User talk:Donner60/Archive 11

Archive 11 starting with threads from December 14, 2015

Why am I being blocked

Hey Donner60 Im trying to apologize for my dumb pranked and you say I'm vandalysing for saying sorry? ReallY? You said to leave a message on the bottom and when i do i get a warning. That makes zero sense. I expected more from you donner than this injustice Please remove your warnings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edito393 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Left explanation and helpful links on user's page. Nonetheless, a further vandalism was recorded. Donner60 (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

University High School (Irvine, CA)

Hi Donner60

I would like to note that my reasoning for changing the "deaf program" to the "deaf and heard of hearing program" because I am currently a senior at University High School and that the program is not referred to as the "Deaf program". This program has been at University High for many years and is widely known and called the "Deaf and heard of hearing program". Thank you and please make the changes as soon as possible. If you have an questions then please leave a comment on my talk page. Alichoroomi (talk)

Christ's Sanctified Holy Church

Hi Donner60 The video web page the bot removed for Christ's Sanctified Holy Church is a drone aerial view of the main office and church campground of the subject page. I believe this should be allowed, but please reach out to davcoz if there are issues. Davcoz (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I have not been editing this page or reverting edits. I do not run the bot with which you seem to disagree. I suggest you discuss this with User:QuartzReload who has reverted your edits, or bring up any issue on the talk page. See Help:Introduction to talk pages, Help:Using talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.

With respect to images, see Wikipedia:Images and pages listed in that article including Wikipedia:Uploading images. Help:Contents provides guidance and links to pages were help can be requested. See also Wikipedia:Questions.

You also may find the following pages have useful information about Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style.

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject. If there is a project concerning these subjects, you may also ask for help there. Another place to make comments or seek help is Wikipedia:Teahouse. Donner60 (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Please take a look at the page history from November 18, 2015 - I believe that edit was attributed to Donner60 Davcoz (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You refer to an old edit that I made reverting an improper edit - and I should have said I have not recently edited that page, the point being there is much more relevant intervening activity. The problem with the edit in November is adequately explained by later edits referred to on User talk:65.190.20.98 as to similar edits, which I repeat on your talk page for convenience.

Skipping two lengthy paragraphs on your talk page, I concluded: The edit that I earlier reverted in fact violates the external link policy as explained above with respect to later edits. Again see: Wikipedia:External links, in particular Wikipedia:External links#Linking to user-submitted video sites. My edit is supported by later bot edits and at least one other editor after I made my edit. I see no reason not to stand by it, and furthermore, refer you to the other editor, the bot link pages and the help and other pages I cited to you above. Donner60 (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Reichstag fire

Donner60, I am new to adding/editing Wikipedia items. I was trying to update the entry on the "Reichstag fire" in the section called "Dispute about Van der Lubbe's role in the Reichstag fire". The text their references Gisevius' belief when he wrote his book The Bitter End that Heini Gewehr had died in WWII. As Benjamin Carter Hett reports in his book Burning the Reichstag that Gewehr resurfaced in West Germany after Gisevius' book came out and was involved in much of the post-war research/controversy about the origins of the fire (among other entanglements).

I will read about including explanatory text in the Editors Summary before attempting to edit again. Also some bot told me I still had an open bracket error. I spent 30 minutes last night on just that and thought I had fixed it. Oh well. Back to the drawing board.

Jhsnm (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)jhsnm

I have left a reply and some links to helpful information pages on your talk page, which I will not repeat here. I deleted my original message on your talk page. I also said I would look at your edits again to see if I had any further comments on format or substance. Donner60 (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The bottom line as I see it is that you have added content without removing anything. I complete the thought on your talk page. I am sorry if my intervention on the subject edits discouraged you. I in fact encourage you to keep contributing to Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Me asking you about my edit

Recently you told me my edit was wrong. As you see, I am a new user. Can you please send me what you thought I did wrong. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scallywag5 resignup (talk • contribs) 06:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Nathan Lyon

No it wasn't a test, but I should have written GOAT http://www.cricket.com.au/news/feature/nathan-lyon-mike-hussey-john-davison-50-tests-spinner-team-song/2015-12-11 in capital letters. Moedk (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Donner60 (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Pedro Requena

Hello I change the Height of this player I have prove please answer me back Prove of website http://hosted.stats.com/copa/players.asp?player=113372 Emiddio41 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emiddio41 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I struck my original message and left a note on your talk page. Thank you for providing a source for the change. Donner60 (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Waste Management

Those were not test edits. Those were serious contributions. Stop reverting them. 66.87.79.226 (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Then why do they contain spelling and other errors? Donner60 (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Donner60: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Thanks! Seasons greetings to you as well. Donner60 (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

78.26's RFA Appreciation award

	The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
	Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 24:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Question re kat steel

The addition of her latest modeling work on boobpedia, which is a legitimate website seems very relevant. It was not meant as vandalism. I'm unclear why this cannot be added. This is the type of work this model/actress does. Please clarify. What is the proper way to add this new addition of her work? How should it be placed on the page? The work is verifiable. One only need check the website. Thank you Mratman (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Right. I checked the citation you put in the Wikipedia article and there is no such article. I saw no need to go further but I doubt this would pass a check as a reliable source. Donner60 (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

There actually is a page on boobpedia.com under the voice actresses catagory where there is an article about kat steel including a photo. Not a nude. Please check again. It's boobpedia.com. not boobapedia.com. here is the link. Http://www.boobpedia.com/boobs/Kat_Steel You can also search on dogpile.com and find the page easily. What else do you re quire? It most certainly does exist, is relevant, and is not vandalism. I plan to add it again, unless you have another reason why it shouldn't be.

I clicked on your link and it also does not work. This does not appear to be something on Kat Steel's web site or something otherwise publicized. A publication wit this name which obviously specializes in sensational and salacious material is not going to be accepted as a reliable source, in my opinion. Also, the addition seems to be in violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

As general information, please also note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a forum. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Also see other pages with helpful information including Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. See also: Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. Note that additions must be relevant, notable, encyclopedic, especially well sourced when dealing with living persons and not be demeaning or libelous. Some of the links above explain this in detail.

But you can seek other opinions. Help:Contents and Wikipedia:Questions provide guidance and links to pages where help can be requested on various subjects. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject. If there is a project concerning these subjects, you may also ask for help there. Another place to make comments or seek help is Wikipedia:Teahouse. Donner60 (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Please check again, the link does work. However, if it will not be accepted for other reasons, then so be it. I will look into the matter further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mratman (talk • contribs) 23:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I checked again and it came up as no article. I am clicking on what you typed. Since it does go to the web site, it seems to be a correct link to the site but it still does not produce a page on her. Even if there is an article, I doubt it will be accepted. However, I will give the benefit of the doubt and not try to be the last word if you wish to pursue it further with someone else or on the Wikipedia pages that I linked. Donner60 (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Apparently using caps makes all the difference. The article is there. What is your opinion now? Still unacceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mratman (talk • contribs) 02:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't find it demeaning, given that the model/actress intentionally participated. It's not really sensational in any way. Not a nude or anything. What would be the objection? She is a voice actress. This is the work she does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mratman (talk • contribs) 02:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I also left this message on your talk page: Now that you have provided a working link, I can see that the content itself is not a problem. On that basis, I will not revert any edit you make based on that content and source. I assume there are other sources that would not raise questions but again, I will not object. I would have stricken the second message on your talk page because you have convinced me that no vandalism was intended but since I did not leave that message, I cannot strike it. Although I think others would come to the same conclusion at this point, I only can speak for myself because editors work independently in trying to keep content within Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Donner60 (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas!!
	Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 20:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Alabama Change!

