User talk:Donner60/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Archive 16 starting with closed talk page threads after December 12, 2017 and ending with threads up to April 12, 2018.

Skunkwork Project

you deleted my addition to the skunkwork project. right now on the game award show (live on twitch, steam, ps4, etc) the projectlead of playstation 1 said it started as a skunkworks project. straight from his own mouth. was probably said ~5 minutes before i edited that. feel free to look at the VOD

81.170.140.206 (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC) anon

I checked this out and you are right since the term can be a slang term and does not need to be a project of a particular manufacturer. Sorry about my lack of knowledge on that. I will strike my message on your page and revert my edit. Thanks for the info. Donner60 (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

List of Georgia Bulldogs bowl games

Look at the range I just blocked: there was a lot there, including a whole bunch of football-related vandalism and stupid stuff. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thanks. This is an article (and time of day) where I should have looked for further vandalism. I am glad you caught it. Donner60 (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• I usually pay attention when I see your edits, cause you got a cool name and a good sniffer for vandalism. The wall of text was the screenplay of Toy Story or something like that. Ha, haven't blocked an IPv6 range before, I think. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Sent further thanks. Donner60 (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit to Gnutella

Uh, that wasn't un-sourced input, it was wisecracking.

One is frustrated at the continual blatant immaturity of the latest "software guru" to come down the pike. No wonder the world has such a distasteful image of programmers: most of them have earned it. If only most of them had the ability actually to write quality code--not the kind that, "gosh, it's so awesome, it documents itself"--I have fired more than enough such incompetents in my day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:302:FB9B:D8C5:E309:9B5:9E6 (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Wisecracking is not allowed on Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a blog or forum. See the additional information on your talk page and the link to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Donner60 (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Tri Alpha Fusion for BNCT

Howdy, Yes there are two sources for this: 1. Presentation by the CEO of Tri Alpha Energy, Dr. Michl Binderbaurer, The 2017 FPA conference in Washington DC, 12-7-2017 2. "Talk by Dr. Matt Thompson" VLAB Panel: Commercializing Fusion. Held at Stanford University. November 7th 2017

The company has sold a unit that uses fusion to create neutrons for cancer treatments. Their first client is in China. https://tae.com/

Good. Please put these in the article. I put helpful Wikipedia guideline and policy page references on your talk page and struck my earlier message. Donner60 (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Continuum fallacy

I'm new to wikipedia, I don't plan on editing, but I did see this page and how it was misunderstood so I tried to fix it, I don't know how messaging or talking works I know you left a message on my talk page I copied that below and I added my reply so that you will understand the situation, I also wrote that on the talk page associated with my ip the one you created originally. Thanks

Assuming you are correct, and there is a rebuttal, it would be helpful to replace the deleted text with a correct description, with citation to a reliable, verifiable source. 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) 04:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

You don't understand, there is no rebuttal. The article is the Continuum Fallacy, the fallacy is because you can't precisely define the edge of a category (i.e where does blue end and green begin or the precise number of grains of sand that becomes too heavy to lift), that there is no differentiation between categories (i.e blue and green are the same color, you can lift any number of grains of sand because the category of what you can lift and cannot lift is so imprecise or too vaguely defined). That's what the sand example states. Somebody read it and thought that rather than being an example of the fallacy and therefore the statement "I can lift any amount of sand even 5 tonnes" is untrue, that the fallacy meant somehow that somebody could lift 5 tonnes of sand. I assume they thought that fallacy meant some kind of logical proof of something? I'm not sure exactly what they thought but they did write out why you cannot lift an infinite amount of sand (as if this article stated that you can do that and not the exact opposite) and called that ***CONTINUUM FALLACY REBUTTAL*** as if explaining the wrongness of an example of the fallacy (stay on track here, a fallacy means in so many words that something is wrong if it's the sole reason) was a rebuttal of the fallacy itself. I hope you understand the situation now. There is no rebuttal to the fallacy, it's like any other fallacy, something that can be used deceptively to dismiss something without a reason to do so.38.110.107.7 (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your explanation, and for taking the time to explain it. I now see your point but I needed the further explanation to get it - and it was useful for me for you to directly point out that the previous text was not a rebuttal at all. I am glad I commented and did not try to make an edit of any kind. I hope you will consider editing or adding to Wikipedia from time to time. Your participation would be a plus for the project, even if you only have a small amount of time to work on it. Same message left on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey there Donner 60! Glad for your ability to contribute to wikipedia! xD Greenaurorakitty (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Re: Bruce Lee's Relative "Chin"

Just wanted to let you know that you made a slight error with Bruce Lee's Relative Chin. Take care to make certain that you are not reverting, and warning a good-faith contributor. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 02:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial: Thanks. It is good to get a reminder that an edit may appear at first glance to be different than it actually is or to get notice of a mistake so it might be corrected or avoided later. I would rather know about it than not even be aware. Donner60 (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You did so with great aplomb, thank you. When I left this message, I was already aware of their recent block, but since they were unblocked, and was assuming good faith in doing so. I see that they also previously submitted a blatant hoax article three times.[1][2] I'm finding it harder and harder to assume good-faith on part of this contributor, as well as contemplating CSDing above said hoax article per G3. So, what do you think? Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 16:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial: I have reviewed his talk page, including the most recent posts, and I think there are two possibilities. Either the user is a clever disruptive editor or is incompetent at what he is trying to do. Maybe a little of both. He may have been fooling all of us because we have assumed good faith, accepted his claim about being a different user than the one who disrupted some articles and not considered the whole picture. It may have been hard to look at the overall picture (and it would have been somewhat uncommon to spend the time to discern what may have been going on) before additional facts came to light.

He is beginning to waste the time of several users, including at least four administrators. If he is very clever, that may be part of his purpose or have become part of his purpose. Or maybe it is just a result of his erratic editing.

In my case, it appeared I had made a mistake with the consecutive edits so I could not come back with a response along the lines that the last edits by this user were vandalism. I have been sure all along that his comment/question in the text of an article was improper. However, since what I had focused on was not necessarily vandalism, my template message should not have been given. I had seen a suspicious edit from the user in the article but I did not think about vandalism overall.

When I wrote my "retraction" of the template message, I also considered the fact that a few users seemed to be accepting his assertion that the disruptive edits coming from his IP were made by someone else and to point out his errors. This assumed good faith and that the disruption was not intentional. Subsequent edits in the unblock requests and comments by three administrators in the last two sections of the talk page now shed doubt on his claim that he is a different editor. His hoax article submissions lead more toward the conclusion that his edits are intentional. Even if he is trying to reform, he seems unable to edit competently. We all make mistakes if we spend a lot of time on vandalism patrol but he is making too many.

