Hi Wtmitchell. I don't usually second guess another admin on their blocks but between their short but exclusively disruptive editing history and their username, I think user:Wykipedia is racist is pretty clearly NOTHERE. If you disagree feel free to reduce/revert my indef. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No disagreement from me. You took a closer look at it than I did. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there.

You blocked this user the exact same time I filed an AIV report. Looking at their contributions, the content of said contributions, and the username itself, I think it's a vandalism only account - shouldn't indefinite be better? Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right, but I tend not to lead off with a sledgehammer. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've worked a bit on your The Tiger General article adding categories. Please add more references to the article. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. Don't know how well I'l be able to do. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate, Um where is the proof of a god? Only one, inside your head...___````121.208.205.150 (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This apparently relates to this revert. Please read WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey who built things, the person at the top commanding or the people at the bottom being threatened at the bottom by who's GOD? God is a word for I control you by the way I say your world is... how did I learn to write - school..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.205.150 (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am new to editing on wikipedia. Did not know that would go "live". Thanks!

You have blocked this IP around last week for repeated disruptive editing. I see they are back again at Bhavnagar Airport adding content without sources, images that belong to a different airport. I do not believe that this IP will stop. I hence, request you to PC protect the article. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 03:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've PC protected the article for a week. I see that this IP editor has a final warning on hos talk page, so he is likely to be blocked if he vandalizes another article before or after the protection on the current problem article runs out. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill; I know that you're in a different time zone (much further east) from me, but is it really eight months ahead of UTC? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, of course. I see that the {{cn}} has been removed. I've reinserted it with a Feb 2018 date. I see that the relevant content was added without support back on April 5, 2015. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I want to bring to your attention that 108.217.224.183 was previously blocked for adding unsourced and promotional content. The same pattern is repeating at Nithiin (see a sample diff). I have undone that and other edits for the third time and I just left a message on the talk page of the user. Best regards, --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know topical details related to that article. A quick look at the diff gives me the impression that this was mainly a WP:COPYEDIT attempting to to improve presentation rather than an edit intending to add WP:OR material to the article. If you think that edit was too WP:BOLD. I think this is best addressed via WP:BRD. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I have been watching this article since 2015 and there have been multiple promotional edits, I hope I am not been a bit overzealous here, so I would really appreciate your opinion. I think that using "blockbuster" to what the source called a "senational hit" (I assume they meant sensational) may be valid. However, I found this phrase: "Nithiin is considered to be one of the most popular stars of Telugu cinema" to be both unsourced and promotional. In this other edit the terms "breakthrough" and "stardom" also seem to me to be unreferenced and promotional. If it is added again, I would try to remove only the promotional content and hopefully that will end the problem. what do you think? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at all familiar with this topic and am not inclined to intervene at this point. Please see WP:DR and WP:DRR. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, It's just one of the pages I patrol, I don't have any special interest in the subject my only goal being just to protect it from edits against our policies. I don't think there will be a need for dispute resolution in this case. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Demographics of Filipino Americans#Guam and CNMI . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what you call "vandalism" is actually hard facts. So you will not block me from editing that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koodasixnine (talk • contribs) 03:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this concerns this revert. It still looks like vandalism to me. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Asian Americans#Lead section . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I recommend -in the future- to have this kind of discussion in the commons discussion page of the file, because its used in many wm projects worldwide. Regards, --Zeroth (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I echoed your response on the article talk page. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a new version of the Twenty One Pilots album at File:Twenty_One_Pilots_album_cover.jpg, but the reference didn't get processed properly. Can you please edit it so it displays correctly? NMGWP (talk) 04:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assisting this editor on my user talk page now - you can consider this question resolved here :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; this was outside of my usual areas of concentration. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit, which was an attempt to make the page less biased. I went through reading cory robins stuff and saw that he was far-left. Quoting him in an article of the oppisite party is just idiotic, there is bound to be some Jasper5446 (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to concern this revert by me. I made that revert from WP:Huggle, and chose the canned edit summary saying "not adhering to neutral point of view". Note that I made no claim that a leftist was neutral.

What prompted my revert was that your edit which I reverted added the claim "Although, this is incorrect." (apparently a statement of your opinion made in Wikipedia's editorial voice) following a direct quote in the article. The comment was added just prior to the citation of this source in support of the quote. Your edit also changed the attribution of the quote and a characterization of its thrust from "Corey Robin" to "Some left-leaning figures". The supporting source cited in the article does attribute the quote to Corey Robin. I stand by my revert.

