the 1943 constitution (Japanese occupation) Laurel; 1987 constitution: Aquino, Ramos, Estrada and Arroyo. So the Philippines honors Aguinaldo as its first president, therefore it's rightful inaugural holder.- Philippinepresidency (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
u remember me. I wuz the one who u kicked off for vandalizimon my last account, enterorespAko. then i wuz talking to u. I told the story of amin slyvake and how he was the first person to pee off a hot air balloon. it was accually a true story except for the antlantis part... and all the stuff about falling down the mountain for 4 in a half hours... yeah and pretty much everything after that about marrying Brad pitt in New york city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enterore (talk • contribs) 23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what, possible reason? Among the things you decided needed to stay in the article was the patently untrue claim that Sam's last line in the series was "Home sweet home" when it was "Thank you, Mr. President." If you have an issue with an edit, perhaps you should take it to discussion before reverting it. --76.90.29.62 (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
im sorry for doing that page but i dont think wiki. is a very useful site, cause people like me can get on and change the actually information, and people that are doing projects need real information to do there projectd. so i think that you should set up accounts to make sure that people dont change it.
sencerly,
regann. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.38.149 (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the sentence about frusciante is unconstructive! it is an artifact of bias at this particular time of writing that anyone should think that we should be impressed that an overall historically minor musician might have been influenced by an historically major one! my suggestion is for the frusciante reference to be removed, because it is disrepectful to the broader influence of hopkins, the blues, rock, etc! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.15.176 (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Bill, but none of the external links on the coboconk page were my doing. I added The Patty House as a landmark, which it most certainly is, but I did not add any external links.
Hmmmm.... I'm doing vandalism patrol with WP:Huggle. I found the revert at issue, and recall reverting that thinking that it smelled like an advertisement (also, I notice now, a spelling error; but that wouldn't have prompted me to revert if I had noticed it at the time). Huggle has a drop-down list of reversion reasons, and I picked the entry "spam" off that list. It looks like Huggle's canned messages for the reversion reasons might not match up with the labels on the list. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My post that you removed was not unconstructive, rather it needed specification. I am not familar with military terminology but bombardier can mean both a pilot and an archaic term for an infantry man. My post, that you removed was constructive (albeit not totally correct), Alexander Oppenheim was a bombardier, that having a significant, formative impact on him leaving research and the proceedings of his life thereafter. I quote directly from The Gaurdian, "Many were saddened that so brilliant and congenial a colleague should apparently divorce himself from "mainstream" research in number theory, particularly when world events swept him into the Singapore Reserve Army with the rank of lance-bombardier. In 1942, although his wife and young daughter escaped, he was captured by the Japanese." I have included the link below. My specialty is biographies and if you look at my editing history, I provided numerous constructive and relevant information to that particular page, I am just not familiar with military terminology. Instead of reverting my edit, you could have been constructive yourself and simply done research and changed the fact to its more appropriate technical title.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Mitchell M.A., M.S.L.S. University of Chicago Library Specialist in Law and Biography
Thanks for the info. I have edited the article to restore the previously removed material, supported by a citation of this supporting source. Thanks also for contributing to wikipedia. I encourage you to register a username, which would allow communication on a personal talk page such as this one; communication on the anonymous IP-numbered talk page is typically unreliable, as such talkpages are typically shared among a number of individuals. Cheers. Boracay Bill (talk) 08:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've fixed it. As I recall (perhaps mistakenly), that was a rollback I did with WP:Twinkle. In any case, it clearly got confused somehow—probably my fault, I've done a lot of editing today and I recalled that I rushed this one along as I was headed out the door. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 10:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am actualy an established editor on Wikipedia. However I discovered quickly that editing the more controversial articles is better to be done with just my IP. That way my Userpage does not get vandlised further. LOL!
Thank you for being very protective against vandals, and thank you for letting the referenced change stand. I was directed to the page from an off site message board that was using the page to make a political point about torture. I immediately noticed the lead was a little slanted. OK that's just my own POV....but there was no reference and it appeared that the lead lacked the true definition of an act of depriving something. It came across as a political POV. I believe this compromise keeps the article factual and still allows the lead to grow with additional information.--69.62.180.178 (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made the change during vandalism patrol, so it didn't get too much thought at the time. The change reverted your having changed the lead sentence to read
Sleep deprivation is the act of depriving someone of the necessary amount of R. E. M. sleep. This may occur as a result of sleep disorders, active choice or deliberate inducement.
back to its previous version reading
Sleep deprivation is a general lack of the necessary amount of sleep. This may occur as a result of sleep disorders, active choice or deliberate inducement such as in interrogation or for torture.
My thought at the time was that limiting the definition to only "the act of ..." was too limiting, and "a general lack of ...", along with "may occur as a result of" was probably better. I see that the lead sentence now reads
Sleep deprivation is the partial or near partial act of depriving the needed amount of R.E.M. sleep to an individual or organism. [1]
I see that source cited actually says, on page 1, "The deprivation of sleep is the partial or near-complete removal of sleep in an organism." Several sentences later, on page 2, it says, "... Sleep deprivation may be sleep-state specific, where the subject may be specifically deprived of NREM or REM sleep, or sleep stage specific, where the subject may be deprived of any of the stages of NREM sleep. ...". It looks to me as if the cited supporting source does not support the assertion in support of which it is cited. Since I only came on this article in passing and it is not in one of my interest areas, I'll leave it to you and the other editor more concerned about this article than I to work it out. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well....far be it for me to argue with you but, the over all statement is supported by the citation. The word "Deprivation" is not a general lack of....it is an act of keeping something from....I worded the sentence as short and simply as possible but I believe it is still within the explanation used in Kushida's book.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page on Nazeer Naji has been edited incorrectly and is based on a roumer spread by Pakistan Taliban against a well liked seasoned pakistani Journalist. The so called Ahmad Noorani is a fanatic cleric and he is instrumental in starting this roumer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.180.8.117 (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could very easily have a point. Hopefully the tags placed by Boracay Bill help it get some unbiased expert input. However, continually vandalizing the article and the talk page will not help you get your point across. TurganTalk06:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me to it, I was looking back to see where that Colbert got added and by the time I found it, you had reverted it. Eighteen months, Yikes! Dan D. Ric (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sir,
Please STOP trying to blank out my attempts to remove bias and improve balance in the List of Conspiracy theories article.