All this does not make me wish that I had not left the message on his page. It does make me wish I had made a few more critical, but factual, comments and left out some of the comments at the end. He left quite a few thank you messages for my edits later in the night and I was beginning to think that was quite odd and that I might have brought that on. If he meant this to be subtle disruption, he did not know that these messages are not really disruptive and do not require a response. Even though I would like to modify my message and add a gentle warning, it may be that would not be helpful and might just encourage more disruption. I don't think I need to go on the record that my retraction might have assumed too much good faith. If he continues in the current pattern, new edits will bring him under scrutiny and maybe blocks.

The bottom line is that I think this user is a disruptive user, quite possibly intentionally. Even if he is in good faith, he is still disruptive because he is at least not competent to do vandalism reversion. I is also possible that he is likely a young person which explains the initial hoax article and vandalism and then the further lack of understanding or incompetence at vandalism patrol - assuming that is now in good faith.

I am sorry for the long response but unfortunately this is a situation that seems to require some analysis. I have seen a few such cases before but luckily they seem to be rare and not to continue for long. I think the only thing that can be done at present is to monitor his edits and to revert any that appear to be vandalism or erroneous reversions. That will give the administrators reason to take some action. Before I finished writing this I had thought to mention my analysis to one or more of the administrators because my suspicions have grown. Now I think I should just let this play out for at least a few days. Perhaps if this is a young person, and he tires of the game, he might give it up soon.

Thanks for your further attention to this. I do not regret my message to the user or the lessons learned, or relearned, here. I do wish I had spent more time on it to begin with but the time spent on that type of analysis is almost never necessary or productive. In this case I could have made a more thorough analysis to start. I am sorry for the long reply and the tentative current conclusion but it did seem to me that more thought and analysis was necessary to try to determine what is going on with this user. Please feel free to give me any additional thoughts you have about this. Donner60 (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it was a little soon to jump to conclusions. I ran into this editor again after this incident was said, and done and they seem to be doing well. Anyways, hope you have a happy holidays! Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 03:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Nevel

Why did you destroy my nevel edit? I worked hard to find this information. Simonpolk2112 (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I did not destroy your edit since it is in the article history. Since it is only three sentences, with improper capitalization that should be corrected, and you say you researched it, you could presumably restore it and cite a source for it. You left a bracket and stray word citation in the text after which you inserted the three sentence (with no period at the end of the third one). Then in the following paragraph you inserted a sentence, with improper abbreviation of the month September followed by the remainder of the citation needed and bracket. It is unlikely that the administrative structure citation contains the support for this text and your edit is inserted at a point where you do not seem to rely on this source. I am not writing any of this to be a personal criticism of you because I believe you are good in faith. It is just that there were too many problems with the edit for it to remain or for me to fix, even if I had the source readily available. I previously put on your talk page helpful Wikipedia guideline and policy page links. It may take a little time to look through them but they are not as daunting as they may appear and edits must be in line with them. I hope you will take some time to review these and later add some helpful edits because, again, I think you are in good faith in doing so. Donner60 (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like NationStates

Hey! Based on your edits to NationStates, I thought maybe you would be interested that I started a series of userboxes for the game. Feel free to add any or add your own!-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 06:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2018!
	Thank you for all the hard work and effort you put into Wikipedia. God bless! Onel5969 TT me 02:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Donner60!!


Hi Donner60, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Wish you merry Christmas and a happpy new year.

BTW, here is the WMF blog post which remembers your ex-colleague, JohnCD. For your record. Thank you --Muzammil (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Donner60: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ ~~~~

Hello D. I have no idea how I missed leaving this here last week. I do like this passage from Dickens so even though it is very late (apologies) I did want you to have a chance to see it. I hope that you have a marvelous 2018. MarnetteD|Talk 00:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit

So as Richard Prior, if I’ve changed my career and no longer wish to have that particular history reflected on this site, I can’t do that? Gorecki3 (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

All of your edits, and my revert, and other recent edits as well, have all been removed from the history by User:NeilN, an administrator. Apparently this is largely or entirely due to copyright violations. I am not an administrator so I cannot see the edits at issue and, of course, as a result, I cannot comment on them much less do anything with regard to them. You will need to address your comments, questions or concerns to User:NeilN. Donner60 (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Donner60. AfC submissions Random submission ~6 weeks 1,073 pending submissions to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Pink Elephants on Parade

99.240.212.42 (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Pink elephants on parade You seem to have reverted/cancelled my edit. If you look at the episode in question for South Park you will no doubt notice that those are indeed pink *Kyles* walking out from a broken heart, not pink elephants (although the animation similarity is likely intentional), also the music is similar to the pink elephants on parade track in the Dumbo movie. If you think that's not constructive; fine. But those things look a lot more like Kyle than an elephant.

Thanks for your explanation. I have commented on your talk page, struck through my original message and added some helpful Wikipedia page links. I would not object to restoring your edit. Donner60 (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, I would like to ask your help, the page "Draft:Israel lucas gois monteiro" is already some time stopped, I would like to ask your help to move the page and leave it available here in Wikipedia, the article is very well edited, could you help me? Brbolt2 (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no experience in moving drafts. I see that a user can request the move of a draft page at Wikipedia:Requested moves. I suggest you list the draft on that page. Presumably a user who has some experience in evaluating drafts for moves and in actually making such moves will respond to such a listing. Donner60 (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Donner60!

Happy New Year!

Donner60,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 07:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Notice

This is your only encouragement; if you insert a Happy New Year! link to Wikipedia again, as you did at User talk:Jim1138, you may be expected to edit without stop. Persistent happy-do-gooders may have their notice list filled with thank-yous. Jim1138 (talk) 08:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Good one! I went overboard last year and posted a few hundred of these, including one to every administrator who had responded to one of my AIV reports. That may have looked bad and perhaps in a sense it was. This year I limited the number of greetings, and perhaps I went a little far in the other direction. In any event, thanks very much for your thanks which brought a smile to my face at the start of the New Year. Donner60 (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Why are you so high and mighty

The snobbery of your reversion is pathetic. Al Franken hasn't resigned yet, and therefore no special election is yet scheduled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.81.214 (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Your bias is showing. Typical personal attack response. Unless Franken is a liar and will pull a real fast one on everyone, including the Governor of Minnesota, he will resign this week. It's a done deal. The Governor of Minnesota has already designated a successor. All of this information is valid and pertinent. Please see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Donner60 (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Donner60!

