User talk:Donner60/Archive 15

Archive 15 starting with closed talk page threads after February 25, 2017 through December 7, 2017 except ArbCom election notice and Books & Bytes notices.

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Concerning the notability of Cameron Glenn

It is difficult to cite this because he is more of a local legend. There is ample physical memorabilia, however. As well as videos of his band and the other band members live in concert. There aren't any online sources. How can we go about citing this without an online source? Should one be created? How so? We could upload pictures and videos if that would suffice. CabotCitizen (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

He simply is not notable under Wikipedia standards if there are no reliable, verifiable, neutral, unconnected third party sources covering him. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, especially Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and Wikipedia:Verifiability, especially Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources that are not usually reliable, especially self-published sources. Similarly, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. The sources you suggest are not sufficient because they do not meet these standards. Creation of online sources would not constitute reliable sources because they would not be neutral. The essay Wikipedia:Verifiability and notability provides a further, useful explanation. Sorry but being a local legend not recognized by reliable sources is not enough to make someone notable, nor would any self-produced or self-published material (nor such material if created by a fan or related party). Donner60 (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Holodomar

I think it is a mistake, yes. The List of genocides by death toll deals with the UN Convention. All the genocides listed have been defined as genocide by the United Nations (for example, the UN has issued a report stating in clear terms that the Armenian genocide meets the definition)

Holodomar, like the Native Americans in the US, happened in a time before the Convention, and the UN remains silent on the issue (at least, I have not been able to find any references, but I did search before I put in the edit.) The citations admit that there is no scholarly consensus on whether the legal definition has been satisfied, including the requirement of intent. The fact that it has been declared a genocide by several countries does not mean it meets the UN criteria. Therefore, I do not think it is neutral to leave it in.

Unless verifiable references can be provided that go to the legal definition of genocide under the UN Convention, I am going to insist that my edit stay in. If there is any legal scholarship available, that can be cited and verified, then I have no problem with leaving it on the list. That is my understanding of neutrality.

I am trying to add Sabra/Shatilla, which the UN has defined as genocide in official documentation, which is supported and thoroughly cited by the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York. I have provided verifiable citations relevant to UN Convention definition. Why have you not questioned the neutrality of those who have deleted my edits? Seraphimsystem (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

References

(talk page stalker) Seraphimsystem, you don't even know how to spell 'Holodomor'. What kind of research have you done on it? Just for starters, read Wikipedia articles on Genocide, Holodomor, Genocides in history. There is no one overriding body (i.e., the UN) that determines whether a an event is considered to be genocide. The article clearly states, "The term genocide is contentious and its academic definition varies. This list only considers mass killings recognized as genocides by the legal definition in significant scholarship" which the Holodomor has, and continues to be, discussed in by a multitude of scholars. As for leaving missives like this on my talk page, then jumping back before I've had any time to respond, that is known as WP:HARASS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and as to whether or not we've encountered each other before: irrelevant. You might care to check the history of the article and the talk page history. It's been on my watchlist, and I've been involved in the development of the list long before you even joined Wikipedia. Read WP:AGF. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphimsystem: @Iryna Harpy: I have answered this on User talk:Seraphimsystem. I have struck through my original message. I have thought it better to take a position on the edit without leaving a "warning" message on the page because you have given an explanation for your position. I tried to explain the possible interpretations and why I take the position I have taken on your talk page. However, in striking the first message and making my explanation, I do not change my position on whether the deletion of the Holodomor from the list is proper. I think it is not. I view your position as a very narrow interpretation which is not in line with scholarship on the matter. My view on the propriety of the deletion is the same as that of Iryna Harpy. Indeed Iryna Harpy mentions talk page discussion (which I noted and should have looked at), which I wrote could be important. Since the consensus appears to support inclusion of the Holodomor, I hold to my opinion in that regard. Donner60 (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Saw your edit summary. You could just use {{Reflist-talk}} to keep the references in the right section rather than nowiki'ing 'm. ;) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I've actually flagged List of genocides by death toll for expert advice on international law and neutrality review, if you want to comment on that and I've explained more on the talk page. I think one of the problems with a genocide "list" is that we can't give context and it presents a major WP:BALANCE issue. I discuss it in detail on talk. It's not obvious to me that Holodomer should be included, when the Native Americans are not, etc.

On a related note, I see you are active in editing on Ariel Sharon's article and there are adds I want to make there also once I've gained access. I see a few issues are not covered at all, like the MacBride Commission or the UN Resolution, and general review for WP:NPOV WP:IMPARTIAL WP:BALANCE. -Seraphimsystem (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphimsystem: Thank you for your comments and notice of the progress of the matter. I will comment on one point that you expressed, for what it may be worth, but will explain that I am not and have not been involved in substantively contributing to these articles other than by reviewing recent changes when they are made during a time in which I am reviewing. I have written articles on other subjects and at times I do edit existing articles for cleanup or content additions or changes, but the two articles mentioned by you are not among them.

I cannot agree that Native Americans should be included in the list. They were not deliberately exterminated; only a tiny minority of the large number who died from contact with immigrants or settlers were subject to deliberate killing. Most of these were during warfare. There was no deliberate government policy to kill them as a people. Indeed, peace was maintained between some tribes and the latter settlers. While it is true that an unfortunately large percentage of Native Americans died as a result of disease, I am aware of no policy or practice to spread disease by the government in order to kill off Native Americans as a whole people. The Native Americans had no immunity to many diseases and even friendly or inadvertent contact could wipe out most or all of a village or group, as I think history shows. A few isolated incidents may have occurred during warfare but the only deliberate attempt to spread disease widely among Native Americans of which I am aware was by a British colonial governor before the US was established. On the other hand, Stalin deliberately had starved and killed millions of people who would not go along with his agricultural collectivization or for reasons connected with that policy and who the victims were. I suggest you not pursue this line because I believe you will not get support from reliable and unbiased sources and, as I have just pointed out, the situations are very different. The comparison is not valid. I think it also would tend to suggest political preferences which have no place in the discussion.

As I have mentioned, I review recent changes for vandalism and violations of Wikipedia policy or guidelines. I came upon the article on list of genocides and the change you made, and upon the Ariel Sharon article three times over four years, because the bot showed me those current changes in real time. I have by no means been active in editing the Ariel Sharon article. In 2013, I reverted "syiuyujijiuiukilled" to "skilled." In November 2016 I reverted a change in a date which sources showed to be incorrect. Changes in dates in established articles are often incorrect and I usually try to confirm them when I see them; the changes are often not supported by the very references in the article so one does not need to look far. In December 2016, I reverted an edit expressing what appears to be a personal opinion harshly stated, which was clearly going to be challenged and was not supported by any sources. That was the total of my edits, all made in response to changes that had just been made and were shown to me by the bot. A reviewer will not necessarily even see all changes taking place in real time if the queue becomes too long or the edits are otherwise handled or superseded. So these appear at random and I do my best to evaluate them under several criteria in the list of reasons for reverting an edit, including "failure to cite a reliable source."