If you are motivated out of passion for a particular state in the Middle East or hatred for a particular religion or ethnicity, please take your beliefs elsewhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.155.175.2 (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You must have left that remark in response to two reverts here and here. I went back and looked at the diffs, and the reverted material still looks like POV character assasination and vandalism to me. I havd no idea in the world who he was at the time, but I've now looked at the Daniel Pipes article, and a couple of pieces about the Campuswatch organization vilified in the text I reverted (here and here). It still looks to me as if you are trying to bend this Wikipedia article to your own Point of View. Please read Wikipedia's three core-content policies, WP:POV, WP:NOR, and WP:V, as well as WP:Editing policy and WP:BLP. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am trying to turn a very inflammatory and one-sided section to something more neutral; Pipes is _not_ an unbiased source and the current article reads as though everything he claims is factual (something that is widely rejected by a great many people, in academia, journalism, etc); the way I found the article, it was promoting a very decidedly partisan and very non-neutral opinion, based on claims by someone who's considered a liar and propagndost by many (as well as himself a conspiracy monger).
BTW, here's an Arab-American civil rights group on CampusWatch: http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=114268.155.175.2 (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have very strong views on the subject. I urge you to carefully read the policies and guidelines which I mentioned above. The lead paragraph of one in particular of Wikipedia's three Wikipedia's core content policies, WP:V, reads:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.
.
Also please note the lead paragraph of the WP:BLP policy:
Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially:
We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2]
I think (I could be wrong) the ip ed is trying to get some order in the article - have been watching doesnt seem an issue SatuSuro06:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took a second look, and you're probably right. Converting complete sentences into incomplete sentences isn't a very good way to go about that, but it's probably not vandalism. I think I've been at this too long today—I'll take a wikibreak now, probably until tomorrow morrow morning local time. Cheers. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hewll man ive been on too long myself this weekend - its a long weekend here in oz and im feeling it - thanks for your reply it is always reassuring to have replies like that I'll revert your revert and see if i can get the person to continue if poss :( SatuSuro07:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Btw - I have hammered a few arts and cats in the indonesian project in my time - what are you like the borders of the phillipines? SatuSuro07:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bill. Please can you tell me which tools you are using to counter vandalism? I'm stuck using very outdated tools, and though I'd like to think I'm still being very quick, you are beating me to ever revert I attempt! Nice one! C.U.T.K.DT | C08:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted this edit, removing inserted text which read: "De is on the list on the top right why is it not listed, I am in Pa, there was 2 cases found they were negative." Please read WP:MOS. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the welcome. My edit to the article "Fictitious Entry" was not unconstructive, but was rather removing information that was clearly factually incorrect based on the sources given and an additional source which I listed on the talk page. My edit was fully explained on the talk page for the article. The edit summary for my edit clearly explained the edit, and also pointed to the talk page for further explanation: 'Eliminated incorrect refs to court decisions; see talk page under "Feist vs Rural")'. I would advise you to read the edit summary and associated talk page discussions before assuming that an edit is unconstructive and reverting it. Specifically, it might help you to check out the "When to Revert" section in Help:Reverting. Thanks. 70.79.212.223 (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I just wanted to share a qoute. "Your a fucking faggot dude." - Eric Cartman. Hilarious, huh?—Preceding unsigned comment added by TeenGohan (talk • contribs) 15:00, April 30, 2009
The Shadow Hearts (series) article is inconsistent and incorrect. It uses the actual word for what the character is in the game in one part, which is "Harmonixer", and later uses the word "Harmonizer" which is not what Yuri or Shania are.
Harmonixer is the ingame word for a Shapeshifter. This edit is not vandalism, but a correction of a mistake being perpetuated in the article.
71.246.105.168 (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're fighting back pal, like it or not!!!We're fighting back pal, like it or not!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.111.54 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 2 May 2009
Doesn't make it true, An omission of some facts is the same as a lie.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.111.54 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 2 May 2009
I don't know a ton about Wikipedia, but my BR Sports stuff was all true, and i was about to ref. it, so why the hell did you delete it?
Someone else removed your earlier version of this inquiry as vandalism, probably due to the profanity.
I had been looking at filtered new edits with WP:Huggle. Specifically, I was looking at Looking back at this edit. What caught my eye was your insertion of <ref>Insert footnote text here</ref>, which was highlighted. I reverted that as a test edit. As the reversion was taking place, the <r which had immediately preceded the reverted bit caught my eye, just as that article was being replaced on my screen by another edit. Rather than break stride and try to clean up the <r, I let my reversion of the addition of <ref>Insert footnote text here</ref> as a test edit stand and continued looking at other new edits.
What apparently happened is that Huggle reverted several of consecutive edits which you had made to that article. Sorry—I'm removing my vandalism warning from your talk page. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You just edited my edit to the Prador article claiming it was "unconstructive". All the information I added was accurate and relevant, so please explain how it was unconstructive at all. Thank you.122.106.160.244 (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. After taking a second look, I see that this was my mistake. I've restored the material and removed the vandalism warning. Apologies. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your message. I'm impressed by your speed, and grateful for your direction. As you've no doubt gathered, I have no real idea what I'm doing on the page itself. My training is in music, and little else.
