User talk:Donner60/Archive 19

Archive 19 starting with closed talk page threads after December 31, 2018 through December 1, 2019.

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Hello Donner60: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, 5 albert square (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Happy New Year, Donner60!

Happy New Year!

Donner60,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2018 (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.
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 00:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Happy New Year,Doner !

Happy New Year!

Some celestial fireworks to herald another year of progress for mankind and Wikipedia. All the very best , Donner,
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy New Year everyone

Right back at 'ya! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

Thank you for your help last year, and your good wishes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Offline

{{ping|MarnetteD}}, {{ping|General Ization}}, {{ping|Shellwood}}, {{ping|Abelmoschus Esculentus}}, {{ping|Oshwah}}, {{ping|Drmies}}. I have been offline for almost two weeks preparing a talk on a history subject and trying to get some things done before outpatient, and presumably relatively minor, hand surgery tomorrow. I certainly won't be able to type with both hands for a few weeks so I probably will have little or no editing for three weeks(?), if it heals well. I may be able to edit using Huggle and the mouse but I will probably not be able to write out lengthy replies to questions, comments or complaints. So I will need to try to avoid edits that might provoke them - though one never knows about that. I do have a few paragraphs that I can cut and paste with minor changes that can fit some situations. In any event, I thought I would let you know why I have been absent and may continue to be mostly or entirely absent for a few weeks, at least. Donner60 (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Donner60 - No worries; there's no need or obligation for you to explain your absence on Wikipedia nor is there need to fear any repercussions for taking a break (though I do appreciate the message and you for telling me... lol). I hope your off-wiki life stays in relative order and that we see you when you're ready to return! Have a safe time away, I hope the procedure on your hand goes well, and I'll be keeping you in my thoughts. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

We need to get you a computer that will type what you say when you talk to it :-) Again best wishes to you D. MarnetteD|Talk 00:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, like one of these. Donner60, best wishes for a smooth surgery and a swift recovery. General Ization ^Talk 02:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Good luck and take it easy--I know MarnetteD will triple their efforts to make up. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Best wishes ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 05:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Best of luck. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to all. Typing mostly with one hand, here. Surgery went well in terms of actually reduced pain, no extra pain. Not supposed to put pressure on it for a while and not get dressing wet. Somewhat restrictive. Stitches out in 10 days. Hopeful for normal use soon after. Donner60 (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

{{ping|HickoryOughtShirt?4}} Just realized I left you off above ping for this message and wished to include you. As info. Donner60 (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Haha, no worries! Glad it went well and hope to see you editing soon. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Best wishes

Hello D. Regarding your summary I want to offer my best wishes for your surgery. I do hope things go well. MarnetteD|Talk 23:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

{{ping|MarnetteD}}. Thanks! I thought you were reading my mind at first. I was about to post the message just above when your message came in. Then, I realized, as you noted, I made mention of it in my edit summary to my update to my user page. I will need to sign out in a few minutes because I need to get to the hospital at an unreasonably early hour so I am glad to get your wishes before I logged off. Donner60 (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi again D. I was glad to see this edit summary. I'm glad things went well. Welcome back :-) MarnetteD|Talk 23:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

{{ping|MarnetteD}} Thanks. It did go well. You have reminded me that I should note this to the others who I pinged before. Donner60 (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

St. Augustine's College (Cape Coast)

Greetings, I will provide my sources soon. Here's just one of them. https://omgvoice.com/lifestyle/10-best-secondary-schools-ghana-last-10-years-according-ssce-scores/

Secondly, I completed the school recently, so I believe I'm the one who knows about what houses we have. Please leave my edits as they are, I can assure you, it's authentic information. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.75.59 (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

The 2018 Cure Award

In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Deckard Rifle

Hi, I'm new to wikipedia and came to look for a reference to the Deckard firearm. I came across the term while reading a book called "The Crossing" by Winston Churchill. I did not know what a "Deckard" was and neither did wikipedia!

So I searched with Google and found a reference to the Deckard rifle and thought I could add something to Wikipedia.

However as I am unfamiliar with how this process works I just naively signed up and wrote a short disambiguation which you have removed because it was not referenced.

Ill leave you to that. You seem to havw a great ibterest in American history and no doubt are very familiar with the term Deckard and its widespread use in the early days of european settlement of your country. Perhapa you would care to write a properly referenced disambuguation.

As for me ... I know whatca deckard was so my ned is already satisfied. I wont trouble myself further.

Cheers, Rob Robinmelb (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your message. I should have left a more specific message for you, for which I apologize. This is particularly true because your edit was to a disambiguation page and was informative and clearly in good faith. I struck the original message on your talk page, added a more detailed explanation, added some helpful Wikipedia guideline page links and left some encouragement for you to consider making further contributions. Donner60 (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The Deckard rifle or Dickert rifle is mentioned in the article Long rifle. I have created redirect pages so the first two terms will redirect the reader to the Long rifle article where Dickert (Deckard) is mentioned. Kentucky long rifle also redirects to the Long rifle article. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Donner60 (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Back

{{ping|MarnetteD}}, {{ping|General Ization}}, {{ping|Shellwood}}, {{ping|Abelmoschus Esculentus}}, {{ping|HickoryOughtShirt?4}}, {{ping|Oshwah}}, {{ping|Drmies}}. My hand surgery went well. About a week ago and a week after the operation, I was able to edit, mainly with the mouse. While I already had little pain, my hand had a large dressing. This made typing slow and cumbersome, but fortunately I did not need to do much. Stitches were out two days ago. Except for working out some stiffness in one finger in particular, my hand is much better than before the operation. It was a pleasant surprise and barring any unexpected problem, was well worth the inconvenience. Donner60 (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Woot Woot now you can get back to too much typing :-) MarnetteD|Talk 23:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

{{ping|MarnetteD}} It may actually be good to do so. I am supposed to exercise it without putting more than five pounds of pressure on it for a few weeks. Donner60 (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back! General Ization ^Talk 23:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

^ Glad it went well! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Happy editing! ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 00:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Anand Bhavan

Hello Donner, The city of Allahabad was renamed Prayagraj last year. Therefore, I changed the name of the city on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.98.87 (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. I checked a web site that still had the old name. I struck my original message and left a comment and helpful Wikipedia page links on your user talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Donner, I just made the edit and put a citation. I haven't edited a lot of wikipedia articles so I am not sure if I can cite another article (the wikipedia page for prayagraj/Allahabad) but that is what I have done. If you would be able to help fix the citation, that would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.98.87 (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I changed the footnote to a phrase in the text noting that Prayagraj was previously known as Allahabad. This should be sufficient since Prayagraj redirects to the Allahabad article where the change of name is explained. Thank you for bringing this my attention and for making the Anand Bhavan article more accurate. Donner60 (talk) 04:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Donner! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.98.87 (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Sameena Ali-Khan