Happy New Year!

Donner60,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

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

)

George K. Broomhall

Congratulations on your detective work identifying this article as a longstanding hoax. You can now find it proudly (?) listed at WP:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Thank you. I have been looking at articles with "see also" links to the introductory generals list. I changed that article some years ago to an introductory article which includes only a list of U.S. Army generals in office at the time the Civil War started. The linked articles either should link to a more specific list of Union or Confederate generals or not be linked at all. When I pulled up the Broomhall article, I saw some suspicious text. When I checked the books I cited, all five of which I own, I found that Broomhall was non-existent. I hope there are not any others. Thanks for deleting that article. Donner60 (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Robert D. McFadden

The revision I made didn't reflect my personal opinion. I undid the reversal as relevant information is contained. I agree that the article contained opinions that need to be filtered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthSayer20 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Paine College

The information that I removed was not accurate. In addition, the lion logo on the page is also incorrect and needs to be changed to the steeple or the seal. There will be a number of statements that I will edit in regards to the accreditation. I will make sure that I add log why the updates were made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonya.williams (talk • contribs) 18:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have struck my original message and left some helpful Wikipedia page links on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Vandalize?

I did not vandalize. The information added is 100% accurate. I can link you proof if needed. Bdhabitz (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

It's needed; the idea that the Saw films are in any sense "philosophical" is dubious and questionable - to say the least. I didn't "template" you in the hope that you would either concede this is wrong or provide reliable, verifiable, third-party sources - if possible. I could have used a different reason but your history is not very good and the reversion would have been the same. Donner60 (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

What? Who said anything about Saw film's? You need to do something else other than crack. Glad I didn't donate to wiki. 👌 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdhabitz (talk • contribs) 07:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry my reply referred to the edits of a different vandal. A mistake, but your edits were still vandalism, biased and disruptive. You know what you did and I should revert your post here as vandalism for trying to claim your editing was justified. Looking at what you did shows you repeatedly added to 2018 College Football Playoff National Championship: "With the help of Referees that rival Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles," with each of your edits. One can see that your edits certainly were vandalism and not appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. You certainly cannot link to a reliable, verifiable, neutral, third-party source that justifies this. You went on to add your own interpretation of the game in addition. Perhaps some partisan source or even an opinion writer's comments might support some of your edits, though not necessarily your language, and not in any form that is appropriate for a factual account - whioh is no doubt why you haven't cited anything so far. I left you a specific message about the nature of Wikipedia with your first edit but you paid no attention to it. I am sure there are plenty of web sites where you can post similar comments or rants but Wikipedia is not one of them. See also Wikipedia:Civility Donner60 (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

So Sorry

About my vandalizing of the Funky Tonight and Richard Simmons pages. I promise it won't happen again. 216.218.104.118 (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Less than Neutral??

Donner 60, You are saying that my edit of the Turkish Red Crescent page is less than neutral. Was the removed section neutral? The Turkish Red Crescent has provided firearms to ISIS? Is that neutral reliable information? What's the source for this? If this was really the case what do you think the implications would be? The Turkish Red Crescent cooperating with Qatar Charity (a recognised international charity) shows that it has ties to Al-Qaeda?? Why don't you look at the actual content of this section before criticizing someone for removing it?86.181.163.7 (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You removed a large amount of sourced content based on your disagreement with a smaller point of the overall content. If you had removed a small amount of controversial unsourced content, I would not have reverted your edit. Taking out so much sourced content does not appear neutral. If you wish to add a contrary view to cited content, with citations to support the alternate view, it would be proper under Wikipedia guidelines to add that cited content but not to remove the other cited content if it is to a reliable, verifiable source. Donner60 (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

eyelash curlers

Hi Donner, you removed our addition as inappropriate. The article is about eyelash curlers and gets into heating' an eyelash curler. We wanted to present information about our Hot Lashes heated eyelash curler which is heated and warms safely. Expanding more on what the article provides. We are the first to get a US patent on the heated eyelash curler in 1998 and want also to create a Wikipedia page about Hot Lashes.

Where did we go wrong> please enlighten us? Thank you so~ Alex Beauty Alex beauty (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion; Wikipedia:Spam; and Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest. Donner60 (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Anne Curtis

Yeah you defo have made a mistake, I just wanted to change how it says she is half-australian when thats not true. I don't understand why you need to provide a source for a fact. She is half white. You can't be of Australian decent because Australian is a nationality not an ethnicity, Australia has native people who are black, white people only stole their land and raped them + committed genocide against them. The only way you can be of Australian decent is if you were native australian. Otherwise, it is completely racist to think that being half australian is to be half white. Australia is a multicultural country. Stop being racist and change it so that you don't misinform people lmao completely pathetic !

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

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

That is your personal and biased interpretation. My second message covers the fact that your comments cannot be included in an article. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Also see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Donner60 (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Roman Abramovich edit

I think there's a mistake on the Roman Abramovich page. His father in law is listed as Alexander Radkin Zhukov. However, as you can confirm on Zhukov's own page (Alexander_Zhukov_(businessman)), his father's name was Boris Rabkin - not Radkin. I think the 'd' is most likely a typo. 107.4.226.177 (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I left this message on your talk page: :You are right that there is a misspelling somewhere, more likely Radkin it seems. Alexander Radkin Zhukov redirects to Alexander Zhukov (businessman), but as you note, the article refers to Zhukov's father as Rabkin. (I am not sure how his surname became Zhukov but I suppose that does not matter.) Since the Alexander Zhukov article does not have Rabkin (or Radkin) in the title, and also shows a middle name of Borisovich, I am going to change the reference in the Abramovich article to just Alexander Zhukov. If you think there is some reason to add the Rabkin, let me know. It would be better to have some reference, though, because there seems to be no article about Rabkin. I now can't recall if I had a reference other than the redirect title and I can't find one now. If the name should be changed again, I think I would be glad to do it again since I made the original change but I would not object to you doing so if you think my next change to leave out the middle name is wrong. Thanks for pointing this out. I am sorry I did not see it. I would have noted the differences in the spelling but not left the above message. Donner60 (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Coconut sugar

An article that you have been involved in editing—Coconut sugar—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Phonet (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Alex Chu

I do not have a specific citation other than the fact that Alex gave me the information personally as we are long time friends and I have been to his restaurant on several occasions. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.198.89 (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I have stricken through my message due to your good faith explanation. I provide further explanation and helpful Wikipedia page links on your talk page. I note that I will try to save anything from your edit that can be verified from a previously cited source in the article and why part of the edit such as directions should not be included. Donner60 (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Not to worry, I will find another source page to give the information to or just start a new page elsewhere. I hope you have a nice day.