As I have noted, I am not involved in substantively editing these articles nor do I watchlist or follow them. I will leave the matter to those who have contributed to the articles (or wish to do so) and have more time to and interest in doing so. I only will review changes to them in real time if they are made while I am online reviewing current changes and the bot shows me such changes. Again though, I thank you for your courtesy in informing me of the progress of the matter and inviting my comment had I wished to do so. Donner60 (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: This appears to be a matter of more interest to you. Although I assume you are already aware of the progress of the matters, I thought I would pass the message along to you to the extent you may be interested. Donner60 (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: Native Americans - I don't know if you have an interest in law, but in American law today there is still a doctrine called the Right of Christian Discovery. I won't bore you, there are arguments for and against any genocide, and none of us should be deciding what does belong on a "list of genocides" and what doesn't. You say no "reliable and unbiased sources" and "not valid," which is demonstrably false [[1]], and this happens over and over again. If we want to be policy-compliant, the only thing we should do is discuss the available scholarship in an WP:IMPARTIAL tone. There is NO genocide that is undisputed in scholarship, which is why Holocaust Denial has its own article. I would suggest looking at it because it is a good example of WP:IMPARTIAL tone. Very few genocides have been recognized through a formal trial that has resulted in convictions - the Holocaust, Yugoslavia (maybe, Milosevich died before the Court gave its decision), Rwanda and Sudan are the only ones I can think of...beyond that the editors should not be making decisions about what is genocide and what is not genocide. If all IrynaHarpy wants to talk about is my spelling of Holodomor and bot warnings to my talk page, please understand I will not be responsive unless she maintains a WP:CIVIL tone.Seraphimsystem (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphimsystem: I don't see the relationship between the court case which deals with land title, as I read the article, and genocide. Perhaps your point is more complicated. Other than that, I am not going to continue to discuss the substance of this because, as I have noted, I have not made substantive edits to these articles and have no intention of working on them. You may consider one or more of them as substantive as I suppose could include any change other than reversion of outright vandalism . But I come at this from a guideline or policy viewpoint.

I am sure that there are many others who will wish to work on the articles and continue any discussion in which you may be involved. It would seem more productive for you to engage with them as these matters in those articles develop.

With respect to these articles, since I am a reviewer and rollbacker and not an administrator, you will only see any edit from me if the bot shows me a change while I am reviewing and in my best judgment some change or revert is needed to be in line with policies. In your case, vandalism - which is what I see most often - has not been an issue. I thank you again for taking the time to explain your position. So, despite the first two sentences of my reply, I think you have the last (substantive) word in the thread. Donner60 (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Slipknot (band)

Hi the edit was a mistake and I restored it. Thank you for helping though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallydoggy (talk • contribs) 03:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

FWIW I restored it by reverting the edit. Donner60 (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

About The List

Hello, I have noticed that the list of Christian Nobel laureates has numerous entries that do not give sources or give sources that do not mention their religion or state it(nobelprize.org). Upon further inspection of some of the Wikipedia pages of these Nobel laureates, I found that there is no mention of their religion on many of them. Because claims on Wikipedia need factual sources and many entries on the list lack them, I have decided to remove all the entries that do not provide any sources. Also, I mentioned this in the talk page but no one responded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandPhilosophe (talk • contribs) 02:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I have struck out my original message on your talk page and added a comment and helpful Wikipedia page links. Donner60 (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Aura

The aura can be measured with Kirlian Photography. Here are the sources: Russia Today, The Guardian. Don't just believe any 'debunking' of this, because these 'researchers' started with the incredibly closed minded view that the material world is all there is, even though quantum physics has proven that there is not even such a thing as matter.

You can also eat some mushrooms or dmt if you wan't direct evidence of the soul, like so many millions of people have done throughout history (and you will laugh your ass off, especially if you thought it was nonsense).

Kirlian photography at least deserves a mention, because the article is very incomplete when it simply says the aura can not be measured.

Archived thread from abusive editor earlier; told him in comment that I would revert further abuse as vandalism. Not deleting thread but getting it off active page.

Second_Battle_of_Bir_el_Gubi

Hello,

Yes I made edits to include actual source material from an eyewitness at the battle, There also appears to be a mix of irrelevant quotes and pieces typed on the page that is a mere opinion but not actual fact of the events.

My contributions balance the purely anglo-centric views of some contributors, with more factual information directly from a surviving Italian soldier who took part in the defeat of the commonwealth British forces in that actual battle.

References

You have deleted relevant material and have spun the narrative in a decidedly pro-Italian direction. Some of your edits are by no means neutral and convey the same information in a less neutral way. You Tube is not a reliable source. Even if it were, an Italian combatant is not likely to give a neutral point of view. If you wish to add facts, not spin or opinion, and not remove facts, and to make those additions with support from citation of reliable, verifiable, neutral, third-party sources, that would likely be appropriate additions. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and, for the guidelines for neutrality, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For other guidelines, see Wikipedia:Five Pillars and the links on that page. Donner60 (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hello Donner60. I've added the template to keep the refs with this thread. If you don't like it please feel free to revert my actions. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 03:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanked with comment on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

There are several nonsense statements made that are not only inaccurate but spun from pure fantasy...here is an example "During the night, all the Italian units outside of the perimeter of Bir el Gubi were captured, along with their vehicles and equipment." However the battle was in Bir El Gubi and there were no youth fascist troops outside of Bir El Gubi nor did they have vehicles outside of Bir el Gubi, this statement is not only inaccurate it is not neutral, and total nonsense...Your statement also is contradictory as the citations and source material that appear, come directly from interpretation and are unreliable. btw I am ex Royal New Zealand Airforce therefore I do not understand where you are coming from, it does not appear that wikipedia want any other narrative apart from a slanted one sided and stereotypical one, perhaps you are racist, I don't know but it certainly seems to be a racist attitude that you are upholding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyM1969 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Also absolutely stupified at your logic or lack of, a first hand account from a person who was actually there present is unreliable according to you, yet books written with a racist or political agenda or from authors who only took into account anglo sources and did not conduct a balanced more thorough research regimen, is? this goes totally against what the legal system considers as reliable, but then again censorship of anything other than a stereotypical embellished pro anglo viewpoint is something wikipedia is notorious for I guess. EIther way this article falls way short of being accurate and has a problem with giving credit to the Italians who rightly deserved their place in history in this battle...

Racist? Really? I will revert any other such ridiculous and intemperate remarks as vandalism but will leave these for the time being. I understand that people some times get upset when something they believe is challenged and will allow for that this time. Read the links that I cited. Also, read Wikipedia:Civility. Donner60 (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Or perhaps I have hit the nail on the head, there are thousands of Wikipedia articles quoting directly from Rommels memoirs, Patton etc...and these are allowable as sources, yet an even more valid first hand eyewitness account is not? because its an Italian source? yes the vandalism and hypocrisy seem to stem from your side, double standards to the core. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyM1969 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Obviously this intemperate, uncivil, pov editor does not know the difference between quotations and relying on primary sources for the factual account. Or about neutral language while expressing both points of view. He wishes to slant the article in his direction based on the reminiscences of an old soldier on one side. In line with a few other pov edits. Only thing to do is archive this and hope the pov editing stops or the user calms down and reads and understands the policies and guidelines. Donner60 (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Edward Quist

Hi, I think Edward Quist's Wiki is a vanity page and should be subject to deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guhuthgutt (talk • contribs) 22:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

An existing page cannot be deleted simply because a reader/user/editor thinks it does not meet notability standards or does not like it or the subject of the page or even because it is poorly written. I am not an administrator and cannot delete or authorize the deletion of the page in any event. The page does not appear to meet the criteria for criteria for speedy deletion. It has existed since 2009 and cites independent sources. You can check the linked page for more information. Otherwise, if you wish to have the page deleted, you must proceed under the procedures shown in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. For criteria, see: Wikipedia:Deletion policy. See also Wikipedia:Notability (people). See also Wikipedia:Copyright Problems and Wikipedia:Copyright violations if you think copyright is an issue, though it does not appear to be. Donner60 (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Mihai Eminescu

Sir, I don t know too well to edit, but i have verifyiable important informations from Romania regarding the subject. If you could help me also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.123.152.93 (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Do not suppress the voice of the weak.