Hi Donner, Thanks for reverting the vandalism on the Sameena Ali-Khan page. The person in question is currently under a concerted campaign by James Charles fans to deface her Wiki page and shutdown her Social Media. An innocent comment she made, they have taken on as sexist and homophobic, which it wasn't and she is so not like that. Sadly these individuals are persistently vandalising her Wiki now and sending constant abuse to her Social Media accounts. They appear unable to see the irony in their actions, as whatever slight they feel, their own actions are just pure bulling and harassment. The campaign of abuse has lasted 2 weeks now, so I expect further vandalism of the page. I don't want any protection put on the page as I am currently updating the content. I'm not sure what the best action is, just wanted to make you aware of the situation, and thanks for noticing the vandalism and reverting so quickly as have other people on the previous vandalism attempts. Not sure there is anything can be done, other than hope they get bored soon and turn their hate elsewhere. These people take great pleasure in taking screen shots of the abusive changes they make, and sending them to her via Twitter. Thank You SmillieKylie (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Why do you keep deleting my edits :(

Marshallmcluhan1 (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Because they are wrong. Certainly they are unsourced and unsupported. Since you have now also been warned by an administrator, I suggest you stop making such edits. You can still be a productive editor but if you instead continue to be disruptive, you will soon be blocked. Since this entry by you too is vandalism, I will probably will delete the item in a short period of time. Donner60 (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Why do you keep deleting my edits :) The One and Only Boothsift 04:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

{{ping|Boothsift}} Thanks. I found no problem with your edits; otherwise I would have left a message or warning on your user talk page. The problem with the page on Josh Okogie was that there were so many vandalism edits from multiple users that I felt the best way to be sure there was a clean version was to go back to near the beginning of the day and restore an apparently clean version. Page protection has now been requested. If that is granted, the vandals should be barred and you should be able to add any productive edits to the page. If there is some later problem, let me know and I will try to help. I know my approach in this case was broad brush and rushed. I have done that only a few times over 8 years. I thought this was an extreme case and if by chance there were any good edits, they could be restored after the vandals had been barred. Perhaps I should have taken more time but the vandalism was happening so fast that I could not revert it fast enough to not end up restoring a vandalized version. Sorry for any misunderstanding or inconvenience. Donner60 (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Donner60: Hi, that was not supposed to be intended seriously. As a fellow rollbacker, pending changes reviewer, new pages reviewers and AfC reviewer, I have to constantly deal with vandals like those IP's. So, I understand how you feel. Anyways, happy editing :)--The One and Only Boothsift 05:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

{{ping|Boothsift}} Thanks. Glad to hear it. I did not think you were angry or upset but I thought an explanation could be in order. I thought my edit might not have been entirely obvious so I did not think a question was inappropriate. I see you have been doing the same type of editing and doing a good job at it. I hope to see you around and to work together if the occasion arises. Donner60 (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Donner60: Same here, glad to work together in the future. Thanks--The One and Only Boothsift 05:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Noob Saibot; Or Draft:VonRyan the Genius?

W are new to the comunity & learning how to write using wiki, our arketing firm hasnt utilized wiki services untilk now, so leave our page alone please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.130.19 (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not revert your only edit using this IP address. The edit I did revert, also reverted by another user, is not only unsourced, it is derogatory. Contributors to Wikipedia do not own the articles to which they add or delete content and certainly cannot order other editors not to revert content that does not conform to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style or other policies or guidelines, including Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. See Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Donner60 (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Donner60 (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps this was the second article I have now shown in the section heading. The IP address may be an alternate to User:We are the Media. The Wikipedia links in the above replies are relevant in either case. I tagged the draft article as a hoax because the citations did not support the text and I found no reference to the subject in an internet search. The IP user blanked the article and it was deleted as such. Again: Wikipedia:Manual of Style, [Wikipedia:Verifiability]], Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Some of the content after five edits consisted of incomplete sentences. Looking at it from another perspective, not only was the subject not notable, but there was no credible claim of significance or importance. On the talk page, the IP user wrote that it was a new media group and had just signed the "upcomming" artist. There is no credible claim of significance or importance even for this since the references do not refer to the subject and no valid reference was found. Donner60 (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be someone with that name.[1] We are the Media is some sort of collective.[2][3] The SG Media bit is a puzzle. Anyway, this is just someone clueless thinking they can publicise someone not notable so far as I can tell. Or a hoax by someone about a real person(or the real person hoaxing). Doug Weller talk 15:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

{{ping|Doug Weller}} Thanks for the info on this. I am glad that you have come to basically the same conclusion. Even though there is a little more to be found about the user and the possibly real person it still seems to be either a hoax article or about someone not at all notable with no credible claim of significance having been made. Donner60 (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

List of most-subscribed YouTube channels Edit

Hey Donner, I'm trying to undo an edit on the List of most-subscribed Youtube channels as some people have been messing with the tables and historical progression (In a column tracking days held, some people are putting in a 0 day period.) but you've undone my edit. What should I do? WhistlingCanines (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I will answer on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Manual of style

Could you point me to the bit in it that says all heights must be specified in millimetres exclusively? That seems a tad stupid to a mere mortal like myself, especially given that 1000 mm = 1 m exactly; so enlighten me, o wise one. --85.76.84.91 (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You are correct; sorry for the mistake; you have already reverted the edit; I will strike the message on your user talk page. Donner60 (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Shepnix1 edit on Ulysses (novel)

Donner60: Thanks for the note. If the question concerns the Firesign Theatre reference, it's already included in Wikipedia's own entry on Molly Bloom:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Bloom#Molly_Bloom.27s_Soliloquy

But it was not referenced in the Wikipedia entry re the novel itself. If the editors prefer, you could just copy/paste from the former into the latter instead of using my edit. But it should be included among references to the novel in other media. Thanks. Shepnix1 (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the edit with a link to the title of the album, which also has an article, and to an internet review of the album which includes a reference to the soliloquy. I struck the original message on your talk page because of your message and because your edit was in good faith and is supportable. Thanks for following up on this. Donner60 (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Edits for Scott McAfee wiki

Hi Donner60, My edits to the Scott McAfee Wiki were just removed due to lack of sources. But I am Scott McAfee :-) I am new to Wikipedia editing but I wanted to update my own page with some details and my picture. Let me know what I need to do to prove I am who I say I am (I am working on creating an actual user account for wikipedia). I am happy to email you from my official gmail and college (I teach at College of the Canyons) email if that helps.