You changed my recent change to Alabama and it confuses me. I wanted to add context to the page. I felt it needed to be stated the reason why they were having economic hardships. Please explain yourself thank you! : ^ ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peedidee Eaten Peas (talk • contribs) 16:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

For one thing, there was no slavery in Alabama after the Civil War. Your edit was not only irrelevant, but showed that you were not paying attention to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. No source was going to support the proposition that post-Civil War economic problems had to do with pre-Civil War slavery. Also, your edit appears to be in conflict with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Since you have been blocked for disruptive editing, I think that is enough explanation. Donner60 (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Baker Mayfield

The Norman Transcript Wednesday, Dec. 30, 2015 Baker Mayfield Center Picture Stats & Height & Weight Listed as 6-2 & 214 lbs. Listing him at 5-11 & 206 is not accurate. Bluray12 (talk) 03:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The previous height and weight were sourced but now they seem to be wrong. They may have been correct at one time but now seem to be outdated. I think it would be better to use http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/_/id/550373/baker-mayfield as a source for the new height/weight that you cite because espn is likely to be most acceptable as a reliable, neutral source. Donner60 (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Donner60!

Happy New Year!

Donner60,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

Happy New Year, Donner60!

Happy New Year!

Donner60,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 11:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Donner60!

Happy New Year!

Donner60,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

RFC notice

As someone interested in the List of ministers of the Universal Life Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I thought I'd let you know an RFC has been started over reliable sources. Please join in Talk:List_of_ministers_of_the_Universal_Life_Church#RFC:_Reliable_sources here. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Bishop McLaughlin Catholic High School

BMCHS is geographically located in Hudson, Pasco County, Florida. Check any map. It only has a Spring Hill, Hernando County, Florida mailing address because that is the closest servicing Post. Office. However, BMCHS is in Hudson.

If you want to describe it that way in the article, that is ok. If you want to make a change in the full address in the infobox, you have an address which is contrary to the one on the school's web site. Do you really want what seems to be an incorrect mailing address in the infobox? Donner60 (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Deleting why

Why you delete my page named Prem Khan (actor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Washim Rahman (talk • contribs) 2016-01-05T07:25:58?

I have not deleted the page nor put it up for deletion. I simply restored the speedy deletion tag. User:Ninney attached that tag. You can see what the various letter and number combinations mean at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. You can also ask User Ninney. I am simply following the Wikipedia guidelines that authors of pages are not permitted to remove speedy deletion tags from the pages they create. See the fifth paragraph of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Donner60 (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Washim Rahman: Because It is a page that was previously deleted or is substantially identical to the deleted version. Refer Washim Rahman and Prem Khan. My humble request not to remove deletion tag else you would be blocked from editing, wait for the deletion discussion. User Donner60, never marked your page for deletion and had just reverted the Removal of a speedy deletion template. -Ninney (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Alberta Legislature Changes

Hey Donner60, I was changing the Legislative Assembly of Alberta page to add the addition of links for each MLA in the seating chart. It was just making the chart more accessible and easy to use. Wondering if you would be able to allow my changes to be put back and allow me to continue on the chart? Thanks!

I left this message and some useful links to Wikipedia guideline and help pages on your talk page: I am striking my previous message and I rolled back my reversion of your edits. When only viewing the change through the Huggle program, it appeared to me that you had removed the colors. I now see that you were making a series of changes and you have left a message stating you were updating the chart. Sorry for the inconvenience and I hope you will continue to add useful edits to Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No New Friends

No New Friends

Humbly, this is Robert Bullock & this is correspondence concerning the 'No New Friends' edit. It's safe to place that edit on the page & feel free to contact who you need to to verify. It was not a test & indeed, I am the one who sent the original track to Mr. Michael Blackman (A&R) at Young Money Records for Drake & it was approved by his manager to let "in-house" producers Boi 1-Da & Noah '40' Shabib & also "Vinylz" to touch-up & re-use. I made the original track entitled, "Track 13" in 2004. the agreement between Mr. Blackman & I, though it didn't go as planned, went through in 2013. Please e-mail me with any further questions. Rbullock16 (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You inserted reference tags with no content; you left a stray link "rb2016.wix.com" which turns up nothing, and you do not otherwise provide a source for your edit. As further information, Wikipedia is not a blog or forum. It is an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable, third-party sources. It does not publish personal opinions, commentary or unsourced information likely to be challenged or disputed. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Also see: Wikipedia:Five Pillars, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For further information about contributing to Wikipedia, see: Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. You may express comments about the content of the article and needed improvements or ask for comments or help on the article's talk page. See Help:Introduction to talk pages, Help:Using talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

'No New Friends

	'No New Friends
	Forgive me, Donner. I'll go up & get the situation rectified, by litigation if necessary, then the original "editors" can sort out their "blog/forum" talk that is already on this page because though it can be "verified", it isn't accurate. Thanks for your time. Rbullock16 (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I have asked an administrator (GB fan) for an evaluation of this and what should be done (including reporting this to AN/I). I noted my above findings or lack of findings and a few more details from a search. I think it may be handled without requiring a report. This may be a bluff because the only web site I found that shows the producers was in accord with the article and did not mention a Robert Bullock, http://www.lilwaynehq.com/2013/04/dj-khaled-no-new-friends-feat-lil-wayne-drake-rick-ross/. A search for Robert Bullock produced no claim or controversy about any role as a producer and only a single Twitter entry from a young man claiming to be a music producer, among other things, but with no details. Nonetheless, I thought it would be best to disclose this and get some authoritative advice or action. Donner60 (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Followed up in new section below.

Bataclan (theatre)

Hi Donner60, you removed my information regarding the Paris Attacks but there is still no evidence that this was an attack that killed people. It is all based on hear-say and dubious eye-witness accounts. The video's released don't really say or show anything beyond what looks staged. Do you work for MI6? Where can I find more CCTV footage, police cameras etc? I don't think it is right to mislead people. isn't wikipedia meant to be a reliable website?

Placed on your talk page: See this: http://www.reuters.com/news/picture/bataclan-attack?articleId=usrts6x0k. Seriously? I will regard any more such time-wasting posts as the one you made to my user talk page as vandalism. - See also November 2015 Paris attacks. Donner60 (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Chuck Tingle

What exactly is not constructive about adding a recently-published book (with citation!) to the bibliography section of an author's page? Archedeyebrow (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Given the titles of his other publications, I will take your word for it - but you should give full publication information not to have questions raised about such additions. Quite obviously this article could be a target for bogus entries. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Help:Referencing for beginners. If you are not familiar with them already, please see also Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Notability,Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style for useful information on editing. Donner60 (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Try a smile!