There is in Romania what may be called as the before writers said, a controversy around Eminescu, made by people with ideas from mind-excited and musilian highschool teenagers, to terribilist intellectuals like Horia Roman-Patapievici and others or newspaper editor Cristian Tudor Popescu, launching dismaying theories as the non-romanity of the poet, - in the context of a Latin people - and there was even a case of Romanian literature school teacher who refused to teach Eminescu in class, choosing instead the minor Twentieth Century poet Magda Isanos. Renowned poets like Mircea Cărtărescu immitate, betray and promote Mihai Eminescu in the same time, as a symbol for their Postodernism. In the masses Mihai Eminescu is loved as the cornerstone of Romanian cult poetry, next to Miorița în the folkloric realm. - Wikipedia, Mihai Eminescu. The Great Rabbi of the Communist Era dismissed the accusations of antisemitism regarding Mihai Eminescu, he and his wife Amalia Rosen being proffessed eminescian readers. In Romania was at least one recorded case of iredentist anti-eminescianism, made by Csibi Barna, during the Presidency of Traian Băsescu.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.123.152.93 (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that you seek help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Romania. Someone connected with that project is likely to know more about the subject matter and to be able to advise whether your edits are appropriate or whether they can be added if properly sourced.

Helpful information about editing Wikipedia can be found on various Wikipedia guideline and policy pages including: Help:Getting started; Wikipedia:Introduction; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style; Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources; Wikipedia:Citing sources, Help:Footnotes; Wikipedia:Verifiability; Wikipedia:No original research; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; Wikipedia:Notability; Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons; Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; Wikipedia:Words to watch; Help:Introduction to talk pages; Wikipedia:Copyright Problems and Help:Contents. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Please also note that Wikipedia is not a forum, blog, soapbox, fan site or advice site. It is an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable, third-party sources. It does not publish original research, personal opinions, commentary, advocacy or unsourced information likely to be changed, challenged or disputed. See the above links, especially Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Donner60 (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

C. Everett Koop

C. Everett Koop.

I honestly believe C. Edward Koop's mentioning in the Simpsons is well worth putting on the page. For those who didn't live through the Reagan years its our only point of contact with him. If you can create an appropriate section for it that would be fabulous. https://www.simpsonsarchive.com/episodes/9F21.html " For all the latest medical hoo

      Call Surgeon General C. Everett Koop."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU9QatYLi2M.

Cheers!

It's trivia and not significant to his biography. On the other hand, if you wish to create a ==Trivia== section at the end of the article and put it there, I will not revert it. However, I cannot speak for any other editor who still would view it as non-notable and insignificant. Donner60 (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't realise these pages were considered biography. I'll make the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:4EDA:9800:F497:3F6A:8C5:4B1 (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Jamaica

i just think in the history of Jamaica is important to refer not only that queen because of what she represents to Jamaica, I think you could add that information to the " History " part of the article "In 1966 was the visit of the King Haile Selassie. " and then you could write what you want — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnaRCanto (talk • contribs) 05:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I think I have explained this but I will suggest the following in line with your comment. If you wish to add a sentence later in the article, such as "King Haile Selassie of Ethiopia also visited Jamaica in 1966" [or exact date], with a proper source, you can do that and it will likely be acceptable. I am only a reviewer as far as this article is concerned. I did not write it and I cannot research the facts at this time. If you wish to add it, I assume you have or can easily find a reference for the addition. Donner60 (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Karaikal District Edit

I saw the section "Turndowns", and the sentence " Solid wastes scattered around roads which makes municipality's existence a big question." Both of these are... nonsense (the existence of the municipality is not inquestion; possibly the EXISTENCE of the AGENCY of the municipal CORPORATION, but even this would require some kind of substantiation, no?). I added the line "What is question? Unknown." The purpose of this was to demonstrate overall weakness of article, and the "holy cow, this is unacceptable" nature of a "Turndowns" section.

However, while my edits were seen AND removed within ten minutes, the original mangling of grammar and convention stands.

Slow clap, Wikipedia. Slow clap. You please continue to rever to to some "acceptably bad" level of information and grammar. And since the following sentence is now explicitly acceptable:

"Solid wastes scattered around Wikipedia which makes edit page's existence a big question."

Please demonstrate your objectivity by not editing this sentence away, just as you did not ecit it from the Karaikal District page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.190.119 (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Your edit added nothing of value to the article. It was simply a comment in the text, which is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. The reader should not be required to understand your comment or to research the matter. If you wish to make comments about the accuracy of the article or some needed change, and you cannot make them and support them with a source yourself, please put them on the talk page. If I missed a similar comment in another article, it was simply because the bot did not show it to me as I was reviewing. See Help:Introduction to talk pages, Help:Using talk pages and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. 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, Wikipedia:Words to watch, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, 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. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

On Pizza Delivery

Hey there. Ive never made changes to a Wikipedia page. I was trying to look something up when I noticed someone wrote about the "30 minutes or its free" trope about Dominos back in the day. I don't know how this started but the Dominos guarantee was 3 dollars off the order. I worked for Dominos in 1989 and into the 90s for a few years. I gave many customers 3 dollars off. Sometimes we would give the pizza free of charge but this happened very rarely and only in cases of delivery times approaching one hour. I worked there when they stopped the guarantee. They told us it was because of an 80m dollar lawsuit that was settled out of court but the company didn't want the potential legal hassle anymore. It pissed me off as I recall.

It surprised me that I was able to make the change. I thought there would be more of a process. I looked through the rest of the article and the bit about the Pizza Hut delivery fee starting in '99 was wrong because we were doing that in '98 in the Green Valley Pizza Hut Delivery in Las Vegas. I noticed it one day and the store manager said we were one of the first to try it out. It started at a dollar and went up to 1.50 by the time I left. Hardly any of the customers mentioned it and a few years later it was everywhere, like the article says. Like I said in the notation though, I don't know the details about the test marketing so I don't know which store was -FIRST- but the article was obviously wrong so I replaced the error with a generic phrase about the timeline. It seemed best.

Anyway, I'm not an expert on much but I am a primary source about the Pizza Delivery business for the past 28 years. I've worked at all the major chains and a lot of the small places too. I'm an expert in this area, least as that may be.

If you're serious about the subject and you have any questions call or text me at 702 427 2422. I never check my email. This is the most Ive written in years. I just want to set the record straight were I can.

2601:14C:8103:1B20:F85F:D144:3BFF:D78D (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

IslamismsSEA

Hi, please remove the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party and National Trust Party (Malaysia) in IslamismsSEA because this template suitable for terrorist and non muslim radical organizations. Please separated this, between Islam and terrorist. Malaysia not terrorist country. Thank you. Keluang hitam (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Ultimately, this must be done through the deletion process with final action almost certainly by an administrator. I am only a reviewer and cannot delete a template. The following Wikipedia pages explain deletion policy and the process. Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Deletion process, which has some discussion about templates. Discussions about templates nominated for deletion are at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. Since you are registered user, I think you can initiate the process if your further reading of these pages shows that is appropriate. It may be that certain edits would fix the problem or that further thinking about what this template includes may show that you have no need for concern.