Thanks, Scott McAfee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2ED6:6500:C087:E0FC:1A40:49D0 (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I left a message on your talk page suggesting you read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help and follow the guidelines on that page. I also struck the original message and put some helpful Wikipedia guideline and policy pages on that page. Donner60 (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Donner60, Hmmm, the only thing I can see that might be a violation is my bit about teasing my sister at the end, which I will gladly remove. Otherwise, everything else is neutral. Would removing the "teasing/insulting his sister" make the edit more neutral? Thanks, Scott McAfee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott.McAfee.VO (talk • contribs) 04:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I also would remove the word "tender" because it looks like it was copied from an uncited source. I suggest that you add a few citations. I assume (correctly, I hope) that some web pages exist that would support the teaching and the participation in conventions. It might also be useful if a web page referring to the National Guard Service could be cited. These do not have to be from college, convention or National Guard sites, necessarily, but can be from newspaper, magazine or web site sources, including interviews, from third party sources. Otherwise, I think the edit, with the omissions noted by you and "tender" would be neutral and non-controversial enough that no one would object to the addition. I would not. Donner60 (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Donner60: I think I have a clear idea of what needs to be removed and will take out those types of descriptors. The Comic Cons are not a problem since I have links to the cons I have attended. I am not sure how to prove my military service outside of uploading my discharge papers or military ID, which I am not comfortable with. I do have a picture of me while serving: would that qualify as a citable resource? Thanks for helping; I am a complete newbie to this. Scott McAfee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott.McAfee.VO (talk • contribs) 05:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Do not upload any personal papers, personal pictures, id numbers, etc. If you cannot cite a public document or use a picture in the public domain (newspaper, web page, etc.), don't cite anything. I am glad to have another opportunity to comment before you go ahead. I suggest not stating the reason for your medical discharge. I think that is private and I cannot see it as being necessary or helpful to you or the reader. Also, I would omit the "semi-retirement" statement unless that is in a public source, for the same reasons. If it is in a public source, the reason given there could be restated. Besides, it is sort of ambiguous anyway. (Your first edit is in the article history though I think few people look at that. If you want that deleted too, an administrator will need to do it and that information should be on the Wikipedia page previously mentioned.) If you have a listing on any of the college web sites, that would be useful. Donner60 (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I list most of the info I wrote for the wiki on my college departmental webpage so that is a great idea. I will take some time to re-write and edit and try again tomorrow. Many thanks! -Scott McAfee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott.McAfee.VO (talk • contribs) 05:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The Taker/Tulsa

You're in over your head, Donny. https://www.allmusic.com/album/the-taker-tulsa-mw0000689846 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.208.122 (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I read that web page before I made the edit to the article. As I read it, Jennings used work by Davis and Light but they did not produce the album as such. Jennings began that work. You may interpret it differently because it is not necessarily clear cut as I look at it again. I also still can't see it as definite without a further source but I will not make this a matter of dispute. Your smart remark is really not necessary. See Wikipedia:Civility; Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Donner60 (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Larry Wilde

Re: post from 50.204.32.170, on the Larry Wilde page. This is a shared IP, and I think a colleague perhaps related to this person posted the edit. Thank you for the civil response...I caught it on a machine here on which I hadn't logged into Wikipedia. If you see a problem develop with incorrect editing/citing of sources, note it on my talk page and I'll talk to my colleague...maybe turn her into a realio dealio Wikipedian. Hiobazard (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I have left a further comment on your user talk page. Donner60 (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Question on last message

Whenever I read any Man-Thing story by Marvel, the line was mostly always "Whatever knows fear burns at the Man-Thing's touch!" Therefore, my edit was correct here.

Also, the original on-cover title of Swamp Thing (vol. 2) for the first 30 issues (and the first issue of the Annual) was The Saga of the Swamp Thing. I should know, I once had them.

Finally, it's proper, I think, to refer to the two characters as "the Swamp Thing" and "the Man-Thing".

Thank you very much for your time.2600:1700:7E31:5710:6D46:4B6A:8B00:CA3B (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I have struck my original message and have added suggestions and helpful links on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

For your message to me

Did I even add my personal opinion to the article, Tianjin explosions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guofenghao22 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Your personal opinion was removing reliable, verifiable, sourced information for no adequate reason only your own assertion that it was biased. This seems to be simply the party line, now discredited. If you have supporting sources that are reliable and verifiable, please refer to them on the talk page and note you have done so in the edit summary. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

See WP:JOBTITLES

Note that president of the United States & vice president of the United States is in the article body of all the US president & vice president bio articles. Also, why would capitalize one & not the other in the exact same article? GoodDay (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Good point. I will defer to your interpretation for consistency. Donner60 (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Re your editsum, titles of articles about job titles are weird because we can't know whether a link to such an article will be preceded by a modifier (uncapitalize) or not (capitalize). So we just arbitrarily use capitals in the article title.
More problematic is that much of the prose in the target article incorrectly capitalizes, simply because there is a lot of work yet to be done for JOBTITLES compliance. This kind of thing will continue to be a problem, as so many editors look to other articles for guidance, instead of the guideline. I hope you'll help spread the word when opportunity presents. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Thanks for the explanation and information. Donner60 (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Robert Charles

I cited my source in my edit please refer back to it. Also, I am aware that most people do not come to wikipedia for solid facts, but the Robert Charles article is extremely bias and offensive. I believe that it should be taken down completely and reevaluated. The original editor used extremely bias sources. Solely citing a newspaper article from the year 1900 is not at all acceptable as the controller of the narrative at that time were white supremacists whom gladly painted Robert Charles as a man who wished to kill white police officers for no reason. However, if one takes the time to read even part of my credible source that was provided, they would see that this was not at all the case. Hopefully Wikipedia and I can come to some resolution on this article. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthSeekerM (talk • contribs) 04:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I have read the entire article now, not just the changes. The article is poorly written and certainly needs revision. It does not appear to portray the mob sympathetically or to ignore Charles's situation but it could have a better portrayal of the facts. These need to be fully stated as neutrally as possible. If the facts are in dispute, however, both versions should be given with citations of their sources. Facts cannot be left out, especially if disputed. Just as importantly, editorializing and personal opinion or interpretation are not proper under Wikipedia guidelines. In my interpretation that does not necessarily mean that verifiable, reliable third party criticism of the reliability of a source could not be noted (usually in a footnote). But that cannot be shown in Wikipedia's voice as Wikipedia's interpretation or conclusion.

You are quite mistaken about one thing, readers do come to Wikipedia for "solid" facts, at least facts that can be verified by secondary sources. They can get spin and opinions and partial facts from many sources. Those other web sites are open to comments or opinions without much in the way of restrictions. Here, the facts, or the alternate reports of the facts, must be accurately reported without omission, spin or editorializing and with full citations of sources. I hope that you will take that approach and will try to improve the article within the Wikipedia guidelines.

The bottom line is that you would do the reader a service by rewriting a poorly written article as long as it is done with the policies and guidelines that I have summarized in mind. For full statement of relevant policies and guidelines see such pages Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Five Pillars, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Editorializing, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Citing sources and Help:Footnotes. Donner60 (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

SeekingArrangement

It's not a test, the iOS app of SeekingArrangement has been removed from app store for several months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OwenAlon (talk • contribs) 03:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I struck my original message on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Then I edit it again?

Yes, but it would be good to add a citation so there is no further question. Donner60 (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Rationale for not using "Indic scripts" on articles about India?

I'm curious - what is the rationale for not using Government of India-acknowledged Indian language scripts to designate administrative units within the Republic of India in articles about administrative units in India? (laughing out loud) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19C:4803:BC95:88C9:BB58:DADE:E91B (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/India-related articles. Donner60 (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I've just created an account to change this ridiculous guideline with whomever was involved in this "consensus". పగలబడి నవ్వుట (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I was not involved, as it seems you have assumed. You can probably find more information at Wikipedia:WikiProject India. Donner60 (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't keep writing here, but I did not assume you were involved nor did "it seem" as such. Thanks. పగలబడి నవ్వుట (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I am concerned, however, that my wording was poor and I may have left a wrong impression. I posted a further clarification on your talk page in the hope that we are ending on a positive note. I wish you well in your further work on Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

pope

I'm trying to improve on the coverage of the popes because as a catholic it is important to me for them to be discussed.