I left this reply on your talk page:

"I appreciate the further explanation and the working link. I wish the link had worked initially because that would have prevented much misunderstanding here and narrowed our discussion. Since I could not find your page or other information in an independent search, I suspected your claim may not be valid. I note that you are a legitimate producer and do have a claim to some credit for the original music. However, as noted, I could find no independent verification of those facts. That is not to say there is none but Wikipedia does require sourcing for claims likely to be disputed and does not accept blogs or web sites of the subjects as reliable (neutral) sources.

"FWIW, you obviously are not the person I discovered with the Twitter account under the same name who claimed to be a producer in their only entry.

"I brought up your second comments to an administrator because of Wikipedia's policy on legal threats. I probably was not entirely clear but I thought your point was that you would pursue the people who were not giving you the credit you deserve. However, this was too important to let go if in fact you meant something else. On the other hand, I thought I would be cautious about this and not open it up to everyone on Wikipedia who decided to look at the noticeboard.

"I hope you get the credit you deserve and can add something to the article when you can source it independently." Donner60 (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks for all your help, time & courtesy; It's much appreciated! Best, Robert Bullock rbullock.com Rbullock16 (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't making a test edit.

You sent me a message saying I was probably making a test edit to On the Origin of Species but I wasn't. --2605:A000:D141:3800:9450:4878:E749:C80 (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Then it was an unsourced factual error. If it was intended as such, it was vandalism. Donner60 (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: No New Friends

The Original Barnstar

Hey again, Donner60, this is Robert Bullock. There was one thing that puzzles me; simultaneously as we were discussing me getting credit on the drake song, 'No New Friends', a guy named 'Allen Ritter' got a Wikipedia pass & has his name added & accredited. That's strange that he would do it now, plus he's not listed under 'Background', or 'Track Listing' under 'Producers, or under 'References'. As I move to earn my deserved credit, I ask that this is looked into with the same due diligence that went into reproving me, as the producers list has went from 2 (Boi 1-Da & 40) to 4 now. Humbly, Robert Bullock Rbullock16 (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Rbullock16 (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed Allen Ritter as a producer for No New Friends because he apparently was one of the writers but not one of the producers. I cite the source in the edit summary, namely http://istandardproducers.com/interviews/vinylz-no-new-friends/. I don't think it is worth citing in the article unless someone challenges my change. Donner60 (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the Laurens article

Hey! Thanks for looking at the Laurens article; the silliness there is getting a little ridiculous. That said, just wanted to FYI that you went one revision too far back, and undid my large improvement (adding citations, taking out unsupported stuff). I fixed it and added another citation which might calm the silliness, so no action needed on your part, just FYI. —Luis (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Also left this message on your talk page: Thanks for your note and your patience with my long revert. I saw that some bad edits had not been taken out by the previous reverts. I tried to avoid taking out any good edits but I realized some of the several bad January 8 edits were part of a series of bad edits that had not been fully reverted. It seemed to me that I needed to take out everything that was added on January 8 and go back to the last edit of January 7 to get a good version. I should have been a little more diligent and checked every one of the January 8 edits individually, not just the last several plus the summaries. I am glad that you were able to restore your good edit and I thank you for your understanding. I have not run into such a stream of bad edits very often but this is a good reminder to review every edit if such a situation occurs. Thanks, again. Donner60 (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

My edit on the Graham Chapman page about his adopting John Travolta as his son

Hello. I'm Steve. I was going to undo my last edit concerning Graham Chapman's adoption of John Travolta as his son, but I can see that you've already completed this. Thank-you.

IP edit at the LHC

Hi Donner60, sources were not an issue with this edit, the cancelled Superconducting Super Collider is linked in the article already and the existence of the project is trivial to verify. Even with a source, I don't think the added text there is useful, however. --mfb (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mfb: Thanks. It also seemed to me that the edit "North America tried to build one but failed" was not accurate. The United States refused to continue to fund the project, which I think is rather different than trying to build the collider and failing. I should have used a specific message instead of a template or perhaps "editing test" or "factual error." I did briefly puzzle on how to characterize an edit that I thought was unnecessary at best and appeared inaccurate as well. I used that template since I thought that the statement could not be sourced because it was wrong. However, the fact that there was a project that was left incomplete for budgetary reasons made this reason unsatisfying, or perhaps questionable, as well. Occasionally an edit is not useful and perhaps not accurate but none of the templates in Huggle is a completely satisfactory explanation for the revert. In that case, a special message is no doubt better than a template and taking a little more time to prepare one is useful. I am glad that you concur that the edit could be properly reverted. Donner60 (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do not be a bully

This is not vandalism. I said I would be adding references and I did. Qrx24 (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You added no reference for this questionable statement and left a bold ref tag error on the page with the edit you did make: "At that time, he changed his professional name to Puck because he thought his surname was hard to pronounce. He playfully picked a swear word that began with the letter F but changed the first letter to prevent it from being obscene." You may be correct but this is not the kind of edit you can repeatedly insert to a biography of a living person after you have been questioned about whether there is a reliable source. I will add some other helpful links to your user talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Qrx24 (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I just added another reference. Qrx24 (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding my "edits"

Monsieur, I made no edits without logging in (as shown there). IDK who did it but it certainly was not me, for I log in before making any edit. My profile is by the ID shockwave643 . I am terribly sorry for any inconvenience regarding the edits made without logging in, for the one doing it may be one of the people I know very well. 103.28.254.137 (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The edit you refer to was made on October 2, 2014. That was the only disruptive edit from this IP. It could have been someone else if you have a shared computer, shared ID or your wireless connection was tapped into. Since there was only one and it was over 15 months ago, it is nothing to be concerned with or worry about. Donner60 (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Sam Hogar

Re Sam Hogar The nickname added is a very widely known nickname used to refer to him. This is a constructive edit as it makes his page more complete. The addition was factually accurate. Are we allowed to add citations to the sidebar there? I will do that if so.

Yes. I have replied on your talk page and added some links to helpful Wikipedia guidelines, format and policy pages. Donner60 (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe this external link is important

This link goes to the Official Ames Brothers Facebook Fan Page which is an Open page that is dedicated to the Brothers with active visitors and many videos of the Brothers which highlights their career over the years. I think it's important for people to know it's out there. it's not for monetary gain, advertising, or any personal gain. It's just informative information and open discussion for people who are fans can communicate. I am the son of Vic Ames of the Ames Brothers and I believe this should be allowed to stay. I Don't see it any different then the Hall of Fame posting. Maybe I should reword it like "The History of the Ames Brothers" or something like that. I invite you to take a look at the page and then see what you think. Thank you. The link is: https://www.facebook.com/Ames-Brothers-232809813495584/?ref=hl

I will check this further. If it is not promotional, it is probably ok. I think your alternate wording would help. I am logging off now, but will confirm this later today or early tomorrow (UTC). Donner60 (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Just wondering if you've had time to check things out

Chris

Yes. I have just checked it. It seems ok to me. I can't speak for everyone who might look at it but I agree it is historical, not promotional, so more like a hall of fame type site. I will not further question adding it to the page. Sorry for the inconvenience. Donner60 (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

My posting is down again, do you know why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.112.124 (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You will need to communicate with User:Caballero1967 about this. Editors act independently and I had nothing to do with the latest changes. I suspect the reversion was for the same reason I originally reverted it. Since there is a little discretion concerning this (validity of external links), perhaps you can convince him that the links were not promotional or invalid and add something significant to the content. Donner60 (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is my recent edit to the page Arjun (tank) appears to have added incorrect information?