For any further review other than by yourself, I would ask you to seek a second opinion from another user. You can leave a message on the template talk page or raise a question at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Help:Contents and Wikipedia:Questions can be useful pages on which to seek help or find a page on which to seek it. Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics should be another place where you can ask about whether the template should be deleted (probably not) or certain content about Malaysia should be deleted or amended. Keep in mind in considering whether and how to approach this that the template appears to only identify organizations and countries where they operate. It does not seem to categorize the countries themselves as terrorist. So no action may be needed. That is how I view it but, again, I would not want the final word if you disagree. If another user or users have the same opinion, I think you will have nothing to be concerned about. Donner60 (talk) 06:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

El Mahrousa

Thanks for your message.

I removed the material on Mahrousa being the centre of proceedings at Suez as I can find NO reliable reference to her even being there. I can however find reliable references in multiple places for the actual proceedings at Suez in 1869.

Lead ship was the gunboat HMS Newport which caused a minor diplomatic incident when it appeared ahead of the Royal Yachts of the French, Austro-Hungarians, Prussians, Russians and Dutch. Please read pages 2-3 of https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=I9dKDQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false. There is NO MENTION of Mahrousa, and it is a fact that L'Aigle is a completely different ship.

Yours,

an editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.210.143 (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Parti 51

Dude, I left a link to the new party of, i.e. parti51.com, but if you want to delete it, delete it, you wikipedia users are crazy weird.

Thanks. I struck my original message and left a thanks and helpful Wikipedia guideline page links on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Lodz

The citation is KCRA, a NBC affiliate in Sacramento CA. MarkAJohnson1964-2040 (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I responded with comments and helpful links to Wikipedia policy and guideline pages on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at 142.160.131.202's talk page. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Ina Ray Hutton

I'm updating the Ina Ray Hutton page. You removed my edits, but I have documentation for these edits from various state and county recorders. Thank you, BombshellMel

They are not listed in the Internet Movie Database. If you are going to include them, you will need to cite a reliable, verifiable, third-party source. Since there is public information to the contrary, you will need to provide public information to support your addition - not just your own assertion. Donner60 (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

You're correct, they're not listed in IMDB. Ina's career was well established before IMDB, and I don't believe IMDB is the most reliable research area to verify a celebrity from the 1930's - 1950's. I've done extensive research work on Ina Ray Hutton and her history/family history. You can find out more at www.BombshellOfRhythm.com My research comes from ancestry, genealogy, newspaper, and county/state records, as well as personal interviews with her family members. Regards and thank you, BombshellMel

You are correct that IMDB is not necessarily the best source but it is referred to by many people. If you have independent reliable, verifiable sources which support the edits, you need to cite them. I don't question your personal interviews, but as far as Wikipedia guidelines are concerned, in the absence of other third-party sources, this simply amounts to your claim versus any other sources, including IMDB. Donner60 (talk) 08:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Suvarnabhumi

Sorry for late respond, I want to explain why I did removing Philippines theory part on those article. Those editing are done by user: Jasper0070 which I assumed he is a Filipino. He provide references in the part of article that has been edited by him, but when I check there's no mention at all about relation between Philippines and Suvarnabhumi. Those article just mention about importance of Cebu as trading point in the past, and artifacts that have been found in Cebu. You can read it by yourself in this URL [2]. Finally, I hope you can consider my opinion and suggestion, and sorry if I am the person that must be corrected, and for my English too. Thanks -Lyndonbaines (talk) 09:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

then why you will exclude the Philippine part since Cebu is a part of Philippines too? and other parts of Philippine islands are often called Suwarnaphumi sometimes Chryse or golden one "Golden Peninsula,", so refrain from reverting and i will restore it (if so) thank you! (Jasper0070 (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC))

Sorry for the late reply. Please edit the article to say what the sources show. If there are two versions, and each is supported by sources, please include them both. If the source does not support inclusion of Suvarnabhumi and no other source can be provided which supports that, then it should remain excluded. Since the fact has now been questioned, and the source has been shown not to include this point, Wikipedia guidelines require that a source be provided. If the island is often called Suvarnabhumi, some source should exist to support it. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks so much. I really appreciate your thoughtfulness. Best wishes. Donner60 (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

New question

..................…http://pib.nic.in/newsite/accred_index.aspx?Sel=3&PSel=1

I am new at this and found it very confusing to respond to your comments. Is there a better way to tackle this...may be by using email.

ML Kotru is a very senior journalist who also happens to be a Kashmiri. I have provided a link to all the accredited journalists published by Govt. Of India above. If you still have questions...please email me at mkotru@gmail.com. Thanks. Mark Kotru (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello D. I had a hard time finding where this had been placed on your talk page so I've moved it to try and save you some hunting. Best regards and enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 04:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Good to hear from you; I hope you are doing well. Thanks for putting this where I could find it more easily. I might have missed this for some time otherwise. While I think there should always be a notice at the top of the page, I am sure that I am found a few out of place messages days later and just by chance. The notices at the top of the page don't always make an impression. Donner60 (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm hanging in there. A bit too hot where I live but we are supposed to cool down for the weekend. Cheers! MarnetteD|Talk 05:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Replied to Mr. Kotru at length on his talk page. Donner60 (talk) 05:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to find a citation, however as a professional musician I am amazed there was no law suit involved. All you have to do is listen to "Shattered" then listen to "Gunslinger" by Mink Deville and you will know that someone stole it from the other. Since Deville's album came out in 77 and the Stones came out in 78, well there you go!

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Acknowledgement

yes you are correct I saw the film today I was wrong on my edit. thank you

Joao vicents page

How come u keep putting down my update on his page? Claudiusrocha (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Your update is not supported by any citations. In fact, it is obviously false. I have explained in more detail on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Removed vandalism

Removed vandalism by Croncle and item by disruptive editor Huronn. Donner60 (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

I did not vandalise the Sebastian Buemi page, I just merely added content, which is true. Please go to www.autosport.com or www.motorsport.com to verify the information. He missed New York and only came back for Montreal, crashing in practice, then ranting at fellow drivers post-race, as well as being disqualified for an underweight car. Tonight is the season finale and he is 2nd in the championship to Di Grassi. So I did not vandalise anything, I merely added content to the page. Umsunu Wabo —Preceding undated comment added 04:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You have removed the prior messages on your page so I cannot strike the last one as I was about to agree that your edit does not deserve a "final warning." These pages still remain in your history. Also, I continue to think the edit to which the last warning referred is still inappropriate as phrased and does not take into consideration the guidelines in the pages that I cited above. It is not up to the reader or editor to find and cite sources that support controversial edits, especially those that may disparage a living person or put them in a bad light. See the links I cite above concerning biographies of living persons and verifiability. The procedure to cite sources can be found in citing sources or help footnotes also linked above. Please also be careful not to use text from a copyrighted source unless you use a small number of words and identify it as a quotation (fair use). Your edit also uses slang and has a speculative ending. Again, see the links above and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. If your deletion of the guideline pages means you do not intend to follow the guidelines, you are likely to find your further edits will be reverted and you seriously risk being blocked from editing. Donner60 (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

"Chicago School"

Hi, i removed Eugene Fama because he is not a member of the Chicago School of Thought, he does not adhere to the School of Thought. Being graduate from Chicago University does not mean you adhere and/or have contributed to the Chicago School of Thought. I am new to Wikipedia, i am not sure how to leave a message when removing text. Hope you get this message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TishoYanchev (talk • contribs) 21:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I struck the first message on your talk page because of your reasonable message to me. Please see Help:Edit summary. Since your explanation is reasonable, if you had put it in the summary, I would not have reverted the edit and left the message. Other helpful information about editing Wikipedia can be found on various Wikipedia guideline and policy pages including: Help:Getting started; Wikipedia:Introduction; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style; Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources; Wikipedia:Citing sources; Help:Footnotes; Wikipedia:Verifiability; Wikipedia:No original research; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; Wikipedia:Notability; Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons; Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not; Wikipedia:Words to watch; Help:Introduction to talk pages; Wikipedia:Copyright Problems and Help:Contents. Thank you.