I'm not evil or anything I just want to help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:132:B08A:0:40D4:717D:75EB:64AE (talk) 04:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I have added the following to your user talk page: Wikipedia certainly welcomes factual additions to articles, although these usually must be referenced. They cannot be in the form of opinions, unsourced and debatable text or commentary. A reliable, verifiable, third party source can support facts that may otherwise appear questionable, as I have explained above. You will find that my comments are from the Wikipedia pages noted and that those pages can provide further guidance. This is not a commentary or judgment on your editing. You certainly appear to me to be in good faith so I do not think your efforts are vandalism, but that does not mean they need not comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Donner60 (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

sorry if it's not the right thing to post...I want to reiterate that I mean no harm to wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:132:B08A:0:40D4:717D:75EB:64AE (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Please do not take this as a comment on your motives or your intent or a criticism. It appears to me you are in good faith. I think you are capable of adding useful material to articles. You have added some text which I do not question at all. New users often are not familiar with the guidelines and policies but can quickly become familiar with them by reading the pages that I have noted on your talk page. Note that new material that is supported by a reliable, verifiable, neutral, third party source is almost always acceptable. Donner60 (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm less inclined to assume good faith, given the first edit [4]. Real close to pushing the AiV button. 2601:188:180:1481:ECAF:AB28:1C0D:218A (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@2601:188:180:1481:ECAF:AB28:1C0D:218A: Does a ping to an IP address work? I have thought it did not, so I will also post on your user talk page also. Indeed, I see what you mean. I thought I would give some benefit of the doubt because the edits appeared contrary to guidelines but not necessarily vandalism by a new user who might not know the policies. Your example, which I had not seen, does cast the continued posting of opinions or commentary in a different light. I agree that any further posts would appear to disregard the advice I gave and to be in bad faith. This is already a much closer call. Thanks for your diligent review of all the edits. (I'll be signing off for the night soon.) Donner60 (talk) 04:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't get pings. They disavowed the first edit, but the subsequent edits aren't much better [5]. Cheers, 2601:188:180:1481:ECAF:AB28:1C0D:218A (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Susan Hutchison

The sentence was removed because it was posted maliciously (immediately prior to the November 2018 election, in which the subject was a candidate) and based on a disputed and out-of-date report (published immediately prior to the August 2009 primary, in which the subject was a candidate). It is perhaps understandable that in politics such last minute accusations are made when there is no time to respond. However, there is no reason to include such disputed accusations that malign the reputation of the subject (who is no longer a political candidate). 2601:602:8700:7B90:907E:ABD6:13C4:7D5E (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

If it is disputed but not disproven, the guidelines provide that the dispute be put in the text and a source provided. Otherwise the removal of sourced content is improper under the Wikipedia guidelines. However, since this is part of a biography of a living person, I will give the benefit of the doubt and not further edit the article. I can only speak for myself since reviewers work independently and someone else might view the strict interpretation of the guidelines as the better one. Donner60 (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. 2601:602:8700:7B90:907E:ABD6:13C4:7D5E (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Monkey punch

I know you may have thought that i made that as a humourous edit. But I assure you that it is infact true. Although I dont have any refrences at the exact moment, I was looking for one to add as you sent that. I wont re add the Information as to respect you. I would like to assure you that I take wikipedia with high regards and treat it with respect lt that you would like. 13muchbats (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

If there is a reliable, verifiable, neutral, third-party source, and you cite it, feel free to add it. Or to add it in the text with a brief explanation.

I left links to various Wikipedia guideline and policy pages with helpful information about editing Wikipedia on your user talk page. Donner60 (talk) 04:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Ages of Consent in the United States - Missouri

I literally pasted the text of the laws, and linked to them when I made the edit. The reason should have been obvious - the content listed was incorrect. The Missouri penal code was amended and the new laws went into place on 1/1/2017. You can find it via a simple google search.

Rather than do a little research, you edited the post back to reflect outdated, incorrect information. If you would like to fix your error, you are free to do so. It is not worth my time. I do not care about your rules and do not care if or when you read this.

In the future, it would be helpful if you read the content of a section before making assumptions.

I appreciate you telling me about the change in law. It is up to the user who puts in new material to provide the proper reference, not up to reviewers and editors to do user's work for them. You can find this out by reading the various Wikipedia policy and guideline pages. I will just cite Wikipedia:Verifiability, Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style here. I would cite a few more here, or more helpfully, on your user talk page but apparently you are not interested and may not check back here, either. That's too bad because it appears you could be a productive contributor. This is a volunteer and co-operative project which is better for all if we work together with civility. Wikipedia:Civility. A little patience, co-operation and attention to the guidelines goes a long way. Certainly I and every one make mistakes, but here all I might have done is to research the matter which you did not support and not review other edits for possible problems and vandalism in the meantime - as a volunteer who has been around for awhile. That really does appear to me to be a mistake as such, only not going an extra mile. If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, I would be glad to help as much as I can when I am online. Donner60 (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Ben Bostrom

I added a few kind words about Ben to his bio and you removed them? It’s hard to quantify the quality of a person but Ben stood out. I worked in the AMA Pro paddock for years while Ben was there and he was one of the best personalities as a rider and very gracious to all, especially fans but crew and contemporaries alike. I thought it should be mentioned. JAB-BSBK (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your explanation and good faith, which is why I am striking the original message on your talk page. Nonetheless, as you can see from the policy and guideline pages cited, especially the first three, such memorialization is not permitted. A possible exception could be made if the facts or opinions were referenced in a reliable, verifiable, third-party (neutral) source which is cited in a footnote. Otherwise, anyone, claiming to be anybody, could add positive or negative opinions, commentary or purported facts to an article, with no way to verify the entry. As noted, there are any number of things that Wikipedia is not, including a blog or memorial site. So as written, the addition can not be made under Wikipedia's guidelines. Donner60 (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Here are applicable quotes from a policy page and an explanatory essay: Wikipedia:Verifiability: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth#Editors are not truth finders: Essay. "Wikipedia editors are not indifferent to truth, but as a collaborative project, its editors are not making judgments as to what is true and what is false, but what can be verified in a reliable source and otherwise belongs in Wikipedia." Donner60 (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I edited Nsukka

I want my edited page updated Kingody (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Then provide a reliable, verifiable, neutral, third party source. I will place links to some helpful Wikipedia guideline pages on your talk page. Otherwise, you are not following Wikipedia guidelines. And if it is "your" page, you may have a conflict of interest and should not be editing it yourself. Donner60 (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

...That was fast...which is a really really good thing

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		As I am going though the RC and find vandalism of any kind to tackle, you already have done it. Your efficiency and persistence at cleaning Wikipedia may be admirable, but the actions you take to fix all vandalism right before I can do anything is very impressive. Very good job so far at fixing vandalism fast! UtopianPoyzin (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@UtopianPoyzin: Thank you. You will find others that are faster. The important thing is to get it right, of course - or to quickly correct a wrong revert if possible. I have been around for awhile so I may recognize some common types of vandalism quickly. I also have suspicions about certain types of edits but will spend at least a little time trying to get confirmation, which slows down progress. Even if a person is careful, all of us make mistakes at least occasionally and can be grateful for a quick correction or a little help. Unfortunately vandalism and other types of disruptive editing are a constant problem and none of us can spend more that a little time on it occasionally. So many people need to be alert in order to keep Wikipedia reliable and well written. Keep up your good work and happy editing! Donner60 (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Slave owners