Tom Whitney

Tom Whitney has moved to Little Elm, TX as of January 1, 2018. I, BuckDubya, am his father who is attempting to update his page. Thanks BuckDubya (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It is incorrect all over the web since it is a recent move... Slowly and surely updating info. Thanks BuckDubya (talk)

Cyber Woman

I was wondering why you reverted my edit. It added a note that the criticism was based off of clearly incorrect information?

I find that this was more complicated that it first appeared. I think my edit was correct but your edit was understandable. The section of the article is not as clear as it might be. I have stricken through my original message and written a detailed explanation of my thoughts on the matter on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Swara edits

Nobody uses 'svara' as a spelling for notes in Indian music. No Indian does, anyway. I will request a page move to "Swara". I was just correcting the spelling before I do that. Thanks for being on the lookout for vandalism, though! 70.114.211.80 (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Your note to me shows that your edit was in good faith and you are now attempting to handle this in a proper way under the guideline. So I struck my warning message as both unnecessary and improper under the circumstances especially as it is a template "final message". Thank you for your diligence. I hope you will continue to edit. Donner60 (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Saint Lucia

Don’t know if this will get to you but I will try. The article on Saint Lucia - the island in the Caribbean. I note that it does not include information on Saint Lucia’s participation in the United Nations. I am a St. Lucian and served at the Director 2 level at the United Nations for many years. So far I know of 3 St. Lucians that have been staff members-there could be more. I would be happy to provide more information. Celine Walker2601:204:CC01:F23E:F9AE:AC14:B1CE:4386 (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Moved message to bottom of page. I think this is a notable point which could be included in the article. In general terms, what is needed are reliable, verifiable, third-party sources that support the activities and/or name the officials. The most helpful Wikipedia guideline and policy pages would be: 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; and Wikipedia:Verifiability. I will do a quick internet search later tonight or tomorrow. If I do not find anything that I can use, I will need to leave it to you or someone more knowledgeable to fill this in. Please note that the reliable, verifiable sources must be secondary sources e.g. books, credible newspapers or internet sites, not primary sources. I should add that I am not an administrator or a participant in helping new users create new articles, but I have helped place relevant additional information in articles other than the ones I have written or to which I have added some substantial information. So I will spend a little time on this to see if I can come up with something. Donner60 (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I have added the following to the Saint Lucia article in the Foreign Relations section: "Saint Lucia became the 152nd member of the United Nations on December 9, 1979.<ref>[http://saintluciamissionun.org/ Permanent Mission of Saint Lucia to the United Nations]. Retrieved January 26, 2018.</ref> As of January 2018, Cosmos Richardson, who presented his credentials on February 22, 2017, was Saint Lucia’s representative to the United Nations.<ref>[http://saintluciamissionun.org/press-release-saint-lucias-ambassador-extraordinary-plenipotentiarypermanent-representative/ Saint Lucia Press Release About New UN Ambassador.] Retrieved January 26, 2018.</ref> In the text, the footnotes do not show the code within the ref tags but rather: "Permanent Mission of Saint Lucia to the United Nations. Retrieved January 26, 2018." and "Saint Lucia Press Release About New UN Ambassador. Retrieved January 26, 2018."

Please note the link in the Saint Lucia article to the article on Foreign relations of Saint Lucia. That article mentions the UN membership but referred to a past ambassador. I changed that to the current ambassador. Anything further that you might wish to add, with reference to a reliable, verifiable source, would be more properly added to the Foreign Relations article. I hope this meets your concern. Donner60 (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

List of North American Football Nicknames (Nick Foles)

I wrote that Nick Foles holds the nickname, "Big Dick Nick." I offered two citations, copied below:

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://awfulannouncing.com/nfl/eagles-fan-big-dick-nick.html}}</ref>

This first reference shows that it has become a common nickname, having been spoken aloud in a live interview, referenced several times on social media, and chanted by groups of fans on more than one occasion.

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://dailyupperdecker.com/2014/05/nick-foles-apparently-has-the-biggest-dick-in-the-eagles-locker-room/}}</ref>

This second reference is an interview conducted with a former team mate where the team mate answers a question by saying that "Nick" has the largest penis. The answer and comment were noted in the title of the article. This tells the story of how he got the nickname.

Why isn't this good enough to crown him with the nickname that he deserves?

Jack Mozen 28 (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC) Jack Mozen 28

These are essentially rumors and chants by drunken fans. There is no indication that Foles "deserves" this nickname by accepting it or that he does not consider it demeaning. However, since there are citations, such as they are, I will not revert the edit again if you wish to add it. Other editors may have a different viewpoint and leave it in place. I do not rule out that some might see your citations as technically allowing the addition which is why I will not edit it again. I do not think it has been shown to be line with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - and would not be unless Foles accepts it, which is why I will not restore the edit myself. Perhaps it is debatable. It certainly is not worth arguing or edit warring about. Donner60 (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Erythrina crista-galli

The term crista-galli is Latin for 'cockscomb', not cockspur.

A cockscomb is the red crest on the head of a cock (also known as a rooster...). Erythrina crista-galli was so named because it's red flowers resemble a cockscomb.

A cockspur is the rear claw on the foot of a cock.

If you are not willing to do the basic research on the topic, why would you incorrectly 'correct' somebody that has?

2602:306:CE41:A340:F5E7:7902:E7BA:2CE3 (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Because you changed the hatnote for the redirect from "cockspur coral tree" - which is an existing redirect as the note indicates - to "cockscomb coral tree" for which there is no redirect. I changed it back to show that the former phrase redirected to the article, which is exactly correct. I made no other change since I did a revert to the only change you had made. "Cock's comb" as well as "cock's spur" is already explained in the article as well. I will not ask a snotty question of you in return but I would suggest you read Wikipedia:Civility. Donner60 (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

== A barnstar for you! == Hail. I was going to cite my sources before you rudely erased my content in the wirlns encyclopedia. Whats with that

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I saw you take some personal attacks in your anti vandalism work tonight. Please have another barnstar to let you know you're appreciated. Ifnord (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ifnord: Thank you! Nice to be recognized by a long time editor. As you know, this comes with the territory. BTW, I have that Prisoner user box and the other one on my user page in the collapsed section "Thank you veterans and current military; Quotations." Donner60 (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Ahmdis are not Muslims.