Sterling Knight

On BLPs such as this one, I usually find it better to just remove the disputed information (middle name, birthdate, city of birth, etc.) entirely - especially if it's not cited by a reliable source. Then it'll be up to the user to not only add it back but also provide a reference, and you're also taking the right action per WP:BLP ;-). Figured I'd share this with you; never hurts to help make life easier for other editors... lol. Cheers :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Thanks. Good to hear from you. My thought on some of these types of changes which look suspect is that it is unlikely that a reliable source can be cited. It is always good to get another helpful perspective. There is not always just one way to handle some issues or problems. A different way can be more useful in some situations, especially first instances. It is good to take an easy path and just challenge the user to provide the source without adding the warning, especially if it is not part of an obvious pattern of disruptive edits. I can see that way of proceeding could make it easier for both reviewers and new users to follow up without starting with an immediate warning and possible bad feeling. Keep up the good work. Donner60 (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and for the kind words :-). It's good to see you around and say hi again! Until we meet again ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Batman Begins

Sorry fam, was just doing a joke for the boys. But what I really wanted was to edit that plot summary that appears whenever you search a movie (not only movies, other media too) on Google

(That text was from a bootleg Batman toy)

muaddibarthur (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2017 (GMT)

Todd Sampson

This page was edited by someone else on my account, and was not me. I am sorry for any damage caused. The vandalism has now been restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sththeychehe (talk • contribs) 04:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Esraj

Content that I added was removed as there was no reference. I've added once again and I've put two links in the external link section that will let you understand that Pandit Ashesh Banerjee was a maestro of the instrument Esraj. I'll try to find more source regarding him. And I would like to have some references on Sukesh Jana , he is there in the notable players section. Thank You, ~~IamUddalak IamUddalak (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your message and for your addition to the article. I struck through the original message on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hamilton Hazing Allegations

If you refer to my contribution to the Hamilton High School page, out of Chandler, Arizona, you will notice that it is a fluid situation. I understand your position on depicting real life individuals correctly and accurately with solid sources better then most. My background is in counterintelligence and we call this incremental intelligence, or if you are the FBI a drip. With that said, there is a lot of things the media and police cannot let the general public know about the various incidences due to privacy of the minor victims. For example, the cellphone videos and pictures will never be released to the general public because of the sexual assaults - but we know they exist. The evidentiary hearing for the State of Arizona vs Nathaniel Thomas scheduled for late September 2017, will better depict the full scope of the cellphone video and pictures.

When talking about minors being sexually assaulted, it is very important to be on the right side of fact. That is why I wrote that section before anyone else to insure neutrality. Hamilton, in Arizona, is a highly polarizing subject from athletic transgressions like the hazing or the completely unfounded recruiting claims over the last two decades. The academic rumors have also been persistent without any facts.

Another point, this is a very fast moving story. As of a few days ago, the civil case against Hamilton High School has expanded to five students with $30 million USD in damages. When the arrest raid took place every media outlet had a different number, then retract their initial reports to get it right - then screw up again with the charged individuals ranging from 1 to 4. No named individuals, attributed to the hazing, were inaccurately depicted. There are solid sources by media outlets, police statements, or court documents. The one statement I will admit is questionable is Manny Palomarez because it was an alleged statement reported by the local ABC syndicate once and never again.

If you claim my contribution lacks accuracy on any other individual, prove it. As for me, I believe getting this section out there will allow other individuals that have a broader understanding of the incidences to edit the section depicting the situation as currently as possible. I will wait for your response before updating the section to the previous contribution.

AZOperator (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and linked articles. You cannot use your own secret information that is not released to the public as the basis of text in a Wikipedia encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. It is not up to me to "prove it." It is up to you to "prove it", and even more importantly, to abide by the Wikipedia guidelines. See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wkipedia is not a newspaper. The very fact that this is "fast moving" and you are basing some text on information predicted to be released in the future shows it should not be included in the article under the policies and guidelines. I thank you for your well presented and temperate message. If you wish to ask for another opinion or dispute resolution, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Resolving content disputes with outside help. Since I only dispute the appropriateness of the addition under Wikipedia policies and guidelines, if you carry this further, I would add nothing or nearly nothing other than what I have just written unless some other points are made. Donner60 (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree with your conclusions, but I will hold the section until after the evidentiary hearing. This 'secret information' when talking about minors being sexually assaulted, is listed in the emails and search warrants, all listed as references. What surprises me is from your comments it appears you want to have an internet link to watch some poor kid get sexually assaulted on video or in pictures. That is pretty sick, go get some counseling.

As for the "fast moving" reference, you should understand that incremental information gives new evidence, it does not disprove or make the vetted evidence referenced in the piece inaccurate. You obviously have never dealt with public dynamics when it comes to volatile situations. For the record, since no one has pulled together all the evidence, there have been death threats, open violent attempts, and other despicable acts that I am sure you would agree would fall well under poor decorum for Wikipedia. This has extended beyond just ruckus students to adults within the state of Arizona's local athletic programs. If this little piece of the web can get it right then the public, which we write for, won't hit some 16-18 year old football player with bats.

Seeing as though you spouted out policy that I have read, yet you have written in the most general of terms. Tell me which statements you believe are against policy. I would much like to hear which statements you think need better insight. AZOperator (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong about your temperateness and approach, if not other things. Resorting to ad hominem arguments and stating that people who disagree with you need counseling and have all sorts of failings and deficiencies is not quite a persuasive comeback. The only reply I can, and will, make to that is see Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. Donner60 (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I will add that in view of your holding your further edits until after the evidentiary hearing, I will not edit the article thereafter. This will remove any suggestion of bias or axes to grind. Other editors can weigh in at that time if they see a need to do so. If you have any further dispute at that time, it will be with someone else. Donner60 (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I am generally a very even keel person. A little explaining is in order to patch up that perceived personal attack. From your response, it seemed like you wanted a piece of evidence sourced when it is highly illegal to publish, not to mention against Wikipedia's decorum. It appeared to me, you had some invested interest in viewing this highly illegal content (the assault videos and pictures) which would suggest a severe mental health issue or were determined to block any reference to this topic. Your inability to specify any source as incorrect or misleading is troubling, and furthers the argument for some invested interest. I would be extremely interested in what specifically you think is against policy. Your comments thus far has shown nothing to that extent, therefore as a co-editor of Wikipedia you actions have become more disruptive rather then proactive in extending the Wikipedia knowledge base. Your previous accusations of the content having generalizations will always fall on deaf ears when you cite a whole policy by not specifying any particular instance or section of said policy.

The content recently added had nearly 30 separate sources from multiple publications, court records, and statements. It is by no means finished, not unlike many other topics published on Wikipedia. The content was worded in a form which is within neutrality for any media form with regards to ongoing court cases. The term "allegedly" or is "alleged" are keywords not intended for ambiguity, but to communicate these incidents are being argued in court. In addition, the content adhered to all laws by not revealing names of minors or the victims of sexual assaults.