Moreover, looking at this more closely now than I did at the time of my revert, I assert that the article content reading "political theorists such as Corey Robin define conservatism primarily in terms of a general defense of social and economic inequality. From this perspective, conservatism is less an attempt to uphold traditional institutions as a valuing of competition itself." is more neutral than your addition of the assertion that a direct quote is somehow "incorrect". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i have blanked the page Roby varghese raj bcos i think its the second time its getting speedy deletion. I didnt get the idea giving all referral link releated to the person and still gets speedy deletion means a bad thing i hve given a referral link in this specific name too. Admin who add a7 is not even looking on that, mostly frustrated am a new person trying my best to make article that will be help full for others. But speedy deletion with out any reason is not so good. Thn who will add article for that person.you can check the whole details and referral links. If ur trying to help me then pls remove a7 from the article. 106.208.243.58 (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re page blanking, see Wikipedia:Page blanking.

Re A7, see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and Wikipedia:Notability.

I don't know anything about this person, but a google search for his name turns up quite a few hits. Some of the articles hit may be reliable sources which include information which might be appropriate to mention on the page, citing those sources in support. I have not tried to track back past different versions of this page, but the version at issue here does not list you (at least not as anonymous editor 106.208.243.58) as the creator of this page -- it lists Fitindia (talk · contribs), who has only been around a few days. If that is you, please see WP:SOCK; it is generally not a good idea for a registered user to edit anonymously.

Re the speedy deletion notice, if you did not create the article, you can remove that and explain your reasons on the article talk page. If you did create the article, click the Contest This Speedy Deletion box in the notice and explain on the talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wtmitchell, User:Unicorn212 created the article in caps which I tagged A7 and it was re-created by User:Panju3948 in lower cases. I moved the title to upper case and strangely the article is showing as if I created it as this message on my talk page. I have started a SPI here. Cheers FITINDIA 05:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...... I should be civil to a self proclaimed vandal and persistently disruptive sockmaster? Really ?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if that was thought out and intended for effect. Still, best not to feed the trolls. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Americans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Residency (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed this here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was put the text of an article sub-heading into bold type: that is the style norm for sub-headings within article divisions. What was the problem? Nuttyskin (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whose style norm is that? Wikipedia's? For Wikipedia's style norm re atricle headings, see MOS:HEAD. Also see MOS:ITAL and MOS:BOLD. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia's! Look at the article: in the alphabetical By jurisdiction index, under the section titled Australia, we have successive sub-headings as follows:

Legality

Attempts to ban flag burning

Historical occurrences

Attempts to ban flag burning sticks out like a sore thumb. It ought to be in bold type, should it not? Nuttyskin (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP's house style guide on headings is in MOS:HEAD. A bit more info can be seen in WP:Help#Section#Creation and numbering of sections and in Help:Wikitext#Section headings.

Those describe what wikitext should be used to place section headings in articles. You seem concerned about the appearance of a particular section heading level in a particular article on whatever device you are using to view the Flag desecration article as a logged-in user with the user preferences set up however they are set up for that user. The HTML for a subsection which seems to concern you, as it appears on the device I am using to view it is:

<li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-3"><a href="#Attempts_to_ban_flag_burning"><span class="tocnumber">1.1.1</span> <span class="toctext">Attempts to ban flag burning</span></a></li>

As that heading appears on the device I am using to view the article logged in as myself, incidentally, Attempts to ban flag burning does not stick out like a sore thumb.

A lot of processing goes on behind the scenes between the wikitext in the article and the HTML markup sent to your device. WP:CSS#Wiki headings is also involved there.

I'm not involved in the nitty-gritty of any of that. If you have a problem with some of that, you might bring it up in talk pages of those project pages I wikilinked above and/or you can probably get info about some of the nitty-gritty at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical). In the meantime, please follow the style guidelines. (incidentally, some of the above was influenced by my having read the lead paragraph of your user page) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You warned yourself?? :) - BilCat (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahaha. Yeah. I reverted a vandal and then mistakenly reverted my revert and did not notice. I'm guessing that I must have inadvertantly multi-clicked the revertvandal area i WP:Huggle. Thanks for the fix. I'm removing the warning above, and leaving the rest of this section intact. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I figured it was something like that. I've done similar things with Rollbacks and Twinkle, one just this week in fact. - BilCat (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smriti_Irani&type=revision&diff=846705605&oldid=846704299 There was an adequate edit summary. The information was repeated in multiple places, I merely moved it down and merged it into the main section. If you had scrolled down in the difference window, you would have easily seen that. Also please be more careful while reverting edits with automated tools, you also removed my copy edits which also had an edit summary. 106.51.104.172 (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly my error. Point taken. Apologies. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WtMitchell, first of all, I want to say thank you for being diligent in your work. The edits you made for Mario Alford (Gridiron Football) are appreciated. The user Alford151515 has continued to edit malicious and incorrect information on his wiki page that is harmful to his career. I was wondering if there are any steps I could proceed with to report this account and block the IP from making changes, much like VPN's are blocked from editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoadBlocke (talk • contribs) 12:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Those edits which concern you and which I undid were violations of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. The editor in question was an unregistered editor identified only by vandalism his IP address and I have placed a short duration editing block against this IP address. However, since IP addresses are not people, editing blocks against IP addresses are generally limited to short durations. The person doing these edits may resume his vandalism using this or another IP address. In that case, his vandalous edits will probably be removed. Any editor may remove those edits, including yourself. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WTMitchell, I am inquiring about IP blocks, I know wikipedia is very stringent on issuing these type of blocks, but in the case of the page of Mario Alford (Gridiron Football) legal action is considering being taken. Would a restraining order stop the user Alford151515 (74.215.148.47) from making further changes? This person has consistently input changes in that affect the public image of Mario Alford that can affect employers view on him. He is someone that is exposed to the public in a way that any incorrect statements posted online can be perceived in a way that can affect his method to earn money for himself and feed his children. Please let me know if there is something that can be done before acquiring a restraining order, or even if one is acquired, will it stop further changes?