Why is my recent edit to the page Arjun (tank) appears to have added incorrect information? I edited it based on an very famous news paper article. Do you want some extra citation ?

I quickly read the citation about the Arjun tank but I saw nothing in the article about the munition. The article is mainly about the tank being phased out. I will look at it again, but that is why I reverted the edit. I will look at it again to see if I was mistaken. If you have another source, I suggest that you cite it. That would clear up the matter without having to look into it further. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. I clicked on the wrong citation. I have restored your edit. I am sorry for the mistake. Please do not be discouraged by my mistake. I have left this message on your user talk page and have also added some helpful link to Wikipedia guideline, policy and format pages. Donner60 (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank You

Edit to Curtin-Hammett Principle

Donner60,

I was not making a test edit. If you will look above at the provided graphic in the article, you will see that there is no such value as ΔG‡, only ΔG1‡, ΔG2‡, and ΔΔG‡. The correct value is the one that I changed it to, ΔΔG‡, the difference between the activation barriers. If it matters, I merely made the edit as I was studying for my preliminary exam in my chemistry PhD program and noticed the error.

Thank you for explaining your edit. I am sorry that I did not understand it and regret any inconvenience. I hope you will continue to edit Wikipedia. I have restored your edit. I added some helpful Wikipedia page links to your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hate Story 3

I have mentioned the source for my contribution to Hate Story 3 in the Edit Summary. 24.44.196.20 (talk)] —Preceding undated comment added 03:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. But subsequently an administrator has judged the edit to be inappropriate. I must defer and suggest that you discuss this with User:Cyphoidbomb if you wish to pursue it further. Donner60 (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Coconut

Hi. You commented on my edit on Coconut being a test run. I think my error was I had difficulty with linkinking the movie. Any advice would be appreciated. Mstheresa1969 (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I left this message plus some useful Wikipedia page links on your talk page: You had included a link for The Wedding Ringer in the wrong section: "References" instead of "In Popular Culture", and did not explain the use of the song or provide a citation. A citation would seem necessary because I did not see a reference about the song in the Wikipedia article on the movie. I added to the page what I think you intended to add. Please see that edit as an example. Donner60 (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

NAACP v. Button

Hi Donner60, I hope I did this right. Thanks for your message. I was trying to flag the sentence as needing clarification; it was a very confusing sentence and I could not even understand it enough to edit it for clarity without worrying I would change the substance. I tried to see how to flag that, and on a template page I thought I was instructed that I could type "clarify" or "what" after a sentence and it would flag it. I was wrong and need practice editing! 97.88.218.193 (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I struck my original message on you talk page because your message to me shows that you simply made a formatting mistake. You forgot to add the open {{ and close }}, which made it seem that you were just adding a random word. Please look again at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. I also added some helpful links to Wikipedia guideline, policy and formatting pages. Donner60 (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

War on Terror propaganda

Since the article is moderated by pro-American editors would it be sensible to employ certain neutral non nationalist american editors ? there is no critique about how the US created havoc across the Middle East and supported various terrorists in the past from which this mess came from? Furtermore if India is worried about funds being used for Balochistan we need a counter argument about how they funded terrorist their in the first place. 2.219.97.149 (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Just for clarity, although I reverted some edits that were not reliably sourced several days ago, I did not edit or revert any of your recent edits, which are still included as far as I can tell. Also, it seems to me from looking at your edits that your concern is more about Balochistan and India's role, to the extent it has one. Wikipedia is based on a neutral point of view using reliable, verifiable and neutral sources. Although I am not sure this is what you mean, I cannot agree that anti-American propaganda needs to be included for balance if that is what you are suggesting. In any event, I am not an administrator or a member of any of the interested WikiProjects. I only watch current changes in articles as they appear if I am online and try to revert vandalism and to keep any questionable changes within Wikipedia policy. You already have added this issue to the talk page which is a proper way to get feedback. You might also look at the brief discussion about this very issue in Pakistan's role in the War on Terror. I think you would make more progress by taking this up with WikiProject Pakistan and possibly one or more of the other WikiProjects mentioned on the main article's talk page. Donner60 (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Steven Kerzner page

Tried reverting this page to an older version, only to get reprimanded by you. If you've seen the page, you'll understand why I tried to do what I did. There are a number of issues with that page, which should be rectified. Take a look at the page, and you'll see what I mean.

In response to your message, I struck my original message on your talk page. You were trying to fix problems with the article and the removal of the template seems to have been an unintentional by-product. The article is still a mess, as you suggest. It apparently has been this way since someone tried to add content to change it from a redirect. Under the circumstances, I think it is best just to revert it to the redirect and if someone can add some accurate, well-written content with a source or a few sources, they can do so later. It does not seem to me that anything can be saved. If you have a different opinion, please let me know. I also left a list of useful Wikipedia page links in case you are unfamiliar with them. Donner60 (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Users blanking pages they created

Hi. I saw that you reverted the blanking of Julio Cesar Ferreira by the person who created it. As long as others haven't made nontrivial contributions to the article, and especially in cases where the creator may be reacting to tagging of the article by trying to rescind it, the creator is permitted to blank it. This is treated as a deletion request, and the article can be tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD G7. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I am aware of that and I noticed it the first time it came by on Huggle, but not the second. Sorry about the mistake due to my inadvertence that time around. Donner60 (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Last surviving Confederate veterans

Hello Donner60 and trust you are well. Could I please refer you to the latest round of edits on the above page, as you are far more experienced in this than myself. I have previously reverted contributions from an editor which contained no real references and actually stated that one vet died in 1971!! Most of my edits have been reverted again, although not the 1971 death, but I can see no proper references. I would be grateful for your observations on all of this. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

David: Thank you for the alert. I occasionally looked at the page but not recently enough to see the new activity. I will leave a longer message on you talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Donner60, Many thanks for all your help and explanation on my Talk page. I think all we can do now is await any developments. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I viewed User talk:Bart Versieck just now and there is a response stating "Thanks for the feedback in fact, and maybe it's a good idea to do just that actually." I just responded, about seven hours later: I will prepare a question to them soon and let you know when I am posting it. If you prefer to proceed differently, let me know." I will go ahead after allowing some time for a response. If this is going to be a recurring problem, perhaps this expenditure of time will help put the matter to rest, or at least allow quick and sure reversion of any further efforts to add this material. Donner60 (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Further, longer message about necessary first steps under Wikipedia dispute resolution guidelines placed on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Have replied to your latest on my Talk page, and also reverted "edits" from this strange person - who seems to rely on WP:OR and is edit warring. Am know out of contact for a few days. Many thanks for all yur help.

Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

By that "strange person" would you be referring to me as a matter of fact, and I'm still waiting for some excuses by you regarding the undoing of edits made by me which were obviously no(t) "original research" at all, Mr. Johnson, plus have you viewed the PDF file about "America's last Civil War veterans and participants investigated" I suggested on my talk page, Mr. Donner? Extremely sexy (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry just to be getting back to you (on your talk page; this reply is to a posting only about 10 hours ago). I have investigated further but I have been sick for several days and not working very fast. I will look at your most recent citation before commenting. I ask that you give Mr. Johnson a little slack. He is in good faith and has monitored the article for quite some time. I had the same response when I thought you had restored an earlier more questionable version when in fact you had made a much smaller change to which I could not object. While he was unavailable, I looked at your last change more closely and saw that it was not as extensive or questionable, which is why I said I was sorry for the message I had left and did not change it further. I think he has been unavailable to see these developments.

The latest version of the article still has your last two changes. I will say, preliminarily, that if I recall correctly, Garry Victor Hill cannot be considered a reliable source. If I remember correctly, he is an amateur researcher and uses speculation and coincidences rather than definite, connected sources that historians and researchers have not accepted in reliable secondary sources. I say this only to give you my recollection quickly. I do this because I have some confidence I will find this to be the case and I have been delayed in replying due to my limited time and energy in the past week. I will try to be more definite with a prompt follow-up reply. Donner60 (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Donner60. You have new messages at Boomer Vial's talk page.
Message added 20:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Boomer Vial^Holla 00:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Lip edit

I would argue that your reversion of my edit to Lip is censorship. The article gave only one alternative usage of lips - that of drinking through a straw (a relatively modern innovation). My edit expanded the article by a mere clause, referencing a common usage dating to at least pre-christian Roman times, and quite possibly, much earlier. I am not sure why one example is more relevant than the other. I do not believe prudishness has a place on Wikipedia. If you have a valid argument as to why the additional clause added nothing constructive (i.e. relevant information not previously present), I would be happy to hear it. If your argument has its basis in the belief that sexual activity and the discussion thereof should be censored, then we may have a problem. I believe at the very least, any claim of un-constructive editing should always be supported by a reason unless reverting blatant vandalism - it is the only means by which consensus may be achieved, and I shouldn't have to solicit the reason as to which you remove my work because you decided a cryptic robo-message was easier.

P.S. I previously posted and removed a response to your comment regarding an allegedly un-constructive edit, as I thought it related to a very recent edit of an unrelated article, apologies, it was simply co-incidental timing.

86.8.54.48 (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You write well in opposing censorship and expressing your opinions. I appreciate your relatively reasonable exposition although your accusatory tone leaves a little to be desired and I am not sure what "problem" you might be referring to. I assume it is not a threat. You may not be aware that such random references are usually non-constructive and intentionally so. If you think every non-constructive edit should be individually explained at length, I must assume that you are not familiar with the hundreds of such edits placed in Wikipedia at all hours. The purpose of these is quite clear and explaining why the random insertion of the word penis into an article is nonconstructive would be of little use.

Your edit certainly appears to be of a similar nature since fellatio has nothing to do with food intake. I will assume that you are not using this as a soapbox or to be provocative, neither of which would be useful since the audience is likely to be quite limited. Getting to the substance, your edit had nothing to do with food intake, the section where you placed it. There is a section in the Lip article entitled: Erogenous zone. The opening sentence of that section covers the matter in general terms. One can click through on that linked term, and others, especially additional links in the erogenous zone article, if one wishes to follow up further. There is an article on fellatio which states that it is an oral sex act involving the use of the mouth or throat. I suppose lips are part of the mouth but that is wandering farther afield. I do hope you use your obvious writing talent to add constructive edits to Wikipedia in the future. Donner60 (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Upon reviewing the edit, you are of course correct that it is not related to food intake - I edited the sentence in question without considering it being limited to the intake of food. I am sorry if indicating there may be a problem could possibly be conceived as a threat, I merely meant that a third party opinion may be required (I certainly am in no position to make threats, knowing nothing about you!). That which you considered to be accusatory was nothing more than a vigorous argument in defence of my edit, an edit which I conceded was inappropriately placed upon your reply. I was not using this as a soapbox (it would certainly be an odd topic to advocate), but will admit to being curious as to whether other editors would revert this due to its sexual nature - despite my edit's factual correctness I concede it was inappropriately placed.

As to your comment regarding my obvious writing talent, I hope that you can see that my previous contributions, although minor, have been constructive (from this IP at least, it changes frequently so you can only see a snapshot - for various reasons I do not wish to create an account; my edits across IPs have been considered constructive, although usually minor). Thank you for your prompt feedback; whilst I believe a discussion of lips within a sexual context is highly relevant to the article- a point which my edit was intended to make, I acknowledge my mistake in placing it in that section. I will not make further edits to this article concerning the topic at hand as a gesture of my sincerity.

Thank you, and as final note: I'd like to once again clarify again that no threats were intended, I merely indicated that if the reversion was a form of censorship, then there is an issue requiring intervention given that Wikipedia is not censored (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored) - I sincerely apologise if this was misconstrued to mean anything else and hope you will understand my arguments within the spirit with which they were meant. 86.8.54.48 (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding and generous response. I know it is difficult to put something into writing about which one has an opinion, especially a strong one, without unintentionally giving the wrong impression. I now think my response also should have been better written. Please understand that I have been reviewing recent changes for over three years and have received a few mostly reasonable appearing comments, but ones that contained a few innuendos which escalated into something more nasty upon even a bland reply from me. (Perhaps not the best of reasons.)

I often have seen disruptive edits placed in odd spots in articles. Reversion of such edits rarely receives any response, much less a reasonable one. My user page and talk page have been vandalized 544 times, far outnumbering reasonable commentary. I actually do not care about that since I just increase the number in the user box about vandalism and move on. Such persons usually get blocked rather promptly as they often do not give up on disruptive editing or harassment in the face of warnings. I acknowledge that occasionally I have misinterpreted edits and will reverse my position when my mistake is pointed out to me or even when I see a reasonable position. In that spirit, I am striking my original comment in the manner prescribed by Wikipedia guidelines.