Ok hi Donner60 this is Pamregina in case I get the 4 tildes in the wrong place. I'm still not sure I put this in the right place, so yes guilty on not reading wiki tutorials before jumping in. I guess I need to work on my wiki markup? So let's see, the motivation for my edits came from looking at a list of slave owners on wiki actually and then finding on particular links to individual slave owners there was no mention of that individual being a slave owner. I do understand the need for citations so I could work on that. On other pages I was trying to place the facts more prominently. If there's a man who served time for sexual assault who was trying to chat up ladies on the internet he probably wouldn't lead with that fact. Possibly he would tell her first that he likes romantic walks and Thai food. That's called burying the lead. For the women, the fact about the sexual assault would probably be the deciding factor over her decision to meet for coffee. So facts matter, but what also matters is the placement of facts. I also wanted to add the fact that the slave owners were white supremacists. He was a slave owner somehow sounds more innocent than he was a white supremacist and slave owner. Both of these facts are true. Should we say people came to him to discuss legal issues and he wrote up various documents to help them navigate the system, or should we say he was a lawyer? All we need to say is he was a lawyer. Such is the case with white supremacist. It sums up his world view. I am from America. I never or rarely was taught that much of the framework and wealth of America was built on the subjugation of people who were human trafficked and exploited until the day they died. This is important. These are the facts. Our government was not based on the representation of the people living in America. It was based on the representation of white landowning men. Ok well, I can't say I've enjoyed my time on wiki. Your user interface is trash. I know you know this. I still like Wikipedia and I still think Wikipedia could become more inclusive, but definitely pouncing on newbies is not a good way to go. You shouldn't say "Hey guys, come help us with wiki!" And then be like, "You're going to be banned from wiki for life" like 10 minutes later. "It's your own fault for thinking wiki would be user friendly and welcoming, gggrrrr..." I'm responding to you donner because I think you were trying to be helpful? Ok wow I have to get back to work. Maybe I'll try to come back in like a month if I haven't been banned. Hope you get this message, have a good day! Pamregina (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply. You have realized that reviewers have to stay within the Wikipedia guidelines. This occasionally is interpreted differently and rudely. Certainly no biography of a confirmed slave owner should omit this fact. Most of them don't but I believe you found one which did not have that fact and I passed that edit by because I was sure it was non-controversial and could be confirmed. Adding that someone was a white supremacist, especially in an introduction, implies that the person was a leader of a movement, a politician with an agenda, a person who published opinions at the time or a general rabble rouser. Otherwise, one could simply characterize every slave owner as a white supremacist which would not be helpful. Slave owners would no doubt think that white people were superior or they wouldn't be slave owners. That could be in the article about slavery if it is not already. Adding that to biographies, especially prominently and without any other information, seems to display an agenda and would make the reader want to know what causes this additional characterization. Otherwise readers may think Wikipedia is coming from a point of view. Of course, there are the various other guidelines that you refer to. If you wish to discuss this with others such as administrators or participants in history wikiprojects, I can make some suggestions about who could give some of these matters a fresh look. I can be persuaded to change my views on some interpretations of guidelines that I realize could be judgment calls if other experienced Wikipedians think I am being too strict. I would be surprised if sourcing was one of them, however. Donner60 (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

TGWH / TGWH (s)

I've found out that The Great White Hype has its article The Great White Hype (soundtrack).

Thank you for your explanation. I struck the original message because on your talk page. I have restored the edit but I also restored one sentence from the previous text. I think that the section should have at least one sentence of explanation, not just the link. If this sentence is inaccurate in any way, please revise it. Donner60 (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Savage, Minnesota

Hello,

Greta Erickson is a local high school student who was named "Mayor for a Week" for the first week of summer vacation, which began on June 7th, 2019. Ms. Erickson won a school contest which was approved by the Mayor and Council unanimously, though I cannot find a suitable source online for this. EtzHayimTorah (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

If the fact can not be sourced, it cannot be included. There would be no reason to think it was anything but a hoax if it were not sourced. Also, the edit made it appear as if the actual mayor had been replaced. It also included a nickname which may not be accurate. In addition, and obviously, a one-week honorary position would not replace a mayor and it would mislead anyone who saw it. Even if sourced, it certainly should not be in the infobox as a replacement of the actual mayor. it is also not of any encyclopedic or enduring significance and would likely be reverted by someone else if added back later in the article. Here are quotes from Wikipedia policy and guideline pages.

If it is a known fact, then there must be a source. Wikipedia provides citations for readers who may question content, especially negative content about living persons. "Known facts" are not reliable sources. "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Wikipedia:Verifiability."

The following quote from a Wikipedia policy page. Wikipedia:No original research, is relevant here: "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described in Wikipedia:Verifiability." Donner60 (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't need a citation, I was there. Google me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:9F00:56A0:F8D3:B578:9A41:33C2 (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Seriously. I suggest you read the above quotes from Wikipedia policy pages again, if you have not even read them once, then I suggest you read them before trying to support your joke edit with arguments that are clearly against Wikipedia guidelines. Donner60 (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Malaysian date vandal

Hi, thanks for undoing the false date-of-birth changes here: [6]. Not sure if you're aware of it, but this is the "Malaysian date vandal", see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2001:E68:540E:6C84:B039:7333:ECD0:B8FC/Archive. They have vandalized that article many times recently, and a set of other related ones. Unsourced date changes, often with a year as the edit summary, and geolocation in Malaysia. If you see them again, they can be reported immediately to WP:AIV if they're still active, though they never stay on one IP for long. There's little point in leaving a warning on their talk page. I always go to their edit history and revert all their edits, which I've now done for this IP. Thought you might like to know, if you didn't already. --IamNotU (talk) 09:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@IamNotU: Thanks for the useful information. I have encountered the "flag vandal" several times. That vandal has a similar pattern. He (presumably) changes correct flags or puts completely bogus flags into articles. I will keep this in mind. Donner60 (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Joint Special Operations University

Sir, I updated a whole section on the JSOU webpage, based on my personal knowledge of the Department of Strategic Studies since I work there as the director of research. Can you please undo your deletion and I will source it (the source is the new Special Operations Forces Reference manual, of which I am the author). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmarsh64 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I actually did not delete your edit. I was in the process of adding a citation needed tag to it when another user reverted it. I left the links to Wikipedia style, guideline and policy pages on your talk page because I viewed your edit as likely true and able to be sourced. So I left information that would show how to do it. Since I did not revert your edit, I do not feel that I should revert the edit of another user which although probably unnecessary, was not contrary to the need for a source. However, within the next hour I will leave a message on your talk page on how to restore the edit yourself, with little if any difficulty. Before you save the restoration, however, I would suggest adding the source so someone will not revert it again. Adding the source should alleviate any problem that anyone might have with the addition. Of course, you could simply add it yourself if you kept a copy of it and added back yourself with the source. Otherwise, you will need to to do it through the "view history" tab. Donner60 (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I have not only explained how to do this but have copied and pasted your text to your talk page for your convenience. Donner60 (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

oopsy

we all have days like this.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 07:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Profuse apologies. Embarrassing to say the least. I deserve a barrel full of trout slaps for that one. Thank you for your gentle reminder that one should always be careful, especially to notice that vandalism by more than one user has taken place and to be sure to get back to the last clean version. Donner60 (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It happens to us all.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 08:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh my God, admins are also human after all. LOL 182.1.111.117 (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: First edit from this IP, apparently. FWIW. Donner60 (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Some of us actually have sense of humor. it hops around   Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 23:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Interesting. I don't recall ever seeing an IP number like that. Donner60 (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Cool, eh? Is the range.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Thanks for the explanation. I have heard of range blocks but I did not know ranges would be written that way. Donner60 (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Fourth branch of government

