Thinkinggecko

Editing qualifications

Thought this info might help. From Wikipedia:User access levels:

Autoconfirmed users

A number of actions on the English Wikipedia are restricted to user accounts that pass certain thresholds of age and editcount: users who meet these requirements are considered part of the pseudo-group 'autoconfirmed'. Autoconfirmed status is checked every time a user performs a restricted action: consequently, it is granted automatically by the software. The precise requirements for autoconfirmed status vary according to circumstances: for most users on en.wiki, accounts that are more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits are considered autoconfirmed. However, users editing through a Tor network are subjected to stricter autoconfirmed thresholds: 90 days and 100 edits.

Autoconfirmed status is required to move pages, edit semi-protected pages, and upload files or upload a new version of an existing file. Autoconfirmed users are no longer required to enter a CAPTCHA for most events. Autoconfirmed users may mark pages as patrolled in Special:NewPages and save books to the wiki. In addition, the Edit filter has a number of warning settings that only affect editors who are not autoconfirmed.

— Lambanog (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Philippine–American War article

Hi. I haven't checked, but I think that I was probably the source of the article content which you changed in this edit. I understand your point, but I want to point out that the text you modified did not use the word to which you objected as an assertion by WP. Rather, the assertion was that a particular historian had written the remarks which the article had paraphrased, for which a supporting source was cited, and which you have now modified. I'm on the road just now and don't have the book which was cited in support of the text which you modified handy, or I would double-check the paraphrasing. I'm guessing, though, that the text as modified by you is probably still a fair characterization of what that historian has written. It should be reverified, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wtmitchell, thanks for pointing that out. I'd be re-verifying it myself as well, but assuming the cited historian did make such a statement (e.g. "penchant for brutality"), I still am of the position that the same be neutralized in view of Wikipedia's stance on neutrality; of course without changing the meat of the sub-section's subject matter which is -that brutality did occur- but certainly not to all, and not in all instances. Hence the removal of the term "penchant" and the insertion of the word "some" as qualifier. Thinkinggecko (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for not responding in a more timely manner -- I missed seeing the above until now. I understand your point about the word penchant. I provided a paraphrase, not a quote, but the word came from a source which I cited and paraphrased, not from me. What Agoncillo wrote in the cited supporting source was, "[...] Brutality, however, was not an American monopoly. The Filipinos, too, fighting with their back to the wall to preserve what was legitimately their own, equalled [sic.] and, in some cases, exceeded the American Sergeant's penchant for blood. Said the Filipino author already mentioned: ...", citing (AFACT -- it's an op.cit.) Teodoro A. Agoncillo (1960). Malolos: the crisis of the Republic. University of the Philippines. I think it's fine without that word. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Philippine-American War (2011-03-04)

Here, I've essentially reverted this edit. Explanation here. See also Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Cartoons. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)