I sometimes do leave special messages, explanations or links to Wikipedia pages but I judge whether to do that by the nature of the edit. That is sometimes affected by the fact that the Huggle program only displays the change, not the entire article. When I think I should pull up the entire article, I do. Rarely, I find or am told that I should have looked at the entire article. If I had done so here, I could have just referred you to the erogenous zone section. I would not oppose an edit to that section if a "matter of fact" one were made so I will not hold you to your statement about editing the article if you still feel strongly about it. That is with the caveat that I cannot know or control how other editors would react. I am sure this is more than you needed to hear from me. I thank you for your patience. Again, I hope you will continue to contribute as my compliment was meant sincerely. Donner60 (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

List of Rivers of Brazil

Hi Donner60, I am offended at your accusation. I made no change to the page 'List Rivers of Brazil', as I did not even visit that page! Please make sure before you place some kind of blame on people! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.70.235 (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

How dare you post such a thing to Donner60, unsigned!!! You have no right to talk like that to WikiUsers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by U.faatimah02 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a very curious exchange. As can be easily verified from the history, an edit was made from User:80.43.70.235 as of 19:53, 21 October 2013 (no typo, it was 2013) which replaced over 67,000 kb of content with "There Are No Rivers In Brazil Accept For The Amazon." There have been no other edits by a user from that IP address until now. Of course, it is possible that the IP address is now assigned to a different user. Whoever the editor may be, it seems they either have not signed on since 2013 or did not pay attention to the notice or are new and somehow have just seen the notice. Whatever the circumstance, it is clear, and the history shows, that my 2013 edit and the accompanying message to a user at that IP address was entirely correct. While I appreciate the response from new User:U.faatimah02, I am not sure how that user knew about this exchange since he/she has not edited that article or had any other interactions with me. More curious things than this have happened, I suppose. Donner60 (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

This is for you! I absolutely adore kittens and I hope you do too!

U.faatimah02 (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy editing to you. Donner60 (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I was in the process of adding sources. I can redo the work.

I hit save before I finished adding the sources. Mea culpa. You were deleting as I was adding sources. Antinous78 (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I struck my original message to you and left a brief comment. I have saved an edit in process too early a few times so I understand. Donner60 (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries, I hate it when I makes simple mistakes like that. LOL! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antinous78 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Added this message to your talk page with a followup list of helpful pages for which repetition is not needed here. "You still have not added any sources with proper citations. Citations must be reliable and verifiable. See the appropriate pages in the following list of helpful Wikipedia formatting, guideline, help and policy pages. I will revert the latest addition of a similar edit without leaving a further message but you must adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines or further messages no doubt will be left by me or others. Not on the list, but important in this instance, is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons." As I suspected, another user reverted the latest edit and some unreliable source additions before I could even get to it. Donner60 (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Pala.Karuppiah

Pala.Karuppiah was removed from his party. So placing a political party name on his Wiki Page is giving false information. Hence removing makes more sense. Not every user on Wiki is a test user who needs to use Sandbox. So let facts live on Wiki, instead of reverting changes and highlight stale and false info.Sh0883 (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I left this message on your talk page: I left this message on the IP address which I assume is the same as yours. "The real problem with the previous edit was that the subject opinion "great" should not have been included. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Words to watch. Since your second edit did not contain this and my original message was not fully explained, I am striking my original message because your intention appears to be in good faith." I am sorry that you felt you had to make additional unhelpful remarks when I was in the process of quickly responding to your original positive and reasonable message to me. In any event, I will not be reverting the new edit because the real problem with the first one has been changed. (The part after "sense" is the addition to which I refer.) Donner60 (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Pakistanian

This is why I created a page called Pakistanian: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jan/06/social-media-mocks-dc-comics-pakistan-language-pakistanian-superman-wonder-woman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marioguy (talk • contribs) 00:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page in more detail. In summary, you portrayed it as a fact when you now cite a source showing it was either a joke or a mistake. An administrator reviewed and deleted it after I tagged it so my judgment alone was only the start of the process. Donner60 (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

removed edit

I have plenty to add to neiman marcus page. Its outdated... Adamsilber (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted my message on your talk page. Thanks for letting me know what you are doing with the page. Donner60 (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Scott Walker

I was unaware that I could not be biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.123.238.253 (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You previously received the same warning, with links to Wikipedia policy pages, from another editor. Donner60 (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to MILHIST

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 07:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Metric System edit

It is NOT to influence from the U.S., that aircraft speed is often measures in knots and heights in feet in the rest of the world. This has to do with the Nautical Mile (1852 meter). Navigation has always used the unit Nautical Mile for distance (Nm) because of the Longitude and Latitude on Earth. (60 NM = 1 degree of angle of the earth). Feet for altitude has and will be used in Aviation so that Pilots will always know that Pressure-Altitude (in feet) is used and not absolute altitude (in meters). This is done for disambiguate reasons, and thus safety.

I do not have a citation because its my own work. I am a Navigation Expert (MSc) and Airline pilot. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.111.122 (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I struck my original message on your talk page in the manner prescribed by the guidelines because your message to me shows you were in good faith. Nonetheless, I think there should be a source (and maybe the same one) for almost every sentence in your edit. Without at least one source or two, your edit would appear to amount to original research, which is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. I think it can be written so as to be within the guidelines. I may spend a few minutes looking at this but you should be more familiar with sources. I will leave another message as soon as I can to explain this a little more or to cite a source for you if I find one. Donner60 (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Rotherham United F.C.

Thank you for your recent speedy reversion on the above article. I would say, I think you have been very generous to the IP in question by calling this WP:DISPUTED as, in my eyes at least, it is a clear case of WP:VANDAL, under the inserting obvious nonsense into a page clause.

Would you consider giving a uw-vandalism1 warning to the IP in question? Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The standard level 1 template for vandalism states that an edit "has been undone because it did not appear constructive." The level 1 template that I used for incorrect information states: "Your recent edit to the Article appears to have added incorrect information." I am not sure there is a great difference between the two. The template tag "incorrect information" v. "vandalism" is not visible unless the user opens the page to edit it and understands what he is looking at. Since this is the user's first edit and he has not made another edit, I doubt he will pay any attention to a change and may just wonder why there is a change to a similar message. Also, since the user has made no more edits, this may be a one-off. A warning of any sort often makes disruptive users cease. If he returns, the next warning could come from the vandalism templates in any event. If I see a second disruptive edit or vandalism from a user, I almost always use the vandalism template regardless of the one that was first used. I think many others who watch for vandalism do the same. The first template does not require a second from the same series. Since the first warning seems to have achieved the purpose of making the user stop and nothing is really gained by changing the template, I think the better choice is to leave the warning as it is. Thanks for your attention to this article and concern about its vandalism. Donner60 (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I think you deserve it for all your hard work and for thinking of others (like me). It has been too long since you had one! :) Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 04:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I can use one. A vandal has attacked this page twice in the past hour. I think an administrator deleted one of the instances before I got to it. What they don't realize is that they just allow me to increase the number in my user box. Donner60 (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It must have been because of you reverting their vandalism. You need two pints now. :) Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 17:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

HHS

Why did you change what I did? Thelivinglegend987 (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I left an expanded message and some helpful links on your talk page as you were posting this. I also struck by original message since I thought after posting it that your edit was in good faith, even if not quite appropriate. Donner60 (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Block Warning Message

You sent me a "Block Warning Message" for 'vandalizing' the Yuma High School page... umm, no! Victor Sanchez really did go there, and was shot and killed last month and I added that and you said that that was vandalizing??? How dare you... that just ain't fair, you know. I added that because I CURRENTLY GO TO THAT SCHOOL, I KNOW IT WAS TRUE. I'm not being rude, but that was totally uncalled for. I did that for him as a pay of respect. Now, I want you to go back in there and PLEASE RE-ADD IT. OR I WILL DO IT MYSELF!