Donner 60 My name is Dr J Leeper The information on the 4th Branch of Government contains statements that are factually untrue. The People are the 4th Branch of Government & the continuation of misleading information to We The People is quite unnerving. On that same page you will note the SCOTUS decision that clears the matter up. It is critical to the American people that the direct link to the Deep State is discontinued. We are now hearing this inappropriate reference being used in the news media. The People are the fourth Branch of Government (4th) and were placed there by the Founders of this Nation (see Federalist Papers, Bill of Rights, & SCOTUS) for a reason. Once again the Supreme Court cleared this up. It was textually assigned for a reason. The reason is clear. The People must have the ability to bring the other Three (3) branches to justice in the event that they attempt to combine two other branches and seize power from the People. I cannot emphasize enough how very important the wording of this Wiki page truly is. No matter which side of the political spectrum you are on is not the point. The People must always be able to defend themselves from a tyrannical Government trying to selectively dictate both your & my Freedoms. We The People must always retain the ability to call a Grand Jury. In its' current form this Wiki page removes that ability. I am not trying to be rude & I do hope you understand this. I look forward to seeing the changes in this Wiki page without having to take further action... Thank you for your understanding about his critical issue. Have a great life. Dr J Leeper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.128.40 (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

This article simply states, with citations, the various types of groups, agencies, institutions and principles for which this term has been used by reliable, verifiable sources. There is no official definition of this term. You are attempting to turn it into an advocacy piece and to disregard other uses of the term, whether accurate or not. This is not Wikipedia's purpose. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Editorializing. See also Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners; Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. You insinuate that my edit is based on my side of the political spectrum. I assure you that I would revert additions that violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regardless of which side of the spectrum they support. I do not disclose my political views, to the extent I have any, and do not bring such considerations to my editing of Wikipedia. You will find that I have reverted vandalism and disruptive editing concerning Mitch McConnell, Barack Obama and every other such instance across the spectrum that I have seen about individuals, institutions, principles, etc. while watching recent changes when I am on the site.

Please note that factually accurate additions of conflicting, contrary or minority viewpoints, provided that they are supported by citations to reliable, verifiable sources and are stated neutrally, can be added to articles but equally supported text cannot be removed or denigrated to support a single point of view when there are other facts that need to be included for completeness and accuracy. Again, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Considering that the article is about a term that has no single, accurate definition and has been used to refer to many agencies, etc., over the years, your insistence on the importance of your changes is puzzling. That is no reflection on my point of view or yours, just an observation. Donner60 (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

vai pro inverno vcs !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:431:B725:DFA4:2894:B659:40CE:5B6A (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Since I know what this means I will give you an "only warning." although I should report this and ask for an immediate block because of the policy concerning no personal attacks. I also suspect you are a sockpuppet of User:24.93.128.40. That is a violation of Wikipedia rules and that alone could get you blocked. Donner60 (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Northwestern High School

Hey man, I just wanted to let you know everything I said about Northwestern in my article was true. Li tried to add some humor with the jab at Ashland High School but you can gladly delete that. I’m a student at NHS and I witnessed it all. They had to take the locker rooms away because of what had happened in there. Somebody broke a bench in the locker room, people vape all the time, and somebody peed in another students locker Emgonna Barry-McCockiner (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I added some helpful Wikipedia principles and guideline and policy pages to your talk page. None of that text belongs in Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Reverting

So I noticed you reverted my edit to Episcopal church because I didn't provide a citation. Um... Buddy my edit was malcious and intending to be vandalism so please save some time and report me. 174.255.130.69 (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Strange but your message is from the same IP address. Donner60 (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Denzel Curry

I am new to adding edits to Wikipedia I tried to send you my citation for the Denzel Curry page. [Unsigned note from User:Jaredbrinkman originally near top of page.]]

You need to add the citation to the article in a footnote to the text that it supports. I left links to Wikipedia style, format, guideline and policy pages on your talk page. They show you how to do this, especially Help:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Donner60 (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. I always appreciate your thoughtfulness. Donner60 (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Article 35A

Your revert here was good, but only addressed part of the problem, I'm afraid. The previous IP has just not been getting it, but I'm not in the mood to violate 3RR over something that silly. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I have restored your last version of the article because it seems there are no useful edits after that one except reversions of previous bad edits. I very much appreciate your work as editor and administrator, by the way. Donner60 (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Revert on Harut and Marut

@Donner60 The following story portrayed on the site is a fabricated story and totally made up. It provides a completely false perception of the real thing. It has been rejected by various & most high grade scholars. Unless Wikipedia is all about fantasy land and full of made up things, the correct basic information known and provided to man should be put there rather than a version of many different made up stories. There is no authentic chain of line to the version already there. If you wish you should make a separate section for fake or made up stories and put this there

It is up to the person who adds to or changes an article to explain it and provide references not just personal opinions. Nonetheless, I am leaving further work on the article to others who are more knowledgeable or interested in the topic itself, not just the Wikipedia guidelines. Donner60 (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Donner60::The edit was NOT made on personal opinion. the information currently on the page is not from the source. Just making up information, turning into an article and giving the reference of that article doesn't mean the information is correct. Anyone can do that! Better check if the source is legit, written by a legit individual.

P.S: the reference is already on the page.

Noting further informative and civil comment. No further response needed due to my previous response. Donner60 (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Revert on United States men's national gymnastics team

If you follow the source, it's the same source, just needed to update the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.21.238.105 (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Please do that update if you have not done so already. It could be helpful to repeat the citation to avoid any question. Donner60 (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for your support in my recent RfA. It was most appreciated. Best wishes for your own projects. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Arif Mohammad Khan (September 2019)

I had edited the page for Arif Mohammad Khan. Many Indians do not know how his name is pronounced. So I added it in Devangari (Hindi) script. He recently became governor Kerala. Malayalam is the language of that state. I do not know the language,let alone its script. So I added a note that people who know that language should add his name in that script. Please note I am trying to be helpful, not disruptive. I do not edit pages which involve controversial topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.160.115 (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I struck the original message on your talk page and added suggestions and links to helpful Wikipedia guideline and policy pages. Donner60 (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Let me just add that I had added Arif Mohammed Khan's name in Devanagari (Hindi language) script because he hails from Hindi area. And it is very much a practice on wiki to add a name in other scripts in the very first line. Check the wiki entry on Iskander Mirza which has his name in Urdu and Bangla scripts (the two languages he was associated with) right in the first line. I have observed this practice on many wiki pages. But you had objected to my addition, I do not know why. If you see the entry on Gandhi, his name is mentioned in two styles in the first name. I daresay both those representations are wrong. But the page is locked, and I cannot do anything about it. The best solution would be to mention his name there in Gujarati script (his native tongue) and Devanagari/Hindi script which he championed for use in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.160.115 (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your message although I think that the additions should stand alone and not be included in the same parenthetical expression as the birth and or death information. I have left further comments on your talk page. In short, my concern was with the form, or possible lack of explanation for some readers, not with the substance. I have no objection to its inclusion in the article. Donner60 (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Reverting

Hi There, are you in Australia? I think it does give some reference as that band is working on preserving the Colombian musical heritage in Australia by participating and integrating our Australian community with the Colombian community. I thought it was important to note their efforts. I will attempt to edit again tomorrow.