May I ask a Q? Is there an EASY way to drop onto the City Opera of Vancouver Wikipage our logo? I simply can't understand the instructions provided. They were evidently written for someone who knows what CSS means...
Again, thanks. I'm really pleased that ONE of us knows what he's doing.
C
Hi Charles.
The speed comes from an editing tool named Huggle which I was using to patrol for vandalized articles. Unfortunately, the style of your changes caused me to mistake them for vandalism—hence the reverts. I've taken a closer look since seeing this message and now see that this wasn't meant as vandalism. I've removed the vandalism warnings and edited the article to do a rough wikification. I suggest that you take a look at WP:EP and WP:MOS. Also, you might take a look at WP:MOSS, Wikipedia:List of spelling variants and American and British English spelling differences; I don't see a problem in that regard, but you might want to be prepared for issues with editors who are US-centric spellers.
CSS, by the way, is an abbreviation for Cascading Style Sheets, and you probably don't want to know any more about that.
Why do you even bother to watch over an article about a high school in a small, obscure town in Michigan when you live all the way out where you do?--66.188.61.59 (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but this is not vandelism. I was born in Heidelberg and I deserve to be recognized for it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.20.178 (talk • contribs) 09:43, May 10, 2009
then you must not know what vandelism looks like. You can't keep me down. I will defeat Wikipedia.
Your suggestion has been noted but unfortunately ignored...what are you going to do BAN the entire building just because of me...it would be the net equivalent of carpet bombing a middle-eastern town for 1 militant...DO YOUR WORST you thugs in the scallop industry!
Please explain to me why it is bad to have sock puppet accounts, and why you keep getting my accounts blocked.
Nich45 (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that Boraclay Bill is a sock puppet acount!!!!!!
Also please revert my edits on Iron Maiden because it was obviously not vandalism.Nich45 (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a sock puppet, of course. Neither do I operate any sock puppet accounts. I see by checking here that Nick45 has never edited the Iron Maiden document. The revert mentioned above is probably a revert I made to this edit, by Nick43 (apparently an earlier now-blocked account owned by the current operator of the Nick45 account). That is discussed above in the Response to Nich43 section of this talk page. Nick45 is apparently a sock puppet operated by the user who previously operated the now-banned Nick43 account.-- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Days, weeks, months, years? Also does sending you a message constitute "vandalism"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.223.93 (talk • contribs) 08:39, May 12, 2009
There was a list of predicted events and I put one down. In 2019 the Arab nations will make a foolish invasion attempt on Israel which will indeed later result in Israel rightfuly taking the Arab countries. The Israeli Empire will be esablished as it should have been back in the 70's, but the opportunity was missed.
None of the other 2009#Predicted events were out-of-the-blue predictions. The other events listed were events scheduled for 2019 or events which, because of situations described in the article, can be reasonably predicted due to happen in 2019. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the article has been the subject of edit warring recently, which is never good for the encyclopedia. I am posting this message to the talk pages of the involved contributors, and hope that they come here to discuss the issue and come to a solution, instead of resorting to coninual back-and-forth in the article itself. -- saberwyn08:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but do tell me, is anything else in the article cited? "Friend of the poor"?! The page was modified on April 6th, in time for general elections in India. I happened to look up his name on Wikipedia and found propaganda. Maybe you as an advanced editor in wiki can put up a warning of propaganda or NPOV problems or something - I do not know how to do this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.177.132 (talk • contribs) 13:44, May 16, 2009
I don't know anything about Indian politics, but your edit which I reverted clearly violated the WP:NPOV policy. Looking at the article, I see that the info about "Friend of the poor" comes from the bio of Janardhana Poojary on the Parliment of India website. Here are a couple of online-previewable book links where you might be able to find material to improve the article: [5], [6]. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. Abce2|AccessDenied04:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed you've made edits to University of the Philippines (UP) and UP–related articles and thought you might want to support our recent proposal to create the WikiProject University of the Philippines. We've recently revamped the proposal and started a drive to push the approval of this project. We have a lot of articles that may be under this project and we would like assistance and support for its approval. Hope we'll have a very positive response. Go Fighting Maroons!
Just recently I added some words to the articles "4th dimension" and "Dimension." I am annoyed because I believe what I added is useful and relevant to the topics. In the article "dimension", I explained a bit on how a second dimensional object would not be able to see anything in a second dimensional world. This is an interesting topic about the second dimension that could help people to understand more about how hard it is to visualize the 4th dimension. In the article "4th dimension", I talked about how impossible it is for a second dimensional object to even try to think about what a third dimensional object would look like. Again this helps people to think about and visualize what the transition would be from third to fourth dimension, because we understand the transition from the second to third dimension. Please look at the changes I made and reconsider the ideas they share for the page. Thanks you—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.36.23 (talk • contribs) 10:39, May 21, 2009
I was doing vandal patrol with WP:Huggle, and only looking at each flagged edit for a few seconds. This is the edit I reverted. The sentence which got to me was "In the same way, someone who can wrap their mind around a 4th dimensional object should share this with the world." It still looks unconstructive and unencyclopedic to me after taking a second look. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ay,
all i was doing was putting in details for the railway station thats all, I also wanted to apologize, I wanted to make the platform symbols to appear on the Muswellbrook Station Page, to make it abit more impressive i guess
User:cymruman
This is the edit which I reverted. that was not a constructive edit. However, I mistakenly sent the warning against spam when I meant to send the warning against test edits. Please use the sandbox for test edits. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If 'at the time of writing' is applicable language for Wikipedia, then should not every page have a warning at the top along the lines of 'Since this page contains the written word, the information contained there within may no longer be true'? I amended that phrase as it's not the style of language I usually find here, and it was clearly unnecessary.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.116.120 (talk • contribs) 08:45, May 24, 2009
Good point. Although I presume you mean May, 2009?