Tjsmith9656 (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You have removed two warnings from your talk page page. The second from me was a "level 4" warning about being blocked if you continued to add disruptive content or vandalism. That warning was placed because my reversion of your edit was done through a program called Huggle. For a reason that I do not know, but which may have some thing to do with deletions and later intervening edits to a talk page, Huggle occasionally delivers the "wrong" message. It is either too strong, not quite clear or at a higher level than previous conduct deserves. Since the person who uses the program to review new edits is immediately taken to the next edit for review, this infrequent automated mistake is not obvious. Huggle delivered a stronger message than I would have had I known the full circumstances. I am sorry that it did and I was unable to catch it. As I now explain, however, your edit was inappropriate.

There is so much vandalism and false information and information contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines placed in articles every minute that the few human editors must often rely on these programs and the anti-vandalism bot to keep it under control and some errors can be made. False or unsupported information about "notable" persons is placed in Wikipedia articles all the time. Unless a verifiable, reliable source is cited, it must be presumed to be questionable and probably false so some message with link to a Wikipedia guideline page was necessary to inform you about that. Names of persons cannot be added to articles as "notable" without showing they are notable by link to a Wikipedia article about the person or to a reliable, verifiable, neutral source. See verifying, reliable source and Help:Footnotes. Without such a guideline, the name of almost any person, even fictional people, could be added as well as the names of persons who do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards, the same as would be necessary to support an article about the person.

A person who has not graduated is not an alumnus of a school. Also, Wikipedia is not a memorial site, so as tragic as the student's death may have been, he is not a notable alumnus, Since Wikipedia is not a memorial site, the student's name cannot be placed in the article as a tribute or memorial. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site.

Unfortunately, as strongly as you may feel about it, your edit was not supported by a reliable, verifiable, neutral source or linked to a Wikipedia article about the person; but in any event, it did not show the person was notable under Wikipedia guidelines; it technically did not refer to an alumnus of the school and it appears to have been placed as a memorial contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. So some explanation and warning to you was appropriate and necessary because the inclusion was impermissible, even though it was not intended as the typical disruptive or joke edit often seen in these sections of such articles. The edit cannot be restored.

You also may find the following pages have useful information about writing for Wikipedia: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view,Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (in general), Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. Donner60 (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Cooper Manning

I believe the IP edits made at Cooper Manning were in good faith, albeit oblivious to template formatting and the Manual of Style, so I added but stylistically changed the edits. I do know it's hard to tell the difference while patrolling however. –Gladamas^talk 03:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

LOA3 vandalism

Thank you for your earlier help in maintaining the season 3 kung fu panda article with Special:Diff/703868747. Although your page says you are not an admin, since you are such an experienced editor I was wondering if you might know how to find one to deal with the recurring problem on the page. I believe it is the same editor who keeps removing data from the page. They seem to be obsessed with only allowing United States air dates even if they occurred after earlier reliably sourced international dates which are the best candidates for start-date. The problem is each edit they make is a different IP so it would seem like blocking a range of IPs would be necessary. From what I can tell what they have in common is they start with 2602:306:c5e4:24a0 but then the last 4 sets of 4 characters change each time. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I want to see if I can find any other information about handling the type of problem you asked about before giving a further answer. I will try to do this quickly. Donner60 (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Have not forgotten. Donner60 (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the Covington Latin page.

I noticed that the page didn't follow Wikipedia's neutral-pov guidelines and had been meaning to revise it; thanks for doing it! I attend that school, and the administration seems to be fond of using the page as an advertising spot, which, frankly, is pretty slimy. Striderling (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to note that I reverted a single edit which was clearly vandalism; any "advertising" was used as part of the vandalism. Donner60 (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	good job Biscuit492 (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

White pride

Hopefully I'm doing this right. I don't make many edits and am not expert on them.

With regard to the "white pride" page, it is dishonest in the extreme to fail to include content that acknowledges the simple and verifiable fact that a person of white/caucasian heritage can be proud of his heritage, without harboring racist attitudes or biases toward any ethnicity or demographic.

I will not pursue any major edits to this page, or enlist the help of many other like-minded content editors that I am connected to, on the condition that the simple facts I have stated are included in the page in question.

The point of Wiki is to be a source for factual information, and not for it to be a source for disseminating biased or untruthful information for any reason, including and especially the pursuit of a political or social agenda.

A person who is unwilling to ensure that the pages so created or edited present only unbiased, factual, complete, and balanced information has no business whatsoever editing any pages, and his editing priveleges should be removed permanently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmjohnson65 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Reasonable statement until the last paragraph, then personal attack. I certainly agree with the idea that articles should not be biased and that balanced reasonable points of view can be properly inserted into articles. That was a good start - at least as far as the message to me. See: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. On the other hand, the user deleted all the content he did not agree with and inserted unsourced content of his own. Then he warned other users not to insert content that he did not agree with. This is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. See, of course, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also, this is totally contrary to Wikipedia:Ownership of content. If the user wishes to place reasonable source additional content on the page or remove unsourced or erroneous content, he is free to do so. Otherwise, he has gone way too far.

Of course, I have no authority to make any sort of deal with the editor, even if I was a writer or editor of the page, which I have not been. I have only reverted an edit contrary to Wikipedia guidelines as set forth in the various pages linked in this reply.

FWIW, the user should take up any reasonable discussion or dispute on the article's talk page and if that fails review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for further options. Also, he should review such other pages as Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; [[Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style], Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, including Wikipedia is not a soapbox, for other helpful guidelines on editing Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

This sentence is in the existing article. "White pride advocates say they believe there is a cultural double standard in which only certain ethnic groups are permitted to openly express pride in their heritage, and that white pride is not inherently racist, being roughly analogous to racial positions such as black pride, Asian pride, or non-racial forms such as gay pride." It is immediately countered by critical commentary. Presumably, however, other sourced content along this line could be added if supported by reliable, verifiable, neutral sources, not just on user's personal interpretations or comments, and without removal of other sourced content. Donner60 (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Warning of Bryce Fifield

Hey Donner. I just wanted to let you know that the reason I left User:Bryce Fifield a level 4 warning, because he was engaging in massive acts of vandalism on Nadeshot. I'm pretty sure all of the vandals are related sockpuppets, as well. Boomer Vial^Holla 04:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I left this message on your talk page: Thanks for the message. I had not thought about sockpuppets so I am sorry I did not realize why a warning 4 was given. I suppose that the previous vandalism was under an IP address because I did see an earlier vandalism to Nadeshot by another user but I did not put the two users together. I did not want to use a standard Huggle AIV report because I think some administrators would have rejected it without the further explanation. I would have been unable to give that explanation so I thought I would scale back the warning level and let the user either give up or hang himself with a couple more vandalisms. Of course, that requires hanging around to see if those vandalisms turn up or hoping that other anti-vandalism editors are on the case. Thanks, again. Donner60 (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

reference to message left by you on my (Kavach shah ) use talk.