Thank you for your help. RoadBlocke RoadBlocke (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoadBlocke (talk • contribs) 13:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no legal eagle, I'm just a humble Wikipedian. As far as I know, enforcement of a restraining order and sanctions for violations of the order would be up to the authority issuing the order. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it's Wacom123. I have taken quite long, about a year to get back to you on this matter relating to the edits as I was away on Bulbapedia learning the basics of wiki editing. Now that I have done it, I can certify that the information is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wacom123 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up on whatever matter that was; I'm afraid that I do not remember it. Could you let me know what article it concerned and/or point me to wherever we had a discussion about it? I am pretty busy outside of WP at present, so may take a while to get back to this. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bill, just contacting you in regards to the Mario Alford (Gridiron Football) page. You put a temporary ban on Alford1515, but she is back at it. The ban expired, and she added more incorrect information that could harm the individuals career. Is it possible to put another temporary ban on the account again? Thank you! 65.95.2.232 (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without checking, I don't recall placing a WP:Ban or a WP:Block. However, I took a look at this edit (since reverted), and I placed a cautionary note on the user's talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bill, if you look about three threads up to the other Mario Alford post you stated that you in fact had placed a temporary ban on their page. Thank you! 24.114.218.226 (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be so late getting to this; I'm sure you have sensed some inattention on my part here. I am working through some stuff in real life at the moment and am not able to devote much attention to WP. I'll have to trust that this will be handled appropriately by the rest of the WP editorial community. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just want to let you know that in the coming version of Huggle (3.4.5), there will be a new feature of editing pages directly inside Huggle using an edit form. The edit form functions same as the web one. The default shortcut for this is E and the shortcut for "Edit page in browser" (which previously was E) has changed to Alt+E. If you want more non-automated edits or you prefer editing pages in the browser, you can swap the shortcuts of the above. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or Petrb. Thank you. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 01:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Read this:
• Make not terrible things, for example to support bad things or bad pages with many bad things as bad videos and bad behavior or bad pictures to put in page to view as for example naked or half naked womens or girls, and bad games are trerrible or music or to put bad or not correct information, and to avoid true - and this is very bad and is sin in ISLAM (true religion), and is the way for hell.

Childreen or others, can maybe watch this, and can learn bad things or behavior. So make good deed, and not bad- is good way, and avoid bad deeds. But the real way to paradise, is only one real religion ISLAM to accept, and ALLAH is one real GOD only and read KUR´AN - true book - message from ALLAH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.39.156 (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to concern this revert.

I'm not sure what you had in mind there, or here, but you probably ought to read WP:CENSOR and WP:NPOV. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the citations in the edit you reverted. They were bare URLs, and I was making sure they were properly formatted. Should I just remove them altogether/the text which requires their citation?--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to flesh out barebones cites. I missed that in my revert. Since I'm the editor asserting that these cites don't fit, I've now gone back and removed them myself. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electoral_College_%28United_States%29&type=revision&diff=850264378&oldid=850261700. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that! --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please full protect the page as there's a heated edit war. Regards ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 03:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Future edits:

The sources and claims provided in the Gem Association journal have since been proved to be false and confirmed by the chief editor of the Journal of Gemmology. These references must be removed. Any reference to the border of somalia is false. Additionally, the discovery claim is made by Tanzim Khan, who is using wikipedia for commercial gain and selling gold sheen sapphires. Others are also changing this reference for commercial gain. Locusmt (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your unsourced assertion that the sources and claims provided in the Gem Association journal have since been proved to be false and confirmed by the chief editor of the Journal of Gemmology. I am no topical expert, but I am concerned that the requirements of WP:V and WP:DUE be observed. If the situation is as you present it, it seems to me that the Golden sheen sapphire#Source and Discovery section needs a rewrite along the lines of "Discovery was reported [date] by [info].^[source], but this was eventualy determined to be false.^source]", rather than to contain just an unsourced assertion to the effect that that it's a fraud. Incidentally, after a look back at the article, I'm going to edit the section heading capitalizations into sentence case, in compliance with MOS:HEAD#Article titles, headings, and sections. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for "vandalism"?? Please explain. Or better yet, let's escalate this asap. Don't threaten me with bogus accusations. Thank you and good day.

I'm tired and on the way to bed for the day. I have removed the warning from your talk page. Considering other content on your talk page, you might end up discussing this with some other editor. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have been trying to edit the NTSE page and it is undone. I am just making grammatical corrections and making the language more presentable. Would appreciate if you could go through the changes I have made and check it out. Will be great if you can incorporate the changes as some rules have changed since 2019. eg line 15 "education for the future. Oooo" what is "Oooo". I have tried to delete it. 2405:204:305:BD19:154:717A:C206:3A11 (talk) 05:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this was sparked by this revert, which I did from WP:Huggle. What caught my eye about the reverted edit was: "This prestigious exam is your gateway to an excellent college in future and the NTSE scholar tag commands a lot of respect in the education world." Please see WP:PUFF re "prestigious" and "excellent", MOS:NOTED re "your gateway", etc. Also, please read WP:BETTER. Perhaps take a look at WP:TEA. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are differing interpretations out there, depending on who you ask. I'm just reverting it to the version officially taught in schools across the Philippines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagitab15 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I think that my view about that is more correct, but it is my (WP:OR) view. I would describe the view taught in schools in the Philippines as having a (distorted) nationalistic POV -- which makes my view, I guess, an anti-nationalistic POV. There may or may not be academic sources somewhere which could be taken as support fot that anti-nationalistic POV, but some quick googling did not turn up any attention being paid to this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure Area Man was really G6. It's a 12 year long redirect that was blanked by an IP. Feels like it should go to RfD rather than just be G6'ed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could be my error. I accepted the argument for deletion and deleted it without taking note of the target. Recreate it if you think it needs to stay or needs reconsideration; I won't object. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was an actual request. It was a blanked page by an IP. I noticed through NPP and was about to undo when your G6 went through. Would you mind undeleting? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt my edit on Talk:Nazi Party was unconstructive, considering I was restoring the page after someone else had basically blanked it... Thegreatluigi (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. This was my error, apparently due to an edit conflict. I had reverted the article to an earlier version before I saw this message. Apologies. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Sakaimover. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Dawn Brancheau have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. You have restored a vandalized version of the page and improperly applied a warning template to my talk page. Sakaimover (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by "Those 1,232 pounds of Uranium oxide went into the development project, rather than being directly used in the bomb", particularly the "development project". The uranium oxide was converted in uranium tetrachloride or uranium hexafluoride and fed into S-50, Y-12 or K-25. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 1,232 pounds of Uranium oxide did not go directly into the bomb, which is what I read the assertion to say prior to my edit. My rephrasing could be improved; feel free to improve it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have done so. Having read the reference, I can see how the editor misread it and made the mistake you corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New to editing and you deleted my comment on aluminium being unsafe in vaccines saying I needed a source. But not sure how to do so correctly there are lots of sources but this one should be enough for it. https://www.jpands.org/vol21no4/miller.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.150.84 (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info; I've re-edited the article here. See also WP:V, WP:CITE, and other project pages linked from there. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind as to delete the whole edit from November 3rd on the page "Marina Kim"? You already undid it, but I am very concerned about privacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preiselbeere7 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just need to request you that please delete two pages - User talk:Ram The Editor and User talk:Misser Boss as the reason of criteria G6. We don't need those pages any more. Thank you. 182.64.136.50 (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you WP:PROD the pages; place a {{PROD}} template on the page. That will put them into Category:Proposed deletions needing attention. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, both the pages are protected and IP addresses cannot edit the page so either delete the pages as G6 or you only put the {{PROD}} in both of those pages. 182.64.136.50 (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would have done that, but I see that there is a notice in the PROD hatnote saying, Please use PROD only on articles. I don't think that there is a problem with the deletion, but I was put off by WP:DELTALK. I'm going to delete the pages as requested; if there is a problem with that, some other administrator will rub my nose in it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly take a look at this page. A user named AlHazen has been selectively moving unnecessary info to lead that is 'Islam being the fastest growing religion' while selectively deleting its explanation i.e., its reason being high fertility rates. He has also been removing visual depictions of Muhammad from the page. This shows a clear bias that needs to be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mingling2 talk • contribs) 06:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that you are coming to me because I am an admin and I did recently edit the Islam article (here). My edit just fleshed out a couple of barebones cites and had nothing at all to do with content; I have no special expertise on this topic. From the revision history of the article, it looks like you and AlHazen have been engaging in a bit of an edit war in this article. Continuing that could get one or both of you blocked. I urge you to follow the normal WP:dispute resolution process. Please see WP:LEAD for guidance regarding the lead section of WP articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WTMitchell -- My apologies for posting controversial material on the List of Agents page. This has been a very chaotic page for many years, and I was trying to fix the problems. I've found this page to be fairly useful for researching my writing. I've been trying to organize the names and subheadings to make them more accurate. I've also been adding more blurbs to the name-links, using primarily info from their Wiki articles, sometimes copied and pasted. I realize a few of the blurbs may have seemed a bit over-the-top and opinionated (not always mine), and I have no problem with toning some of them down in newer versions. If there is anything else that you might find objectionable, please do the same, but could you please reverse your undo of the new subheadings? They are much more accurate than before, especially regarding the "To Sort" section that I had already taken care of. Thank you very much for your attention in this matter. 107.77.245.9 (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to take a second look at anything I've done, but I didn't find a page named List of Agents. Digging around, I found this undo to the List of Eastern Bloc agents in the United States which I did from WP:Huggle on 21 September. This edit by you immediately preceded my undo, and I had WP:BLP concerns about that. That undo picked up a number of immediately preceding edits by you and undid them as well, and I apparently failed to notice that. As you are working to improve the article, I don't have objection to your adding the content I removed back in, but please review it with BLP in mind, and please tag the article with a {{refimprove}} tag. Also, to the extent that you can, please look back at those WP articles from which you have imported content and also import relevant cites. Finally, please see WP:COPYWITHIN. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, today i uploaded a new version of this file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reliefkarte_Slowenien_K%C3%A4rnten.jpg Caused by a mistake from my side there are now 4 file versions in the history. Could you please delete the 2 versions between the oldest and the newest version? Their appearance was not intended. Thank you for your help. BR --Salzburger Nockerl (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The image is on Wikimedia Commons, and I am not an administrator over there. Please see Commons:Revision deletion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you did your homework you would check the PDC Order of Merit and you would realise Lewis is 17 like I changed it to instead of sending me stupid messages ok 31.200.128.194 (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the edit I reverted. If you did your homework instead of following football, you might realize that the spelling Englyand is not correct. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, long time no chat. I hope you're doing well :-). I ran into this account and was just wondering if you meant to block this user only for 31 hours, or perhaps maybe you might have meant to block this user as a VOA? Doesn't matter to me either way; just wanted to ask just in case ;-). Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was a storm of anon vandalism a few hours ago; this was probably part of that. It looked like a group of perple working together. I was pretty busy in WP:Huggle dealing with vandalized articles, and spent only a few seconds on each article. Even if that were not the case, though, I tend to start at 31 hours and escalate. I see few users I've blocked earlier returning with more vandalism, even though the initial block was just 31 hours. I don't know whether they were put off by the block or, in the case of anons, simply moved to another IP address. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wtmitchell, I want to know how to make the user boxes. Could you please help me with those? User talk:Wtmitchell — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBoiZurkelman (talk • contribs) 14:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the {{userbox}} template. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oral allergy syndrome (OAS) is an allergic reaction in the oral cavity following consumption, of food,especially through fruits and vegetables.