Hi Donner 60

Then why does the BBC article state otherwise? I will grant that mainstream Muslims may not accept this. So why not just add that point with a citation rather than removing sourced content? Donner60 (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Alexander Pushkin

You rejected my initial edit and I'm not too sure why. There is no russian letter for the letter "x" nor is there an "e", which would be a cyrilic "e" or "и". In Russian it is Александр Пушкин. This is Aleksandr Pushkin not Alexander. Simple edit, easy mistake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Pushkin Starellen2 (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I have explained this on your talk page (or your previous IP talk page). This is the English Wikipedia and English spelling should be used. This is already established by the article title. The Russian spelling is explained in the first line or two of the article. Your edit does not conform with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If there was no explanation of the Russian spelling, you could add one, but this is unnecessary because it is already there. Donner60 (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

This makes little to no sense. You're completely changing the name, though it sounds the same. Alekandr is English, hence it being written in a non-cyrillic alphabet. Just because there are traditional english names in existence doesn't mean they take precedent over the actual technical spelling on the persons given name from another language. For example, Jean. It's french and its our "John" but that doesn't mean a English wiki or encyclopedia is going to introduce the person as "John". Starellen2 (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Starellen2: I don't make the rules; I simply apply them to the best of my understanding. Please read the Wikipedia pages cited to you, especially the Manual of Style. Occasionally I make a mistake and will correct it when pointed out to me. I am not convinced there is a mistake here. By the way, the name of the article could be changed. There is a procedure for that although I doubt it would comply with guidelines for such changes or be agreeable to other editors. In any event, there are also other ways to get additional opinions if you wish to pursue this. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I don't consider this a dispute in the sense of a disagreement over content. The Russian spelling is different, it is already explained in the article and I don't disagree with that. The problem here is that you do not agree with my interpretation of the Wikipedia style guidelines and naming conventions and their application to the first use (perhaps any use) to the first use of the article title in the article. Since the Russian spelling is already noted, to be consistent, you would have to change every such spelling, which I am convinced would not be allowable. Donner60 (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Starellen2: I am sorry I wrote about the Manual of Style in general terms. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), a specific explanation of such naming conventions exists and should have been cited. I suggest you read that before deciding whether to pursue the matter further. Donner60 (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Nicholas Ray

Hello Donner60. I made changes again to your Nicholas Ray listing about how he impacted Ken Jacobs and Larry Gottheim. I was one of Nick's students at the time and I can tell you that what you wrote about Ken and Larry's reaction to Nick's improvising was far from the truth. His irresponsible, divisive, behavior and drug abuse was the real cause of a lot of problems. Gerry Weissblum2600:1700:4000:30A0:A54D:2CD8:93FF:6F5D (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not write anything in that article. I reverted your edit because it is quite negative. It may be true but if so it needs to be supported by a reliable, verifiable source. You may be who you say you are but Wikipedia does not know that. You could be anybody, claiming anything. 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) 03:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Gerry 76.80.12.51 (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC): If you look up the nature of Ken Jacob's and Larry Gotheim's films, and the department they ran in Binghamton, you'll find that both of them are experimental film makers who wouldn't be at all phased by Nick's improvisational work ethic. It was his behavioral problems that were at issue. At least change your article to just reflect that Nick's work methods were found problematic. You can go for the gist of what actually happened without being too negative. AS it stands, I think you besmirch Ken and Larry and that too is negative. Thanks.

As I noted, I wrote nothing in that article. I only reverted an edit that was based on personal experiences or recollections not on verifiable, reliable sources. We are volunteers here and I am interested in reviewing changes and rarely will try to improve existing content unless I see something that is unquestionably outside Wikipedia guidelines. If you look closely, you might find I have helped a few other users add or revise content. I have done this only when they showed me or convinced me that there were sources for the changes and they could not easily write the content, probably because they failed to do so already. More likely, they simply did not work in the sources and place the edit it in proper form. These involved a few sentences or a paragraph or two at most and did not involve extensive, if not futile, digging around for material. My work in review is to see that new additions or subtractions do not violate the policies and guidelines. My main interest in article creation and supplementation concerns other topics.

If you can support your additions or changes with reliable, verifiable sources, you can change them yourself. If not, you are in the same situation you were before, relying on your own experiences, without verification. You may be able to get further advice or to find help for your changes at Help:Contents or Wikipedia:Teahouse. Although this is not strictly speaking a content dispute since differing verifiable content is not currently at issue, something in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution might also lead you to someone who might be able to advise or help you further, though I would go to that last. There are persons willing to help with content creation or modification and if you cannot provide a source or make a neutral edit yourself, you may be able to get help from them. Donner60 (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

I see you recently accepted this pending change to February 9. I looked for a source for this date of birth in the James Bennett and it was unsupported by any source there either.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. I've gone ahead and un-accepted this edit and backed it out.

Please do not accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Toddst1: I am glad that you brought the specifics to my attention. I am aware that birth dates, especially for celebrities and athletes, are some times wrong. This seems mainly because they have been added or changed by vandals somewhere along the line. In this case, I actually did check several online sources and at least four that do not appear to be mirror sites use the February 9 date while another has February 19, possibly a typo. I did not check whether there was a citation in the article which I believe I have used to be sure there is support for the date in past reviews. Sometimes little exact information can be found about such details for celebrities but I found there were sources with Jimmy Bennett that appeared to be legitimate. You are correct that I did not realize that there was a policy requiring a citation for the date in the article. I do think it is a good idea because of the past vandalism, which I assume is what brought about the policy. Since I have checked this in that manner in the past, I will not rely on just an online check for verification and will be sure to check that there is a supporting citation in the article in the future. Thanks for the heads up on this. Donner60 (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Donner. Yep - that's exactly the idea. Toddst1 (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

ZenCash(Cryptocurrency) New Unreviewed Article

I would appreciate your help to review and cleaning my brand new article. I would really appreciate your expericen and comments to improve it

Regards

--Fergus_Manx 23:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceMAN (talk • contribs)

I have been offline for four days. In the meantime, I see that User:Kjerish has edited the article. His stated background appears to be helpful for this type of article. Also, it seems that if anything needs to be added, it will require research that I would be unable to do anytime soon, if at all. A close relative is having surgery in a few days and I may be able to edit only briefly, if at all, for several weeks after that. I suggest you work with User:Kjerish or seek help or advice at Wikipedia:Teahouse if you need further help or think someone might be interested in adding to or editing the article. I do not have new page reviewer rights, which are different from the reviewer rights I have with respect to existing pages. So I could not give a new page review or approval if that is part of what is needed in any event. I thank you for the compliment of asking me to look at this and I am glad that someone else has looked into it in my absence. I wish you the best in getting it to a satisfactory condition if it has not been improved enough already. Donner60 (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Requesting your help

