User talk:Mitch Ames

Mitch Ames you undid my edit. Yea it was vandalism. Yes it was funny. Don’t be a kill joy Mitch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulimba12345 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appear to have reverted any of Bulimba12345's edits, but I did revert two edits by BulimbaGeek45 in 2023-11. This may be evidence of WP:Sockpuppetry. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mitch Ames. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hungarians in Belgium, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it's nice to meet you. I see that you've been removing "Spiders of New Zealand" categories from NZ spider articles when the "Endemic spiders of New Zealand" category is present. I don't quite understand the rationale behind this (I am still a novice, so perhaps I am missing something).

My understanding is that you're removing this because endemic spiders is already a subcategory of the NZ spiders category. However, my concern is that this prevents a single list of all NZ spiders from being created because some of the species are separated out into a different subcategory, and thus are on a different list.

In the mean time, I'll proceed using just one of the categories.

AxonsArachnida 28 August 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that you're removing this because endemic spiders is already a subcategory of the NZ spiders category. — Correct. Per WP:CATSPECIFIC "if a page belongs to a subcategory [Endemic spiders of New Zealand] of C [Spiders of New Zealand] then it is not normally placed directly into C [Spiders of New Zealand]".

my concern is that this prevents a single list of all NZ spiders from being created because some of the species are separated out into a different subcategory — Breaking down large sets of articles into sub-categories is an intended feature of the category system - see WP:DIFFUSE. There are (at least) two ways to achieve what you want, not necessarily mutually exclusive:

1. Create a list article, "List of spiders of New Zealand". (See also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates.)
2. Declare Category:Spiders of New Zealand to be {{All included}}, and Category:Endemic spiders of New Zealand to be a {{Non-diffusing subcategory}}. See Wikipedia:Categorization § Non-diffusing subcategories. Personally, I don't think this is necessary.

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mitch, that's clear to me now. I'll create a spiders of NZ list once all species have pages on Wikipedia. AxonsArachnida (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mitch Ames. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Hungarians in Belgium".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 04:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that english is my first language when I read the recent edits:(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jarrah_(name)&action=history ) In your opinion, I would be most interested with or without dangling particples, or whatever... JarrahTree 09:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I rolled back the changes by Firecat93 that added Empires, Location etc. See also my subsequent edits. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also my edits to Jarrah (disambiguation). Mitch Ames (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say I am very dissapointed that you have not offered an opinion JarrahTree 13:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have patience ... There is no deadline and several reasons why I don't respond in less than four hours. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you have created a lead sentence that cannot ultimately be proved - 66 is possible - the number has never been determined in a final sense that you could find one of your favourite fantasies - the ultimate reference that is not arguable... not possible in view of the available evidence to date. Just because the Museum and others claim the final word, a certain level of uncertainty in a wikipedia article is imho better than assertion of the museum and coroners claims.. To assert the number in the lead sentence is something that may at some stage be disproved, but then certainty of the assertions of the coroner and the museum may well at some stage be disproved. JarrahTree 11:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt when the reliable sources change, we'll be able to find some stonemasons to make us some new stone tablets on to which to engrave the new number. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding the number to the lead is a pointless edit - the fact that there were problems with numbers over time - regardless of whether the sources that I added (sic), can be considered to date, throw your chisel away, and try a feather duster as a paint brush, as a lot of what you edit, there is no guarantee of certainty or finality. JarrahTree 11:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding the number to the lead is a pointless edit — I think that the number of entries is a reasonable inclusion in the lead paragraph of a list article that is not marked as an {{Incomplete list}}.

there is no guarantee of certainty — True, but a reliable source is as good as it gets, which is more than can be said for the unsourced and virtually unprovable assertion that "an official list of deaths was never compiled".

there is no guarantee of ... finality — Wikipedia is a work in progress.

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

The reference about the nomenclature body at that time, is about the naming people - they are very irregularly mentioned in wikipedia and require verifying expletive deleted, and considering I havent seen your initiative to create the penultimate authority as such a brilliant new article creator...expletive deleted JarrahTree 10:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look for yourself, rather than following others - where is the Nomenclature advisory board of Western Australia - then Geographic Names committee of Western Australia get explained in context? You shoot yourself in the foot when you get into this Mitch - there is inadequate explanation in wikipedia about the three iterations of the particular incarnations of the government body related to naming of places and roads in the early stages of the road developments - unless I am wrong, please lead me to where I have missed the body being adequately mentioned... JarrahTree 10:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha,I reverted that as I was annoyed at your misunderstanding of the usage of the nomenclature, and I simply did not have the apt dexterity to clinically remove your nomenclature item, and leave the other, so, the question in reply is, you can jump and carry an egg in a spoon at the same time yourself? I wonder mitch, you need an explanation for everything, online... and if it is not there, maybe you need to develop a sense of the absurd, similar to your understanding of semiotics... JarrahTree 11:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If only there was some way to easily revert (undo) a single edit ... without simultaneously undoing all constructive changes ... Mitch Ames (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha 2017 and your sheer belligerence still shows through Mitch, ever holding the flag of 'I'm right youre wrong' hahah JarrahTree 02:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then if there is this in the article:

 Book 

The booklet Centenary of Western Australia Albany 1827–1927 was produced by the Albany Centenary Committee and published by the Albany Advertiser. It provided background to the founding of Albany, including material previously published in the 1910–1913 publication "Alluring Albany". 

The booklet subtitle provides the context of the celebration: commemoration of the raising of the British flag by Edmund Lockyer on 21 January 1827 to establish Western Australia's first settlement. 

You are back into the bollocks territory - the article is about the event (see the subheading). and the book (see above)

what is it about your perception Mitch - do we have to spell it out in klingon, swahili with matching ties and bloomers? JarrahTree 02:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the purpose diff anxiety about diffs, lest there are misunderstandings in this hot morning sun...22 C and rising...

× diffhist Centenary of Albany, Western Australia 10:13 −63 Mitch Ames talk contribs (removed Category:Books about or based in Albany, Western Australia using HotCat - article is not about a book)

× diffhist Category:Books about or based in Albany, Western Australia 10:13 Mitch Ames talk contribs (Centenary of Albany, Western Australia removed from category, this page is included within other pages)

With such sparling wit and eloquently effusive erudite summaries, such immediate clarity (the creation of those links of 2017 just being reacted to now) JarrahTree 02:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]