I've also just realised you reverted my whole edit - thereby reinserting two contradictorary paragraphs which referred to the same event as occurring on two different dates. This section has since been re-written completely and this error was removed.
This apparently relates to the article British Sky Broadcasting. I see that the current version of the article has gone back to saying "At the time of writing ...". Of course, a few months or a few years down the road a reader will have no idea in the world what the time of writing might have been. Considering the subsequent sentence, I've changed "At the time of writing" to read "Prior to October 2005". Apparently, this information came from some source which was written sometime prior to October 2005, and which (surprisingly, considering WP:V), has not been cited.
Hello, thanks for notifying me about Bugzilla:18890, and thanks for all your work on the code. Just a question: do you have someplace that's running your updated cite.php? I would like to test a few things… Shreevatsa (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not have it up online anywhere. I could do that; perhaps I should do that, but I have not done that.
To develop the changes, I put a local test wiki up on my WinXP system. There are a number of ways to do that; what I did was:
Download and install version 1.14.x of the Cite extension (See the Cite extension at [8], See installation instructions at [9])
In C:\apache2triad\htdocs\extensions\cite, rename Cite_body.php to Cite_body.php.orig and put the code currently found at User:Wtmitchell/Work1 into Cite_body.php there.
Thanks for the reply. The manual for installing Mediawiki seems a bit daunting, but I hope to try it soon on my Ubuntu VM (or Windows), and report on how it works. Regards, 02:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
hey there, just wondering if wikipedia would ever consider adding a section at the bottom of each page where people can leave comments and talk about the page. For me i would love that, there a few rare cds out that i would like to leave a comment if anyone owned them. i think this feature would bring more people to sign up, and it would be a real fun way for people to get involved with wikipedia. Thanks/Mike—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:70.20.60.223
|70.20.60.223
]] ([[User talk:70.20.60.223
|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/70.20.60.223
|contribs]]) 04:09, May 26, 2009
you and another guy revrted my deletion of racist subjects on the mongoloid race page. I don't understand this, as almost the entire thing was racist, trying to "prove" mongoloids are smarter, more evolved, better looking, etc... than other races. wikipedia is a sad site for allowing such things to be published.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.44.136 (talk • contribs) 12:44, May 26, 2009
This apparently regards this edit, wuich added "(posted by racist asians)" following one section header, breaking that section header and inserting a racist comment. The material in the section appears superficially to be amply cite-supported, though I have not verified that the cited sources do support the article's assertions. I stand by the edit and the associated vandalism report. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for pointing that out to me. This article is on my watchlist but I don't watch it closely. It would have popped up while I was blitzing through the watchlist and drinking my morning coffee. Let me see if I can figure out what I did...
Revision as of 02:58, May 26, 2009 an anon inserted, "Luckily the aircraft carriers were not in the harbor at the time of the attack." into a previously existing comment with no edit summary.
Revision as of 04:33, May 26, 2009Binksternet reverted that with no edit summary. Binksternet's reversion is apparently what popped up on my watchlist.
Revision as of 07:33, May 27, 2009 I reverted Binksternet, saying "Reverted 1 edit by Binksternet; Revert unsupported exceptional assertion.. using TW)". From my edit summary, it looks like I must have mistakenly thought that I was reverting in the mainspace article instead of in the talk page. I am clearly at fault here. It looks like I was editing this while distracted by something else and not paying as much attention to my editing as I should have been.
Revision as of 21:08, May 27, 2009 I reverted the Binksternet edit, misidentifying it as vandalism with an edit summary inserted by WP:Twinkle saying, "(Reverted 1 edit by The ed17 identified as vandalism to last revision by Wtmitchell. using TW)". This was about 14h30m after my previously reversion, and came during an evening look at watchlisted items which I would normally have looked at the following morning (this morning). I'm pretty sure that I did not look back at the edit history before reverting.
Current revision as of 22:52, May 27, 2009 You (User:Rees11) reverted me saying, "(This is not vandalism, this is a revert of vandalism. Please check the edit history.)". I hadn't seen that one yet when I got notification of the above message from you on my talk page.
Bill I didn't mean to rub your nose in anything, I just felt sorry for Binksternet. The text was added by an anon user, and as it was added to the section top and unsigned, it amounted to putting words in someone's mouth. Glad it's sorted out now. Let's all stand first watch and keep a lookout for vandals off the port bow. By the way, Boracay Bill is an excellent user name. Rees11 (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I am afraid you recent edits Re: above is not supported by your citation. (1) You entered that "The Religious Intelligence Ltd. website estimates that there are some 1,167 Muslims in Puerto Rico, representing about 0.03% of the population". Actually this is not correct: Religious Intelligence estimates, and I quote, "Muslim: 5,029 adherents (0.13% of population)" which is in line with the previous version (which I had edited) listing that "Islam had some 5,128 Muslims in Puerto Rico, representing about 0.13% of the population." The 1,167 figure you stated is not found -anywhere- in your citation and the 0.03% percentage you also stated is only found in reference to Buddhists (not Muslims) in Puerto Rico, otherwise it has no connection to anything Muslim in Religious Intelligence's findings.
(2) You also made reference to wikepedia "WP mirror (see WP:Mirrors and forks)" and removed the citation referencing absoluteastronomy.com. If you check the absoluteastronomy web site and read their Note you wily wl see it says that "Note: The percentage of Muslim population of each country was taken from the US State Department's International Religious Freedom Report, the CIA World Factbook, and Adherents.com." These are three mutually independent and well-regarded institutions, with all three of them conducting their own (i.e., no mirroring from Wikipedia) research. Maybe there is something else you meant? If so you may respond via a message to my board.