The reaction occurs in entire oral cavity , previous edit "Only mouth" Especially the reaction occurs through fruits and vegetables

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4655061/

(KEKAPETA (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

This revert was apparently an error on my part. Thank you for catching and correcting it. Feel free to remove the comment related to the revert which I placed on your user talk page. Apologies for the error. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanq (KEKAPETA (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Wtmitchell

I apologise. I did not realise that edits were permanent if I was not logged on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.191.49.35 (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I suggested an edit to Russel's name [in the article concerning Dramatis] since he generally spells it Rrussel, as you'll find on album covers and various other Wiki articles. Not sure how that's construed as 'unhelpful'. I've made very few wiki edits over the years and never been challenged before [I wouldn't suggest a change unless I was 100% sure I was correct :)]

Anyway, life's waaaay too short to care much about this so your call if you revert back to the 'correct' spelling or not. Neil Neil Ruston 19:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by [email protected] (talk • contribs)

This appears to concern this revert, which I did recently from WP:Huggle. that revert may have been an error on my part. If this was an error on my part, I apologize for it. I do note on checking now that Rrussell Bell redirects to Dramatis.The applicable WP policy is WP:COMMONNAME WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BURDEN and WP:ES probably also come into play. Please take a look at those project pages. The Rr version of the name is unusual enough that, if it is used in the article, the unusual spelling probably ought to be clarified and supported (see WP:BURDEN). Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was educated with McClellans great great granddaughter in history class. Your attempts at sabotage resemble my attemptys at making blistering. What you don’t know is I’m Lee’s descendant, and what I know is my family is a bunch of ignorant crackers. Go to hell. Lee was shot in the back by his own men, extremely similar to what ur doing now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.143.244.48 (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that this concerns an edit which I reverted, but I haven't been able to identify which one in a quick look at my recent editing history. In any case, please read WP:OR and WP:V. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You warned me for my edit on Ryan Lloyd. I assume that this was a mistake as I can find no evidence that his name is actually "Ryan Tom peanut Sheldon Lloyd" as you have asserted. In the meantime I have reverted the change you made and have changed his name back to plain old Ryan Lloyd given that is the name of the article.

Jokes aside though, we all make mistakes I just thought it was funny

God be with you--Dr Jarse (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting that mistaken edit of mine. I think that we both must have seen the vandalous name change and tried to revert it, and my mistaken edit grew out of an unrecognized edit conflict between us. Please remove my warning from your user talk page if you have not already done that. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wtmitchell, on my talk page you claim that edits made to List of LGBT politicians in the United Kingdom is vandalism despite them being clear, well-sourced additions intended to add to the page's value - including wellrespected historical sources and, in one case, an article published by the subject himself. This is all in line with the precedent set by List of LGBT members of the United States Congress which also contains biographical information in the notes section, listing Congressmen and Senators as "openly gay" when there are references to support this. I am genuinely baffled by the continuand ed decision to revert and the threat of expulsion. Can you please elaborate on why this information is supposedly 'vandalism' and what policy is supposedly being breached? 143.159.79.31 (talk) 10:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have my apologies; this was clearly an error on my part, thanks for calling it to my attention. This edit was one of a number of edits made in a WP:Huggle session. I don't remember it specifically enough to say what triggered my revert/warn decision but, on review, that decision was a bad one. Huggle is a tool for reviewing many edits in a short space of time, but it looks like I was not spending enough time on each edit in this Huggle session. I'll try to slow down and put more consideration into each edit. If you have not already done so, please remove my inappropriate warning from your talk page. Again, apologies. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On a third look, I see that I must have looked at only this edit in Huggle. That edit was one of a series of edits you made to that article. My revert reverted not only that edit but your several preceding edits. I missed your edit summary for the edit I did look at, which Huggle would have shown me. I also missed seeing the supporting cite which was present from an earlier edit and I missed noting that this edit followed on an earlier one by you. I clearly need to slow down and look more closely when I'm thinking of reverting an edit with Huggle. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reversing your decision! 143.159.79.31 (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to The Autobiography (Vic Mensa album), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. John Maguire (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this was gthe result of an unrecognized edit conflict. Thanks for the revert. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind as to delete the whole edit from November 3rd on the page "Marina Kim"? You already undid it, but I am very concerned about privacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preiselbeere7 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this from another location on this talk page where it was placed. I've hidden the content of that reverted edit and of the reversion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	4x2 award
	For continued excellence in editing and administrative functions, I present to you this award. May the image fuel your continued activity on Wikipedia and the various other WMF projects. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is appreciated. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:BRINT and note that {{Chemical engg}} is the name of the template. --94.65.216.254 (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you thought that {{Chemical engg}} does not exist, but it does. Could I restore my edit? --94.65.216.254 (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick look, not enough to be completely sure whether this is right or wrong, but I have self-reverted my reversion of your edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello
Please only remove the part that you pointed out after understanding the historical issue of 50 years very well.
You removed the content from the American government sources as well.
You did not point out which part is how wrong; they are all facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwiki210 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this section down from where it was added near the top of this talk page.

This appears to concern this revert to the Comfort women article.