I seem to have struck a nerve (inadvertently) with Malik Shabazz. He has now had another editor lock down the page. If you look at my edits you will notice that I did not exceed 3rr nor did I engage in edit warring or contentious editing. I discussed every edit I made, but more importantly, I endeavored to remove completely unsourced information from the article. I don't have an axe to grind. But I am now unable to edit the article simply because another editor disliked my edits. You seem like a very reasonable person. What's my best course of action? Let it go?. Thank you in advance. 23.114.214.45 (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I would let it go. At least I would wait until the limited page protection expires on February 20 to allow some time for reflection and calming. Then if you wish to continue, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Before that you would be trying to pursue a matter in which an administrator has in effect imposed a cooling off period. That administrator, for some reason, reached the conclusion that the editing was becoming disruptive. So I think it would be best to allow that time to run. It seemed to me that you and Malik Shabazz were working along on this reasonably well (your first edit was referred to as a "good faith" edit when he reverted it) but some testiness may have crept in at the end. Waiting would help keep the tone civil, in my opinion. That is important if a dispute is to be progressed.

I made a commitment not to edit any of your edits or Malik Shabazz's edits - which in turn may effectively mean edit the article at all. I also asked Malik Shabazz, as an experienced editor, to help get the article to a satisfactory state with you because I thought I might just be confusing the matter by editing at the same time. I focused on the one sentence that you wished to delete or change for accuracy. I thought it would be might be a good compromise to delete the phrase about the academic community but to leave the main thought since there was a citation. You later tried to rewrite rather than delete the sentence for apparently similar reasons. I think the main thought is correct and at least one, probably more, sources can be cited for it. Therefore, while we wish to have the most accurate text, and the "academic community" opinion may not be directly expressed in the cited source, I am not sure that point is worth contention over. In any event, I cannot edit the article or argue about it on another page without breaking my commitment. I think you are only asking for my opinion but I should be clear that I think I am committed to do no more than that, only on this page.

Malik Shabazz originally supported deletion of the article. Even knowing that was Malik's initial view, I think Malik has tried to improve the article but to keep it within a strict interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines and policy and to adhere to sources - even if one phrase may seem to be an interpretation. I think you have conceded that additional examples may not be needed. I take that view even without delving into the details. The most prominent example is still in the article. While I am not an expert and have not studied the matter in any detail, the article seems informative, reasonably accurate and not biased against a prevailing or reasonable explanation. I suppose I could be shown to be wrong.

Does that leave the difference as only a phrase or an interpretation or a restatement in one's own words? If so, the article may be accurate enough and not worth the trouble to contend about. If not, and you believe you can make a reasonable argument and cite sources for a change, then you might want to look at the dispute resolution process. The bottom line, for me, is that the reader would not be misled in any serious or important way by the current text of the article so I would not pursue a dispute over a detail that I do not think seriously undermines the article - in the absence of another reliable source which establishes a clear refutation.

For what it's worth and may concern persons interested in the article, I wouldn't be surprised if more controversial edits appear in that article in the future. A compromise and more neutral approach (if that is what I am trying to achieve, I suppose) might help in supporting or opposing those future edits.

I know this is a long reply and maybe does little more that restate my brief comments when I in effect turned the matter over to you and Malik Shabazz. I think I make some definite points which are necessary for me to work through this and reach some conclusions. I hope that this might help your own analysis and will be sorry if you find this too long and unhelpful. You can make your own conclusions, of course, and may consider a few of the details more important or crucial than I do. You may consider my thoughts as off point or wrong. So take these comments for what you think they are worth. This is not necessarily an easy topic or article to deal with so I tried to take that into account. Since I am not an administrator and might not be considered neutral since I tried to edit the article, I cannot resolve the matter. I probably could not give a formal neutral third opinion, although I think I had tried to work toward that. Donner60 (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually I really appreciate you taking the time to write this, and I will follow your advice. What troubled me was the fact that user:Malik Shabazz seemed to think I wanted to go to "war" with him when that was most certainly not the case. I simply thought there was a sentence that was inaccurate and could be improved. I will stay away from the article going forward. As another editor pointed out to me - there are enough advanced editors on wikipedia at this point, that the input of inexperienced editors (especially IP editors like myself) is rarely needed or helpful. I apologize for throwing a monkey wrench in the works - it was not my intention to do so. 2602:306:330B:7B00:9D28:FD76:1BA3:D0A1 (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

No apology is necessary. I think you made a good faith effort at improving an article and I even agree that the sentence could be improved. But I do not think it is so misleading as to ruin the accuracy of the article which otherwise seems rather good and well stated for a controversial topic. I think the one example given is enough under the circumstances. Under the circumstances, I think it is better to move on to other edits or other articles.

The editor who made the remark to you is either a little jaded or bitter about something or is out of the mainstream on Wikipedia policy about editor retention and contributions new editors can make. Perhaps that editor spends too much time on controversial matters and has a particular point of view. For some articles and a few experience users, the comment may be accurate. But I think it is not true in general.

I think it is good to work on some non-controversial articles and gain experience and knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines and policies before getting into the closer calls and more controversial articles. I have had some problems and have had to concede a few times but have worked things out at other times.

I have left some other and longer comments on your talk page. Among these, I suggested reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention. Also, the topics of editor retention and civility come up in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost from time to time. The February 5 issue has an article about two new arbitration cases concerning user behavior and civility. A user can go to the Archives page and perform a search of back issues for topics such as editor retention and civility if one is so inclined.

There are many articles of many topics yet to be written and many more to be improved. There is plenty to do and become interested in at Wikipedia. Due to human nature and anonymity, some problems will arise. But I still think that many worthwhile contributions can be made to a great and beneficial project. And in the great majority of articles you will not find any trouble, controversy or disagreement. I'll leave it at that but I encourage you to read the linked pages and not to withdraw from contributing as your time allows and interests may lead you. Donner60 (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to wear out Donner60's patience, but because you don't edit from a fixed IP address, I don't know where else to leave a message that you're likely to see. I don't know who told you that Wikipedia has enough editors or that IP editors' opinions don't matter (or matter less), but I disagree strongly on both points. (I encourage every registered editor to read WP:IPs are human too, but that's a subject for another day.)