In light of these, I have reinstated the previous version which was considerably more accurate than the most recent one. You may respond to my message board if there is some misunderstanding. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob99324 (talk • contribs) 12:16, June 11, 2009
Wikipedia itself is self-published. Therefore articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, may not be used as sources. In addition, sources that present information known to originate from Wikipedia should not be used for that information, as this may create circular sourcing.
Thanks for your remarks. Please note that I did deal with dead references per WP:DEADREF. In particular, I used the Checklinks tool to identify the links, manually confirmed that they were dead, manually confirmed that they were not archived at internet archive, marked them dead with {{dead link}} tags as suggested at WP:DEADREF, dating those tags and supplying the url= parameter to make it easy for others to confirm check whether or not the link returns to life. Yes, it would be a good idea to identify and cite alternative sources. If I get time, I may try to do some of that. Please understand, however, that I am not one of the primary editors of the article in question—I just happened to notice the dead links problem in passing and took what action I could at the time about that. If you are one of the primary editors of the article in question, I suggest that you might be able to improve the article by finding alternative sources to replace the dead links. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks for the reply. You've done the largest part of the work already by testing the links - I'm sure the other editors can take it the rest of the way. Thanks for your help. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note via Wikipedia Talk. I just read it now. I am deployed in Iraq, and sometimes lose track of accounts like Wikipedia or even Hotmail. I don't understand why there appears to be a flame war over the CIA-USAID link. A couple of times I've corrected stuff there (along the lines of "there is no connection"), and then someone's come in and revised my revision (along lines of "it's well-known that USAID is front organization"). Frustrating for me because I know it's untrue, and I am on the inside currently and know some of the big organizations that serve as cover (it's not my agency). It would be most helpful if I could find the legislation from the 1970s (?) that purportedly severed any connection between USAID and intel community. Indeed, I am embedded in our military headquarters now, in Iraq, and there's even a Memorandum that pertains to limits on what I can do here (no operations, no intel, etc). We have a firewall separating USAID from that world, and I wish I could prove it to Wikipedia readers and settle this once and for all.
Current version of the article (and the version which I edited) reads: "One side of the reed frame is omitted from the images for clarity; in actuality, the frame surrounds the reed on four sides and cuts the space in an upper and under reed area. As soon in the area under the reed a negative pressure is created, the reed will start to move."
I had trouble understanding "As soon in the area under the reed a negative pressure is created, the reed will start to move." After thinking about the "as soon in" part in particular, I thought it merited change, but I must've muddled the meaning/missed the meaning entirely. Could you explain what that sentance meant, if only to de-muddy the waters? 174.103.151.80 (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted this edit, which changed the sentence to read, "As soon as a negative pressure is created in the area under the reed a negative pressure is created." which doesn't say anything useful. I've rewritten the paragraph and cited a supporting source with more info. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I come from a poor family. I have never had much, and I see wikipedia as one of the last frontiers of freedom in our great country. I appreciate your enthusiastic criticism of my input on one Murfreesboro, Tennessee article and respect that you are doing all you can to keep wikipedia current and relevant! However, the recent reversion you enacted against the edit I made to the page Murfreesboro, Tennessee has been reverted, as it appeared to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the reversion was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative reversion summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to reverting. Thank you.
-Boracay Mike
Cite_body.php modified to allow ref bodies to be declared outside of article prose
Belated apologies for no comment yet on this Bill. I've not been logging on to Wikipedia so much during the summer months recently. --SallyScot (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bill
Would just like to 'sing' your praise a little bit. Thank you for your vigilance in undoing a pejorative reference in my Jimmy Hughes (musician) page. Having got an entry it seemed a shame to have somebody mess with it! Anyway, I traced the clown to someplace in Canada where amongst other things he is also trifling with British Imperial prescence in Canadian provinces and entries for the island of Sarnia. Why he should turn his attention to lil' ole me is a mystery!
Once again, Bill, thanks and enjoy layingabout on that island of yours.
Best
James—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jh1roc (talk • contribs) 16:02, June 16, 2009
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This dude, 24.155.195.196, needs to be blocked or warned or else he's just gonna vandalize pages like he did with Stephanie McMahon's page. I just LOVE how you guys don't do anything to stop these vermin. SkrallAgoriSkrallAgori (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"you guys"????? That should be "us guys", dude; include yourself in that. I suggest, once you've been around long enough to establish a track record as an editor, that you start doing some community-service valdalism patrolling yourself.
Following on your comments above, I took a look at the edit history for IP address 24.155.195.196, and see that there have been a grand total of 18 edits from that address. As these are anonymous IP edits, these 18 edits may or may not have been made by the same particular dude or dudette.
hi! i like the way you improved the description of "tricycle" in the article "Transportation in the Philippines". i was the one who inserted it on the list of puv's. i was reading the article and was surprised not to see "tricycle" there. i was planning to improve myself but due to my work load, i was not able to get back to it until now(hehehe!). anyway, i also agree to the idea of creating a separate article for it. tricycle in the philippines was also mentioned under the article for "auto rickshaw" but it was not fully defined.Krysspana (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the nature of my comment but there is some doubt in my mind about how good an admin you would be if you have probloms finding sources due to your isolationSlatersteven (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bill
I have edited the page titled TALK BOX. There is NO controversary about my inventing the Talk Box. I certainly DID build the very first HIGH POWERED Heil Talk Box for Joe Walsh, Peter Frampton and many others. Every Talk Box prior was only smaller 30 watt and less drivers and of course did not make it as a live instrument. In fact that very first serial # 1 high powered Heil Talk Box is on display in the Rockand Roll Hall of Fame.
Here is the edit that must be corrected in the TALK BOX pages.