I wanted to tell you that l had given summary of the changes made

IN GM crops,

there is no mention of the full form of GM.

Therefore I changed GM to genetically modified

Kavach shah (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

In response to your message, I have added the words genetically modified crops with a link to the article on that topic where GM alone previously appeared. I will assume that the deletion of the rest of the paragraph was an editing mistake and I have struck the original message left on your user talk page. Donner60 (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Leigh Griffiths

This is the first time I have ever made a contribution (this very message) and I have never even heard of Leigh Griffiths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.63.40 (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Addressed on their talk page. Hopefully (it's a dynamic IP address). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Donner60 (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 357 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this template to your page.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

 Buster Seven Talk 15:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Donner60 (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 15

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 15, December-January 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

• New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
• #1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
• New branches and coordinators

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

William Carrico

Yes, you messaged that you changed my cited edits to the Carrico page because they were not "neutral". I am just curious as to why. I cited nearly nearly everything I mentioned with links that directed pertained to my comments and supported them. I am a resident of his senate district, unemployed, and want voters to know about other issues he has voted against/for. I also wanted to provide the information to the dissenting opinions on those pieces of legislation and comments. While I didn't spare words, I also did not say anything that was not true. I think surely my edits could have been tweaked without removing them completely. I'm very disappointed as those issues he has been involved in have very negatively affected citizens of my district and the Commonwealth of Virginia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginian13 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I struck the original message on you talk page not because I have reconsidered my revert of your additions to the article or the contents of the message, but because your message indicates you acted in good faith. So it does not stand against you. Nonetheless, you have in fact acknowledged that your intention was to turn the article into an advocacy piece for your opposition to the person as it seemed to me from the content, wording and lack of balance. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, especially the first two numbered points. Such content and approach are contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. Donner60 (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Fernando Rejas

Why i cant change the wrong data that many people post¿? I have the sources. War of Jenkins was a Spanish Victory, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_del_Asiento About battle of Cartagena de Indias, http://www.todoababor.es/articulos/art_2.htm

'True Account of Admiral Vernon's conduit of Cartagena'.

"By honest count we lost 18,000 men dead, and according to a Spanish soldier we captured, they lost at most 200. Admiral One Leg with his excellet leadership and fire killed 9,000 of our men, General Fever killed a like number. When I last saw the harbor of Cartagena, its surface was gray with the rotting bodies of our men, who died so rapidly that we could not bury them. The poor, weak farmers from our North American colonies died four men in five."

Source : 'Caribbean' de James A. Michener.

Need more information?

Saludos Fernando Rejas Fernando Rejas (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Michener was a novelist. His account is exaggerated to fit his narrative. The British did lose 6,000 men at Cartegena but the Spanish lost 1,000. Cartegena, more specifically the third battle of Cartegena, was only one of many battles. Vernon went on to other victories. The war did not end and Spain did not win it because of that one battle. As the article states, the War of Jenkins Ear was continued as part of the larger War of the Austrian succession. When it finally ended and was settled as part of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chappelle in 1748, all colonial claims were returned to the previous owners. Britain and Spain unofficially agreed upon the St. Johns River as the boundary between Georgia and Florida. The article is entirely accurate to describe this as status quo ante bellum with no boundary changes; and with all land returned to its previous owners; and with Georgia militia driving the Spanish back into Florida. That can not be described as a Spanish victory - the whole war was something like a tie. I do appreciate your effort to post correct information, but in this case you are not using a historic source. Instead, you are using a novel and you are referring to one battle, not the entire war. Donner60 (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Geography of Malaysia

Hey buddie, it's me superskiffer, i'll have you know I got my info from HTTP//.malaysiaST.gov if you have any questions check out the website (this time i did nothing wrong so don't report me.)

I will not revert this and add to your warning messages because your post is civil and I hope you will consider editing productively. On the other hand, it is nonsense. If you checked the Government of Malaysia web site, you know quite well that they do not say the country is located in Sphincter town rather than in Southeast Asia as the original text correctly states. Your URL is not correct, as well. You can still edit productively without getting yourself blocked, so I urge you to do so. Donner60 (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Jim Haslett

Please read the edit description and look it up for yourself before reverting my edit. I'm not interested in edit warring over basic facts. 66.87.65.181 (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. I am sorry for the mistake. I have made a null edit on the page to indicate your edit was correct. I also placed some helpful Wikipedia page links on your talk page in case you are not familiar with them. Donner60 (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Making A mistake

I Was Thinking About It But I think I better use a citation what on earth is a citation68.102.40.154 (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't Worry Be Happy

I've Been doing Good Donner60 But Who Sings Don't Worry Be Happy 68.102.40.154 (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

A citation is a reference to reliable, verifiable, neutral source. In this case, it would probably be a newspaper, magazine or credible web site such as ESPN. Follow the links to Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and [[Wikipedia:Footnotes]. As further information, please do not include text which is speculative and not yet definite. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wikipedia is not a blog, forum, fan site or advice site. It is an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable, third-party sources. It does not publish speculation, predictions personal opinions, commentary or unsourced information likely to be changed, challenged or disputed. See also: Wikipedia:Five Pillars, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For further information about contributing to Wikipedia, see: Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. I hope these linked pages will help you in contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Spanish language

Dear Donner60, I noticed the message you sent to my IP about how an edit I made on the Spanish page appeared to be a test. I am here to inform you that it indeed was not a test, and that guardándoselos can also mean "he/she/they/you guys keeping to themselves/yourselves". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.101.147 (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I struck my original message on your user talk page because you have explained your edit. It does seem to me that the inclusion of "guys" is a bit casual but I think I can see your point. Donner60 (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. As clarification, by you guys I meant to say youse or any other plural form of you. Thank you again!

That's what I suspected after I read your message and thought about it again. Donner60 (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

St. Bonaventure Men's Basketball

Hello- I had edited the page "St. Bonaventure Men's Basketball" and my edits were removed due to lack of citation. I have re-did this and included citations and pasted links to the citations at the bottom of the page to the best of my ability, but i felt i should let you know in case you want to hyperlink the source numbers, or clean up the sources section- i couldnt figure out how to add them to the list od already existing sources, so it just appears a little out of whack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike828282 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I struck my original message on your talk page because your message to me and effort to support the article show you were in good faith. I noted that I would check the formatting a little later. I added some links to helpful Wikipedia pages with guidelines and policies. Donner60 (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

superman animated edit

do you know sombody on wikipedia that is good with copyrights, so he can find out and confirm it? Donner60 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.139.54 (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you ask your question on the following Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Donner60 (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

ok thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.139.54 (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)