I see that there have been a number of edits to the article by several editors since that revert. I'm not going to jump into the middle of things and stir the pot at this point. I will suggest that inclusion of the content at issue be discussed on the article talk page rather than in edit summaries in an edit war. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wtmitchell. You reverted my edit on Microbeads because I didn't provide a source. Apologies if my edit was unclear, but I was relying upon the Science retraction, which is in fact cited. Thanks. --193.157.251.132 (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the cited source at [1], and did not see any support for an assertion of research fraud. It does give "lack of ethical approval for the experiments" and "absence of original data for the experiments reported in the paper" as reasons, but I don't take that or anything else I saw there as supporting an accusation of fraud. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, fair enough. I think the phrase "absence of original data" is a somewhat oblique reference by Science to this, but I appreciate it could be clearer. How about these more definitive sources from Science (which uses the word "fraud") and the University of Uppsala? Basically, I'm a little concerned that the microbeads article relies upon this study for several assertions and claims it was retracted for methodological reasons, when in fact this is a pretty serious case of research fraud.--193.157.251.132 (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an academic, and probably don't view this from the same perspective as academics or researchers. I see that the other source you offer uses the word fraud in a headline which seems to be sensationalizing the article it heads. See WP:BLP. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that Science is sensationalising. As per the Science article and second source linked above, the University of Uppsala (the researchers' home university) specifically found Lönnstedt "fabricated research results". If that is not research fraud, then what is? Further,Science (even the news side) is a reputable source, and is not the only reputable source to use the word "fraud".--193.157.251.132 (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Science (journal) is the source, perhaps my characterization as sensationalizing wasn't called for (or perhaps it was; sensationalizing in headlines is a bit of a hot-button with me). Strictly speaking, WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply here as the term fraud doesn't refer refer here to fraud as a criminal offense. I took a second look at the I’m very disappointed article and see that, though the term fraud appears only in the headline, the body of the article reports an allegation that data was fabricated. My revert removed an assertion that the authors of the study retracted it because of research fraud and, as far as I can see, that assertion of fraud as a reason for the retraction is not supported. That article would support assertions that an investigation found that data for the paper was fabricated and, as a separate issue, that the researchers were "found guilty of misconduct" for not obtaining a permit from an ethics review panel before conducting the experiments. Coming at this from another angle, it doesn't seem to me that the point we're discussing has much topical weight in the Microbeads article. How about just saying that the study was subsequently retracted for methodological reasons, citing the Editorial Retraction article, and leaving it at that? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your proposed solution is ideal, because saying the article was merely retracted "for methodological reasons", as it presently does, seems to qualify the retraction in an inaccurate way. That is, it suggests the flaw with the paper was a minor, or even technical point, and the paper was fundamentally valid. I believe that this is inaccurate, because the researchers' own University (link; see also official report here) has found that the data from the article was fabricated by one of the authors. This is a really serious finding which completely destroys the paper's credibility. If you still object to the use of the phrase "research fraud", then I have an alternative solution: remove the bracketed phrase "for methodological reasons", leaving only the statement it was retracted, and add a citation to the Uppsala statement which provides some very important context to the interpretation of that study (ie, that the researchers fabricated data). (Regarding the significance of this in the wider article, while I agree this does not need to be explained at great length, I believe it was still a very significant development in the field's scientific literature. Science doesn't retract articles every day.) (Also, this will be diff ip, same person) 37.191.132.138 (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable to me. Again, I'm not an Academic ,and I have little grasp on the sensitivities of the Academic community. Perhaps a mention of this in the Uppsala University article is warranted. Also, perhaps it is a good idea to copy this discussion to the talk page(s) the impacted article(s). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! I have—with some difficulty—tried to copy this discussion to the talk page, and alter the article in the way suggested. Please correct me if I mucked up wiki syntax in some way, I'm not very familiar. I felt like this information doesn't have a natural home in the Uppsala University article at the moment and decided to leave it there (ie stop without putting it in the Uppsala article). 37.191.132.138 (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good to me. I would have done pretty much the same thing had I done the copy and the article update. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I saw you're online at recent changes.

About an IP:

Contribs and talk.

The contribs look like all the same person. The talk says an institution. I'm confused. I blocked for 6 months before seeing the talk page. What should be done? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what other admins do, but I don't try to divine what an IP address is used for. Here, IP 82.219.56.13 is assigned to Park Lane Learning Trust and its contribution history shows a few short spurts of WP edits extending back a few years, including some short spurts of vandalism of individual articles apparently done in individual per-article editing sessions. I might guess that this IP address appears in an office or a lab where it is accessed by only a few users, that its user population might change from time to time, and that it sometimes includes and currently does include a user who occasionally vandalizes individual WP articles of momentary interest. That guess might be right or wrong. Regardless of that guess, I would just block that IP from editing WP with escalating durations. The escalation from 31 hours to 6 months seems severe but, given the edit history of that IP, I doubt that it makes much difference. If I had done this, I might consider reducing the escaltion period to, say, a week, in the expectation that some other admin would probably reblock with an increased escalation if that IP vandalizes again after block expiration. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wtmitchell. That is very informative. I could not get my head around why an institution would have only a few users on one IP. What you say makes perfect sense. It seems to be a small group in a lab or office or something. I will certainly reduce the block and keep an eye on things. Hopefully, one of the good people using that IP will see the notice, stand up, and say "Hey! Which one of you..." Many thanks and best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see you are an administrator who has edited Dr Who articles on occasion. I wanted to bring to your attention that I made an accurate, sourced edit to the Doctor Who article Demons of the Punjab. I added the final, consolidated, 7 day TV rating as posted on the BARB website. I included the website page as my source and reference. Within moments, my edits were undone by AlexTheWhovian, without any reason given and Alex inserted an incorrect viewing figure, with no source or reference provided for the mistaken figure quoted. I have now reinstated the correct edit, but I fear it will be reversed again as looking at ATW's edit history, it seems they are an editor who does not like to be challenged. I would appreciate an eye being kept on this article and any attempt to reverse my correct edit being noted. Thank you.27.131.36.174 (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I looked at the article and see that as of now yiur edit is unreverted. While I was looking, I tagged a supporting cite which predated your edit as {{fv}}. My past edits to Dr. Who articles would have been only on occasions where I noticed WP:Huggle flagging edits to those individual articles as possible problems. Ongoing monitoring of articles is done by the community of editors with enough of an interest in those individual articles to do that monitoring. In this case, I am not included in that community.