- There is controversy over who invented the talk box. Bob Heil has claimed he invented the talk box[1] but there is clearly prior art in the form of the Kustom Electronics device, "The Bag",[2] which is the same concept housed in a decorative bag slung over the shoulder like a wine bottle and sold in 1969, two years before Heil's Talk Box. The Bag is claimed to have been designed by Doug Forbes,[3][4] who states that the exact same concept (horn driver attached to a plastic tube and inserted into the mouth) had previously been patented as an artificial larynx.[5] + BOB HEIL built the first High Powered Talk Box for the Barnstorm tour. Bob, Joe Walsh and Krinkle, Joe's tech put their heads together and used a 250 watt JBL driver, built a low pass filter and surgical tubing for the live 'Rocky Mountain Way'. With the success of Rocky Mountain, Heil began building a marketable 100 watt Talk Box which is still in production today. The Kustom Electronics device, "The Bag",[6] used a small 30 watt driver and used the same concept housed in a decorative bag slung over the shoulder like a wine bottle and sold in 1969, two years before Heil's Talk Box. The Bag is claimed to have been designed by Doug Forbes,[7][8] who states that the exact same concept (horn driver attached to a plastic tube and inserted into the mouth) had previously been patented as an artificial larynx.[9]
Hmmm... It looks like you are referring to my revert of this edit. I did that during vandalism patrol, and probably keyed off of your insertion of all the UPPERCASE CONTENT there. I'll take a second look. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bill
I have edited the page titled TALK BOX. There is NO controversary about my inventing the Talk Box. I certainly DID build the very first HIGH POWERED Heil Talk Box for Joe Walsh, Peter Frampton and many others. Every Talk Box prior was only smaller 30 watt and less drivers and of course did not make it as a live instrument. In fact that very first serial # 1 high powered Heil Talk Box is on display in the Rockand Roll Hall of Fame.
Here is the edit that must be corrected in the TALK BOX pages.
- There is controversy over who invented the talk box. Bob Heil has claimed he invented the talk box[16] but there is clearly prior art in the form of the Kustom Electronics device, "The Bag",[17] which is the same concept housed in a decorative bag slung over the shoulder like a wine bottle and sold in 1969, two years before Heil's Talk Box. The Bag is claimed to have been designed by Doug Forbes,[18][19] who states that the exact same concept (horn driver attached to a plastic tube and inserted into the mouth) had previously been patented as an artificial larynx.[20] + BOB HEIL built the first High Powered Talk Box for the Barnstorm tour. Bob, Joe Walsh and Krinkle, Joe's tech put their heads together and used a 250 watt JBL driver, built a low pass filter and surgical tubing for the live 'Rocky Mountain Way'. With the success of Rocky Mountain, Heil began building a marketable 100 watt Talk Box which is still in production today. The Kustom Electronics device, "The Bag",[21] used a small 30 watt driver and used the same concept housed in a decorative bag slung over the shoulder like a wine bottle and sold in 1969, two years before Heil's Talk Box. The Bag is claimed to have been designed by Doug Forbes,[22][23] who states that the exact same concept (horn driver attached to a plastic tube and inserted into the mouth) had previously been patented as an artificial larynx.[24]
Hi again, Bob. I am not knowledgeable in this area. AFAICS, controversy does exist since you and Doug Forbes both claim to have invented a thing called the "Talk Box". FWICS, Forbes invented a thing which came to be called "The Bag" and you at some later point either improved on that or independently invented a higher-power (louder) version of the same thing. The timeline for that is not clear to me but it seems to me that now, years later, the term "talk box" has come to refer to a class of similar devices grouped together under that term. To the extent that there is controversey, it looks to me that it is not about who invented what or about when the various things were invented, but more about what can and cannot properly be called a "talk box". I don't know to what extent there might be disagreement between you and Doug Forbes or others about whether that "The Bag" device could be properly referred to by the term "talk box".
I see here that there is apparently a product being marketed, apparently by Dunlop Manufacturing, called the "Heil Talk Box". My guess is that the term "talk box" has become genericized, and that "Heil Talk Box" is a trademarked product name. I would suggest moving discussion of Kustom electronics, Doug Forbes, and "The Bag" up out of the present Talk box controversy section into a new section, perhaps titled The Bag and retitling the Talk box controversy section as The Hiel talk box. Also, you suggested additional material could use a supporting citation. -- 122.55.56.10 (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me how to request help rewriting this section. I like to find some neutral writers/editors.
The article has been deleted before because of what he did.
Another page about the group he was involved with has been deleted, locked, etc.
I be the first to admit I am not good at this. I have the references and information including the online books, newspaper articles, etc. to pass on to anybody who is interested in just helping.
I like somebody from one of the Religious editors to help.
This regards this reversion and other edits to the Neil Patrick Carrick article, most of the content of which appears to have been copied from other online sources outside of Wikipedia.
After a quick second look, it appears to me that Carrick's WP:Notability, such as it is, grows out of his connection to what the article terms "the 2004 scandal of Greater Grace World Outreach". I don't know how notable the scandal itself was; the Greater Grace World Outreach article itself doesn't mention it at all. It appears to me that in addition to the problem of Carrick's questionable notability, the article also violates Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons in regard to unsupported allegations made in the article against Carl H. Stevens Jr.. At a minimum, those allegations need to be verifiably supported by cited reliable sources. Failing that, the allegations need to be excised from the article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a quick question: The wikipedia article is titled "Yaakov Yitzchak Horowitz" as this is Rabbi Horowitz's full name. He is known as Yaakov Horowitz and when I do a google or wikipedia search for Yaakov Horowitz nothing comes up. I only get the wiki link when I type "Yaakov Yitzchak Horowitz." This is not that great since anyone browsing the net for Yaakov Horowitz will not know to search for Yaakov Yitzchak Horowitz. I tried to create a new title Yaakov Horowitz and redirecting the old one "Yaakov Yitzchak" but am not sure if I actually did anything since after I did it I tried searching for Yaakov Horowitz and nothing came up.