It is my belief that if a Wikipedia topic is to comprehensive, someone must start the topic and the community is to chime in whenever needed. I do not get to choose what the evidence says, all I can do is say this evidence has been produced and this is what it says - respecting all laws. I can understand that a topic like child abuse/hazing is charged, and that some do not appreciate the wording, but that is all we have. I look forward to hearing a comprehensive response. If you wish not to respond, I would advise you retract your statements and replace the content. AZOperator (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

AZOperator, You do not get to choose what gets included in Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

AZOperator. You continue your personal attacks under the guise of trying to justify them. I do not live anywhere near Chandler, Arizona and have absolutely no vested interest in the high school, the incident or the article, which you apparently cannot truthfully say. My previous comments are a sufficient answer. If you need anything else, see the comments about this on the article's talk page which provide a further appropriate explanation. Take up your argument there if you still wish to do so after reading the comments. I will revert any further personal attacks, direct or indirect, as vandalism and place the appropriate warning on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are having to endure this Donner. I too have told AZOperator to stay off my talk and discuss the issues at the article talk page. I recall working with you on a similar issue as this school's a few years ago. It was a long difficult discussion but in the end it worked out. I hope this does too. John from Idegon (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

John you are once again in violation of Wikipedia coveted no personal attacks by disparaging another editor on another page. Don’t worry I am not going to report you, because I am not that kind of person. I will differ to others on the warning you so there is no conflict of interest. Like you said, keep the discussion on the content and not on your personal opinions. —�- — Preceding unsigned comment added by AZOperator (talk • contribs) 03:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Lavender Federation Trail Page - Please allow previous edits that you have since reverted as they are correct.

With respect to your revert to old information You recently reverted some changes made by Chris Bushell who discovered the Lavender Federation Trail page the other day. Chris is the Chairperson of the Board of the South Australian Recreation Trails Inc, who are the instigators, and installers and maintainers of the trail. Chris has a very good handle of the development of the trail, both in administration and also getting out there and actually putting in the trail.

The information he added is to bring the trail information up to date. There will be more updates in the next year as the Trail nears completion to its destination of Clare in the Mid North of South Australia.

The trail has been built completely by volunteers (including all volunteers on the SARTI Board) and as such we find less time to do things like chase up why the edits here have been reverted.

I request that you restore his updates as they are accurate, and up to date.

Thank You in advance. My name is Peter Herriman (user: Peterherriman), I am the website administrator of the Lavender Federation Trail <ref>http://lavenderfederationtrail.org.au/web/</ref>(and many other mid north websites) Peterherriman (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I have rolled back the edit because of your citation of the trail web site, your identification of yourself and your reasonable explanation. The citation should have been given with the edits; in the edit summary noting an update if it is currently correctly shown in the article. We are all volunteers at Wikipedia as well, as I suppose you are aware. The reason that reliable sources must be provided for nearly any change that could be suspicious is that bogus edits are made literally every minute of the day every day of the year to the English Wikipedia. These are often claimed to be made by persons who claim to have knowledge, or even with knowledge, but are given no citations. The reader cannot know if these people are who they say they are, or even are knowledgeable people when they do not identify themselves. They may or may not be valid changes which is why personal knowledge is not a reliable source under the guidelines - and some of these have checked out as wrong. Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Help:Footnotes. While we can track down the validity of some of them, the limited number of human volunteers who supplement the work of the bots could not possibly keep up with confirming or refuting every suspect change if they had to do so - when more than 99% of the ones that are reverted are bogus, or at least there is no later justified. I am sorry that in this case you have had to further justify the change and if I should have known it was valid, I am sorry that I did not. I was simply following the rules, augmented by years of experience with bogus changes. We are human after all and do make some mistakes. The important thing is to get the text confirmed and correct as promptly as possible.

I congratulate you and the volunteers who keep up trails. I enjoy these myself, though I suppose a little less so as the years advance. Please do not take any of my remarks as critical. They are meant to be explanatory. Yet, I know that occasionally one can be misinterpreted or give offense when no such intent was present. So I wanted to be clear about that. Good luck with your continuing improvements to the trail. Donner60 (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Richard Daley + stolen election

The source from which I know of the disputed returns in Texas in 1960 is Richard Nixon's memoir *Six Crises*. He describes the issues involved, notably counties where the Kennedy vote was higher than the county's population.2601:244:4505:6F40:C9C9:9CAD:66D6:620C (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Ken Howes

Please insert the source as a footnote in the article when you restore the edit. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Hello Donner60. I wanted to let you know that I mention the post with the legal threat here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threat. I'm sorry you are having to put up with this. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 04:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Thanks. I hope you are doing well. I have been quite busy with two offline projects so my editing has been sporadic and will continue to be that way for at least another month or so. You make a good point that I had not thought about. I suppose the legal threat should be reported even if it just appears to be blowing smoke. I considered the IP as just what he said he wasn't, a vandalizing teenager. Age 24 and in the "Olympic" next year. Doubt it. His (almost certainly) rants are semi-literate at best and have the hallmarks of a teenager attacking the authorities at his school. So the threat seemed far fetched. But I guess no one can be sure about such anonymous threats so it is probably better to put them on record. He has done enough to get blocked and I assume he will be soon (if not already). I appreciate that you watch out for these things. Donner60 (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, already blocked. Donner60 (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I am hanging in there D. I am glad the block was applied. Best wishes in your projects :-) MarnetteD|Talk 04:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Donner, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh666 21:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

George VI

I still need to crop out the frame and reload the image. The Library of Congress releases 50 images each Friday and crowd sources exact dating and context for the images. They started in 1910 and are in a 1920 tranche now. Most images have the date they were taken on them and a sequential number corresponding to the day they were developed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Richard: I'll start off by noting that I have seen your good work for quite some time. With regard to this message, did you intend it for User:DrKay? In the edit just before your recent edit, I reverted some vandalism. I checked to be sure I had not inadvertently reverted an image. I had not. After your edit, DrKay restored the image that you replaced. That leads me to conclude that this message was meant for him. If not, please let me know. Otherwise, you may wish to send it to him if you have not done so already. Best wishes. Donner60 (talk) 01:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Wrong title on page

Attempted to change "Bhad Bhabie" page to read simply "Danielle Bregoli" since the former is only her stage name. It may confuse some people.

An article title cannot be changed without following the proper procedure. That has already been started on the article talk page. Please see the template at the top of the page and the discussion on the talk page. You may also wish to read Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles. Donner60 (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Philadelphia Eagles

HI i would just like ask why you changed my thing about edp445 i wasnt trying to vandalize i was just trying to provide more inf o on a eagles fan

Responded on your talk page; struck my warning notice but explained why edit was inappropriate as I interpret it. Donner60 (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Cyberman and Fallout 4

Yesterday, I logged into Wikipedia for the first time in about 9 years. I found “You have a new message from another user (last change).” So I clicked on it and I had found your July 2017 message. You sound nice, but you accuse me of adding incorrect information to Cyberman (A Doctor Who character?) and something about Fallout 4. I had nothing to do with either article. You seem to have sent this to me by mistake. You are probably confusing me with somebody else. Or maybe I’m a victim of weird identity theft.