I asked for the page to be protected because (a) you had violated WP:3RR and (b) my experience with you at two articles (at Transracial (identity) and at Crystal Mangum) has led me to believe you are inclined toward edit-warring to protect your preferred version of an article. (That's not an accusation, just a description. I'm that way myself. If you look at my contribution history, you'll see plenty of times when I've made three reverts to an article in a short period of time. I know better, but I don't always do what I know I should.) You'll notice that I haven't changed your last edit while the article is protected. This difference of opinion shouldn't be personalized by either of us. If I used the word "war", it was only in the sense of "edit war".

When you're ready to discuss the article further, I would encourage you to read WP:Dispute resolution, as Donner60 suggested. We may be able to ask for a third opinion. Alternatively, we can start a "Request for comments" and invite opinions from a broader spectrum of editors who may not have been involved with the article before.

When you're ready to discuss the article further, please follow up at Talk:Transracial (identity), where content-related discussions should be held. If you have concerns about anything I wrote about you, please follow up on my talk page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: Thank you very much for your followup and comments. I have been around long enough to have seen your work. I was quite sure that you would not agree with the comments of the other editor about there being no need for new editors or IPs having a lower status. I also would assume that you would not personalize any disagreement. You are most diligent in supporting your positions with citations and reasonable interpretations, which is not to say that someone might occasionally disagree, as you know. I do not often edit in the same areas as you do, usually only when Huggle shows me something that someone else has inserted that seems beyond policy guidelines. Nonetheless, I have encountered an occasional disagreement or differing interpretation in the mostly non-controversial articles in which I make content contributions, or even start new.

Recent changes reviewers will be looking for vandalism and the other types of questionable edits that I mentioned. We usually neither want to or need to get into any detailed controversy over the substance. Occasionally, the "vandalism" limit on Huggle is cited in limiting recent change reviews but in fact other types of disruptive or questionable edits or simple failure to comply with guidelines (often due to ignorance which is why I often leave additional messages) are other reasons for which reverts and Huggle messages can be left. While this relates to why I jumped in for this article, I seem to be wandering so I won't go on much longer.

You are by no means trying my patience. I was trying to be helpful in reviewing an edit that caught my eye but then realized I might just be muddying the waters. I have seen that happen when several editors are trying to edit an article at the same time. Since I inserted myself, at least I can try to help move things along without getting further involved.

You may have seen the note I placed at the top of the page. I will be editing little, if at all, for perhaps a month due to my need to attend to a close relative who is having a serious operation next Monday. So I am not likely to be on line for any other developments. I mention this in case I appear to suddenly become unresponsive to messages on this or other topics for a long time.

I will note your comment on the IP user's talk page. Donner60 (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Alabama and Mississippi Rivers Railroad

An article that you have been involved in editing—Alabama and Mississippi Rivers Railroad—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mackensen (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Offline

@MarnetteD:, @General Ization:, @Oshwah: I will be with my brother for three to five weeks. He is having an operation on his neck and will need some help. I expect to be online and editing little, if at all, during this time. I would appreciate if you look in on this page to see if anything needs to be reverted or answered. A few others watch my page and I would welcome them as well, but I thought I would let you know since you have been the most active and helpful in taking notice of such things. I would expect little, if anything, to come up, especially if I have few or no new edits. But one can not be sure about such things. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll be happy to help keep an eye on things D. My very best wishes to you and especially your brother. MarnetteD|Talk 03:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Just logging off; thanks. Donner60 (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I can certainly do that for you. If you want, add a header to the top of your user talk page here and direct people to mine. They can message me directly and I'll help them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I also echo MarnetteD above. I wish you well during your time away, and I hope that your personal priorities are taken are of and that you can return with good news. I'm available any time by email if you need anything, and I'll make sure anything here is handled. I'll be awaiting your return. Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Ditto. Wishes for a successful surgery for your brother and for his speedy recovery. General Ization ^Talk 06:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Back

@MarnetteD:, @General Ization:, @Oshwah: Thanks for your messages and keeping an eye on this page. I see that no messages or vandalisms were left on the page since February 17 so that turned out well. I returned a few days ago but this is the first time I have had a chance to get online since I left.

My brother's surgery was successful according to the doctor - at least his vertebrae were put back in place without any apparent damage to nerves and only some soreness in his throat. My brother was well enough for him to take care of himself and for me to return home a few days ago. He is still in considerable pain, however, and seems far from fully recovered as a result of the pain and pain medicine. He has to wear a neck brace when out of bed, is limited to lifting no more than ten pounds for about another month and can not drive until he can comfortably turn his head. All that was expected. He has pain not only where the vertebrae were out of line but in another spot on his neck/shoulder as a result of the surgical correction. That has continued at about the same level so far, which was not really expected. The pain medicine seems to make him a little groggy and lethargic for awhile after he takes it. Luckily, he has a few friends and neighbors who can help him with what he cannot do for himself. He had planned to go back to work in about three weeks but that is beginning to appear less likely. I hope he gets some help at his doctor visit on Wednesday.

I have some catching up to do and need to finish preparing a talk on the US in World War I - which will probably have a second part later in the year - as well as preparing tax returns. So I expect to be editing sporadically for about a month. Thanks, again. Donner60 (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know how things are going D. Best wishes for your brothers continued improvement and to you in working on your taxes and talk. As to the lack of vandalism how does - grr razzle frazzin @#*$ rizzin drizzin - work for you. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

That works! I think vandalism usually occurs almost immediately after an edit or within about a day. However, I have had some instances of vandalism out of the blue that seem to have related to edits that were weeks or months old. I would guess you may have had the same experience. Donner60 (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I sure have. I've been lucky though there are others who get attacked for days, weeks or months at a time. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply... it's great to see you back :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

No apology necessary; I am impressed by how much you accomplish. I am glad to be back though my brother is still recovering slowly. I am learning from more anecdotes that this is not unusual and the doctor may have been giving him a better case scenario (faster recovery time), possibly as encouragement. Still, he is able to get along and even walked a block and a half to a polling place to vote in a primary on Tuesday. Thanks for watching and the note. Donner60 (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place to be. Thewinrat (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Thewinrat: Thank you! Keep up the good work! Donner60 (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Also have this for your pleasure. Thewinrat (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

You should have insisted...