Thanks, but it's a question of deciding which particular can of worms to open. None of the varieties of cans of worms on offer look particularly appealing. Wtmitchell (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you have left me messages about editing articles, i dont know whether someone else at my house has got on here (which I doubt) but I certainly know I didn't do write these.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.16.161.130 (talk • contribs) 17:27, June 25, 2009
Hello, anonymous user using IP address 120.16.161.130. This appears to refer to this reversion. Perhaps this problem comes from your sharing that IP address with other persons. I suggest that you sign up for a Wikipedia userid. Wtmitchell (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL CC-BY-SA.
OK. Thanks for the heads-up. I categorized several articles yesterday, and I'm pretty sure I know what I did to cause this. I'm slowly trying to figure out a lot of stuff which I hadn't bothered much with until now. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some digging around turned up this edit (10:19, May 21, 2009), where I reverted a clearly vandalous insertion by someone editing anonymously from IP address 75.175.184.168 (the IP address which you were using when you edited my talk page above). Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: your comment here in which you added a non-free image on the talk page: note that per WP:NFCC policy a non-free image can never be used on a article talk page. Also the image is easily replaceable (since anyone can can take a photograph of a public billboard) and therefore its use in article space is also likely to be disallowed and the image deleted. Just thought I'd stop by and explain why I edited your talk page edit. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Peter Bellwood, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://arts.anu.edu.au/AandA/people/staff/bellwood.asp. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for reverting this minor bit of vandalism on this article about one Josh Gracin which was done using my IP address and without my knowledge. I have made an occasional page edit over the past year or so, mostly correcting spelling, minor errors and adding small interesting facts. I now see the consequences of doing so without creating an account. So I will quit editing at this time. Please advise me if you think it would be important to (in some way) purge my IP address from the Wiki DB. Otherwise, I will not worry about it.
I'm the user responsible for the spam-seeming posts. The links usually point to a page that hosts certain free government research documents. The "error" page you're seeing reflects the fact that Wikilinks is experiencing some downtime. This is very frustrating to me because I'm trying to post stable links to these government reports, and I chose the Wikilinks platform arbitrarily.
Notice that the hyperlink contains the text "CRS:_DUAL_CITIZENSHIP%2C_October_1%2C_1998", which indicates that the intended destination was "Congressional Research Service, DUAL CITIZENSHIP . 15 pages. Oct 01, 1998. Order No.: 98-819 ".
Yes that's right I did change part of the quote. The sources that you got your information from aren't the most reliable, being that they're from either people who blatantly dislike Lauryn Hill, or who know nothing about Lauryn Hill. I can tell that you obviously know nothing about her (being that you had to use such sources.) By all of the stuff you've got up, it almost seems like you're trying to make her look bad.
I had to dig back a bit for this one. This appears to concern two edits which I made back on 23 May.
this edit reverted the deletion of some sourced content. The edit which I reverted would have removed half of a direct quote, removed the closing quotation mark, and would have removed the citation of a supporting source for the quotation. You reverted the article back to the flawed version which I had reverted, and I re-reverted with this edit.
I know nothing about Layryn Hill, I was patrolling for vandalism, and reverted your edits which were (among other things) clearly in violation of Wikipedia's verifiability policy, the lead paragraph of which says, in part, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." Turning that around, editors should not remove cited sources which support direct quotes unless to replace the cited sources with more reliable sources.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Loonymonkey (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As reviewing administrator I think he's likely notable, the guideline is WP:PROF. Try to find reviews of his books, and add them as references. If any material is taken from his web page, rewrite it--this is absolutely essential. I advise you to do this very quickly, before the article gets deleted by a regular deletion process--it will possibly get nominated, despite my opinion. DGG (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original article said that the parties were
tried under the UCMJ - Uniform Code of Military
Justice. The UCMJ didn't come into existance
until 1951. Their court martial was in 1944.
At that time Rocks & Shoals was the naval law
in force.
Sorry. Apparently my mistake. Going too fast. I'll look back at the article and if you haven't already done so I will self-revert my change and, if needed, add a clarifying note. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just discovered that it is actually true. The story's only broken in the last hour or so. Check out this link. I'll reword the text as it isn't very encyclopedic at the moment. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've no idea what your special wiki terms mean. However, in the Camp Fire USA entry, there was a small error that I fixed, and you changed it back. The name of the Camp Fire program is "Starflight." That's what I changed it to. It's not "Starlight," which surely must be a typgraphical error. What "unconstructive" means as you've used it, I've no idea. I've been involved in Camp Fire for decades. I have dozens of program books published by Camp Fire (now known as Camp Fire USA). If you check the Camp Fire USA web site at www.campfireusa.org you'll find that the program name is Starflight, not "Starlight." Specifically, you can check this page: [10] At that page, you will see the various program books and items specifically for the Starflight program. Note: Starflight. Not "Starlight." I fixed a typographical error. Then, for reasons that only you might understand, you "unfixed" it. So, would you please go back and "unfix" the error that you made? If you'd like, feel free to phone or email or postal mail the national offices of Camp Fire USA. You will find that the program name is "STARFLIGHT." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.123.178 (talk • contribs)
Can you please explain to me how it is vandalism? Also point out any inaccuracies in the article. I don't take kindly to your threat of being blocked, throwing around the vandalism word to try and make yourself sound like you have authority? You didn't even have the courage to mention what you thought was incorrect about the article. Perhaps you would better to stick to articles you have some knowledge on.
Poor judgment,
Breach of basic policies,
Failure to communicate
Hey... I edited the page with true, some ridiculous, but true information.. The principal is WELL known as 'Pony Puncher (Joe) Driscoll' and half of the school was out of commission.. I attended there the past 4 years and I just graduated about a month ago, so, i think I would know... So, I would appreciate it if you would leave it alone an accept the truth...