Cyberman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberman

Fallout 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_4

Thank you for your concern. Stathmk (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The messages were left for the user of a computer at an IP address 199.168.78.40. If this was your IP address in July 2017, the disruptive or questionable edits came from your computer, possibly from another user. One possibility of another user is indeed a weird type of identity theft where someone latched on to your wireless connection or to your computer while using a public wi-fi connection, possibly while you were using the computer in a public place. If you have a new computer since mid-July, you may now have the IP address that was used for the edits and would see the message even though you did not have the IP address at the time the edits were made. I think there are a couple of other rare possibilities because I have encountered this sort of thing a few times. Even if one of these possibilities does not explain this, I would not worry about the messages, especially since they were sent to an IP address, not to your user name account. (That is not to say that someone could not use an account validly on the one hand and not log in and use the IP address to make disruptive edits on the other. A Wikipedia "checkuser" could identify that if there were persistent vandalism from a related account and IP address so an appropriate block could be made.) The questionable edits are several months old and would not be held against you cumulatively even if you received some later message due to some technically incorrect or invalid edit. I have no way to know exactly what happened here, but I do know that these types of mistaken relations between old messages and different users can occur as I have already stated. Thanks for letting me know; it shows that this type of thing can happen in some unusual circumstances, even though it ends up being a mistake. Donner60 (talk) 04:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Priscilla Presley

I have added the reference from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5004443/Priscilla-Presley-quits-Scientology.html and i'm not sure if Tony Ortega is a reliable source as well... --174.92.217.241 (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I left a further message and helpful Wikipedia policy and guideline page links on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Editor999! (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Irish Rebel Songs

I added a performer before I created the page for them. You removed the performer. Page under review. How do I "cite" a simple list addition when there is no page yet to link to?

You can cite a web page about the performer or one or more of his songs which shows that he is indeed a performer of such songs and not just some random name that has been added. I assume you can cite some references for a proposed article so one of those ought to meet the requirement. If you cannot cite any references, I do not see how you can write an article about a person without having it challenged and probably deleted on the basis of lack of notability. There are a few entries on the page which should be removed because there are no links to Wikipedia articles and no citations showing the identity of the person or song but until that is done, it does not mean others should be added. (Note this is as information and no criticism of any kind is intended.) Donner60 (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Why are you changing my edits to CEX.IO?

Sorry, I am not an expert Wiki editor, I am just trying to get the truth about this company out there, and stop them stealing from so many people!

If my linking is not 100% please correct my links, but leave the important data in there.

We need to help each other be safe from these kinds of scams and theieves...

thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyborgX (talk • contribs) 03:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Basically, you need to take this to another forum unless you can fit a neutral statement describing allegations which can be backed up by descriptions in reliable, verifiable, third-party (neutral) sources under the guidelines and policy pages shown in my reply. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, advice site or a newspaper. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and various sections related specifically to these concepts. Also, you cannot remove reliably sourced descriptive content about a subject and replace it solely with allegations of wrong-doing. Donner60 (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Battle of The Santa Cruz Idlsnd

Thank you for reverting the page. I wished to prove to a friend of mine that one cannot arbitrarily change a page on Wikipedia.

Erwin Griswold Page Edit

Hi, Donner60. I wanted to include a source, but couldn't figure out how. Do you mind helping me? Thank you.

I put links to helpful Wikipedia guideline and policy pages on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Merrill Heatter

As Merrill’s daughter, just to clarify, am I allowed to edit. Just trying to help. GFH1 (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The short answer is yes but you need to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I responded with explanation and helpful Wikipedia guideline and policy pages on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 04:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Donner60. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Muzammil (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Robyn Hilton

The reason why it should be deleted is because your facts are just incredibly false. You relying on a newspaper article is not the necessary the truth as we all know, what you read is no always the truth. If you like what you read that's fine, but they are all lies. If you print any information on a specific person without their permission it will be deleted. Keep what you may, but now I know Wikipedia is not always truthful. If you are interested in the truth check your facts instead of relying on a newspaper article, that's all I am saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C51n't (talk • contribs) 17:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I have to concur with Donner60. The Spokane newspaper is a reliable source according to Wikipedia guidelines and journalistic practice in general — as opposed to an anonymous person making a claim without stating any specific evidence for it. Where are you getting your information that the newspaper claims are not factual? Also, a statement such as "If you print any information on a specific person without their permission it will be deleted" is, among other things, a threat to edit-war, which can lead to an editor being blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Why would you think an article in a newspaper is the necessary the truth. ... I just think Wikipedia should be factual and when someone points it out, you refer to a newspaper article as the truth. Maybe that's your policy. I am saying, instead of taking a newspaper article at face value or think since they printed it, it must be factual, check your facts out that's all I am saying. I am not trying to be difficult, but I just don't get it. I am done and will no longer care what you print. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C51n't (talk • contribs) 04:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Donner and Tenebrae. Altho our new friend is going about this in all the wrong way, perhaps there is a point to be made. From her credits, it's pretty obvious that this lady is just a bit player. Notability is tenuous at best. If the LDS claim can be shown as false (and that would not surprise me one bit. Being LDS in the 70s was much less mainstream than now. The whole ref set reeks of Hollywood PR), then the references on which this seems to rest could be ignored and the article deleted. I think it would be worth it to mention this at the LDS project, or possibly to an editor familiar with LDS, or possibly just send it to AfD. Sourcing is pretty sketchy, and she only barely would make NACTOR. John from Idegon (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon; Tenebrae I have removed my original comment because it was a little off point and because I have done a little more searching. The Family Search site information that the new user cited is not consistent with the other information that can be found about this person, little as that may be. This probably refers to a different Robyn Hilton. http://fanpix.famousfix.com/gallery/robyn-hilton has a short biographical infobox which supports all of the information in the article except Mormon religion, Twin Falls, ID (but it does refer to the schools there) and Playboy photos. It doesn't contradict these facts, however. User submitted information at http://www.weht.net/Robyn%20Hilton.html doesn't really add much except for a poster who says he was a student with her at Twin Falls High and that she posed clothed for Playboy. A commenter had to correct the original post which still erroneously has "Iowa" instead of "Idaho" for Twin Falls; also says she was born there. There also are links to a Johnny Carson show on which she appeared in 1974. I want to replace the earlier post so I will stop at that and come back to this a little later. Donner60 (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Her filmography is on http://www.whosdatedwho.com/dating/robyn-hilton (no information on dating or relationships). There are several sites with pictures of Hilton, mostly from her movie appearances in the 1970s. http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/person/86670%7C0/Robyn-Hilton/ repeats some of the information about her with the adult film mentions that are on the where are they now web page.

The user simply wanted to remove some of the material as false while giving no support other than Family Search for the changes - and terminating the removal mid-sentence. Family Search is not inconsistent with all the removed material, however.

An online article talks about her divorce from Mel Gibson and shows her picture. That one is clearly a mistake. His wife's maiden name was Moore, BTW.

So we have a minor actress, famous for her beauty and curves in several small parts in movies and tv shows and an appearance on the Johnny Carson show. She also was on the fringe of pornography, certainly in suggestive photos and so-called "nudie cutie" shorts. There are a few newspaper clippings, the IMDB and a few web sites that give most of the information in the article; none that I found verify that she is or was a Mormon. The Family Search item is inconsistent with the other sources, except that IMDB refers to the husband listed on FS. It is a plausible inference that this is a different person of the same name. There may be enough sites with pictures of her from Blazing Saddles and a few other movies that would indicate cult status as an actress.