I struck the original message on your talk page due to your good faith explanation. However, please cite a source or repeat a citation if there is one already in the article which verifies the edit. See Wikipedia:Citing sources, Help:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Verifiability. I also added some links to useful Wikipedia guideline and policy pages on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks! although, I don't see anything to site. I just added a few words to try to hit more people in the feels, since I adored that little girl. FlamboyantPotato (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@FlamboyantPotato: Thank you. It is generous of you to leave the barnstar. As soon as I clicked on the edit I realized I was probably mistaken and rolled it back as fast as I could. In view of the other references, and since your edit was a fair comment and not just a personal opinion, no further reference seemed required as well. I am glad no template message was delivered but I thought I should leave a comment just in case it popped up later. Perhaps I clicked the no message box. In any event, the messages usually are placed very quickly, as you probably know, so a later unwanted message was unlikely to appear. Donner60 (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

New Zealand College of Education

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

Hello

I work for the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and we have noted that there is a wikipedia entry for a fake organisation.

There is no such organisation as the "New Zealand College of Education" the entire wikipedia entry is based on a scam website and a free accreditation website. It is not registered on the New Zealand Companies register, the address given (60 Symonds Street) is an empty lot in Auckland city centre and it is not registered with the New Zealand Qualification Authority. Using the term "College of Education" is a protected term under section 292 of the Education Act 1989 so the website is breaching New Zealand law.

We are trying to have the page deleted because by having a wikipedia entry, it gives potential students the false impression that the scam website is for an actual education provider based in New Zealand, which is incorrect. RiskManagementNZQA (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiskManagementNZQA (talk (RiskManagementNZQA (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)) • contribs) 23:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

If I have done the search correctly, I did not find an entry for NZCOE at https://www.nzqa.govt.nz/providers/index.do. This appears to support your assertion but was not sufficient to add unsupported text claiming the article, or the college itself, was fake into the article. There is a web site for the organization so there is some support for your proposition. Factual information could be inserted in the article, with citations to reliable, verifiable sources, to clarify the status and non-certification of the organization. The burden of proof for changes to an article is on the user, not on the volunteer Wikipedia reviewer. It would have been proper procedure for you to provide a source in the edit summary and placed further discussion on the article talk page. You, on your own authority and statement, are not a reliable, verifiable source because obviously there is no way to verify who you are. That is simply a statement of the Wikipedia guideline, not meant to be pejorative or critical.

There are several procedures to obtain deletion of the article altogether. The existence of the web site for NZCOE, and for its association with an organization in France, unless it is shown to be fake or a total scam, might support keeping the article. Certainly Wikipedia should not have an article about a scam or fake organization but that needs to be shown, not just that the organization is unregistered and may be operating just online. (If the address is fake, in my opinion, that is an additional fact that counts against the validity of the college and the article.) Then, adding the sourced information would be the best (perhaps only) way to clarify the situation. I am not offering a definite opinion on whether the article can be supported or not. That would be determined under the deletion process. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

Since an established Wikipedia user User:MurielMary and an administrator User:Drmies have become involved after your edit and my revert, I probably will not be further involved with editing or clarifying this article. That does not mean I would not revert a change that was clearly contrary to Wikipedia guidelines or policies or comment in an article for deletion request. Although I do not usually make such comments, the result of my search of the authority web site might be useful. Donner60 (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@RiskManagementNZQA:, @MurielMary:, @Drmies: Drmies: If I have made any sort of mistake or misinterpretation in the above reply, please add a comment in correction. Thanks. Donner60 (talk)

• I don't rightly get what's going on here, Donner. BTW yes, that user should be blocked--I'll report them, since I don't want to do it myself (and given their edits, it might just be a hit job by a disgruntled student of faculty member). BTW I don't consider myself really involved in the article since I don't care about its content or existence one way or the other--my comments and edits have been procedural and administrative in nature. MurielMary's PROD was not to the point (and restoring it contrary to guidelines). That the place doesn't exist or whatever cannot be accepted simply because an editor says "there's nothing at this address". If it's a hoax, that needs to be explained more fully than in a PROD, and for blatant hoaxes we have a CSD template. But the editor wasn't convinced it was a hoax, hence the option that it be "misleading"--for which the same applies: PROD is not appropriate. That the article now says "is not accredited" based on a website that lists accredited institutions is OR as well--it's arguing from absence. I don't have a reason to accept that it is accredited, but that's not the point. If this is a hoax, or misleading, one would expect some, any kind of secondary sourcing, and there isn't. Summing it all up, AfD is the best place to discuss this. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

look first to the username/coi first - then...

Bah to the lot - WP:USERNAME means that the editor should work out WP:COI first- change username and work out from there JarrahTree 03:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: Thanks for your comment. I see your point about the user name and conflict of interest. I missed that. I did have a vague feeling that something was wrong with the user name but I could not put my finger on it. I focused on the point about the scam college or generally fake article and did not give further thought to it. I should have thought to look at the user name guideline page to refresh my memory and for guidance. I suppose that since it is an issue I have only seen a few times, and with more obvious problems, it did not come to memory this time. I appreciate your comment because it never hurts to get a reminder when one has overlooked an issue or guideline. It may keep the guideline fresh in the memory (at least for awhile).

Since you have handled this with the editor on the account's user talk page, as well as mentioning it here, there seems to be no need to go into further detail in the thread just above. I have left a brief comment on that talk page noting and endorsing your message about the account name and COI.

I am not sure about a conflict of interest. On the one hand, this comes from a government agency which may have an interest in having the organization registered, whereas the organization may not think the requirement applies to them. That may or may not point toward a fake college or a scam. It may or may not mean some of the text in the article may be misleading. Later edits by User:MurielMary may show there are problems with the college, or its claims, or at least add facts and delete unsourced content. If completely in order, those revisions may obviate the need for the agency user to pursue this further. The restored PROD tag has now been removed.