No, none of those were the one I was speaking of.. The edit I did was at the....
"Over the past few years, Falmouth High School has gone through major renovations, WHICH HAS LEFT HALF THE SCHOOL OUT OF COMMISSION" - It is true..
And the other one was the "Pony Puncher (Joe) Driscoll" as principal thing... That is acually common knowledge to anybody in Falmouth. Ask anyone.
A quote from the reverted vandalous edit: "The school serves roughly 900 students and 400 "do-nothings". The rest of the reverted material cited no supporting sources. Please read WP:V and WP:RS. 06:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)210.1.78.160 (talk)
I noticed you posted a copy of this message on the Huggle discussion page a few times, someone has replied to you and informed you that the sock reporting feature is disabled until Gurch, the tool maintainer, can issue a fix for it. Hope this answers your question. treeloradda08:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. The last instance concerned this edit, wikilinked above, made by huggle at 04:02, July 12, 2009 according to its timestamp. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, On the question of who was away at the dance at start of Battle of Manila, I checked the source you mention but found nothing definite. It would be interesting to follow up. StevenWT —Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenWT (talk • contribs) 13:25, July 18, 2009
Yes, I had had a quick read through it and found nothing about the dance. "Dance" rings a bell, though, and I think wherever I read it was talking about the Filipino officers. I'm leaving on vacation for a month or so in a day or two, and probably won't have time to dig it out before I go. I suggested reading that chapter because it presents a picture of Filipino sources being primed to provoke US forces into beginning a confrontation, from a first-hand source. I'll try to get time to dig into it again, probably after I get back from vacation. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Wtmitchell: Do we need all that info about MacArthur and Otis on the Battle of Manila page? Should it not be on their personal pages, referenced from this page? StevenWT--StevenWT (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think that those details belong in the Battle of Manila (1899) article. I took the info from the Arthur MacArthur Jr. and Elwell Stephen Otis articles to illustrate why I had removed the assertion that "... officers like MacArthur with 30 years of slow advancement in the peacetime army, combat was the surest route to further promotion" from the article. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bill, remember me, this is Francis Ray, the guy from Romblon and contributor of the history for Romblon's various municipalities and 5 other barangays of San Agustin including some named islands of Romblon. I was the one who posted also the population at various times for all the municipalities in the province. I am very disappointed because Mamaberry 11 deleted all my posting in wikipedia, even the scholarly contributions of Mr. Ish Fabicon, Ryan Fadri, Melex Fabula to name a few great Romblomanon historians and web designers, all their works were also deleted from both Wikipedia and Wikipilipinas without any sort of notice. I did not appeal nor challenge her moved but I question why it was deleted when it was already there for more than 2 years. Now, it is only the population at various time which is left and Romblon's histories became history themselves in wikipedia. Mr. Bill, I want to delete my contributions in wikipedia about population at various times because I will be posting it in Sanrokan magazine very soon. I tried to delete it, but a robot or a mod is reposting it again and again. Researches and students will not benefit anymore from these data without its related history write-ups. Who will appreciate to find only numerical figures when people are searching for historical, cultural and various information about this particular remote place in our planet. Thanks, hope you can help me delete my contributions for the 17 municipalities of Romblon.89.211.187.199 (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I write this, I have not thought about the details at all. My initial reaction is that you need to supply more information about what you are asking me to do. What particular article(s) are you talking about? Romblon, and/or some other(s)? Regarding the deletions of which you speak, I would guess that you need to read WP:V. I have not paid much attention to the articles about Romblon province or about the various municipalities therein but when I have looked at them I have been concerned about lack of verifiability, of the assertions therein. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you sir for your response. If you will notice, the 17 municipalities of Romblon province have tabulation on "Population at various times". Before the deletion, each of the municipalities in Romblon has the history chapter above then followed by Population at various times. Now that the history has been deleted from every municipality, I am now requesting you to help me delete the "population at various times" which was also my contributions to be deleted permanently from wikipedia. My reason for this recommendation is that historical statistics on census is of no use to students and researchers without the main portion on history now deleted. I honestly believe that nobody will be interested on it anymore without its accompanying history. You may check the 17 municipalities of Romblon province as follows: Alcantara, Banton, Cajidiocan, Calatrava, Concepcion, Corcuera, Ferrol, Looc, Magdiwang, Odiongan, Romblon, San Agustin, San Andres, San Fernando, San Jose, Santa Fe and Santa Maria all in the province of Romblon. Thank you. 89.211.187.199 (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall it, you and I had some exchanges about some of these articles early in their editorial history, with me expressing concern that (among other concerns) material then being added to the article should cite supporting sources. I decided at that time not to remove the material myself.
I've taken a quick look at some of the articles you mention above and, though I don't see this explicitly expressed in the edit histories, it appears to me that the material recently removed by others might have been removed due to its lack of cited supporting sources (see WP:V#Burden of evidence). Some or all of the remaining material in the articles (e.g., the historical statistics of which you speak) may also be candidate for removal due to lack of cited supporting sources. You can remove that material yourself if you are so inclined.
As to permanence of removal, that can not be guaranteed. In contributing that material to Wikipedia, you licensed its use and reuse under the GFDL license—see WP:COPY for more information regarding that. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for the fix. The assertion that it was an ivy league school predated my cosmetic fixes, and I hadn't checked it. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. Retrieved 1 September 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Bergreen, Laurence (2003). Over the Edge of the World: Magellan's Terrifying Circumnavigation of the Globe. William Morrow. ISBN9780066211732, ISBN 006093638X. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Joyner, Tim (1992). Magellan. Camden, Me.: International Marine Publishing. ISBN9780070331280. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |month= (help)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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.'
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.