The editor who reverted your earlier change to this article, Sebastian James (talk · contribs), is a relatively experienced editor -- see [2]. Beyond looking at that, I have not looked into his editing history. I would suggest contacting him directly. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. AlexTheWhovian not only completely reverted my edit, they removed all of the references and background and then inserted an incorrect ratings figure. The rating was 7.48 million and I added this, with the supporting source and a couple of sentences. AlexTheWhovian undid this and inserted instead that the rating was 7.84 million, without any sources or citations. Since then, as you correctly note, Sebastian James, which I have reason to believe is possibly a psuedonym and puppet account for AlexTheWhovian has continually undone my edits. They have now removed them twice. If you can help stop the edit war by these two editors - or as I suspect by this one editor using different accounts - that would be appreciated. There is nothing wrong with what I have contributed.27.131.36.174 (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at what AlexTheWhovian is doing, including the threats being placed on my talk page for making CORRECT edits. Please will you take action.27.131.36.174 (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that this editor is making false accusations of sockpuppetry and is clearly not here to edit the site, only make personal attacks. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 02:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that AlexTheWhovian is making false accusations. I have made accurate, sourced edits to the site. AlexTheWhovian continually posts abusive threats on my talk page and is engaged in an edit war. They are now in violation of the 3RR rule and thus according to wikipedia rules, should be warned for their behaviour.27.131.36.174 (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you're not edit-warring? Are you not the one constantly adding the content? Was all of this only for the "and the fourth highest rated for BBC1"? If so, why did you not just add that in first, instead of initiating an edit-war? -- Alex^TW 03:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious. I did add it. You removed it. Three times. Sebastian James removed it twice. You're asking why I didn't "not just add that in the first"? I did. 27.131.36.174 (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to go count the edits, then actually read 3RR. I'll wait. I'll also await an admin's response to your false accusations of 3RR and SOCK. -- Alex^TW 03:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime here, there was a posting by 27.131.36.174 at User talk:Sebastian_James#Dr Who - Demons of the Punjab asking that he stop edit warring and reverting edits . Before seeing this discussion extension here, I added a mention there of this discussion here and requested that Sebastian James work with 27.131.36.174 there to resolve this. I'll amend that to ask that he join this discussion here, though I don't think that this is an appropriate venue for this discussion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous IP who clearly doesn't pay attention to his/her edits. He was adding redundant info (BBC1 thing) and was removing cite web. S/he is the problematic one here. Sebastian James (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Technical support. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dear, I had posted a minor edit of article on Jammu and Kashmir under section Debate over accession. I just included the complete viewpoint of President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. Previously written expression was (in my view) only the half truth. While giving out the details of any offer, we must include the conditions attached to it. Otherwise, it may lead to faulty conclusion. And the reference/citation for my edit is already there in the included reference list.

Hence, I request you to please revert my edit to the page.

Regards, --Lunar walker (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I should have looked more closely. I have undone my revert. My apologies for the error. If you have not already done so, please remove my notice from your user talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, boo! Erin Andy (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WtMitchell, I was doing Recent Changes patrol, and I rolled back an edit by 87.38.198.6. The rollback removed content such as ".I was only 9 years old" and "My dad hears me and calls me a faggot. I knew he was just jealous of my devotion to Shrek." You later rolledback my edit, and I was wondering why. I'm hoping this was a mistake. Just in case, I've reverted the rollback. CarelessWombat^{Let's Talk!} 10:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was an error on my part. It looks like this came about in an edit conflict which I missed recognizing. Thanks for fixing it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]