FWIW, you will see that there is now a comment on that user talk page by User:Gadfium, an administrator from New Zealand, stating: "Thanks for bringing the article to our attention. I expect your concerns will be further addressed within the next few days." I mention this because it came after your edit on that page so you may not have seen it. Donner60 (talk) 07:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I have high opinion of gadfium - been around for a long time and endured much - I understand the point about the info. I encounter a significant number of australian editors who make their username out of their employer - they just dont get it when they start - better earlier than later to let know. It could have also been an OTRS system notification... JarrahTree 08:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Been offline

@Drmies:, @JarrahTree:. Thanks for your further comments and work on the New Zealand College Education article and controversy, here, at the article and on Drmies talk page. I agree with Drmies comments here and on your talk page, as you expected. Sorry that I have just been back on line and just able to comment on further developments now. After my previous edits here on October 1, I have been offline - From October 1 to October 27. This is the longest period of time that I have been offline since I started editing Wikipedia over nine years ago. Luckily this has not been due to any illness of myself or family. I just have had a convergence of real life matters that had to be handled. One was preparation of a talk; several others were either unexpected or took much more of my time and energy than I would have expected. I hope to get back to a more regular routine soon, although I still have a few things to finish that could take more time than I want to spend on them in the next few weeks. Donner60 (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Discoveryanz

Hi! I'm an employee for Discovery Networks and was adding updated information to the Discovery Channel (Australia and New Zealand) and Animal Planet (Australia and New Zealand) pages. Are you able to identify the content that you rolled back that requires a citation? I looked through everything and a lot of the content you rolled back wasn't copyrighted. For example, I removed audience share and added TV channels. Can you remove your roll back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discoveryanz (talk • contribs) 06:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Your edits added content descriptions for programs word for word from Discovery channel web pages which clearly state they are copyrighted. Wikipedia:Copyright violations, Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources. If the additions were not copyrighted, they would constitute plagiarism and advertising or promotion in their current form. Wikipedia:Plagiarism, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Donner60 (talk) 06:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing

Hi this is re: changes to Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing. My brother Charles R Haymond (now deceased) was the original author of the mavis beacon program which he created originally, I believe, for the Commodore 64 as well as a version for one of the early atari computers. He was working for my aunt, Janice Wood PhD, who sold the rights to the program to the software toolworks people. I personally worked on the program with him and saw the early versions when I was programming @ UC Berkeley in the early 70's Chuck eventually ended up working in computer intelligence for the Department of Homeland Security before his death (I'm Robert S Haymond MD, his brother). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.47.209.135 (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I now have seen a source on the internet so I will not revert your second edit. Personal knowledge or experience is not verifiable so it is not a source. Since https://gamicus.gamepedia.com/Mavis_Beacon_Teaches_Typing appears to be independent and not a copy of the Wikipedia page, it can be used as a source and should be added as a footnote to the article. Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Help:Footnotes. Donner60 (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi- I never edit Wikipedia but my nieces were asking about some things they found. I stopped programming decades ago and have been an eye surgeon for the past 25 years. So if you can add a footnote that would be great and if not guessing you are a busy guy too so I understand. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.47.209.135 (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I will add it. I already have the reference. You are correct that a reviewer or rollbacker usually will not look up an obviously needed reference, but will usually add it if he/she has found it in a quick independent effort to confirm or refute an addition. Also, Wikipedia would prefer users to become regular editors and so a reviewer may suggest or infer that the user learn how to do it, with some references or guidance. I am glad to do it in this case. Donner60 (talk) 05:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Edits on The Amazing Race 15

Hello Donner60,

I did some of the improvement of the articles, and i believe that you might have made a mistake on undoing my edit. I also did previous improvement works on related The Amazing Race articles too and it turned out fine.

Thanks for understanding. (203.78.15.150 (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC))

I left this message on your talk page: ":I am striking the above message. I suggest that you give a little more information in your edit summaries. Your summary was simply "gr." This was not enough information to disclose what you were doing, which seems not to have been entirely obvious to me when looking at the changes. This might have led me to review your change more carefully. As I reviewed your edit after your message, I now see that I probably thought your reorganization of the article included an unexplained deletion. I have rolled back my edit and restored your version. Thanks for the good faith edit and polite pointing out of what you were doing. Happy editing." Donner60 (talk) 05:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Gladly welcome, BTW, gr stands for Grammar short form, and there are editors who did use the term. (203.78.15.150 (talk) 05:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC))

Finding Forrester

Correction made to include Finding Forrester is based on the true story of a young scholar-athlete, not Forrester. The boy was recruited by the Yankees, but injured before realizing that dream. He is now 56, and in the entertainment industry. He sold his boyhood story to the film.

Investigate the nature of this truth instead of deleting it. You can't always discover truth on the internet. Consequently, I am adding the truth here, and hope that truth will be respected.

You cannot prove that the movie is not autobiographical in nature since the IMDb neither confirms nor denies either a fiction or nonfiction assumption.

The easiest answer to this dilemma is for Wiki to not claim that the movie is a fabrication. Simply leave that out, unless you can prove it, because it is an insult to this man's name and life to claim it's false.

(dnt2010)Dnt2010 (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Neither I nor Wikipedia in general need to prove that the Jamal character is fictional. You need to prove he is not and I don't see any proof in the citations in the article. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. You overstate your case, as well. Wikipedia does not claim it is a "fabrication." A fictional character can be based on a real person, though elements of the story might be fictional. Also, I do not see how someone who is unnamed in the article or in the cited references could be insulted. Perhaps it is true, but if it is not publicly disclosed it cannot be asserted as fact in a Wikipedia article just on your say-so. See these links:

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources. "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". Unpublished materials are not considered reliable."

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations. "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Essay. "Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, previously defined the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth". "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them."

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth#Editors are not truth finders. Essay. "Wikipedia editors are not indifferent to truth, but as a collaborative project, its editors are not making judgments as to what is true and what is false, but what can be verified in a reliable source and otherwise belongs in Wikipedia."

Wikipedia:Verifiability. "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight."

I have not left a further message in regard to reverting your recent edit because I will assume you may not be familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines and policies. This response should provide the necessary information. Donner60 (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The Wicker Man (2006 film)

I just reverted the edit on The Wicker Man (2006 film) and added the reason, I didn't realize i forgot it the first time. Thanks for the heads up 63.140.83.45 (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting this. Donner60 (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Highland Arts Theatre

Hi,

I saw your message from Oct. 9, 2019 on my talk page regarding my edit to the Highland Arts Theatre article just a few minutes ago, but I am unsure what information I added that you removed, and I am unable to find a way to retrieve it. If you can help me do that, so I can review it and clarify, I would be most grateful.

Thanks,

HarmonicSphere (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Your edit appears to have been from an IP address so you edited while signed out or before you chose your user name. I struck the "error" message on the IP user talk page because the edit was correct, as pointed out by a later editor. The working title of the production was Disco "Street", which I restored after finding that title on the internet during a quick check. However, I did not see that the final title was changed to Disco "Nights." So your edit was correct. The other user has corrected the mistake. You can see all edits made on a page by checking the "View History" tab at the top of the page. Sorry for the mistake. Donner60 (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

mensan listing

what reference link information do you require for the mensan list?

this is what was previously provided https://www.lapels.com/indivsearch/IndvidualDetail?LicenseId=PE.0044009

this links to the mensa membership: https://members.us.mensa.org/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?Site=AML&WebKey=462f7203-3a02-42f1-bb31-6da0d041efe1&FromSearchControl=Yes

What is lacking?

Thank you.

73.136.89.222 (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

References

I will reply on your talk page with a few links. The Jason Carroll Wikipedia article you link to is about a different Jason Carroll. The Jason Carroll from the Mensa list is not shown to be notable as there is no article about him or reliable, verifiable, neutral, third party source. Also, the Mensa list cannot be accessed without a password and, like the license, probably does not describe that Jason Carroll as a Christian. Donner60 (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)