Please put comments or questions on new subjects at the very bottom of the page, use a new section heading, refer to the exact title of an article and sign your message with four tildes. That will help me to see that there is something new on the page and will point me to the right article and person to be concerned with. This will allow me to reply faster. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Please put new messages at the very bottom of the page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC) To clarify, the new item should not be below this message and not below the repeated message after my introductory paragraphs but at the very bottom of the page after every other item on the page. It will help me to understand what you are talking about to add a section heading, identify the article you are concerned with (if your question or comment refers to a specific article), using a link, probably putting the article title in the heading, and sign your edit with four tildes (~~~~) so I know to whom to reply. Keep an eye on this page because I may just reply here if the answer is simple and does not seem to be time sensitive. When I notice an out of order question or comment, I will move it to the bottom of the page and provide a heading if there is none already. Donner60 (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia policies, guidelines; twitter, facebook; what Wikipedia is not; avoiding common mistakesEdit
Simplified and good introductory references: • Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. • Getting started. • Introduction to Wikipedia. • Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset and • Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style.
• Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes. • Wikipedia:Vandalism. References to Wikipedia policies, guidelines, instructions, include:
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style. • Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which includes not a dictionary, a publisher of original thought, a soapbox or means of promotion, a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site, a directory, a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, a crystal ball, a newspaper, or an indiscriminate collection of information. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Relative time references. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Puffery. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Editorializing. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. • Wikipedia:Handling trivia. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context.
• Wikipedia guidelines on twitter, facebook: Wikipedia:Twitter. Wikipedia guidelines, policies on external links: Wikipedia:External links, Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided.
• Wikipedia:Five Pillars. • Wikipedia:Notability. • Wikipedia:Verifiability. • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. • Wikipedia:No original research. • Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. • Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. • Wikipedia:Citing sources. • Help:Footnotes. • Wikipedia:Copyright Problems. • Wikipedia:Image use policy. • Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles. and • Help:Contents.
User Talk page policies and guidelinesEdit
• Help:Introduction to talk pages. • Help:Using talk pages. • Excerpts Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages: While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia.
Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and unregistered users.
There are certain types of notices that users may not remove from their own talk pages, such as declined unblock requests and speedy deletion tags. See Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings for full details.
User talk pages are subject to the general user page guidelines on handling inappropriate content—see Wikipedia:User pages#Handling inappropriate content.
- Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving.
From the section Editing comments, Other's comments in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines:
- Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment (RfC), fixing list markup, using
<nowiki>and other technical markup to fix code samples, and providing wikilinks if it helps in better navigation.
- Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom, adding a header to a comment not having one, repairing accidental damage by one party to another's comments, correcting unclosed markup tags that mess up the entire page's formatting, accurately replacing HTML table code with a wikitable, etc.
- Sectioning: If a thread has developed new subjects, it may be desirable to split it into separate discussions with their own headings or subheadings. When a topic is split into two topics, rather than sub-sectioned, it is often useful for there to be a link from the new topic to the original and vice versa. A common way of doing this is noting the change at the [then-]end of the original thread, and adding an unobtrusive note under the new heading, e.g.,
:. Some reformatting may be necessary to maintain the sense of the discussion to date and to preserve attribution. It is essential that splitting does not inadvertently alter the meaning of any comments. very long discussions may also be divided into sub-sections.
<small>This topic was split off from [[#FOOBAR]], above.
Note that it is proper to use
<nowiki> and other technical markup to fix code samples.
Please put messages, questions or comments at the very bottom of the page, i.e. after every other item on the page. If you put them here (immediately before or after this paragraph), I may either not see them or at least not see them very promptly. That will delay any reply from me to you. Please add a section heading, identify the article you are concerned with, and use a link, (if your question or comment refers to a specific article), probably putting the article name in the heading, and sign your edit with four tildes (~~~~) so I know to whom to reply.
Often I will reply on your talk page and may note or summarize that reply on this page. If you do not get a reply on your talk page, check back here. I may put brief replies here, especially if they do not seem urgent. Keep an eye on this page because I may just reply here, especially if the answer seems simple and does not seem to be time sensitive. If you have a user name, I will try to remember to ping you if I just leave a return message here. As far as I know, IP addresses cannot be pinged. When I notice a question or comment that was not placed at the bottom of the page, I will move it to the bottom of the page and provide a heading if there is not already a heading. Donner60 (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
If you put a question or comment on this page but not at the bottom of the page despite the above request, and you can not find it if you check back, I have moved it to the bottom of the page in a new section with an appropriate heading if there was none. If your edit was disruptive, vandalism, uncivil, nonsensical or abusive, and you do not find the edit on this page, it is because I have deleted it. In most such cases, I will also put another warning on your talk page, but will not otherwise reply to it. (I will reply, however, if you then leave a civil and reasonable followup with a legitimate question or comment and some reference or reasonable explanation.) Donner60 (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I occasionally get one of these notices. I fix the link or bracket, then delete the message, as the messages state is permissible, instead of further cluttering up these pages. Donner60 (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
TGWH / TGWH (s)Edit
- 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)
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)
Malaysian date vandalEdit
Hi, thanks for undoing the false date-of-birth changes here: . 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 UniversityEdit
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)
- @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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Dlohcierekim: First edit from this IP, apparently. FWIW. Donner60 (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oh my God, admins are also human after all. LOL 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- It happens to us all. Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 08:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Fourth branch of governmentEdit
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 22.214.171.124 (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)
- 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:126.96.36.199. That is a violation of Wikipedia rules and that alone could get you blocked. Donner60 (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019Edit
Northwestern High SchoolEdit
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)
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. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
Revert on Harut and MarutEdit
@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)