Is this enough to pass notability standards as an actress/cult figure? It seems to me to be borderline and thus maybe not a sure AfD nomination. Does the question about her being a Mormon sway this one way or the other? Or should that maybe just be deleted instead of going to the LDS project. (I don't mind mentioning there for what it's worth, however.) Any further thoughts from either of you? Donner60 (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Pretty clearly I think, the reference to her religion should go. If I'm not mistaken, in cases where it is contentious, don't we require a personal statement from the subject to verify religion? I don't do Hollywood stuff, so you gotta help me out here. She's alive. How are any of these sources sufficient for a BLP? So we've got the Spokane paper, which is appearing to be a press release based hack piece. I'm still thinking AfD. We've got crap sources for some somewhat sorrid things from a nobody bit player who is now undoubtedly just somebody's sweet old granny and wants it behind her. Don't think the sum of world knowledge would be lessened by helping that happen. John from Idegon (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon; Tenebrae Good points. I will delete the reference to religion immediately. I will nominate it for AfD promptly. I agree that the actress is of no real notability and Wikipedia would be better off without the article. Anyone who is a fan can find other web sites and You Tube snippets if they really care. The worst that could happen at AfD is that fans come forward with enough support to persuade the closer to keep it. It is hard to imagine it would be very contentious. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon; Donner60 Well, let's perhaps slow down. She's certainly a cult figure and she certainly has a filmography of around a dozen or more movies, plus appearing twice in Playboy spreads is no small thing I do think some of the citing mentioned above such as whodatedwho are non-RS. Would it be alright and we might give me a couple of days to research? I'm a writer/editor for a living and maybe I can scare up some things, especially since I've got a pretty substantial reference library of books. Just a couple days. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry.... obviously there's no urgency. This has been here for years. A few days certainly don't matter to me. There aren't really any BLP issues, other than the OP here raising doubt about her religion. Go for it. I'm also going to ping C51n't with little hope of a response. Perhaps if they do respond they can clarify in a less emotional way what we have here so perhaps we can help them achieve a reasonable outcome for all, without whitewash. John from Idegon (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon; Tenebrae No problem. I did not mean to imply that I thought there was urgency, just that I did not intend to let it go for a long period of time. My editing has been sporadic recently because I have been busier than usual on other matters. I wanted to remind myself not to let it go. As I noted above, my conclusion was that it was borderline. All three of us have spent some time on this and I think we all just want to clarify the article if it should be kept or put it up for deletion if that seems better. I am quite glad to have Tenebrae take a fresh and more thorough look at this so we can reach the best result. Perhaps the article can be saved if there are additional sources or the sources that do exist can be viewed as supporting a close keep. I have no problem with whatever outcome seems preferable and no reason to want to rush or advance it to deletion if the article looks like it should remain, minor though it may be. I did delete the reference to her religion but I have no problem with restoring it if there is a good source. I thank both of you for your attention to this and encourage Tenebrae to proceed and take such time as may be necessary to make a good search. (I think I have probably found whatever there may be on Google.) Perhaps this will have a satisfactory conclusion and even C51n't may be satisfied with the result. John, please ping us if C51n't responds on your page rather than here. Donner60 (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Allen Ritter

Why is Allen Ritter back again, cited as being a producer on 'No New Friends'? The citation articles don't even verify this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbullock16 (talk • contribs)

References

I do not know why the change was made. I have not looked at this article since my edit with footnote was made in January 2016. If you have not done so, you might leave messages for those who have edited the page most recently with the specific reasons and citations for the other version. Simply asserting the fact without more, or simply reverting the edits with a brief edit summary, may not be convincing - if that is in fact what is happening. Since I look at changes to articles in real time, I almost never watch list an article to check changes made after the session. I would have tens of thousands of articles watch listed if I did and would not be able to check current, and more frequent, problems. As it is, I have almost 3,000 articles of interest watch listed. Best of luck. Donner60 (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Content removed

Hi, I recently added content to the Wikipedia page disussing dreaming which I researched thouroughly and do not believe should have been taken down. May I ask why you have chosen to remove it? RemiD (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@RemiD: Please read the note at the top of the edit page of the disambiguation page dreaming to which you added content, Wikipedia:Disambiguation and the linked pages. The note at the top of the edit page explains in part: "This is not an article; this is a disambiguation page, for directing readers quickly to intended articles. For a quick guide, see Wikipedia: Disambiguation dos and don'ts. For more details, see the complete disambiguation page style guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages." Text is not to be added to disambiguation pages. Although there is not an article with the name "Dreaming", the first sentence has a link to the article Dream, which is the substantive article about dreams or dreaming. That is where text should be placed. You will see this is an extensive article with many references and citations. It should not need additional content but if you find that it does, you are free to insert it, with appropriate references if needed, especially if it differs from sourced content already in the article. See also the various helpful policy, guideline, style and information links that I placed on your talk page. I will place a version of this on your talk page to keep the messages together. Donner60 (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

List of United States Congress members who died in office (1900–49)

47.21.17.246 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) was making the article match the Congress Critter's party match what was on the Congress Critter's page. Such as here If that isn't correct, there is a much bigger problem than what the IP is doing. I followed on behind you, reverted more, then reported to AIV. Fortunately (I assume), cooler heads prevailed and no admin took action. There appears to be another IP also reverting 47.21.17.246 Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: I thought the user was flipping the parties and making them wrong after I checked some of them against the articles on some of the individuals whose affiliations were changed. Then it appeared to me the same user was making some right. This confused me as to what was really going on. I think I missed the intervention of the other user who may have muddled things. When you edited, I thought you set it right and that I should bow out before I confused things even more. I had reported to AIV, then thought better of it at least in part because some edits were stale, and removed my report before it was acted on. Luckily this user who appears to have been trying to set the record straight was not blocked.

I think what has happened is that several people have been working at cross purposes to get it right, and perhaps one different user may have been inserting errors, possibly not on purpose. So the whole thing may have become confused rather inadvertently despite efforts to do some cross-checking. Perhaps 47.21.17.246 ultimately is straightening this out and we should be glad that user has been persistent. Maybe it would be worth checking in a few days to see whether accuracy has been achieved. Thanks for the update. Donner60 (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Douban

Hey, would mind elaborating which part of NPOV rule did I violate?--123.161.170.16 (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

You removed factual sourced content which shows bias in withholding information about censorship by the web site for no apparent reason. Donner60 (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I admit it's factual sourced content. But there is undoubted bias in the BBC Chinese (not BBC) which is basically a propaganda media of the UK government. --123.161.170.16 (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a fringe view and quite plainly shows that your removal of the content was biased, intended to hide relevant information and politically motivated. Donner60 (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

"a fringe view"? I'm afraid it's not fringe at all given that Wikipedia already has WP:NEUTRALSOURCE, WP:NPOV#Bias in sources, WP:BIASED. --123.161.170.16 (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I meant that your statement about the source would be considered a fringe view, at least by most editors that I am familiar with. There is not much in continuing this discussion here; also, I will not be reviewing current edits further tonight and would not be responding promptly regardless of any impasse in this thread. I do appreciate your courteous commentary and if you wish to seek an additional opinion you might 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. You might also seek comment at Wikipedia:Teahouse. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject. If there is a project concerning the subject(s), you may be able to get further opinions on the relevant talk page there. Wikipedia:Third opinion is another page which explains how to seek an additional opinion. Donner60 (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

syfy cz

this background content is no longer on the US site, but it remains here, look before you delete64.175.40.185 (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I did not intend to delete your edit concerning Matt Frewer/Taggart which you have restored without any other additions so I struck my previous message. Donner60 (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Donner60. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)