Greetings: The article Svara used to use a consistent scientific transliteration method for Sanskrit terms, one universally adopted by all professional Sanskritists since the end of the 19th c. That was until the 25th of January when IP 70.114.211.80 decided to "correct spelling" and made a mess of it, turning the spelling of all Sanskrit terms in this article into something that is neither the vernacular informal transliteration commonly used in India nor the rigorous Western one, but a kind of a hybrid of the two that nobody uses. At first you reverted him, but then he reverted you back, and you left it at that. That was unfortunate, because you were correct. It is no longer possible to undo him, because of intervening edits. One would have to go and correct the spelling of each term one by one. However I thought I'd let you know, maybe for next time's sake. Cheers. Basemetal 21:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Of course it was not my intention to leave the article that way. By reverting the original edit, I showed that it should not have been placed in the article. I either had logged off when the next edit was made or the bot did not show me the next edit for some reason. I review changes to articles in real time which means that I review many changes and cannot go back to see if a change was made to an article later unless I am informed. We are all volunteers, as you know, and there are just too many problems to deal with if a person does reviewing and editing. It is unfortunate that these cannot be undone at this time. I am not skilled in Sanskrit so I would not want to attempt to make manual changes where there are intervening edits. I hope you or someone else can make the necessary changes. Donner60 (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various 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 scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Baghara baingan

I edited this page. The origin of Baghara Baingan is Tashkent,Uzbekistan, which is quoted in the wiki article itself. I merely made the correction. what is the problem with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.177.134 (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I struck the original message on your talk page since your edit was in good faith but I still think your edit is incorrect. This is the reason I reached that conclusion, which I repeat on your talk page. It is at least unsupported. There is no reference that states that the dish is currently an Uzbekistani dish. The only reference is to an article which states it is a popular Indian dish in Hyderabad. Even if it originated in Tashkent, for which there is also no reference, there is no reason to state that it is currently a popular dish there without a source. Also, the source clearly supports that it is currently a popular dish in India. The change misrepresents the source and the current popularity of the dish in India. More might be added to this article, but references would be needed. I also put some helpful Wikipedia page links on your page. Donner60 (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I was merely updating the page to reflect its own claims. Otherwise that contradiction didn't make sense. Whether it's true or not, I don't know but it is definitely a Turkic food & not created by Indians as per the references i've seen thus far.

>The history of bhagaray baigan itself is vague. However, a wider history of the region suggests that the Hyderabadi cuisine as we know it today, evolved to be so in the 17th century. The Mughul Emperor Aurangzed marched to Deccan and lay siege to the Golkanda Fort in hopes of conquering the region.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1135304 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.177.134 (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your further explanation. You obviously are familiar with the wider history. I think it would be best to add another source for the additional information in order to make this clear. Donner60 (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

UsingHollywood Math typo?

Welcome back to Wikipedia. Glad your friend's doing better and hope he makes a full recovery.

You said this edit did not appear constructive. i thought i was fixing a typo? Isn't that constructive? or is "UsingHollywood" supposed to be one word? The Dean Devlin article is the only search result for "UsingHollywood" using the Wikipedia search box, and although the award is supposedly from Stinkers Bad Movie Awards, that article does not confirm it, nor can i easily find it by using the Wayback Machine to dredge up their defunct website.

Please reply here on your talk page, which will be easier to remember than "What's my IP address this time?" ;-)

--71.121.143.151 (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I struck the original message on your talk as it was a mistake. I repeat the reply here as you asked. You are correct and I rolled back my edit. I can only think that I was trying to roll back the previous edit and the last edit got in between although perhaps some other mistake may have been possible. Sorry for the mistake. Donner60 (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Wyatt

It was a joke please don’t remove it Jejwjejana (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a joke page. Donner60 (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Nazia Hassan

Did I upset you Donner60? I am sorry if the answer is yes. I did nothing wrong against you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.123.10 (talk) 03:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

No, you did not upset me. You twice used the word "witch" in an article about the singer in the caption heading. That appeared to me to be intentional and, of course, would be improper. However, if this was just a spelling error on your part, then this simply needed to be corrected. Of course, it you did not know it was a spelling error, we both needed to realize that and correct it. Thank you for your message. Donner60 (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Economy of Communist Czechoslovakia

Hello! I noticed that you removed part of the article titled Economy of Communist Czechoslovakia about Czechoslovak consumption at times exceeding western countries. I do believe you made a mistake, the document which I sourced in the next line linked compared consumption of Czechoslovakia to numerous western and eastern bloc countries, and the Czechoslovak consumption was indeed greater then many western european countries, In particular with regards to consumption of meat and eggs. The table detailing this can be found on page VI of the document I sourced in the article, and have linked for your convenience: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP86T00591R000100140005-4.pdf I appreciate your commitment to the integrity of wikipedia, but I think you have made an honest mistake! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91and71 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You are correct. I struck my original message and left a comment on why I may have missed that on your talk page. Donner60 (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

list of genocides

hello I realized you have deleted an edit of mine. I do understand why you deleted it, but I feel like there should be an addition to the list of genocides. Like the native americans that were killed during the colonial period. Which is estimated to about 100 million. I think wikipedia should add this data somehow to present better and clear information to the public — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.129.21 (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see Native American disease and epidemics. There are only a few verifiable instances of intentional killing of Native Americans by disease and the link. The current consensus is that the vast majority of Native American deaths were by diseases that were unintentionally and unknowingly introduced to North America by European colonists. Genocide is the intentional killing of a large number of people in an ethnic group. In any event, your number of 100 million certainly could not be verified by a reliable, verifiable source as the discusses. You would need citation of reliable, verifiable, neutral (third-party) sources for the addition.

You may be able to carry on the discussion at the talk page for the article (and it is likely to have been covered in the past, at the Wikipedia:Teahouse or perhaps on the talk page of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Other forums can be found at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Resolving content disputes with outside help.

This is my opinion and how I would evaluate such a change. You are free to look for others. I am glad you noted that my revert of your addition is not at issue. You have no doubt realized that your addition also improperly (but I assume inadvertently) removed another entry.

I appreciate your message and the chance to comment on your proposal. Donner60 (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Steve Hockensmith

Hiya! So I just wanted to edit Steve's wiki a little bit and it got deleted because of an issue with the source or something of the sort ?? I'm new to editing wiki stuff so I don't really know a lot on what to do and heck. Essentially, I was just elaborating on some info on his page because I actually know him and his family and heck, I hope this makes sense !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozrikjadenwolfrikravenkroft (talk • contribs) 03:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

This direct quote from a Wikipedia information page explains the policy. "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." You are not a reliable source because your identity and your claim cannot be verified. Donner60 (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20